Field to Farm
Sign In
Create Account
does any one know if the latest planning reforms are going to help or hinder developement of individual developement such as eco simple accomadation on small holding for selfsufficiant lifestyle?
Welcome to Field to Farm Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Back to top
#2
Posted 12 April 2012 - 21:16
RichardD
-
- Book Owners
-
- 78 posts
Friend
shepherdess - when all the dust (and excitement) has settled regarding the NPPF you'll find that, for the type of land use you (and others on this forum) propose (and the genuine laudable proposal you may have) very little has changed - the NPPF has just wiped out a lot of very useful policy guidance and has not really replaced it with anything of any substance - it certainly will not make things any easier - unless your proposed land use is within or very very close to a development or settlement boundary and even then you'll still have to deal with your LPA's local development plans regarding (sustainable) development in the countryside.
Have you seen what these guys are proposing? Keep your eye out for the decision on their application - especially if it goes to appeal.
http://www.ecologica...h-smallholdings
Have you seen what these guys are proposing? Keep your eye out for the decision on their application - especially if it goes to appeal.
http://www.ecologica...h-smallholdings
#3
Posted 13 April 2012 - 07:42
barbararob
-
- Book Owners
-
- 12 posts
Chick
Our application is in at the moment (equine/canine/tourist/charity/rarebreed). We had to withdraw ours last year due to a highways issue that we couldn't work through.
This application is very similar but without the need to go on the highway (pony trekking),
we put this one in before the planning reform - does this mean it is decided by the policies at the time of validation or decision???
Our planning consultant agrees that the tourism/equine side of things may help us but that the vagueness of the PPs7 statement could now give us less chance.
We have come to the conclusion that there is so much grey area each and every application is on it's own.
The link is really interesting - will be keeping an eye on that one.
This application is very similar but without the need to go on the highway (pony trekking),
we put this one in before the planning reform - does this mean it is decided by the policies at the time of validation or decision???
Our planning consultant agrees that the tourism/equine side of things may help us but that the vagueness of the PPs7 statement could now give us less chance.
We have come to the conclusion that there is so much grey area each and every application is on it's own.
The link is really interesting - will be keeping an eye on that one.
#4
Posted 13 April 2012 - 16:25
RichardD
-
- Book Owners
-
- 78 posts
Friend
The NPPF is a material planning consideration if your application has not been determined - so overall I would say (depending on the justification by your consultant) the NPPF does not disadvantage you - although if I were him I would make further submissions if I thought any aspect of the NPPF could be used to your advantage.
#5
Posted 13 April 2012 - 17:13
KChally
-
- Book Owners
-
- 371 posts
Farmer Giles
At the planning committee meeting the other day for our permanent agri workers dwelling the planning manager made reference to the NPPF and suggested that the financial test would not be relevant in the future, but our application had passed the PPS7 test anyway. Our agri consultant told us he disagreed with him and that it would be relevant as the word sustainable should relate to the financial side of things and not things like solar panels on the roof etc. So what is the actual definition of "sustainable", in my view it means the financial side of things ie self funding (has to sustain itself).
Farmer giles could come along and divide up his 100 acres into 10 acre plots and sell them off for a lot of money to 10 different people. These 10 people each put 20 sows on their 10 acres which means they have met the functional test (need to be there). So according to this new NPPF they will be allowed to live there, without proving they can make any money.
Each local authority over the next couple of years will make their own decision regarding the definition of "sustainable" and I cannot see how they can ignore a "financial test" to prove the viability (sustainability) of the business. The Local Town Plan for each area will surely have some reference within it relating to the financial side of the business.
In my view I dont think very much if anything has actually changed. They may have shortened the document and taken it back to basics, in fact it may well have made things more difficult in the fact that as it is quite vague LPA's may read into it what they want to read into it. The crux of the matter is the word "sustainable" and what it actually means, so I think it would be prudent to make sure your business is "SUSTAINABLE" ie making enough money, self sufficient or not.
KChally
Farmer giles could come along and divide up his 100 acres into 10 acre plots and sell them off for a lot of money to 10 different people. These 10 people each put 20 sows on their 10 acres which means they have met the functional test (need to be there). So according to this new NPPF they will be allowed to live there, without proving they can make any money.
Each local authority over the next couple of years will make their own decision regarding the definition of "sustainable" and I cannot see how they can ignore a "financial test" to prove the viability (sustainability) of the business. The Local Town Plan for each area will surely have some reference within it relating to the financial side of the business.
In my view I dont think very much if anything has actually changed. They may have shortened the document and taken it back to basics, in fact it may well have made things more difficult in the fact that as it is quite vague LPA's may read into it what they want to read into it. The crux of the matter is the word "sustainable" and what it actually means, so I think it would be prudent to make sure your business is "SUSTAINABLE" ie making enough money, self sufficient or not.
