Passive solar, of course south facing!!
Think it was sketch up actually, although not by me i might add.

We were expecting a planning decision yesterday on our DPP as the 2 month target date had been reached...... but we heard nothing. Architect chased them up this morning and it turns out the planning officer is on holiday and no one else can deal with our case. We will just have to wait until he is back and can get round to dealing with our case.

Very very frustrating. Why aren't planners held accountable for deadlines? They only achieve about 75% of the 2 month turnaround target! In any other job if you missed this many deadlines you would be fired.

Just about sums it up. I was aware of the extension request and mentioned this to my architect who said she was also aware of it but has never actually had one come from a planning dept. Sounds like their own policies are not worth the paper they are written on. We feel like complaining to the head of planning but know that if we rock the boat some power mad, sex deprived, friendless, soulless, boring excuse of a planning officer will probably refuse our application. They seem to act on a whim as it is without upsetting the little nazi oicks even more......ahhh that's better.

Posted By: StuartBWhy aren't planners held accountable for deadlines?

They are usually held accountable by their managers - the Planning Delivery Grant is based on Local Planning Authority performance, if the figures for applications delivered on time are good, they get more money each year. The downside to this scheme is that poorly performing departments who are struggling due to staff off sick or staff retention, or any other perfectly reasonable explanation, get less money, and so do not have the funds to improve. The good departments get more money and so can spend on improvements, training, more staff etc. and so end up performing even better.
Although all this said, it is changing soon to a sort of 'Planning and Housing Delivery Grant' in order to try and build Golden's 3 million new homes by 2020 so it could be interesting for those authorities that are more rural or have large amounts of green belt (thou shalt not build)

Also big shake up of Permitted Development rights in October (yes in about 3 weeks) to try and make things easier for small householder extensions etc. to do without the need for PP so could be interesting while departments try and catch up with new legislation/what's what.

Posted By: StuartBa planning officer will probably refuse our application. They seem to act on a whim as it is

yes this seems to be the biggest problem with planning - the fear of 'getting on the wrong side' although it is probably more to do with what the line manager (organ grinder) thinks than the individual planner.
That and the often complete contradiction with common sense.

Posted By: StuartBWe were expecting a planning decision yesterday on our DPP as the 2 month target date had been reached....

We heard nothing for 4 weeks and then discovered the planning officer had quit. Had to wait another 4 weeks for them to hire someone. Overall took us 18 months to get PP. Even then it took 8 week to get the bricks approved after they lost the first set of samples and rejected the second set.

Committee last night approved the application, entirely intact, no amendments!!!!

Woo hoo!!!!!



(More details to follow when I get a keyboard that works properly)

J

Get in!

Well we got the permission as I said, basically we had to go to committee as a neighbour objected, (although we had about a dozen comments of support [thanks NP amongst others]), then withdrew then someone else objected, he says it was by mistake and only meant to make helpful suggestions... doh!

Anyway had to go to committee but with officer recommendation for approval. If you've ever been to a committee you will know that these can be potentially entertaining to watch the local politic power battles etc but also drainingly long, so after a few aways of waiting and going over my speech in my head, (I'm client and architect don't-ya-know) - it was our turn. Just as I was about to step up to the wicket the chair' suggested I might know the mood of the committee and did I really need to speak..? Naturally I deferred suggesting that it was not for me to second guess the members opinions... so he invited the comments before I spoke, and they were all happy to approve, apart from one chap who commented on every single application and asked if we could reduce the height of the 'green wall' (originally requested by the LPA!), so we shook on it so to speak and made a quick exit!

A strange combination of joy, relief, and anti-climax followed but that's show business!

So what we ended up with was a building that got through the process (pre app' comments aside) entirely unscathed, indeed we expected the office to ask us to shrink it a bit and it probably a bit on the big side for me (and the budget!)

So we have a in the words of the officer a contemporary take on the traditional street scene with a more modern rear elevation.. (his words not mine but he pretty much go the idea).

The building is a pair of semis with:

Concrete basement (booooo) - but its pretty much needed in the sloping site /ground conditions we have and lots of opportunity for cement replacmnet rpoduct research)

2 storey timber frame with room in roof space:
Clay plaster
12.5 plasterboard
25 service cavity
Air check layer taped and trapped with 25x50 battens
12 OSB
2x90 Spaced stud timber frame with 250 ‘Warmcel’ infill,
60(ish) ‘Diffutherm’ / ‘Pavatherm’ external insulation
Mineral render / UK grown cedar weather boarding on battens over

Roof
Adesia tiles to pitched front roof slope
green roof to flat rear portion

MHRV, solar thermal, wood stove LED lighting (TBC)

To follow when cash allows:
Solar PV
Low-tech WC/garden/Washer only rainwater harvesting (see recent GB mag)

any one who wants to be (helpfully) involved let me know (click on the user name or post reply)
http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=686&page=1#Comment_36158

Anyway enough about me...

J

James, serious congratulations; 50mm of window sill cost six months on my last build, heaven knows what anything radical might taken...

Yes congratulations!

Several ideas occur to me:
(a) Make it a religious statement - a place of worship? - Quaker meeting places were often out-of-town (persecuted), recruit Pagans and/or Moslems into the programme?
(b) Make it a publically accessible work of art (who destroys art?)
(c) Suggest it is a demonstration of what is possible - a "lifestyle laboratory"
(d) Make links to low impact land-dependent lifestyles but suggest the benefit is principally "health and wellbeing" - what you probably don't want is "Agricultural Tie" and the hassle of producing a "business plan" based on compost and free-range eggs! A friend of mine runs a city farm: their budget comes from the health authority - the financial value of the (locally produced and consumed) food they grow is secondary.

