Planning permission , head scratcher.

Doozergirl

It took us five years to get planning permission on a piece of brownfield land. The council's argument was that it was backland development on greenfield (garden). I can't tell you how obvious it was that it was previously developed, given that it was entirely paved in concrete and had housed a business and associated buildings for decades. At the point we started, we'd been building for nearly 15 years and I thought I had some experience. We were naive, we did not receive any meaningful help locally and there was an element of pig headedness on our part. We probably could have made things easier for ourselves but we felt that common sense was on our side. It was eventual prevalence of common sense that got us permission. The planning department were nothing but resistant until our third planning officer but we still had the Head of Planning to contend with. We had a failed appeal to the inspectorate and I (and I mean I) managed to learn enough about the political process to turn it all around into a very professional and persuasive statement, gardered support within the community and from our local councillor and then turned it into permission at planning committee. The process was hell.

You have at least two of the most knowledgeable posters on planning talking to you on this thread, I'm surprised that you accuse them of trolling you.

If you have five years and £20k, go ahead, but I would have spent some of it on a planning consultant already. One can never say never but I think that the advice is clear. You need proper, professional help, you need to temper your expectations and you need to approach this extremely carefully in order not to totally screw it up for yourself.

Gardens are greenfield. You're not going to get a garden reclassified as anything else in contrary to the local plan.

An eco house is not considered "architecturally outstanding" and it carries very little weight in the balance. If you google what has been allowed under Gummers Law in the past, it isn't an eco bungalow. It isn't applicable to infill plots, if indeed it still exists within the NPPF.

The information we're given isn't approaching anywhere near enough to offer any real help other than to say that you're a little bit crazy for trying. The world needs people willing to take a risk but I think that there are ways to mitigate the risk.

The five year supply is an argument, but who knows what position the local authority be in by the time an inspector looks at it. It didn't help us at all.

A failed appeal to the inspectorate is likely to be the death knell for a prospective development. It is exceptionally hard to come back from that position. We have a good relationship with our planning officer now, but he never fails to remind me that we are "one of the 3%" that did.

System

ahh the classic toys out of pram delete posts reaction, it's a shame that people don't leave their posts on the forum for anyone in the future to see what's been said and why...

Tom99

The original post......

izzzzythedog wrote: »

We are looking to buy a piece of land with the idea to build on it .

The land is in the countryside on a lane.
The area of land is a carbon copy of next door that has a bungalow on it already that was built perhaps 10 years or so ago where a bungalow already exsisted .
The land is within a line of houses so would squeeze between a house and a pub ( with plenty of room mind ) , its assumed its not greenfield as it has been stated its been used for gardens ... not gardens of the pub as they have a car park it butressess up against .
There is zero acess issues , opp is a field as is behind it .
There can not be a more obvious use of the land as it is prime for our intent

Locally theres a shed load of housing being built ( 1600+) as the area has been chosen as over spill housing under the governments directive and local council area of choise for housing .
The land has been used as gardens and is now overgrown mainly with trees , these trees are approx 25 foot and say 15-20 yrs old ? .

The local council have been approached to ask for provisional planning permission , this has been rejected . This was prior to the concept of the 1600 housing being built but still they have been approached and rejected the idea . I do not know why and cant think of a single reason for them not to grant this .

So the question to you wise people is 2 fold . What do you think would be the reason for not granting PP on what is clearly a piece of land screaming out to have a house built on it . Also if i were to buy it , bung a caravan on it , sit back and fight it what would i expect in the future and how likely are people whom are prepared to be extremely stubborn to get it finalised even if it takes a few years .

Oh and we are local to the area and have been for the last 14 years so if there were a ``local only `` covenant then that would explain it but the EA doesnt know cant help further .

Your thoughts , ideas and time would be more than appreciated .

