49 replies to this topic

[ianbutter]

The National Planning Policy Framework has now been launched and made active immediately for planning purposes, so it is important to understand what this will mean for future development proposals.

General details about the NPPF can be found here:
http://theruralprope...amework-10.html

And more specific consideration related to rural development here: http://theruralprope...ent-10-key.html

The full document can be downloaded from my website at: http://www.ruralurba...%20-%20NPPF.pdf

if you have any questions then do please get in touch.
[email protected]
www.ruralurbanplanning.co.uk

[surreydodger]

Hi Ian. Enjoyed reading your appraisal of the NPPF.

I agree with your view that it may take a while for planners to reposition from the defensively negative to a more positive 'assist'. One hopes that the time to go through such transition will be mercifully short.

My main concern is that there is a lot wording within the NPPF which allows planning departments to reject applications even where the proposal meets the conditions. For example,

12. This National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status
of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed
development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved,
and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other
material considerations indicate otherwise. It is highly desirable that local
planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place.

Paragraph 12 as above is not untypical as 'unless other material considerations indicate otherwise' is one of those phrases that I can see plannnig officers using to meet their own means, not that is a new problem. In the first instance, I agree it is useful to have a way of dealing with the unknown, i.e. where an application meets all the rules but for whatever reason is obviously unacceptable.

The problem arises when we meet planners with an over zealous nature who are still in the land of dreams where concrete will be applied 12 feet thick across the land if it wasn't for them riding their white steeds and protecting us all from oblivion (has anyone actually ever bothered to work out if enough raw material even exists to that?). There, I can see a lot of applications going to appeal and until cost awards start to dent local councils coffers detrimentally.

[The Blacksmith]

I for one cannot see that a planning officer that has spent all their working life looking for ways to say no will become at all helpful in finding ways to make aplications comply as suggestd in the new NPPF, especialy as the default answer to a planning application has always been yes unless it should contradict policy guidlines. but we can all hope common sence will become more common in the planning offices.

[Buckshot]

Are you all not being a bit negative, and still under the shadow of a now outdated planning regime?

I have read the NPPF and many supporting documents in detail.

We want to build an eco house on our land. It would appear to tick almost all the NPPF boxes.

PPS7 is gone - so there is no longer a blanket ban on building in the country.

As for having a financial plan, why is that now needed? A sustainable house should be enough without mentioning agricultural connections.

On top of this most local plans seem to be outdated and/or in a total mess - so how the heck will they integrate the NPPF clauses?

I have also spoken to two bossy local parish councillors who say "Huh, nothing witll change. It's not a law."
Well, they are sort of right ... BUT ... the NPPF has to be integrated into Local Plans within 12 months ... and Local Plans ARE law.

The only tricky bit is the "isolated" houses clause ... but how far is "isolated"? In our case we can get near enough to other houses to not be "isolated" if it becomes a problem.

The NPPF has been produced by a central government which has been democratically elected. This means that unelected local planning staff have no choice but to approve plans which tick all the NPPF boxes.

To be frank, I think that they will be happy to do this - if it clearly legal. They may be awkward people BUT they DO follow the law.

I have also had an email exchange with the local district council : they seem to be running scared on this issue now that PPS7 has gone and that the NPPF is so specific about what should be approved. The council certainly has no 'nuclear option' to block the NPPF ... but why would they want to anyway? It will be law in 12 months.

So ... the NPPF may allow you to build a 100% eco house in your field ... as long as it's not too remote.

[Buckshot]

Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved,

.. which means that in 12 months all the NPPF clauses will be in the Local Plan and so the above will apply.

Conform 100% to the NPPF and in 12 months - perhaps earlier - your development "should be approved'.

[surreydodger]

Hi Buckshot,

The key wording in relation to rural housing is that it should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. In relation to us who are building up a business (agricultural. forestry or horticultural) the determining factor is, is a dwelling 'essential'.

As yet no further guidance has been shown how 'essential' is determined so that is something to be incovered. There will be keen interest on all new applications for such circumstances I'm sure.

Sustainable development is a major feature to all new works but just how that is to be applied to agricultural dwellings is not yet clear. What if a new dwelling is deemed essential but then declared unsustainable? Would the system even consider sustainable issues on such dwellings? This is the fog we are now entering into and I think the comments within this thread are more concerned with not knowing than being a 'bit negative'.

As for rural eco houses, I haven't actually found anything that would seem to support their development any further thn previous planning guidance but then I haven't been particularly looking that way. I think there is still the dea of allowing 'exceptional design' within open land but that is reserved for very wealthy projects according to my cycnical side

[KChally]

One of the conditions on our planning permission for our agricultural workers dwelling says our new house is "innappropriate development in the green belt" but it has been allowed because of "special circumstances" ie the need to be there. So how will an eco house be considered necessary if there is no agricultural activity going on?