Here was my attempt to get a green field site onto a local register of "potential building sites":

----- Original Message -----
From: Simon Masters
To: nclark@bakerassocs.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 4:45 PM
Subject: New Homes Consultation Taunton Deane Borough Council

Nigel Clark
Development Director
Baker Associates
The Crescent Centre
Temple Back
Bristol BS1 6EZ

Dear Nigel Clark

I write because the Somerset County Gazette (p14, October 16th
2008) carried an article describing "Consultation Start on New
Homes", which requests information about "potential development
sites" in various parishes including Wellington (where I own a 3
acre site outside of the present development area) and Wiveliscombe
(where I live).

I believe it is will be increasingly important (peak oil, low
carbon futures etc.) to see some change in the way in which land for
development is permitted.

First we all know that SWRDA, consultants, TDBC, existing
local residents, landowners, housing associations and developers are
involved in a complex dance to find the "right balance" between
development and conservation.

Second I suggest that there are an increasing significant
minority of the UK population that would elect to live in closer
relationship to the land, producing some of their own food and fuel
locally, if they were given a choice. The present manner in which
development is allowed to take place (high density, focused on
infill, brown field sites etc) does not permit this kind of low
carbon lifestyle or any kind of return to a sustainable self-reliant
lifestyle.

I beleive that there are complex vested interests in maintaining land for
housing development in relatively short supply. I do not suggest
some conspiracy theory but rather believe the socio-economic
planning system that has developed is now sixty years old and
largely incapable of rapid, creative, radical change. For example, the
recent social housing development at Wiveliscombe is (in my view)
inadequate in terms of numbers of units produced, still un-affordable
despite the efforts of all concerned to create "social" housing, is
bland in terms of its use of renewable technologies and fails to even pay
lip service to the notion that the built environment is an
opportunity for intensive food cultivation and can therefore play a
vital role in a move towards a low energy future.

I would urge you to represent the view that the release
of land for low density "green housing", "self build" and
"affordable homes" is an absolute priority in our society.

As I say above, I own 3 acres of land near Wellington. It is likely I will sometime be
seeking development permission for one or more green dwellings,
renewable energy projects and intensive horticultural use. A
location map, as you request, is appended. I am considering how
best to make the planning application to TDBC. This will, of
necessity, be incomplete when it is made because communities and
businesses are developing entities. I cannot indicate the precise
number of homes that might be available because, those of us who are
involved are still working on the design, layout and form the
development might take. It is my hope, however, that up to seven
homes might be built, accomodating up to twenty people. Our plan is
that the homes will be "largely self-reliant" and "off all grids"
(that is to say make no demands on existing electricity, gas, water
or sewerage systems) and the development will be an alternative "low
density" model of development that retains space for local food
production. I have made tentative enquires with SCAT/Genesis and
ECOS (formerly Somerset Trust for Sustainable Development)
suggesting that the principal designation of the site should be an
outdoor experimental laboratory and demonstration facility for
eco-building techniques. The project is in its early days yet, and
I would be pleased to discuss with you how this idea and my site
specifically might be progressed.

I would appreciate if you could confirm you will include my site
in your schedule of potential development sites, describing it in
the terms I have outlined above.

Finally,should you conclude from this that my site and ideas are
relevant, and that I may be in a position to assist further in the
consultative exercise for TDBC, I would be pleased to do so.

Simon Masters

01984 624257

Here was the planning consultant's reply:-

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Nigel Clark wrote:

Dear Simon,

Thank you for sending in details of your site near Wellington. I confirm that we will assess the land as a potential housing site according to the methodology of the study.

best wishes,

Nigel Clark
Development Director
Baker Associates

Do these people not want us to live any where other then in cities? do they not want us to restore old buildings previously occupied??

Grrr they really really anger me... good luck mate

Cookie

Our application for an earth sheltered style home in the countryside was refused by the bammers...sorry planners so we have now appealled to the Scottish Government. The appeal process is free (in Scotland anyway) so I would recommend anyone to go through with it. There is nothing to lose.

We are hoping that the Government reporter will be sympathetic to what we are trying to achieve. I am still flaberghasted by the incompetence of the local planning office in dealing with our application. It was clear from the comments they made in their decision notice they haadn't even read the design statement. They even contradicted their own pre-app advice.

It is even more galling when you read in the local paper that developers are getting away with all sorts of stuff because the council wants to help them keep people in work in the current economic climate.

Posted By: offgridaddyhelp I went head to head with planners and now I have to knock it down any advice would be welcome look at

http://www.edenrecycling.co.uk/?Eco_Living_-%26nbsp%3BCarr_House" rel="nofollow" >http://www.edenrecycling.co.uk/?Eco_Living_-%26nbsp%3BCarr_House

Sell the site to travellers. Latest government advice says that travellers camp sites are "to be presumed" an acceptable part of the countryside. Based on local experience this would allow you to use hundreds of tons of hardcore to level the site, lay tarmac roads, build utility blocks and even install your own street lights. Doesn't even matter if the planners declare the site "unsustainable", the appeal officer will over rule that citing the government advice. Might not be popular with the locals though.

Just got Planning Permission for a Holiday let on a former dwelling - no roof, but I didn't rebuild any of the walls.
Although in our case they accepted the location was sustainable.

....Excavator arrives 7am tomorrow morning - which after months of site clearance marks the start proper...

J