thinking of going "offgrid"

[Uilleachan]

You say it like it's a bad thing. If it wasn't this way I imagine land values would rocket and every field would have a caravan in it whether they look after the place or not. The countryside would be a mess and farming wouldn't be viable anymore for a start. At the risk of repeating what people have said: if it could be done then it would be done. Lots of people talk about supposed planning loopholes but you can't just buy agricultural land and live on it (legally).

Not just any agricultural land and it depends what and where it is. People are doing it in many rural parts of britain. I've even done it myself, through necessity.

 

[daveO]

Not legally though and hence if you want mail delivered there then you're just drawing attention to your illegal dwelling.

 

[Uilleachan]

No, but if one actually buys the right bit and applies the correct approach over the medium term it's perfectly doable.

 

[mousey]

I have also been thinking of getting a plot with the purpose to build a house on it. Only planning/ thinking it through before I go and do anything so I have followed this thread with interest. [I have also noticed there are afew other threads along similar lines]. As folks have been saying "if it could be done it would be" However I reckon the condition of - if it could be done Profitably it would be. I guess many folks aren't willing to gamble an entire life of debt on a possibility of it being acheivable. Sure if you throw loads of money at the right people it could be done but joe blogs probably doesn't have those resources and mister building contractor is only after profit so he's not going to waste time [perhaps years] fighting to get a plot of land developable then build then try and get all he's put into it back out.

 

[Uilleachan]

In my youth we had a chronic housing shortage, still do but the housing crash has made things a little easier as there are a few lower cost houses around and more year round leases available than there ever has been.

Winter lets are many, but what to do for the remaining 8 months of the year? So, the choice was move back in with the folks, find a corner where one could get a caravan parked up for a bit (perhaps camp on the shore some place, I know people who've done that) or move to the city.

Quite a few of us, all employed and working for local average earnings, chose to rough it. It was a lot easier in the days before the new age travelers upset the applecart, that brought complaint and local authority interest and action. Many of the spots that were subject to the "blind eye" got blocked up by way of discouraging the influx. That had a serious knock on affect locally and only served to aggravate an already dire homelessness situation. Sure there were council and association houses available, 80 miles away in town.

I know several people who are still doing it with tacit permission from the landowner/tenant, but no official sanction from the local authority, it's all down to how it's done. The local authority here hasn't got anywhere to put them so with no complaint they just don't acknowledge that it's happening. Eviction has nasty historic connotations in my part of the world.

I bought a house as soon as I could, a house that was officially a shop but in reality it hadn't traded for 60 years and was near derelict. I bought it with an overdraft and applied for a building warrant to get it to the stage it could be considered by the bank for a mortgage.

A couple of meetings with the planning dept. resulted in an council tax registration form being produced and duly filled in by me, result? warrant granted and the local plan adjusted accordingly. They knew I was going to move in, they knew I was living in an technically illegally sited caravan (with the landlord's permission it must be said) and the old shop wasn't ever going to trade again, plus it had originally been a residence, the original house in this village no less and in desperate need of a face lift.

Buy a wood in a quiet spot and go down the woodland business route, by increment and if handled properly eventually you'll find yourself living there. Individuals have no rights, business has every right. It's a simple fact, one just has to play the game.

 

[BlueTrain]

Your comments are very insightful, Mr Uilleachan. Things are a little different in the new world but not much. Business interests tend to override individual interests unless the individual happens to be exceptionally wealthy. Businesses (and the wealthy) know how to make the system work for them and they have the means to do so (or to game the system, in a manner of speaking). But neither the wealthy nor businesses are interested in all land everywhere, though some land is "choice," shall we say. In this country, however, probably 90% of land is anything but choice or prime. The thing is, would you want to squat on land that no one else is interested in? I realize that in the U.K. land is in short supply and they haven't made any for a long time, so the situtation is quite different from here, where parts of the country is becoming depopulated, all those illegal immigrants notwithstanding!There is an irony in your comment about living in a place that used to be a shop. Traditionally, people used to live above the shop but I don't suppose that's been a common practice for ages. One of my uncles acquired a store front building in a (very) small town where I'm from and lived there until he died. He and his wife lived downstairs. They rented out the upstairs. Now, the odd thing was, they had previously lived in two other "normal" houses in the same town before ending up in that storefront building. I never did know why they kept moving around.

 

[Dave-the-rave]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/cob-house-made-out-of-clay-150-pounds-mud-michael-buck-oxford-143114840.html#S7t586G

Some of the readers comments re planning permission are interesting. No idea if they're true and it is Yahoo after all.

 

[hobbes]

OP: There are ways to achieve the sort of experience you're talking about. I lived this way for two years, in a wood in Oxfordshire, through a grey-area & blind eye approach. There are good sources of information out there, probably a little less conflicting than much of this thread. The off-grid & low-impact community is a whole scene in itself. I'd suggest turning there.

