15 replies to this topic

[Buckshot]

We have anout 18 months of a temporary mobile home planning permission to run on our smallholding.

The council expect us to apply to convert the mobile to a house at that stage - subject to good 'financials'.

However the financial test seems to have gone away ... so what happens when the permission expires?

Do we get planning automatically - or do will still need good financials - or is it a total Reboot?

[Our current idea is to forget our current planning permission and to go for an NPPF compatible eco house with NO agri connection]

[Buckshot]

Further thoughts:

On checking I have found that the transition arrangements are set up to deal with standard planning cases currently 'in flight'.

However the three-year-probabation situation would seem to be a very special case which could lead to problems.

For example, our temporary planning runs out in 18 months ... just after the 12-month period by which the NPPF needs to be active .. and when PPS7 is well and truly dead.

So do we wait and simply try to argue our case at the end - or do we write to the council now for their opinion?

For those who are doing very well financially the council might even use the lack of PPS7 as an excuse for refusal I suppose ...

[Groundhog]

This is what I have been thinking when does all this come into place as in decision making.If I was granted a 3 year in Feb 2012 what will happen in Feb 2015 ?.Do they still apply the critiria they used on the decison date so if i havent made a profit 1 in 3 years will the want occupation to cease and the static romoved

[KChally]

Our agricultural consultant told us that in his view the crucial word in the NPPF is "sustainable" and that it relates to the financial side of things, not solar panels on your roof. So you should aim to be profitable enough to warrant the building of your permanent home. Lets face it, at the end of the day you need to have enough money to do what you want to do regarding the building of your permanent home on your land and this should come from your business on your land.

KChally

[Buckshot]

Our agricultural consultant told us that in his view the crucial word in the NPPF is "sustainable" and that it relates to the financial side of things, not solar panels on your roof. So you should aim to be profitable enough to warrant the building of your permanent home. Lets face it, at the end of the day you need to have enough money to do what you want to do regarding the building of your permanent home on your land and this should come from your business on your land.

The word sustainable is clearly defined in the NPPF for planning purposes i.e. it is the Brundtland Report definition.

It would be difficult to stretch it to cover a new version of PPS7.

I would advise your "agricultural consultant" to read the NPPF carefully in full and also to read and digest the Brundtland Report.

It is these documents which define the legal situation - not any vague idea about "paying your way" or "solar cells'.

(I have met several planners recently - most have NOT yet read either of these documents! They were rather embarrased when I asked!)

There are also many other related supporting documents on the web relating to the NPPF which are geramne to the discussion.

Anyway, for an eco-home on your land you need to satisfy just (!) the NPPF and not any agri-buisness requirements ... unless your planned house is 'isolated' and even then no financial requirements should be necessary ... although your need WILL have to be 'essential'.

The legal documents tell the story. Anything else is just hearsay.

(However the transition arangements for 3-year temp mobile homes ARE a bit tricky to work out!!!)

[Cornish Gems]

Brundtland Report states: Sustainable development – defined by the Brundtland Commission as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs –

So without true sustainability both financial and functional one cannot meet the above criteria.

[Buckshot]

So without true sustainability both financial and functional one cannot meet the above criteria.

Life isn't binary. To be truly sustainable one would need a PassivHaus ... and there are only 30,000 of these in the whole of Europe .. and they MUST be expensive ... the specs are extremely challenging.

However one needs to be a LOT more 'sustainable' than a current house design.

The same degree of flexibility should apply to the financial side too.

The PPS7 view was way too harsh. Without PPS7 a more reasonable middle way can be found.

The Brundtland Report notes that the concept of sustainable development includes the recognition that the many crises facing the planet are interlocking crises that are elements of a single crisis.

The PPS7 non-holistic view of a business plan relating to just the single business is clearly at odds with this viewpoint.

None of us lives or works in isolation, so the sustainability benefits of a planning proposal can in fact exist beyond the boundary of the specific business or home in question.