[IMG]http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/<a href=http://s1022.photobucket.com/user/izzzythedog/media/land.1_zpscjp2g5u3.jpg.html rel=nofollow>[/img]
[IMG]http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/<a href=http://s1022.photobucket.com/user/izzzythedog/media/land.1_zpscjp2g5u3.jpg.html rel=nofollow>[/img]

Tom99

The additional information.....

izzzzythedog wrote: »

Thank you Eachpenny .

Additional info .
The areas a hamlet rather than a village . It is between 2 villages and the local housing is spread along the road frontage as is this piece of land . The village to the north ( 1/2 a mile ) is having as you say infill . A house is to be demolished to allow a road to the back garden and this land is being removed from being greenbelt . This is already happening locally however in our case this is simply a strip of land that matches the size and shape of the preceeding 8 houses . When i say its been garden it is identical to the land mass to the area next to it , the impression is given that the land was brought and a pacel was set asside exactly for future building .

Ive had a look as best as is possible . Theres simply a sureal amount if information to wade through so its not possible to easily point a finger and state what the council policy could be . The area locally has applications that will double a village 2 miles away in size and encompassses a massive amount of greenbelt . Every parcel of potential land is to be built on regardless of its status . Small developments are dotted throughout the local area , HS2 is also scuttling past within a mile . There is massive amounts of proposals for housing and industry locally . There simply isnt a clear concept of the future here and all this has kicked off after the planning was approached previously ( not by us ) . There are pressure groups trying to stem the tide of development here but this is going ignored by the council . I think its safe to assume that if a PP was applied for there should be little objection .

To enable us to be able to create our dream we would need to reduce our expenditure hence the caravan idea . I understand that we have the ability to stop 2 weeks in a year as a general rule , we would not indend to test the patience of the council by siting and moving in with planning be dammed . Im reluctant to state which council at the moment but can do in the very near future as we intend to put an offer in this weekend.
[IMG]http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/<a href=http://s1022.photobucket.com/user/izzzythedog/media/land.1_zpscjp2g5u3.jpg.html rel=nofollow>[/img]

izzzzythedog wrote: »

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]You assume all argument that it would be appropriate to grant future PP is irrelevant when of course it is not irrelivent whatsoever . The validity can be questioned but not the proposition . All rational would has to be considered as its fair to assume PP is granted based on being reasonable and fair and not on a whim or spurious reasons . What i state is very valid for reasons to consider PP to be approved although i would point out having a `gut` reason is also not valid so therefore based on the same argument it would never be approved in your case !...... The land was parcelled into building plots of stips of land sometimes after 1945 . Houses were then built on these except 1 was missed out for whatever reason and thats the strip of land thats in the here and now . It has been used as gardening in terminology only , it is not and has never been a garden to the propertys either side of the land . It is refered to as gardening given its not agriculture , its not brownfield , its just scrub land next to a pub .

As i pointed out theres has been nothing finalised . The council have been approched but nothing formal beyond a chat has taken place . Therefore there is no rejection in writing , it does not exist to be scanned over and other ideas considered .
I have also taken the time to try to get a grasp of a local plan but as i mentioned i have have yet to come across a clear consise worded document that details a generalisation of the area . If there is a single document i have yet to find it as have 2000 people who are protesting the building around here . I can only assume if it does exist it is not available to the public without a request . [/FONT]

izzzzythedog wrote: »

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]An update

An offer has been accepted without any upscale in the event of PP being granted . We will own the land within a few weeks .

We are led to believe the land is either greenfield or greenbelt . I remain unsure why they would define this small strip of land this way given it brings nothing to the area whatsoever and is not intrinsic to the idea of greenfield/belt and certaintly is not part of any border . It does not fit into the concept of the reasons for greenbelt and its clearly a building plot waiting to happen .

From what we have found out ( not a fat lot ) theres no attachments in anyway to the land , it is simply a `garden` if someone wants it as such .
We have also found that the council planning officer is fed up with people asking him about the same land plus the estate agent showed us some of the offers that came in !. We have brought it for what we think is a decent price .