KChally

[Buckshot]

Lord Of The manor >> In relation to us who are building up a business (agricultural. forestry or horticultural) the determining factor is, is a dwelling 'essential'.

The NPPF wording is:

Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as:
●● the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or
●● where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or
●● where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or
●● the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling.
Such a design should:
–– be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design
more generally in rural areas;
–– reflect the highest standards in architecture;
–– significantly enhance its immediate setting; and
–– be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.

As I noted earlier the key word is isolated. I would take that to be say 500 metres - the length of a long house drive.

Now clearly if you have land in the middle of nowhere, it's going to be as tricky as before. However for those with smallholdings nearish other houses etc life could now be a lot easier ... but ONLY if you tick all the other NPPF boxes. The NPPF is VERY pro rural development.

At least there is no 'financial viability' clause tied in with 'essential need' which might help those with 'isolated' sites.

[Buckshot]

One of the conditions on our planning permission for our agricultural workers dwelling says our new house is "innappropriate development in the green belt" but it has been allowed because of "special circumstances" ie the need to be there. So how will an eco house be considered necessary if there is no agricultural activity going on?

Green Belt is clearly a special case, so an agricultural need will need to be shown.
However around eighty percent of the UK land is not protected in this way.

So, to build a non-agricultural eco-house it's looking like:

A; Don't buy your land in a Green Belt area.

B: Do not be 'isolated'.

Otherwise expect to put in planning for an agricultural dwelling as before ... but maybe no longer with the business plan tosh.

[Buckshot]

I think the comments within this thread are more concerned with not knowing than being a 'bit negative'.

I wasn't meaning to be rude!

I simply suggest that you print out the NPPF and any other related documents you can find, turn off that part of your brain which holds any history of your planning struggles to date, find a nice sunny corner, grab a coffeee and some biscuits and start reading.

You will soon get the "drift" of the NPPF : England needs more houses, England needs a stronger economy ... incluidng a stronger rural economy .... and the planners are getting in the way.

It's a VERY positive document for BUT only if you want to be truly sustainable.

If you can mould your plan to fit the NPPF then the local council will have a hard time blocking you. Of course they will try ... but the NPPF is VERY clear on what the planners are expected to do in clearly sustainable cases.

(Green Belt and remote house builds are still tricky 'tho)

For some - but not all - the NPPF gives a window of opportunity to build a house on your land ... but be quick because the planners will try to get counteracting regulations in place as soon as they can!

The planning regime HAS changed despite what many say. The goverment hasn't gone to all that trouble creating the NPPF just for Business As Usual to continue.

Anyway, BAU can NOT continue ... the NPPF will be law in 12 months, embedded in Local Plans.

[surreydodger]

Quote

I think the comments within this thread are more concerned with not knowing than being a 'bit negative'.
I wasn't meaning to be rude!

Don't worry Buckshot, I didn't take it that way.

I also agree with you that the NPPF is pro-development as, as in the past, the building industry is being looked upon to reinvigorate the internal economy. The effectiveness will be down to how central government support the NPPF ethos. If they pressure planning departments to allow development then it will do the job as intended but left to the devices of localism and NIMBY-ist's, it will fail.

LPA's generally pass the buck on a most large scale developments thus allowing them to save their faces to the local population. They will frequently do the same on unusual applications as well. That way, some distant planning inspector makes the decision and the LPA can claim innocence in the matter.

However, don't consider that LPA's will change their views overnight just because of new guidance policies. I'm sure they will in time (especially if there's an increase in costs awards) but like a big ship, it takes a while for things to turn.

Yes, you could certainly chance your arm now and see if you can get passed an unusual application and hope that in the slight confusion of the new regime, it is allowed. It's not a gamble I would advise but everyone is free to take their own risks.

And for what its worth, I've been watching the NPPF form over the last few years and have already worked through many packets of biscuits and jar of coffee. Now it is finally here and in place, one only has to read the many planning forums to see that so much is still uncertain and thus, you can take a wait and see policy or run the gauntlet of being one of the first guinea pigs to try it out.

[Buckshot]

run the gauntlet of being one of the first guinea pigs to try it out.

My wife and I are very tough so we'll go for it!

BTW do you have sheep? We have Wiltshires.

[Buckshot]

MINOR UPDATE:

We have just bumped into somebody senior in our local planning hierarchy ... in fact they visited our farm gate 'just passing by'.

Usually our conversations are 'distant' or 'cool' .... but this time this person made it clear that they had heard of our NPPF eco house plan. We expected their usual 'don't ever expect to have a house on that land' comment. However in fact they suggested that we should make it a BIG eco house as "the countryside needs more large houses, not more small houses."