The old PPS7 approach certainly is a mismatch with respect to the Brundtland Report.

Luckily the NPPF requires the LPAs to be more flexible, more creative and also sustainability focused.

Note: It is clear from the above that any application for an NPPF based eco house etc will require the applicants - or their agent - to be 100% au fait with the NPPF, the Brundtland Report etc. If you have any chink in your armour the LPA will shoot you down.

[Cornish Gems]

The word sustainable is clearly defined in the NPPF for planning purposes i.e. it is the Brundtland Report definition.

That is very interesting sentence.

Especially as we are lead to understand that the EU are to discuss and debate the meaning of the word 'sustainability' because there are so many differing meanings/interpretations of the meaning of 'sustainability' used throughout the EU.

[Buckshot]

That is very interesting. We are lead to understand that the EU are to discuss and debate the meaning of 'sustainability' as there are differing meanings/interpretations of the meaning of 'sustainability' used throughout the EU.

That's fine.

However the NPPF is clear on which definition to use - the 1987 one.

If LPAs start trying to muddy the waters on this then they deserve a smack.

[Cornish Gems]

We therefore think you are very lucky because you are one of the very very few who have not yet felt they had to submit to some of the idiotic demands made by the EU.

[Buckshot]

We therefore think you are very lucky because you are one of the very very few who have not yet felt they had to submit to some of the idiotic demands made by the EU.

A further £10 billion pledged today to prop up the IMF & Europe is enough!

(£30 billion gone so far, £20 billion now pledged)

[KChally]

Buckshot,

Sorry, dont mean to be rude, but I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land. For your information our agri consultant (who is very well respected and experienced throughout the planning authorities and who has on many occasions worked for these authorities) has got us our permanent permission to build a house on our land with our pig rearing business.

I hope you do succeed, incidentally is your agricultural business animal related or something else, which allows you your temporary mobile home permission? Are you making money from this enterprise, if not, it wont matter anyway will it, as you suggest you dont have to make money as per the NPPF?

KChally

[Buckshot]

you dont have to make money as per the NPPF?

To reiterate:

A: For a house which is not 'isolated' no agri business route is needed.

B: Even for 'isolated' sites, PPS7 has gone - so no financial test for an agri buisness currently exists ... although it may return in some form I suppose.

Sorry, dont mean to be rude, but I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Well, we got our 3 year permission ourselves WITHOUT a planning consultant ... just step-by-step slog knocking down each and every legal blocking point until none remained. Lots and lots of paperwork - but at the end of the day they couldn't sensibly say no.

The NPPF is a similar challenge : tick all the boxes and you should get there. Of course, not everyone will be in a position to do this due to having an 'isolated' location or not being 'sustainable' enough or being in a Green Belt. It might also not be a route for those who can't face the nit-picking legalistic paperwork based slog.

Re consultants: So exactly how many consultants out there have fully read and understand the NNPF and related documents? Very, very few I suspect. Anyone using a planning consultant today for an NPPF application will simply be paying good money for the consultant to train themselves, mistakes and all ... on YOUR project!

[KChally]

Well, your optimism is commendable although I am still unsure which route you are taking. Are you or are you not in an "isolated" area and do you have an agricultural business which involves animals? I am just trying to understand where you are coming from in relation to your temporary permission and how this will transfer to a permanent permission.


KChally

[Buckshot]

Well, your optimism is commendable

The NPPF is an opportunity which shouldn't be ignored, so 'optimism', 'determination' etc are now needed. Sure, I recognise that the local officials will probably swat us like flies ... BUT ... you have to try.

although I am still unsure which route you are taking.

"NPPF Eco house" now.

Otherwise "Convert static to house" at the end of our 3-years.

In other words, two parallel tracks.

Probably neither will work ... BUT .. that's simply being negative, so full steam ahead!

[KChally]

You have your work cut out to convert a static to an "eco house"