Sometimes I think 'planning permission' is intended to keep us in boxes :sigh:

[daveO]

You can see the council's point of view here. Without any prior knowledge of the scheme I can see from the start that no environmental or ecological assessment has been made of the site. Newt survey for that pond? Discharge of effluent to the water course approval from the environment agency? If this place is so 'eco' why didn't they bother to assess the local impact properly before the built? Does the place have a smoke alarm system and a secondary means of escape from the first floor or are they happy for their child to be trapped and burn to death when the untested log fire burns the place down?

but still start a facebook campaign and see how many 'likes' you need before the council turn a blind eye to this. Maybe they could get a celebrity on side and end up with an 'eco' footballers mansion next door

I work with planners day in day out and would never envy them their jobs.

 

[daveO]

Just had a look through the planning application documents and it's a little thin on the ground to say the least. Most authorities would likely have refused to even validate the application due to lack of information and inconsitencies sadly. I think it's to their credit that they've given it due consideration in all honesty. I do like the rant in the sustainability statement though whether it's relevant or not.

I think the unfortunate fact is that if they pass this one then it sets a precedent for similar houses to be built which don't necessarily have to be lived in by people 'working the land' and would most likely end up being second homes for the weathly Kevin McCloud wannabes and driving up house and land prices even further in the area. It's like letting someone build one 'little' wind turbine, as soon as one is passed it's only a matter of arguing a few details before they have to let the bigger ones be built everywhere.

 

[wingstoo]

Shame it will probably be the final option after costing a small fortune in appeal hearings and court cases...

 

[daveO]

http://planning.pembrokeshire.gov.uk/ANITEIM.WEBSEARCH/Results.aspx

Make up your own minds I think. This isn't some low impact roundhouse nestled in the woods off grid and essential to someone's livelyhood. It's in the farmyard in proximity to existing structures. If it was essential to their living then they'd be able to prove this through accounts etc and could get permission for a dwelling with an agricultural tie. Their whole arguement for it being 'eco' is based on the construction, there's very little detail of energy use, water use, sewage treatment or anything else. If being eco is their main arguement I'd think they could have come up with some better detail, a lot more in fact. They've stated they will rainwater harvest which isn't possible with that green roof but no further detail is given. You'd have to forgive anyone for wondering if they got permission for a dwelling there whether they'd just bulldoze, build a normal house, get planning based on the precedent set by the former dwelling and sell up for profit. Does happen...

 

[luckylee]

thats bloody terrible. hope it all works out for them...

 

[daveO]

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Char...382471743?id=143456382471743&sk=photos_stream

Some lovely photos on their facebook page. It also looks like they lost their appeal

 

[BillyBlade]

http://planning.pembrokeshire.gov.uk/ANITEIM.WEBSEARCH/Results.aspx

Make up your own minds I think. This isn't some low impact roundhouse nestled in the woods off grid and essential to someone's livelyhood. It's in the farmyard in proximity to existing structures. If it was essential to their living then they'd be able to prove this through accounts etc and could get permission for a dwelling with an agricultural tie. Their whole arguement for it being 'eco' is based on the construction, there's very little detail of energy use, water use, sewage treatment or anything else. If being eco is their main arguement I'd think they could have come up with some better detail, a lot more in fact. They've stated they will rainwater harvest which isn't possible with that green roof but no further detail is given. You'd have to forgive anyone for wondering if they got permission for a dwelling there whether they'd just bulldoze, build a normal house, get planning based on the precedent set by the former dwelling and sell up for profit. Does happen...

Well said. Just read the official docs on this, they are a couple of chancers wrapped in a hurriedly grabbed lentil blanket these two.

 

[treadlightly]

There is some good argument on both sides of the fence in this thread.... and some contributions that fall well short of that mark.