During 2023, I was asked by Northwich based designers Archiscape to prepare an appeal for a highly energy efficient home in Poole. Unfortunately the application was refused on the following grounds (summarised): The plot would be too small The dwelling's design was "Overtly Contemporary" Lack of daylight/sunlight for occupiers There was no commitment from the applicants to pay towards habitat mitigation. I'm quite picky with regards to the appeals I take on. If I feel that a scheme has no chance of winning - I'll let the enquirer know. Its not in either of our interests to pursue lost causes. I always felt this was a good scheme though. The proposed dwelling is within 10 mins walk of Broadstone Town Centre. It looks a bit different to surrounding dwellings, but the street had no particular heritage protection. Just fairly bland mid-20th century houses really. The applicants were locals to Poole and wanted to stay within the area. None the less, the application was refused. I felt the reasons for refusal were pretty flaky and my clients had been given a rough ride. Grounds for appeal should always respond to the council's reasons for refusal. My arguments are summarised as:: Housing delivery in Poole is incredible poor - just look at council's 5-year supply of housing and performance against 'Right to Build' legislation (i.e. self-build registers). Nope! The plot isn't too small. Its measurements fall within local guidance. Ok...the dwelling looks bit different, but it meets the main principals set out within local design guidance. It also needs to look different to achieve its high energy efficiency specifications. The council did declare a climate emergency after all! Daylight/sunlight levels are fine. Here is a report we commissioned confirming this. No worries - here's a draft Unilateral Undertaking (a form of Section 106 agreement) which will pay this. Feel free to read my full case below. I managed to convince the Inspector to drop most of the reasons for refusal, but unfortunately not all of them. See decision below. The Inspector agreed that reasons for refusal 1,3 and 4 were unfounded, i.e. the council should be doing a lot better in terms of providing opportunities for self-builders; daylight/sunlight levels that would be enjoyed by the occupants would indeed be fine and; the means of paying for habitat mitigation through Unilateral Undertaking was acceptable. But...reason for refusal 2 should remain. i.e. the dwelling's: design was too...modern; and plot was too small. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the decision however highlights that it can be risky for self-builders to draft detailed designs for their homes too early in the planning process. On the plus side, I've now confirmed that Poole District council are not performing well against their 'Right to Build Legislation' duties. Whilst winning this argument didn't quite get us over the line, this fact just help get other self-builders within the area get their permission. If you need help securing planning approval for your self-build dwelling, do get in touch.

Answer: Not much. A 'Fallback' position can help though. The Greenbelt's purpose is set out within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which is to: (a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; (b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; (c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; (d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; or (e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Consequently, there are only a few development types that can be built in the Greenbelt. These are also set out within the NPPF: buildings for agriculture and forestry; some buildings for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation, cemeteries and burial grounds and allotments; extensions, provided that these do not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; replacement buildings, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces; limited infilling in villages; limited affordable housing for local community needs; redevelopment of previously developed land; mineral extraction + engineering operations; transport infrastructure; re-use of buildings; (some) material changes in use; and development proposed by the community. If your proposed scheme is not one of these, you need to show there are 'Very Special Circumstances' why planning permission should be granted. One of the main tests that schemes proposed within the Greenbelt must be assessed against is 'Openness'. the NPPF says that Greenbelt land should be permanently 'Open'. Naturally, 'Openness' is a concept that has been debated within planning courts for decades. The courts decided that 'Openness' has both a 'visual' and 'spatial' impacts. For a recent appeal, my client had built 2x garages of an approved treble garage. The remaining unbuilt garage hung clunkily off the rest of the garage block at an angle. This was initially proposed to appease the council who felt that having a single garage block would preserve 'Openness'. My client eventually thought it would be better to detach the unbuilt garage and move it c.9m south. The council refused the application, citing its 'spatial' impact upon 'Openness'. Remember however, that 'Openness' as both 'Spatial' and 'Visual' impacts. My main argument in this appeal, was that the council did not give enough consideration to the scheme's visual impact. The approved scheme represented a 'Fallback' position, which for me, has a greater 'visual' impact upon 'Openness'. Its less visible from the highway and you can still see through the site. This was our 'Very Special Circumstances'. Anyway...you can make your own mind up below: Feel free to read my appeal case. Unfortunately, in this instance the Inspector took a different view, finding that the new position of the proposed garage would subject to prominent views from the highway and consequently harm both the Green Belt's spatial and visual 'Openness'. Our 'Fallback' position was not that special after all. The appeal decision is uploaded below. I put together a strong case, but so did the council too. This decision was disappointing , but "You cant win them all" as they say. There was lots to learn from this. I hope you learnt something too. If you are thinking of designing a scheme in the Greenbelt, please do get in touch.

