Green Belt Planning Permission?

Doozergirl

Davesnave wrote: »

I'm sure they do. And I agree, the ones that have gone though have had to be ground-breaking in some way.

e.g. http://lammas.org.uk/ecovillage/

Perhaps the council thought they were just dealing with a bunch of useless hippies, but those guys proved up to the challenge! :rotfl:

Looks wonderful.

Seems that Wales have their own additional policy:
http://gov.wales/topics/planning/policy/guidanceandleaflets/oneplanet/?lang=en

freshfruitbandit

Davesnave wrote: »

Or a sceptic like me might think, "Eco houses in rural places, like Pembrokeshire, have sometimes been given exceptional planning, so this guy wants to try his luck by putting a big eco hat on."

Now I'm not saying that's the case, but I begin to be suspicious when I read that the land is doing 'absolutely nothing,' like that's someone's fault. Well, if there's blame,your father should shoulder it, because he's the one who's left it idle.

Alternatively, the land could be viewed as quite a good place for wildlife. It's by no means essential that human beings have to see it and appreciate it, or use it as a resource.

But here's another idea. The government have relaxed the conditions for barn conversions somewhat, so there is a prospect of converting something genuinely wasted, as there are plenty of redundant non-listed farm buildings about, some of them being sold off with a token piece of land. You could put your eco ideas into practice with one of those, which would be a kind of green-brownfield development.

Luckily i have been working in renewable energies for a long time have won many awards for my work, so no, not just another 'eco' for the sake of being 'eco' person. My brother is also an ecologist.

The land is doing nothing and as previously explained no one can see it due to the fact it's completely surrounded by trees. Sorry you have lost me here, my father should be blamed for what? Owning a piece of land? He didn't want to do anything with it and has let his current neighbours use it for free for their horse. Yeah, he should be blamed. Nice.

The wildlife argument doesn't really exist and more wildlife will be encouraged to come to the land and be looked after if the project went ahead.

I don't have the money to find a barn conversion, buy it and then convert it. I'd prefer to use the plot of land we have in an area i have lived in for 36 years that i believe would bring significant benefits to the area and the wildlife.

Dan-Dan

touched a nerve there Dave

Davesnave

Dan-Dan wrote: »

touched a nerve there Dave

I like fishing!

OP I didn't say your Dad should be blamed for anything, and I even supplied a counter argument why not.

I have marginal land that is doing 'absolutely nothing' from an agricultural point of view, but I designed and planted it that way for the benefit of plants and animals. It isn't a nature reserve, or visited by many people, but I've no doubt that it is doing something towards maintaining species and their diversity.

If I were to put a house on that land, eco or otherwise, I fail to see how this would be an improvement to its function in the countryside context.

This is why your statements:

"The land is doing nothing and as previously explained no one can see it due to the fact it's completely surrounded by trees."
and
"The wildlife argument doesn't really exist and more wildlife will be encouraged to come to the land and be looked after if the project went ahead."

make no sense to me.

Hoploz

I believe there can be regional variations in local green belt policy, as things seem to vary between boroughs. Certainly houses here have been built within the greenbelt since 1947, that is definite. A relative in an adjoining borough says there it also depends whether the land is within the village boundaries or or on the outskirts.

You need to have a chat with Planning and see what their first reaction is, I think. You might even be able to read up on their local policies in this regard online and get some clues. My borough publishes a Local Development Framework which outlines everything.

Also check the deeds for any covenants which may prevent buildings on the land irrespective of green belt policy.

BornAtTheRightTime

In my area it's common for amateur developers to believe 'sustainable' housing means made with renewables, zero carbon emission housing etc and that by throwing enough green materials and credentials at it, it will be allowed.

In fact, amongst other things, it means that it should be accessible by a range of transport methods (walking, cycling, buses etc) so that private car use is not obligatory. Sites outside the village boundary without pavements, in national speed limit areas along dark country lanes, fall foul of this all the time. This will likely be your biggest hurdle as this is outside your control.

BeansOnToast_2

Doozergirl wrote: »

Essentially, you cannot build new homes in the greenbelt since 1947.

Our house was built in a green belt in 1990. It is in the centre of a small village built on the site of an old school playground. But there's also an 80s / 90s estate of about 15 detached houses on the edge of the village built on what I guess was green fields.

Davesnave

BeansOnToast wrote: »

Our house was built in a green belt in 1990. It is in the centre of a small village built on the site of an old school playground. But there's also an 80s / 90s estate of about 15 detached houses on the edge of the village built on what I guess was green fields.

Generally speaking, houses may be built within a village's development boundary, which is determined by the council in line with policy and moved if necessary.

Although we hear much about NIMBYs, opposition to building is not universal, because many villagers realise the population must be maintained if pubs, schools and post offices etc aren't to close.

We don't have the large numbers of people living in each house now, so population wise, many villages, including mine, are shrinking.

None of this is an argument for piecemeal development in the open countryside, however.

freshfruitbandit

Davesnave wrote: »

I like fishing!

OP I didn't say your Dad should be blamed for anything, and I even supplied a counter argument why not.

I have marginal land that is doing 'absolutely nothing' from an agricultural point of view, but I designed and planted it that way for the benefit of plants and animals. It isn't a nature reserve, or visited by many people, but I've no doubt that it is doing something towards maintaining species and their diversity.

If I were to put a house on that land, eco or otherwise, I fail to see how this would be an improvement to its function in the countryside context.

This is why your statements:

"The land is doing nothing and as previously explained no one can see it due to the fact it's completely surrounded by trees."
and
"The wildlife argument doesn't really exist and more wildlife will be encouraged to come to the land and be looked after if the project went ahead."

make no sense to me.

You are commenting emphatically on something you know very little about. If making rude comments on the internet and trying to 'wind people up' from behind a keyboard is a chosen pastime of yours then i'll refrain from interacting with you at all the the future.

freshfruitbandit

BornAtTheRightTime wrote: »

In my area it's common for amateur developers to believe 'sustainable' housing means made with renewables, zero carbon emission housing etc and that by throwing enough green materials and credentials at it, it will be allowed.

In fact, amongst other things, it means that it should be accessible by a range of transport methods (walking, cycling, buses etc) so that private car use is not obligatory. Sites outside the village boundary without pavements, in national speed limit areas along dark country lanes, fall foul of this all the time. This will likely be your biggest hurdle as this is outside your control.

The property is 100m from a train station, 30m to the nearest bus stop and the same to an A road.

Sustainable to me means that property is built using the right materials, for example the cladding comes from local woodlands, the property is heated by something like a log gasification boiler that is fuelled by waste from a local waste timber, making the most of prevailing winds, the property positioned so it takes advantage of summer and winter sun angles and the conduct a thorough ecological survey to make sure any wildlife in the area is impacted as little as possible and steps are taken to help preserve and encourage wildlife to prosper.

Of course things like recycling rain water and geothermal heating etc are also included.

I'm not doing eco for eco's sake or that i believe it's the only way i'll get planning, i have a long history of working in 'eco' industry (wind and wave), have won awards for my work and want to build something truly innovative and sustainable that is also sustainable to run.