KChally
#6
Posted 19 April 2012 - 12:01
barbararob
-
- Book Owners
-
- 12 posts
Chick
It has been mentioned to me that the 3 year temp accom is not mentioned in the new policy - Is it still there or do we get to put a proper house onsite when we get permission. (general question , not based on our application)
#7
Posted 19 April 2012 - 22:39
surreydodger
-
- Book Owners
-
- 1,208 posts
Agricultural Planning Advisory Service
- LocationWest Sussex
Hi KC,
I am still thinking what would be a good way forward regarding the financial test. As I have said before, I am not in favour of it but then again, I don't want to planning granted because someone holds two piglets and a chick up claiming it is 'essential' they live on the land.
I think I would lean in favour of a holding demonstrating it can run as a business that can at least break even (allowing for the maintenance and ongoing upkeep of the farm and all its contents) as well as provide a minimum wage for the principal occupier. If the government deem that is enough for someone to live on, then it should be accepted as such.
However, I would still strongly resist the idea that a dwelling should be commensurate with the earnings. This only leads to the absurdities of where market fluctuations that determine a farms profitabilty, mean that one year you may be entitled to a wigwam and the next year, a mansion.
Barbarabob,
It does seem that the 3 year temporary has disappeared. It could be brought back under local planning frameworks but that's a wait and see job.
I am still thinking what would be a good way forward regarding the financial test. As I have said before, I am not in favour of it but then again, I don't want to planning granted because someone holds two piglets and a chick up claiming it is 'essential' they live on the land.
I think I would lean in favour of a holding demonstrating it can run as a business that can at least break even (allowing for the maintenance and ongoing upkeep of the farm and all its contents) as well as provide a minimum wage for the principal occupier. If the government deem that is enough for someone to live on, then it should be accepted as such.
However, I would still strongly resist the idea that a dwelling should be commensurate with the earnings. This only leads to the absurdities of where market fluctuations that determine a farms profitabilty, mean that one year you may be entitled to a wigwam and the next year, a mansion.
Barbarabob,
It does seem that the 3 year temporary has disappeared. It could be brought back under local planning frameworks but that's a wait and see job.
#8
Posted 19 April 2012 - 23:38
KChally
-
- Book Owners
-
- 371 posts
Farmer Giles
Hi SD,
I can understand your thinking on the "financial test". I suppose its all well and good if you want to continue to live permanently in the mobile, static, log cabin that you got temporary permission for in the first place, as this "building" is already there, possibly paid for completely or not costing you much thru a mortgage or loan. The earnings from your holding ie agri workers min wage would not have to "sustain" the cost of building your home.
Now, if like us you want to build a 149 sq mt bricks and mortar property, the cost of building this has to come from the business and this is where the word "sustainable" comes into the equation. I do think people are confusing this word "sustainable".
I really dont understand the thinking of: If you have a business which passes the functional need but is not making much money, how do you expect to be able to build a permanent home like we want to from bricks and mortar? Surely the LPA have to have some form of yardstick to measure the financial side of things from and I dont just mean the minimum wage.
It is true, that each year may produce a different amount of profit in your business, but you have to start somewhere and give the LPA something to go on. I cant see much will change with the NPPF, they have scraped it back to basics so more building blocks can be added thru the locals plans and god forbid parish councils.
KChally
I can understand your thinking on the "financial test". I suppose its all well and good if you want to continue to live permanently in the mobile, static, log cabin that you got temporary permission for in the first place, as this "building" is already there, possibly paid for completely or not costing you much thru a mortgage or loan. The earnings from your holding ie agri workers min wage would not have to "sustain" the cost of building your home.
Now, if like us you want to build a 149 sq mt bricks and mortar property, the cost of building this has to come from the business and this is where the word "sustainable" comes into the equation. I do think people are confusing this word "sustainable".
I really dont understand the thinking of: If you have a business which passes the functional need but is not making much money, how do you expect to be able to build a permanent home like we want to from bricks and mortar? Surely the LPA have to have some form of yardstick to measure the financial side of things from and I dont just mean the minimum wage.
It is true, that each year may produce a different amount of profit in your business, but you have to start somewhere and give the LPA something to go on. I cant see much will change with the NPPF, they have scraped it back to basics so more building blocks can be added thru the locals plans and god forbid parish councils.
KChally
#9
Posted 20 April 2012 - 01:12
surreydodger
-
- Book Owners
-
- 1,208 posts
Agricultural Planning Advisory Service
- LocationWest Sussex
I'm with you on the sustainable meaning KC. To often people are taking this as meaning some kind of carbon footprint ideology, which I fully support, but the reality is it also inculdes the financial cost.
