31 replies to this topic

[ruthie]

Ah ! Interesting point Groundhog, Yes I can see actually that will be better for us.
I was hoping to put in for the 3 years temp cert next year.

And then we have 3 years to make it work, build things up, build stock up, SAVE LOL

Actually, unless you have the money, the 3 years temp will benefit some but not others.

Ruthie

[Buckshot]

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

Interesting point.

I suppose the councils will be able to negotiate on a case-by-case basis if you ask them ... they just won't be able to REQUIRE a probationary route.

Maybe the 3-year stage-by-stage types will move to Wales and the build-it-now types will move to England!

English applicants: for goodness sake do NOT ask for 3 year probationary periods ... you'll just give the councils justification for a continuation of the nasty old regime and could damage any gains that are to be made from the new NPPF rules.

[KChally]

Hi Buckshot,

Time will tell!!!! lets wait for the precedents and test cases then shall we? You make it all sound so easy. Do you honestly think the LPA will just agree to a new house in the countryside without a need of some sort and some financial info to back it up? If so, the countryside will soon be covered in new houses and there wont be a countryside anymore.

Planners are very possesive people and will fight tooth and nail to stop it, I can assure you, after reading many posts on this forum.

Good Luck

KChally

[Buckshot]

lets wait for the precedents and test cases then shall we?

Waiting is a very passive approach. Let us CREATE the precedents!

You make it all sound so easy.

I have already fought - and won - two Planning Applications, including one for a 3 year temp mobile home, so I DO know the problems.

However the law is the law and it is for governnent and NOT the planners to create it.

The planners are there to IMPLEMENT it.

Do you honestly think the LPA will just agree to a new house in the countryside without a need of some sort and some financial info to back it up?

If you have an 'isolated' house and you have a rural business as your 'execptional' reason for a house then MAYBE you might need to provide financial info. However as of today it is NOT a legal requirement. It might even be illegal as PPS7 has been dropped which might signify that its contents are NOT valid, as cannot be used even indirectly. In due course however PPS7 may return in the form of a Guidance Note, so we need to hurry!

If so, the countryside will soon be covered in new houses and there wont be a countryside anymore.

Are you refering to non-agri homes valid under the NPPF, or to rural business homes which fall outside the NPPF due to being 'isolated'?
Either way, we have lots of countryside. The idea that we will cover our fields with houses is unrealisteic.

Planners are very possesive people and will fight tooth and nail to stop it, I can assure you, after reading many posts on this forum.

Maybe. Howver they have to conform to the law and justify their actions. For example if they try to reimplement PPS7 via the back door then they will be flying in the face of the NPPF and thus trying to negate its effects. This would be invalid as it is NOT the role of planners to CREATE (or ignore) law.


The NPPF gives some of us a chance to build that home on our land. I for one am not going to give up on Day One.

[surreydodger]

I like your exhuberance Buckshot but are you not overlooking the fundemental reality here. It is only the GUIDANCE notes that have changed, not the rules. All the same regulations remain as they were so yes, the guidance notes are more positive (possibly) but the planning restraints remain as they were.

PPS 7 Annexe A may have gone, but again, they were only guidance notes, not regulations. Also, be aware that Annexe E remains extant. I am all for going down the route of developing within attainable goals as allowed under planning regs and guidance and using the wording as put. I have also had many an interesting chat with planners and have met some interesting interpretations of theres,,, especially when they start introducing 'the spirit of the law' into their arguments,, but this is to be expected. Just don't get to carried away that because guidance has changed it will be simpler straight away.

I do have to completely disagree on your interpretation of 'sustainable'. I have written several times both here and on professional planning forums about the absurdity of the financial test, but I would recgonise that 'sustainable' includes some kind of financial element to any project as well as sustainable in an environmental sense.

[Buckshot]

but I would recgonise that 'sustainable' includes some kind of financial element to any project as well as sustainable in an environmental sense.

I don't totally disagree - but now that PPS7 has gone, the financials could be interpreted in a different way.

So if the LPA were to try to introduce such a test then now you could introduce the idea of some external finance from one of the couple having an 'ordinary' job being considered too.

And don't forget that you only need to take the 'agri route' if your house will be 'isolated'.

Sure, we will have a fight on our hands and may lose .... BUT ... if you don't even try you will certainly fail!

PS I have indeed seen your posts on other forums.

[Buckshot]

It is only the GUIDANCE notes that have changed, not the rules.

The NPPF is guidance (sort of) for the next 12 months.

However if will then need to form part of Local Plans.

Local Plans are the law - not 'guidance'.

We need to understand the essence of all this : the Government wants - and the country & economy need - planning to change and so have produced the NPPF. They will expect the situation to change - they haven't gone to all this trouble just for local unelected civil servants to maintain the Status Quo.

(Some local planners are already scheming to subvert the NPPF - just check some of the Civil Service websites. Personally I think that they are being a bit silly making such posts. Placing yourself and your planning department above the law is not a wise move.)

To be frank, if my local plannning authority trys to subvert the NPPF then my wife and I will raise a MASSIVE public fuss.

We may not get our eco house - but we have certainly had enough of being pushed around by the planners.

The NPPF gives us all a once-in-a-lifetime chance to demand a more flexible & helpful response from the LPAs.

The key point is to be fully educated on the NPPF and related documents so you can make your points from a position of strength.

Wiffle-waffle & weakness will simply get your plans shot down by the planners.

If anyone has any doubts, simply read the NPPF a few times ... it's not just nonsense ... there is a strong aim / direction in there!

[Buckshot]

Also, be aware that Annexe E remains extant.

PPS7 has no Annex E ... or have I missed something?

PPG7 does have an Annex E which seems to be what you are referring to.

You will also find that PPG7 has an 'archived' status as PPG7 was replaced by PPS7 - I don't think it magically reappears if PPS7 is killed off.

[Buckshot]

General comment:

This forum is VERY useful - it allows us to hear of other rules / documents etc which are lurking in the planning system.

I have learned a lot in just a couple of days ... but thankfully nothing which I would regard as a show-stopper!

[barbararob]

We've got an application in...well 3 , an equine building for equine tourism and therapy, a lifting of a private use restriction placed on our stables and manege and a log cabin (3 year temp dwelling) and dog boarding room.
Application was validated 13 march, decision 8th may. We feel as if we are swimming in mud, our consulatnat has told us we have to wait for the PO to get round to us in the pile and offer his opinion, he has already said he will be asking for an independent report on the need to live on site, then there is a good chance it will have to go to committee.
We have been here before with a highway objection thrown in at the 11th hour so are just playing the waiting game.
In light on the NPPF if we got permission could we then approach the council to replace the 3 year log cabin with a perm dwelling?
Also I'd be interested to know more about the term isolated - we are between two established camp sites with perm structures on both sites, would this class as neighbours or do you need houses to prevent you being isolated?
When we get something worth reporting that might help anyone else I'll let you know how it's panning out. We do have rare breed goats and come from farming background but our planning is more tourist leisure, equine based.

[Cornish Gems]

Hi Buckshot - we have been reading your comments with a great deal of interest and feel that is a great pity that you are not classed as a book owner.

[Buckshot]

Hi Buckshot - we have been reading your comments with a great deal of interest and feel that is a great pity that you are not classed as a book owner.

Err .. I am a book owner ... and I have sent emails to Admin ...

I suppose I will get "activated" in due course.