So our plan of action is firstly to get a change of classification on the land away from greenbelt/field to residential . We fully understand we will need to fight the good fight with the council to get this and we are simply going through the motions until the appeal process s the council will reject any and all proposals we offer . We will of course approach the council prior to make it fully known how we intend to offer evidence in the reasons why it should be granted PP and explain that we will be taking it as far as is needed so hope they can see the wood from the trees and not force us to aim for the appeal process. We have also noticed the house next door has nibbled a few foot off this land so we will be knocking on the door and pointing out our intentions to ignore this if they were to welcome our PP application . We will also been popping round to our local MP`s surgury to try to get him on board plus petitioning our local councillers .

Once these hurdles are jumped we will then push on to seek PP for either 1 or 2 houses on the site . We apparently could avoid alot of this if we seek to create an eco house as it turns out they will automatically grant PP if its got a tiny carbon footprint . Once again a chat with planning could allow us to walk this path if needed .

If this fails we have already been informed we can place stabling on it . This will increase the worth of the land if we then decide to offload or we can then apply for a change of use to housing !. It is a round about way of doing things but its plan B. It turns out if livestock is kept on the land then builds are allowed to be erected to cater for the workers on this land . It turns out there are more than 1 way of doing things , i dont like the idea of this as it seems underhand but its an option .

In the event the council allowing just a stable then so be it . We will clear the land of the trees ( self seeded without a pres order ) , landscape it and use it as we see fit or maybe sell back out . [/FONT]

izzzzythedog wrote: »

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]We are . We feel we have such a strong case it cant possibly fail . In the event it did we have a plan B and C to fall back on . [/FONT]

izzzzythedog wrote: »

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Nothing formal has ever been presented based on what the planning officer told me over the phone . Just a quick chat to anyone whom enquired most likely over the phone . He seems a nice approachable chap .

We were thinking of taking a few little steps ourselves and then as you say seeking a planning consultant whom knows the councils planning office . By little steps an example is i was going to give the planning officer a call and ask if theres a company whom they prefer to work with given my intention . I figure there must be some they wont have time for and some they consider to be fair and therefore more likely to give a smooth transition . Every little helps in this mindfield . [/FONT]

Davesnave

the_r_sole wrote: »

ahh the classic toys out of pram delete posts reaction, it's a shame that people don't leave their posts on the forum for anyone in the future to see what's been said and why...

It's just confirmation that self-belief has been dented.


Anyone confident would be content to leave the thread for linking-to later, when they return to prove others wrong.

Doozergirl

There's a lot of knowledge and experience in this thread.

I'm still astounded that they didn't know whether it's greenfield *or* greenbelt.

DaftyDuck

All advise very welcommed

.... apparently not!

EachPenny

Doozergirl wrote: »

...The process was hell...

...If you have five years and £20k, go ahead, but I would have spent some of it on a planning consultant already. One can never say never but I think that the advice is clear. You need proper, professional help, you need to temper your expectations and you need to approach this extremely carefully in order not to totally screw it up for yourself.

I blame Grand Designs. It makes people whose experience is limited to watching TV think that developing is a piece of cake and a very easy way to get rich quick. The programme itself is great, but only if you watch it with a sceptical eye and understand all the stuff that happened which didn't make it into the broadcast show.

Endless hours of discussions with Planning (and Building Control) officers doesn't make good TV (unless it is one of those programmes following the Enforcement Officers )

I hope the OP has had a rethink, or if not, turns out to be one of the lucky ones.

AdrianC

EachPenny wrote: »

I blame Grand Designs. It makes people whose experience is limited to watching TV think that developing is a piece of cake and a very easy way to get rich quick. The programme itself is great, but only if you watch it with a sceptical eye and understand all the stuff that happened which didn't make it into the broadcast show.

I'm not sure GD is the worst for that - by a long chalk - but there's certainly decades of TV property shows which gloss over the tricky bits.


If there's any single message from GD, it's usually that the budget and schedule is not going to be realistic, and you're going to need to be on top of the builders... Oh, yes. And contraception helps...