Recent Grand Designs episode - Question about planning permission success

penguineater

I enjoy the thought of having my own self build so whenever I get the chance I like to learn more about how to get planning permission approved on a plot of land for a self build (buying land with permission already is too expensive!).

Lately i've been binging Grand Designs and one of the newer episodes peaked my interest.

Grand Designs Season 21 Episode 03 - South Lincolnshire: Contemporary Dutch-Style Barn House located here: https://www.channel4.com/programmes/grand-designs/on-demand/70446-002

The guy bought a plot of land in South Lincolnshire for £100k in 2019ish with no planning permission - previous land owner had their planning for a two storey 3 bed dwelling with attached double garage refused in 2016. In the episode you will see he was able to get planning permission granted for a huge self build with an annex.

So I went on the local council's planning permission page to try and understand what happened with planning permission refusal/acceptance: https://planning.sholland.gov.uk/OcellaWeb/planningSearch

Refused planning reference: H16-0334-16

Accepted planning reference: H16-1258-18

---

I understand we don't have all of the facts however i'd like to know if people can help break this down - feel free to check the planning portal to get all of the information.

Reasons why the 2016 application was rejected:

1. In planning policy terms the site is situated in the open countryside where, under the provisions of Policies SG4 and HS7 of the South Holland Local Plan 2006, applications for residential developments are only permitted where an essential local need is proven.  In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the applicant has failed to demonstrate that such a need exists for the proposed dwelling and the development is therefore contrary to these policies.

I assume this means the person asking for planning permission is not a local or does not work locally?

The guy on Grand Designs that was able to get planning permission lives and works in the area along with his wife - This is a considered local need right?

2. Furthermore, the site is not closely related to an established settlement limit, where services and facilities are located.  As a consequence, future occupiers would be likely to have a high dependence on the use of motor vehicles to access local services which, no matter the distance of travel involved, would be contrary to one of the core planning principles to make the fullest use of public transport.

Not sure if I understand this - are they referring to the plot of land not being close to gas/electric/water or shops? Either way, how was the new planning able to tick this box?

3. Moreover, the reliance on the motorcar would increase carbon emissions, contrary to the requirements of the environmental role of planning. Consequently, the site is not considered to be a suitable site for housing with particular regards to the principles of sustainable development and the protection of the character of the open countryside.

This one is interesting:

The house that had successful planning is considered a zero carbon dwelling that has ground mounted solar panels at the rear of the property (mostly out of view), 2 electric car charging ports powered by said panels as well as rainwater harvesting and grey-water recycling for use as irrigation within the garden. That is looking really good for sustainability!

4. It is therefore contrary to Policies SG1, SG2 and SG4 of the South Holland Local Plan and Paragraphs 14, 17, 49 and 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2012. Paragraphs 14, 17 and 49 indicate that new housing should be in a sustainable location and contribute towards protecting and enhancing the environment. Paragraph 55 stresses that local planning authorities should avoid new homes in the countryside, unless there are special circumstances

With it being a zero carbon home that powers its self - that seems to tick those boxes.

There was also an annex built on the same land for his parents to live in - I assume that may have helped as they are locals. I remember in the episode they made a big thing out of the self build being in a similar character as surrounding properties which may have helped things, or they just wanted to talk about it on the show.

---

So is this basically what happened? Someone tried to build a typical non-environmentally friendly home and got rejected, so they sold the land and then this guy comes up with a very environmentally friendly self build and is accepted - no bribes?

From my reading over the years it never seems this easy to get planning permission on a plot of land for a self build accepted!

I'm curious in what order the land purchase and planning happened. I am aware you can get planning permission approved without owning the land - might he have done that before committing to purchasing the plot?

If I were in a similar situation I wouldn't know which order to do things.. Get permission before buying? Buy and then gamble?

Hopefully someone can shed some light on this!

Thanks for reading!

Davesnave

The answers are simple enough; if a person has sufficient money, they employ a range of professionals to produce a design that will have a fair chance of being approved. Currently, innovative, eco-friendly proposals are in vogue. The applicant obtains what's called an option on the land, paying more for it if the planning is approved.

This is the way the world works with things that are in high demand, such as a private home in attractive countryside. Rules are drawn up to prevent large numbers of people acquiring this thing and spoiling whatever makes it so attractive. Wealthy individuals then find ways to navigate directly ways through those rules, while resourceful people with less money seek out alternatives which are almost as good.

An example of the latter would be buying a tired  property of no architectural merit in a reasonably private country location and substantially or completely re-building it. I've done this and so have a number of others in my locality.