The most progress with this has been made by communities/eco-villages, with help from the truly wonderful Chapter 7 (aka The Land Is Ours): http://www.tlio.org.uk/chapter7/

Grounds For Hope is a good place to start, from an actual expert: http://www.green-shopping.co.uk/grounds-for-hope-ways-to-live-legally-on-cheap-land-in-the-uk.html

There is a free article by the same author at Permaculture (a useful hub in itself): http://www.permaculture.co.uk/articles/how-get-planning-permission-non-development-land

I don't think anyone has pointed out yet that this all varies quite a bit between the home nations. Don't assume that what might work in England, and particularly Scotland, will work for you. Actually, although Scotland has more options in some ways, Wales actually has the most progressive planning reform. A well-known story is that of Pembrokeshire's so-called 'Policy 52' and an eco-village called Lammas http://lammas.org.uk/. The eco-village network generally is a good source of information. There are many other examples that have fought planning (Tinker's Bubble, Steward Wood).

http://www.lowimpact.org/
http://www.diggersanddreamers.org.uk/

It's a popular daydream, but it's not an easy life. Fighting planning is tiring, I have friends that have been doing it for years, and it takes a particular sort of person. You may also find that daily life off grid is more work than you think. I enjoyed that, but many discover it's actually not for them. There are places you can volunteer to get a sense of it. Nick Rosen's book Off Grid also gives a good insight into the negatives as well the positives, how people that actually do live that way ended up there, and the mindset it takes.

 

[BlueTrain]

I was leafing through the magazine "Backwoodsman" only last night and an article about living "off the grid" jumped off the page at me. The writer's subject was about building a house and what you need to do (or rather, needed not to do) in order to avoid something or other. You still had to own the land and he did emphasize that the county was where the rules were made that you had to follow. He said the house had to be less than (or no more than) 200 square feet, which is a large cabin size, and could not be on a permanent foundation, nor be connected to utilities. I would emphasize that rules in this country will be all over the place as would the enforcement. One fellow, another hero to the Backwoodsman readers, lived in caves he had built (dugouts) somewhere in Idaho, I think. His name was Dugout Dick and he died a few years ago. The funny thing, of course, is that someone who truly lives off the grid would presumably never read this forum but I suppose living off the grid does not necessarily mean dropping out of society or out of sight, which may be the goal of some, worthy though it may be. Another funny thing is the expression "The Land is Ours," which sounds very Woody Guthrie, is probably interpreted by some as "Your land is mine," which works both ways. What exactly do people mean when they say "off the grid" anyway?

 

[Uilleachan]

I was leafing through the magazine "Backwoodsman" only last night and an article about living "off the grid" jumped off the page at me. The writer's subject was about building a house and what you need to do (or rather, needed not to do) in order to avoid something or other. You still had to own the land and he did emphasize that the county was where the rules were made that you had to follow. He said the house had to be less than (or no more than) 200 square feet, which is a large cabin size, and could not be on a permanent foundation, nor be connected to utilities. I would emphasize that rules in this country will be all over the place as would the enforcement. One fellow, another hero to the Backwoodsman readers, lived in caves he had built (dugouts) somewhere in Idaho, I think. His name was Dugout Dick and he died a few years ago. The funny thing, of course, is that someone who truly lives off the grid would presumably never read this forum but I suppose living off the grid does not necessarily mean dropping out of society or out of sight, which may be the goal of some, worthy though it may be. Another funny thing is the expression "The Land is Ours," which sounds very Woody Guthrie, is probably interpreted by some as "Your land is mine," which works both ways. What exactly do people mean when they say "off the grid" anyway?

For me it's under the radar, and generally outside the established system, but not necessarily illegally so.

Power? a bank of 12v batteries powered by 12v solar hydro or wind, or a mix of those will run basic lighting and a 12v car stereo, plus power a phone/iphone/tablet etc internet access enabled if in range of a signal. A single car battery and a $40 solar panel would do sounds and run a phone/CB/SSB etc, for example.

 

[hobbes]

Another funny thing is the expression "The Land is Ours," which sounds very Woody Guthrie, is probably interpreted by some as "Your land is mine," which works both ways.

Many people feel that inequitable land ownership is a serious issue in the UK. For example, it's at its worst in Scotland where, for various historical reasons, "0.025% of Scotland's population owns 67% of Scotland's rural private land" (Scottish Review, May 2013). This has all kinds of impacts on democratic land use. In the southwest of England, where I live, rural property values are at their highest relative to local wages, meaning that it's very difficult for local people to afford mortgages on homes or to borrow against rural land for business purposes. This is driven by factors such as second home ownership, wealthy retirees, and purchase of rural land for amenity use. As already discussed in this thread, there is an assumption against low impact development by private individuals or co-housing groups, even though the government is pushing to build large amounts of conventional housing (e.g. 'Cranbrook': 3000 new homes on greenfield outside Exeter, here in my county). These are just a few examples of the sorts of issues for which the banner "The Land Is Ours" encapsulates the feelings of those on the political left. For most who use it, it specifically does not mean "your land is mine", but just what it says: this land belongs to all of us, and should be made to work for the benefit of all of us together".