During 2023, I worked closely with Three Dragons , providing support to viability and housing demand studies. We had an interesting project that summer assessing whether the policies within the draft Chippenham Neighbourhood Plan would be 'viable'. Just to define the term 'viable' quickly, this is the money left over to pay for land once all policy costs, build costs and the developers (reasonable) profit were accounted for. Its known as 'Net Residual Value' (NRV). If the NRV is a minus figure, this means that there would be no money available to buy the land in the first place. The scheme would be 'unviable'. Not worth pursuing. Below is summary of the basic calculation: Hopefully you are still with me.... The Draft Chippenham Neighbourhood Plan was interesting as its probably the first neighbourhood plan I'm aware of, where a viability study was considered necessary for it to pass its examination. This was due to the plan proposing development requirements, including 'Net Zero', which were in excess the requirements of Wiltshire council's existing policies. Chippenham town council deserve a lot of credit for proposing such ambitious policies. They have clearly taken the challenge of climate change very seriously, including understanding how improving the built environment to help. The report , which informed the Plan's 'Regulation 16 Consultation' can now be found on Wiltshire council's website. Additional info can also be found on the Three Dragons website . The report finds that most types of development usually found in Chippenham is likely to be viable, even to 'Net Zero' standards. The plan was consequently 'Made' (i.e. adopted) in May 2024. In the past, I've provided support to 3x neighbourhood plans and a Community Right to Build Order. They were all really rewarding. Readers who are preparing neighbourhood plans, do get in touch. It can help greatly to have an experienced planner such as myself on your project team.

I love Oxfordshire. It was the place of my birth and my family still live there. Inspired by Oxford University alumni and Lord of the Rings author JRR Tolkien, I affectionately refer to the area as “The Shire”. However, while parts of the county resemble Tolkien’s pleasant Shire, Oxfordshire is also known for cutting-edge innovation. Rutherford Appleton Laboratory conducts ground-breaking nuclear fusion research and amazing scientists at Oxford University developed one of the world’s first approved COVID vaccines. Oxfordshire’s innovative streak doesn’t end with science. On the southern edge of Bicester lies Graven Hill, the UK’s first and only self-build village. With 187 hectares, 1,900 dwellings, and limitless design possibilities, it may be the biggest planning experiment since the mid-century new towns. I enjoyed a tour of the site in May, led by the engaging Phil Cringle, a member of the Graven Hill team and soldier of the Government’s ‘Self-Build Task Force.’ Encouragingly, all the other tour delegates were from Local Planning Authorities. Like me, they were keen to know more about self-build and how it could be delivered at scale. We boarded our minibus at Bicester Library; first stop: Graven Hill sales HQ. Typical of a major scheme, sales HQ will be the last home sold. Meanwhile, adverts decorate the walls, and deals are signed across the kitchen island. Gathering in the living room, we learnt about the site’s history. Graven Hill is a former MOD site, bought by Cherwell council (with help from Homes England) in 2014, following outline approval. A council-owned delivery company was set up and a Local Development Order was quickly adopted (now in its third edition – adopted in 2020), setting out the phases, (seven) character areas, and schedules of typologies permitted under the Order. Planning applications are fast-tracked under a ‘Confirmation of Compliance’ procedure. This limits the scope of material considerations purely to assessing conformity with the Masterplan and Design Codes. Each plot has its own ‘Passport’. These set out the policy that the detailed design of each house should meet, including GIA, height, parking, cycle storage, SUDs, and energy efficiency. The passports offer either ‘self’ or ‘custom’ build options, depending upon the provider, location, and (of course) budget. The whole process is rapid. Cherwell Council has just 28 days to approve its ‘Confirmation of Compliance’ applications and residents have only 18 months to complete their build. Unlike in real life however, designers and tradesmen are readily available. Apparently, they even call back. Leaving sales HQ, it was clear that most of Graven Hill is a building site and will be for many years yet. At the time of my visit, there were 510 completions (averaging 95 p/a). Already, however, you sense what Graven Hill could become. Its character feels very different from other new build estates. Each design suggested new comparisons. Were we in Europe? North America? Gondor, maybe? Ultimately, nothing quite fit. Graven Hill has its own unique identity. Like all experiments, there is room for improvement. A council Development Management Officer pointed out that the first-floor rear elevation of the dwelling adjacent to our sales HQ was almost entirely open, with perfect views into their neighbour’s living room. Individuality is encouraged, but there is no ‘Eye of Sauron’; no overarching authority watching cumulative amenity impacts. There simply appears to be a race to the glazers. The Graven Hill bubble also pops somewhat as you pass the site’s affordable housing. This isn’t ‘pepper-potted’, but instead is predominantly delivered so far as fairly bland-looking terraces. I also note Graven Hill’s first residents’ association has complained recently about the development company entertaining interest