Your example also looks like an 'almost as good.' The site is outside the local development boundary, but still close to many other buildings. It's not virgin countryside. The architects have addressed particular issues, like overlooking, flood risk and built in eco-friendliness . The local authority was under government pressure to meet housing targets, so may have been be more inclined to allow well-thought out proposals, like this one.

davidmcn

penguineater said:

1. In planning policy terms the site is situated in the open countryside where, under the provisions of Policies SG4 and HS7 of the South Holland Local Plan 2006, applications for residential developments are only permitted where an essential local need is proven.  In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the applicant has failed to demonstrate that such a need exists for the proposed dwelling and the development is therefore contrary to these policies.

I assume this means the person asking for planning permission is not a local or does not work locally?

The guy on Grand Designs that was able to get planning permission lives and works in the area along with his wife - This is a considered local need right?

It's to do with who will be occupying the property rather than the identity of the applicant.

2. Furthermore, the site is not closely related to an established settlement limit, where services and facilities are located.  As a consequence, future occupiers would be likely to have a high dependence on the use of motor vehicles to access local services which, no matter the distance of travel involved, would be contrary to one of the core planning principles to make the fullest use of public transport.

Not sure if I understand this - are they referring to the plot of land not being close to gas/electric/water or shops?

Services as in shops, schools etc, not service media (which is a separate problem for the developer rather than much of a planning issue).

3. Moreover, the reliance on the motorcar would increase carbon emissions, contrary to the requirements of the environmental role of planning. Consequently, the site is not considered to be a suitable site for housing with particular regards to the principles of sustainable development and the protection of the character of the open countryside.

The house that had successful planning is considered a zero carbon dwelling that has ground mounted solar panels at the rear of the property (mostly out of view), 2 electric car charging ports powered by said panels as well as rainwater harvesting and grey-water recycling for use as irrigation within the garden. That is looking really good for sustainability!

4. It is therefore contrary to Policies SG1, SG2 and SG4 of the South Holland Local Plan and Paragraphs 14, 17, 49 and 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2012. Paragraphs 14, 17 and 49 indicate that new housing should be in a sustainable location and contribute towards protecting and enhancing the environment. Paragraph 55 stresses that local planning authorities should avoid new homes in the countryside, unless there are special circumstances

With it being a zero carbon home that powers its self - that seems to tick those boxes.

It might tick some boxes but the main point is about whether housing ought to be built there at all, it doesn't mean they'll consent an infinite number of houses as long as they're zero carbon. And electric cars are still cars...

I'm curious in what order the land purchase and planning happened. I am aware you can get planning permission approved without owning the land - might he have done that before committing to purchasing the plot?

If I were in a similar situation I wouldn't know which order to do things.. Get permission before buying? Buy and then gamble?

The norm would be to enter into a contract conditional on your obtaining planning permission, and then your only "gamble" is your costs of your due diligence and making the planning application. Though the programme suggested in this case that he bought at risk.

penguineater

Thanks for the replies @Davesnave and @davidmcn - you both seem to have answered my questions!

It gives me some hope that I may be able to have my own self build one day as long as I follow the correct steps and put a few grand on the line. Hopefully I can get a plot of land for a more reasonable price up here in the North East, something like £30k!

Doozergirl

penguineater said:

Thanks for the replies @Davesnave and @davidmcn - you both seem to have answered my questions!

It gives me some hope that I may be able to have my own self build one day as long as I follow the correct steps and put a few grand on the line. Hopefully I can get a plot of land for a more reasonable price up here in the North East, something like £30k!

We bought a house with the potential plot a part of the 'garden'. 

It gave us somewhere to live whilst fighting with the council and reduced the financial risk of not getting permission.    It took us 4 years to get permission, but the plot ended up being free.  

brianposter

penguineater said:

This one is interesting:

The house that had successful planning is considered a zero carbon dwelling that has ground mounted solar panels at the rear of the property (mostly out of view), 2 electric car charging ports powered by said panels as well as rainwater harvesting and grey-water recycling for use as irrigation within the garden.

This is the sort of waffle that enables the council to claim that this house is different to the one they turned down.

Davesnave

brianposter said:

penguineater said:

This one is interesting:

The house that had successful planning is considered a zero carbon dwelling that has ground mounted solar panels at the rear of the property (mostly out of view), 2 electric car charging ports powered by said panels as well as rainwater harvesting and grey-water recycling for use as irrigation within the garden.

This is the sort of waffle that enables the council to claim that this house is different to the one they turned down.

I wouldn't mind some of that waffle on my house, especially the solar panels.

Davesnave

Doozergirl said:

penguineater said:

Thanks for the replies @Davesnave and @davidmcn - you both seem to have answered my questions!

It gives me some hope that I may be able to have my own self build one day as long as I follow the correct steps and put a few grand on the line. Hopefully I can get a plot of land for a more reasonable price up here in the North East, something like £30k!

We bought a house with the potential plot a part of the 'garden'.

And we bought one out in the sticks with sme land and a 60' modern barn that no one thought would be much good for anything, except storage.

However, times change, so now it's a potential residence.