What exactly do people mean when they say "off the grid" anyway?

For me it meant disconnecting from: mains services (electricity, gas/oil, water, drainage, telephone, internet), rent/mortgage, car, and conventional food shopping, in order to significantly reduce the amount of cash I had to earn each month. This allowed me to earn my living as a (low-earning!) artist/craftsman and spend most of my time doing voluntary work. There were many additional benefits, including but not limited to: an increased feeling of self reliance, and increased feeling of community (with my neighbours also living on site), a deep feeling of peace from a hard-working but greatly simplified daily life, a feeling of being part of the solution rather than part of the problem, and a feeling of closeness to the nature and wildlife I lived alongside. There were many wonderful lessons also, such as about the value of resources; for example, I soon learned to be thrifty with my water when I had to carry it for half a mile. These are some of the reasons why people may want to disconnect from "the grid" of modern western life.

 

[udamiano]

Well I wish you the best of luck in your project. My advice would be to make sure your totally covered legally, and make sure you get the correct planning, it would be shame if a year down the road it all came to an end because of some oversight in this or that corner cut

 

[BlueTrain]

I grew up in a rural area and lived among people who had been on the same piece of land for generations. Some, including us, lived in log houses (not cabins!) built before the Civil War. I suspect that some of those people would laugh at the idea of living "off the grid." One reason was that most of them remembered when they weren't even on the grid. I even remembered when the telephone line came through, although by then I was in the army and overseas. However, I take your point because other issues beyond that of "public" utilities have always been there, which are actually more important. Anyway, there will be no flying below the radar. Land ownership is an issue worldwide, not just in "thickly settled" (as my father would put it) Southern England, for all the same reasons. Ultimately, wars are fought over land. Any other reason is just an excuse. In this country land values vary greatly according to where the land happens to be, more so than any intrinsic value of the land itself. In other words, good farm land will quickly be developed for industry or housing if someone wants to do that badly enough. One could be forgiven for thinking that there is a lot of idle land in this country. In some rural areas land ownership becomes tangled in legalities, which makes legal acquisition highly problematic. As long as the real estate taxes are paid, the county usually has no particular interest in anything else. But no one can buy the land if there is no clear legal title to the land and of course, no one can sell it. But whoever pays the taxes has practical ownership of the land, which means you can't squat there. This comes about when someone dies without a will and no one goes through the legal hoops to get it settled. It's called heirship land but there probably isn't a lot of it, frankly.My reference to Woody Guthrie's song "This land is your land" is a mildly anti-establishment song. He supposedly wrote it as a sort of rebuttal to "God Bless America" which was used in an old Ronald Reagan movie. Conservatives here think they own God. But in regards to "off the grid" and all the thinking behind it, I wonder if the people I left behind when I came to the big city--or rather, the big suburb, think differently now. They tend to be a far-right crowd and may see a wood-burning stove as much of a political statement as something just to heat the kitchen. You sound very much like a modern day Thoreau, Mr hobbes. But neither he nor I ever had to carry water that far nor do I recall reading that Thoreau ever volunteered for anything. I tended to think of Thoreau less often, however, when I lived past the age he died. I've also known a few hard-working men, too, but they all died relatively young. None were especially community oriented in the least except for my father. He was an active churchgoer. I wonder if that's why he outlived all the others I'm thinking of but more likely it was just because he didn't smoke. Anyway, you can't disconnect from "modern western" life just so you can devote more time to the community. Maybe I'm more conservative than my wife thinks.

 

[British Red]

"The Land Is Ours" encapsulates the feelings of those on the political left. For most who use it, it specifically does not mean "your land is mine", but just what it says: this land belongs to all of us, and should be made to work for the benefit of all of us together".

Unless you are talking about different lands, both of those statements cannot be true.

 

[BlueTrain]

I think the problem is the relationship between the people and the land. Those people who I referred to earlier who lived on property that had been in the family for generations were only a part of the population. Others, some of whom were relatively recent (this was in the 1950s) immigrants lived in town or villages that were referred to as "camps". Those who lived in the so-called camps had no relationship with the land at all. They owned none and when the work evaporated, they mostly left. But at least some of the descendents of the original settlers still live there. The immigrants, by the way, came mostly from Italy in that part of the country, though in my home town there were already Middle Eastern families, believe it or not.