from traditional volume builders. Cash flow is often the enemy of innovation. At the final stop of our tour, renowned mouth and foot painter Tom Yendall showed us around his Dan-Wood modular/timber home. It was built in Poland and arrived on a lorry. Within a month, he’d moved in. Fittings were high spec and the house is very energy efficient. Tom chose Dan-Wood after the company supplied several units for his charity, Flat Spaces, which provides holiday accommodation for disabled people. We came away inspired by the opportunities that self-build can offer. As a planner, I really enjoy working on self-build projects. There are few areas in planning that are so personal to people. Furthermore, self-build introduces more creativity into the built environment - benefitting everyone. I left the Graven Hill experiment feeling inspired – and wanting to do more to promote self-build. Hopefully, the LPA officers on my bus felt the same. There is clearly a lot we still need to learn about delivering self-build at scale. Nevertheless, Cherwell Council deserves a great deal of credit for giving it a go. As a boy from the “Shire”, I am proud to see that Oxfordshire’s reputation for innovation is alive and well. You may be seeking planning support to build your own home. Please do get in touch. I'd love to help. I'll be able to manage your planning application, support your architect and/or prepare your appeal if needed. For readers developing local plan policy or providers of self-build opportunities, it is important to explore demand for self-build as part of your evidence base. I am member of the Three Dragon’s team. We can help you with this. Please do feel free to ask us about our Demand Estimate Toolkit. Our model offers a robust, longer term picture of future demand than conventional self-build registers. The Self-Build Task Force organise regular tours of Graven Hill through Eventbrite.

Hi readers, Something a bit different. I'm really excited about this project starting in Autumn 2023. I've been appointed jointly by seven North London boroughs, responsible for preparing the North London Waste Plan (2022) to write the plan's 2nd Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) The North London Waste Plan provides a spatial framework to support the sustainable movement and processing of waste within the boroughs of Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Islington and Waltham Forest. Underpinning the plan are numerous targets. The AMR will conclude whether the plan is on course to meet its targets, informed by me reviewing planning applications affecting waste sites and data from the Government's Waste Data Interrogator system. The job also came with an invitation to join the good people of the London Waste Planning Forum. I met the Forum in April at the (massive!) 178 ha Barking Riverside development site, specifically for a tour of the site’s ‘Envac’ waste infrastructure. Barking Riverside is still very much under construction. Exiting the station, one is initially greeted with the remnants of the local power generation industry, sprinkled with a light sense of apocalypse. Drifting past the vacant, overgrown plots however, handsome brick built 6x storey Resi blocks eventually appear, each separated by cul-de-sacs of golden 3x storey town houses. Children learn at the brand-new school. Goodies are purchased at the slightly odd looking (temporary?) single storey Co-Op. We congregate at the artfully designed ‘Wilds’ café/community centre, ready to meet our ‘Envac’ rep – (Welsh) Dave. So, who are ‘Envac’? 'Envac' build vacuum cleaners. Massive ones! Beneath the ground. Waste movement works slightly differently in Barking Riverside. Whilst residents still need to laboriously categorise their recycling (as we all must do), each floor/single dwelling has its own hatch/chute to deposit waste into. Like that, it disappears. Residents never see a bin lorry. Beneath Barking Riverside lies a network of pipes composing the ‘Envac’ system. Clever landscaping hides a processing/transfer station and mega vacuum pump block on the site’s periphery. A few times per day, the pump simply sucks the resident’s waste away into the block. Numerous carbon filters also ensure that the station doesn’t pong. The success of this became obvious as we enjoyed reasonably priced coffee at the ‘Wilds’ café without even noticing several hundred tonnes of trash was humming next door. (Welsh) Dave sang the benefits of ‘Envac’. Recycling rates were up. Air pollution from smoggy bin lorries was down. Our European cousins had of course been doing this type of thing for years. 'Envac' have a gig in Wembley which has been running smoothly for years. With just a tiny waste block, you could service around 10K dwellings! Barking Riverside has been designed in unique way. When designing a site, there is of course numerous competing things to prioritise. Rarely however do you see a site where waste management was considered from the outset. Barking & Dagenham council clearly took to ‘Envac’ very early on and deserve a lot of credit for trying something a bit different. A waste strategy for the site was consequently drafted (2008), which the development industry needed to fall into. Understandably there were the (usual) concerns about viability. Huge underground vacuum pipes are expensive. Opportunities for profit still existed, however. Land otherwise used for refuse storage could be used more efficiently as new units/amenity space etc. Housebuilders Bellway and L & Q have answered the call so far. Why wouldn’t they? ‘Envac’ is likely to be a game-changer. On streets without bin lorries + HGV turning circles etc. we could build even more dense, walkable, sustainable neighbourhoods. Hopefully this will be Barking Riverside’s future.