I'm not young and I've had enough of building, but my daughter's married an architect.........

penguineater

Doozergirl said:

penguineater said:

Thanks for the replies @Davesnave and @davidmcn - you both seem to have answered my questions!

It gives me some hope that I may be able to have my own self build one day as long as I follow the correct steps and put a few grand on the line. Hopefully I can get a plot of land for a more reasonable price up here in the North East, something like £30k!

We bought a house with the potential plot a part of the 'garden'. 

It gave us somewhere to live whilst fighting with the council and reduced the financial risk of not getting permission.    It took us 4 years to get permission, but the plot ended up being free.  

Interesting although homes with a large enough garden will cost a substantial amount of money!

Davesnave said:

Doozergirl said:

penguineater said:

Thanks for the replies @Davesnave and @davidmcn - you both seem to have answered my questions!

It gives me some hope that I may be able to have my own self build one day as long as I follow the correct steps and put a few grand on the line. Hopefully I can get a plot of land for a more reasonable price up here in the North East, something like £30k!

We bought a house with the potential plot a part of the 'garden'.

And we bought one out in the sticks with sme land and a 60' modern barn that no one thought would be much good for anything, except storage.

However, times change, so now it's a potential residence.

I'm not young and I've had enough of building, but my daughter's married an architect.........

Did you purchase this many years ago? I'm assuming there aren't going to be many cheap opportunities like that any longer?

Doozergirl

penguineater said:

Doozergirl said:

penguineater said:

Thanks for the replies @Davesnave and @davidmcn - you both seem to have answered my questions!

It gives me some hope that I may be able to have my own self build one day as long as I follow the correct steps and put a few grand on the line. Hopefully I can get a plot of land for a more reasonable price up here in the North East, something like £30k!

We bought a house with the potential plot a part of the 'garden'. 

It gave us somewhere to live whilst fighting with the council and reduced the financial risk of not getting permission.    It took us 4 years to get permission, but the plot ended up being free.  

Interesting although homes with a large enough garden will cost a substantial amount of money.

You need money to be able to build, though.  A lot of it up front.  

Once you have the permission you can, in theory, sell up and then build.   

princeofpounds

Hi OP, personally I think this is a pretty interesting question, and you've done some good work looking into a specific example.

The planning system is rather corrupt, and I don't mean that in the money-in-briefcase sense. Rather that policies that are meant to be objective and clear are rarely anything but, and you get plenty of cases along these lines where treatment appears to be inconsistent and, perhaps, unfair.

I know nothing of this particular council or this site, but I suspect the real meat of the change is outlined in the 'Principle' section of the planning report that accompanied the approval. I've copied the relevant section in italics below. The story appears to be that the council had a policy to refuse new development in open countryside (unless a local need is approved, which is usually linked to rural employment activity, not where people come from) or beyond approved settlement limits.

But two things changed between the refused application in 2016 and the approved application in 2019:
1) The council admitted it had not identified a 5yr supply of developable housing in a 2018 report
and 
2) The National Planning Policy Framework was updated in 2019 to state that where councils had failed to approve that 5yr supply, then the policies that restricted housing supply were out of date and should be ignored. At that point, the project can be judged on its own merits and as long as the adverse impacts were not significantly bad, the guidance is to approve it. That's where the eco-washing and the trendy architecture come in; it makes it easier for the planners to judge the impact as net positive. I don't blame them in a way; it something was going to happen on this site eventually, you'd jump at something like this rather than see another c*@p 3 bed box go up five years later.

Perhaps the original scheme would have passed by 2019, perhaps not. Who knows how the grand designs owner came to know about the plot, and about how planning policy was evolving. Given they bought in (presumably, early) 2019, perhaps they somehow understood the changes taking place and the old owner didn't. Perhaps 100k is the going rate for that land in a place like this; it's certainly above agricultural value. Or perhaps as someone else stated they took on some risk by committing to pay for an option without knowing if the decision would approved. Maybe they hired a planning consultant who used to work in that planning department and that helped 'shepherd' them through the second part of the decision.

"Principle The site is detached from any defined settlement limit as set out in the South Holland Local Plan (2006) and is therefore classed as being in the countryside. It is also located outside of any settlement boundary as set out in the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (2019). Sites located in the countryside would normally be assessed against Policy HS7 in the South Holland Local Plan (2006). This policy only allows residential development in the open countryside where there is an essential need, or small scale rural exception affordable housing that complies with Local Plan Policy HS9. In that context, as the proposal is neither for rural exceptions affordable housing nor essential to meet the needs of agricultural workers, the recommendation would normally be to refuse. However, the Council does not currently have a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites (4 years as at 31st March 2018). Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2019 (NPPF) states that where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, the most important policies for determining the application (i.e. those relating to the supply of housing) are considered out-of-date. Paragraph 11 of the NPPF is quite clear that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies outlined in the NPPF as a whole; or specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. Sustainable development is defined in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the NPPF as having three dimensions: economic, social and environmental. "