None of that is at all similiar to the evolved history of land ownership in Great Britain, I understand. Originally, of course, it was a sort of feudal system based on the manor. The closest thing in this country was the plantation system in the South. A similiar system existed throughout Latin America. The essential feature of those sytems was that the people belonged to the land--not the other way round. But at some point along the way only a few hundred years ago, the people apparently became unnecessary. Those were the clearances, of course. No doubt some of my ancestors wound up here because of that, although the first who came arrive here around the time of the (English) Civil War. But he, in fact (supposedly, anyway), was of German origin, his grandfather having come from somewhere in northwestern Germany. There's even a village (Questenberg) from which my name is claimed to have been derived, which may or may not be true.

The "greater good" that allows government (in the form of municipalities, counties and states) to take private land for public use can be a touchy issue here, as I suppose it is anywhere, partly because in some cases, the public use sometimes appears to be for a private corporation to build something there. In any event, if you are fortunate enough to actually own land or otherwise have an interest in it, then it becomes "this land is mine!" Only if you happen to be a Hutterite would you be content saying "this land is ours."

 

[BlueTrain]

I thought I would just add here as something of interest that my wife's family lived on land that has been in the family since before the Civil War. The interesting thing is that the land is here in Northern Virginia in the city of Alexandria. My wife's family moved when my father-in-law retired but her aunt and uncle still live there. But to illustrate how things happen, the land was taken during the Civil War so a fort could be built. The owner of the land unfortunately chose the wrong side and his land was confiscated but with help, he was able to buy it back after the war. But doing anything with the (very valuable) land is problematic. Among the curious things you have to have done if you want to build anything is to have an archeological survey done by the city. And to think, the city is less than 300 years old.

 

[hobbes]

Unless you are talking about different lands, both of those statements cannot be true.

Sorry, I don't follow...?

 

[British Red]

Sorry, I don't follow...?

You said

"The Land Is Ours" encapsulates the feelings of those on the political left. For most who use it, it specifically does not mean "your land is mine", but just what it says: this land belongs to all of us, and should be made to work for the benefit of all of us together".

The land does not "belong to all of us" it is in private ownership. If you want it

to work for the benefit of all of us together

(and look how well that worked when it was tried in the communist bloc), then you absolutely are saying "your land is mine".

Land either rests in ownership with an individual or a state - there is no middle ground.

 

[hobbes]

I suspect that some of those people would laugh at the idea of living "off the grid." One reason was that most of them remembered when they weren't even on the grid. I even remembered when the telephone line came through...

Haha, I'm sure you're right! My Mother remembers the telephone arriving, and mains electricity; she grew up in rural Montana. Quite a few off-gridders share a general feeling that the 'grid' aspects introduced in modern life have turned out to be pretty rubbish, in terms of what buying into the grid demands of us as people. Of course, it's nice to be able to think that from the privileged position of living in a wealthy western country in the 21st Century 8)

In any event, if you are fortunate enough to actually own land or otherwise have an interest in it, then it becomes "this land is mine!" Only if you happen to be a Hutterite would you be content saying "this land is ours."

Indeed this is usually the way! But not always. I don't know much about Hutterites, but they're not the only ones interested in common ownership. Community land ownership is quite a happening thing in Scotland at the moment for example, particularly in the Highlands and Islands, where land ownership has been at its least equitable historically. I met a girl from Community Land Scotland recently; she had some really inspiring stories - it's a movement coming from both the grass roots and government. And the people involved aren't off-gridders or hippies - mostly!

It's nice that you mention Thoreau. His thoughts on economics should be good grist for anyone that thinks about these things. Walden will be on many off-grid bookshelves, and one or two bushcrafter bookshelves too I shouldn't wonder

Interesting posts BlueTrain, thanks.

 

[hobbes]

Land either rests in ownership with an individual or a state - there is no middle ground.

Well that's not quite true though. There are many examples of successful housing co-operatives and community ownership projects in the UK. It's government policy in Scotland, and Wales is addressing it in planning law. No-one's talking about state ownership and old school communism! The land as a whole works for all of us together in countless ways right now: it gives us homes, food, livelihoods, 'ecosystem services' &c &c. The question is about the equality of distribution of those things.

I personally am not arguing for anything, least of all collectivization. We were discussing the meaning of the term "The Land Is Ours", as used by an organisation of that name. An organisation which "campaigns peacefully for access to the land, its resources, and the decision-making processes affecting them" (link). Such as issues around planning law, pertinent to this thread.

What land-reform campaigners mean by a statement like 'the land is ours' is simply to encapsulate a broad philosophy that the land of Britain should be for the good generally of the people of Britain, as opposed to profiteers and a few aristocrats. It belongs to (as opposed to is owned by in the sense of legal title) all of us together. And therefore, they would argue, access to that land, its resources and the decision-making process should be more equitable. You may not agree with that philosophy, but this isn't about whether there is any middle ground between individual and state when it comes to who owns a particular piece of land. Which, by the by, there is.