So what is the cost of say your 149mtr home (which for convenience and my laziness at this time of night ,,, largely thanks to one of my dogs that has gone off on a foxhunt and a couple of fresh born lambs,,, I will call 150mtrs
). In old money it used to be that building copsts were approx £100 a sqft or £1000 a metre but this is based on employing a builder. Thus, your home would work out at £150,000 to build.
Once built, that cost could be trebled to reflect the land cost and house but having an agricultural tie will devalue it by a third, so market value would fairly be about £300,000.
Now add on the value of your land and farming business. I don't know your acreage but saying you have 25 acres and a reasonable income, if you were to sell that (without the house), a fair price could be around £200-300,000. Even those figures could be way out depending on location.
So, we are looking at a holding worth around £500,000. To buy this using borrowed money at 6% over 25 years would cost £38,000 a year or £30,000 for interest only. And the interest only sum is the true cost as it is only the interest that is a cost assuming on usual practice that the capital sum (£500,000) is offset against the fact that if you sell your holding, you get your money back.
To make that kind of money and have enough for other living expenses is clearly a tall order and I would say nigh impossible except in rare cases. Never the less, that is the kinds of figures we ought to be looking at if we really want to consider sustainability using book figures.
f course, most people buying such a ready made holding will come into it having probably sold a previous property and transmit the equity from that property to the holding and their mortgage will be much smaller. This would make it affordable but in the true sense, does not make the holding a sustainable one.
Then there is the problem of accounting. My favourite description of professional accounting is the one where you ask an accountant what 2 add 2 makes and they answer 'what do you want it to make?'. There are all sorts of other numbers that can go in that would affect the sustainability such as asset appreciation or depreciation, business goodwill and the value of the trading business. How the planners come up with a figure I do not know and that is probably why I have have a problem with financial tests,,, there are just so many vaiables and formulas that the end result will always be different.
Of course, I must add that the above figures are just basic industry standards ( and possibly a bit out of date now) and make no allowance for self build. However, the end values will generally remain the same whether self build or contracted out.
Oh good,,,,, my dogs back at last
So what is the cost of say your 149mtr home (which for convenience and my laziness at this time of night ,,, largely thanks to one of my dogs that has gone off on a foxhunt and a couple of fresh born lambs,,, I will call 150mtrs
). In old money it used to be that building copsts were approx £100 a sqft or £1000 a metre but this is based on employing a builder. Thus, your home would work out at £150,000 to build.Once built, that cost could be trebled to reflect the land cost and house but having an agricultural tie will devalue it by a third, so market value would fairly be about £300,000.
Now add on the value of your land and farming business. I don't know your acreage but saying you have 25 acres and a reasonable income, if you were to sell that (without the house), a fair price could be around £200-300,000. Even those figures could be way out depending on location.
So, we are looking at a holding worth around £500,000. To buy this using borrowed money at 6% over 25 years would cost £38,000 a year or £30,000 for interest only. And the interest only sum is the true cost as it is only the interest that is a cost assuming on usual practice that the capital sum (£500,000) is offset against the fact that if you sell your holding, you get your money back.
To make that kind of money and have enough for other living expenses is clearly a tall order and I would say nigh impossible except in rare cases. Never the less, that is the kinds of figures we ought to be looking at if we really want to consider sustainability using book figures.
f course, most people buying such a ready made holding will come into it having probably sold a previous property and transmit the equity from that property to the holding and their mortgage will be much smaller. This would make it affordable but in the true sense, does not make the holding a sustainable one.
Then there is the problem of accounting. My favourite description of professional accounting is the one where you ask an accountant what 2 add 2 makes and they answer 'what do you want it to make?'. There are all sorts of other numbers that can go in that would affect the sustainability such as asset appreciation or depreciation, business goodwill and the value of the trading business. How the planners come up with a figure I do not know and that is probably why I have have a problem with financial tests,,, there are just so many vaiables and formulas that the end result will always be different.
Of course, I must add that the above figures are just basic industry standards ( and possibly a bit out of date now) and make no allowance for self build. However, the end values will generally remain the same whether self build or contracted out.
Oh good,,,,, my dogs back at last
#10
Posted 20 April 2012 - 08:52
Buckshot
-
- Book Owners
-
- 63 posts
Goose
- LocationCentral England
Each local authority over the next couple of years will make their own decision regarding the definition of "sustainable" and I cannot see how they can ignore a "financial test" to prove the viability (sustainability) of the business.
Err ... no.
The term 'sustainable' is defined in the NPPF by indirect reference to: Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report.
How can we expect - or allow - unelected, unqualified local government officials to make up standards and definitions which are then used in conjunction with central government policy for local decision making? If this were allowed then local autorities could totally subvert central goverment directives.
Local authorities would be hard pushed to introduce a financial test based on anything in the Brundtland Report.