All most odd.

[RichardD]

Almost... but was this "somebody senior in our local planning hierarchy" actually from the LPA planning office - or from the parish council? if from the Local Planning Authority then, as you appear to be familiar with them, seize the moment and request a meeting at the Councils offices to request their further advice and support for whatever it is they consider to be so encouraging about.

Sounds most unlike any planning officer I've ever come across and obviously one that has ever dealt with a real planning application....perhaps they were on their way back from the pub or the magic mushroom plantation...?

[Buckshot]

as you appear to be familiar with them,

Err ... not quite ... but they have come across us several times in the past. We have been grumpy on occasion BUT always polite as they have a job to do. We also attempt to tick all the boxes, however silly, so they can say they have done their job. That's what kills objectors off : they rant & abuse ... but you plod along and steadily tick off anything the LPA seeks untill EVERYTHING is ticked. Done deal. Everyone is happy.

Note: If you face a quiet, polite, determined, well-researched, analytical objector THEN you are in trouble.

request a meeting at the Councils offices to request their further advice and support for whatever it is they consider to be so encouraging about.

Actually, already done.

However I have asked for the appointment to be in about a months time to give us time to get our story straight!

[RichardD]

You're right about the quiet objector - they will take the time to research and argue their case on planning grounds, a lot are very articulate and well informed and that puts the planners on edge of making a "controversial" decision.

Good luck with the meeting, what story? tell it like it is and keep us all posted perhaps.

And if you do get to build a house this guy seems to know how to build sustainable dwellings and keep the costs down; (rubbish design website though - but content is good)

http://www.self-buil...co.uk/index.htm

[kernow]

Is anyone any further forward in understanding what will happen when the three year temporary planning permissions expire with the new system.

Is there anything we need to do differently now than we were before regarding livestock numbers and profit or will this be the same.

If you guys are anything like me you can't get the thought of what will happen after the three years out of your brains. The uncertainty of it all is nearly killing me!!

Can anybody help me sleep at night with some good news?

[KChally]

Surely the "local plan" in your area will have some bearing on all this and therefore it will not just be the NPPF that needs to be followed. I expect there will be new versions created of "local plans" in many areas, which will no doubt encompass things like financial tests being required and the definition of sustainability. This "localism bill" is handing power (for want of a better word) to local people and I cant see many of them wanting much change in their area.

These "local plans" will have things in them like financial tests, functional tests etc so, instead of PPS7 annexe A, there will be a "local plan" which will probably have the same things in it that was in the old PPS7 annexe A. Not much changed then?

We are lucky in that we have just got our permanent permission, but if I were still going thru it I would still be aiming for a sustainable business over a 3 year period which produced the right amount of profit at the end of it. In other words follow PPS7 guidelines before the NPPF came out.

KChally

[surreydodger]

There are circumstances where a three year temporary dwelling is not required. These are where an agricultural development is being created which relies on tried and tested business models and has a ready and tested market to sell into with a known business model. The most common example of this type of thing is a large and intensive poultry unit producing eggs under contract. As the type of business is something I am against, I can't say I have any time for it.

By doing away with the three year temporary, it removes what seems a sensible step by step route to sustainable development. It also offers an opportunity that might not otherwise exist. If you build up your farm business first and then apply for an agricultural dwelling, the stock anser to reject such proposals is 'you didn't need one before so you don't need one now'. This can sometimes be countered but it is a powerful and even dare I say, somewhat logical point.

Having a three year temporary allows all sides and the local community an opportunity to dip ones toe in the water. This can help the local community to observe whether a development is genuine or not and then giving their support accordingly. It allows the applicant an opportunity to create something which if it does not work out, gives a reasonable path on which to retreat without having had to outlay for a permanent building, which once redundant would have to be demolished.

It is I believe going to be as KC says; local rules will provide for 3-year temps. What the conditions are to that remains a mystery. If the government do not want the previous guidelines replicated and new guidelines kept within NPPF doctrine, the local regulators are going to have their work cut out forming satisfactory regulation.

[che]

Whilst I would agree that most parish councils and planners want to see little or no development in the countryside this is one of the reason NPPF came into excistence.

Four key words run through thid document FLEXIBLE, POSITIVE, CREATIVE and PROACTIVE not words that spring to mind whe you mention planners and parish council.

An Independant Inspector will vet Local Plans to see they sit well with the NPPF and the drawing up of such plans will no longer be done by the parish councillors although they will have a representative on the body which creates the plan.

I for one at present remain optomistic bearing in mind that the previous system seemed so poor. I have indicated to the Parish Council that I would like to be part of the team that draws up the local plan.