#11
Posted 20 April 2012 - 09:17
Groundhog
-
- Book Owners
-
- 1,081 posts
Member
Ok world has gone by me recently can someone expand on "No 3 year temp application any more" which I have just noticed in a post. Is that true ?
#12
Posted 20 April 2012 - 09:29
Buckshot
-
- Book Owners
-
- 63 posts
Goose
- LocationCentral England
It's true. That three year malarky has gone, as have financial soundness tests etc.
PPS7 is no longer active ... the new NPPF document has got rid of it.
Annex A in PPS7 has (had) all the tripe about financial soundness, 3 years period etc etc.
As I keep saying, the NPPF will change the planning regime, so we have to make the most of it and not allow the planners to retain the 'old' ideas.
Please fight the planners and do not act as supplicants - tell them that the rules have changed and don't accept any vague claims from them that The Old Way still exists and must be adhered to.
If you go into a planning discussion, with a cowed attitude, expecting a three year probation period and financial tests I'm sure the planners will be only too happy to oblige!
PPS7 is no longer active ... the new NPPF document has got rid of it.
Annex A in PPS7 has (had) all the tripe about financial soundness, 3 years period etc etc.
As I keep saying, the NPPF will change the planning regime, so we have to make the most of it and not allow the planners to retain the 'old' ideas.
Please fight the planners and do not act as supplicants - tell them that the rules have changed and don't accept any vague claims from them that The Old Way still exists and must be adhered to.
If you go into a planning discussion, with a cowed attitude, expecting a three year probation period and financial tests I'm sure the planners will be only too happy to oblige!
#13
Posted 20 April 2012 - 12:03
Groundhog
-
- Book Owners
-
- 1,081 posts
Member
From my experience they are not happy to oblige when applying for a 3 year temp dwelling !
Ok please highlight then if I were to buy a piece of land to set up my business and to put a static in place what would the preceedure now be ? as to what would I apply for ?
PPS 7 to my mind was always the main thing that everything referred back to and linked to other sustainable and govt policies so if you could tap as many as possible together it ticked lots of boxes.So whats the goal now and what are the new hurdles ?
Ok please highlight then if I were to buy a piece of land to set up my business and to put a static in place what would the preceedure now be ? as to what would I apply for ?
PPS 7 to my mind was always the main thing that everything referred back to and linked to other sustainable and govt policies so if you could tap as many as possible together it ticked lots of boxes.So whats the goal now and what are the new hurdles ?
#14
Posted 20 April 2012 - 12:12
ruthie
-
- Book Owners
-
- 121 posts
Lamb
Hi Guys
Regarding the NPPF and now no 3 years temp, is it right that this is just England that have taken it on board.
Somebody mentioned Wales may take a little longer (Or Bless !!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Ruthie
Regarding the NPPF and now no 3 years temp, is it right that this is just England that have taken it on board.
Somebody mentioned Wales may take a little longer (Or Bless !!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Ruthie
#15
Posted 20 April 2012 - 12:13
Buckshot
-
- Book Owners
-
- 63 posts
Goose
- LocationCentral England
Ok please highlight then if I were to buy a piece of land to set up my business and to put a static in place what would the preceedure now be ? as to what would I apply for ?
A static is NOT a sustainable dwelling and so fails the NPPF goals.
The three year option has gone, so that can't be a reason for the static.
I suppose that it will have to be a permanent long term application for a non-NPPF static / park home. Good luck with that.
We are going for an NPPF compatible eco house : no agri links, no business links, no probation periods, no business plans ... just tick all the NPPF boxes.
#16
Posted 20 April 2012 - 12:15
Buckshot
-
- Book Owners
-
- 63 posts
Goose
- LocationCentral England
Regarding the NPPF and now no 3 years temp, is it right that this is just England that have taken it on board.
Yep, England only.
#17
Posted 20 April 2012 - 12:19
ruthie
-
- Book Owners
-
- 121 posts
Lamb
So nothing changed for us Welsh folk then I Guess ? 
#18
Posted 20 April 2012 - 12:27
Buckshot
-
- Book Owners
-
- 63 posts
Goose
- LocationCentral England
So nothing changed for us Welsh folk then I Guess ?
I don't want to sound parochial or sour ... but you've had all the devolution goodies.
Just for once an un-devolved England is getting something useful out of our government.
#19
Posted 20 April 2012 - 12:27
Groundhog
-
- Book Owners
-
- 1,081 posts
Member
Hell so people are going to need a bigger pot of money initially then if they have to finance a proper dwelling,no more saving up or seeing if the business is actually viable and they can make a go of it
#20
Posted 20 April 2012 - 12:34
Groundhog
-
- Book Owners
-
- 1,081 posts
Member
Have always been scenical about the idealogy of the F2F route not sure if it will now give it more clout or kiss of death still dont know anyone who has done it yet
