Hi all,

Myself & the Mrs have been contemplating building our own place, primarily down to the lack of available housing in our area (especially in our price range) & also, my other half owns a plot of land previously owned by her late father who ran a sawmill business on it (it’s currently unused & overgrown although we’re in the process of clearing it – was lots of old knackered machinery half buried etc. etc.)

Now – the plot in question lies on greenbelt land, although literally a stone throw away from the boundary, so preliminary enquiries with the local planning office have been met with the usual unhelpful “refer to the planning guidelines for your area but essentially, no chance” response. At one of those homebuilding shows last year we spoke to a few builders who said it was possible with the right approach & they’d be happy to submit a carefully considered application but obviously with no absolute guarantee of a result & we’d be paying handsomely for it either way…

Does anyone have any experience of this type of situation? Do I have to live in a caravan in the field for the next 6 years or are there ways round the planning guidelines i’m missing? For reference we’re in Renfrewshire, I know i’d be best off consulting a homebuilding forum but where’s the fun in that & I could always turn it into an mtb skillz centre 😉

Are there any buildings on the land at present? Could these be converted? If not there is a chance they could be offset against a new building on the land.

The assessment of the impact on the Green Belt is normally any impact on its openness, so if the building you want to build is the same size (footprint/volume) as the one your demolishing it could be possible.

However new buildings on an empty site within the green belt are extremely difficult to get through as they will by definition be harmful to he openness of the Green Belt and therefore contrary to national policy. This may be slightly different in Scotland but i’d imagine the thrust of the policy would be very similar.

Build access where there wasn’t any, without necessary permission, leave it six months then claim existing access; use chemicals to kill off any biodiversity right before having a biodiversity study done; change the address of the land to be part of a hamlet such that you can claim some little known exemption to building on greenbelt etc etc. These are the dirty tricks you pay your money for.

Another one: build a modest ‘workers’ cottage associated with the land; leave it some years then get it redesignated residential; crack on with your whopping great extension via normal channels.

Poison the entire green belt with industrial poisons and then try and get it redesignated…..

Cheers Morpho – some of that sound familiar from talking to folk at the homebuilding show, there was/is a couple of big old sheds on the land which are listed on the deeds & shown on plans & the concrete foundations are still visible. They’re old steel structures & largely collapsed – had problems with b*****S visiting in the night with cutting gear & nicking sections of I-beams etc. for scrap but that’s another story! (caught red handed – went right through to court then case mysteriously binned on the day 😡 )

How is it greenbelt if there was a sawmill business on it? Surely it must be a brownbelt site? I’d consult a local architect or planning consultant (someone who knows the lie of the land in your neck of the woods) rather than a builder and see if they have any suggestions.

have been met with the usual unhelpful “refer to the planning guidelines for your area

This is actually quite good advice. They can’t refuse something just because they don’t like it, but they can if it goes against the plan. If it doesn’t go against the plan then you should get permission. Local authorities are under a lot of pressure to get houses built so should in part be on your side.

Haha – looking at some of those other suggestions it’s worrying to think that folk have done exactly that!

How’s that bloke down south with the mansion disguised as haybales getting on come to think of it?

J

Green Belt is a policy designation to protect openness of an area. That and brownfield (Previously Developed) land are not mutually exclusive. Ignore the unhelpful comments. Morpho offers good advice though. Employ a planning consultant to look at this – not an architect.

Housing is by virtue of policy ‘inappropriate development’ in the Green Belt so you need to demonstrate ‘very special circumstances’ to overcome this harm. Not easy at all but worth exploring. Also, double check it is actually Green Belt and not just open countryside – the two are distinct from one another in planning terms.

How’s that bloke down south with the mansion disguised as haybales getting on come to think of it?

I think he was fined under some little known ‘proceeds of crime’ type legislation i.e. he didn’t win. Because of him the four year rule of lawfulness doesn’t apply if a house has been ‘concealed’.

The Beard – referring to the current greenbelt boundary map for the area it’s just outside the lines, that is a good point though – i’m not sure if that actual patch of land should have a different designation or if it falls under the same category as the surroundings? The land has been sitting vacant for 20+ years, the advent of central heating pretty much decimated the requirement for hardwood logs for heating purposes… maybe i could cash in on the current popularity & get permission for a nice energy efficient open plan sawmill & hand chop artisan timber in the living room work area for storage in the 3 bedrooms designated wood storage areas…

nickjb – a good point also, someone mentioned energy efficiency as another way of getting planing through against the odds, many councils are way behind of efficiency targets & new super efficient houses offset the rest of the stock…

How is it greenbelt if there was a sawmill business on it? Surely it must be a brownbelt site?

No this is not the case, the buildings could have been put on a long time ago when greenbelt was a term used for a coloured peice of leather to hold up your pants 😀

I have a piece of Land which like yours is just on the border of the greenbelt. I have tried twice now for planning permission and been refused both times, but have been told that if I where to put either stables or agricultral buildings on the site then they would look favourably on this. To the left of my land is terraced housing to the right is an industrial settling tank to the rear is a large factory but this does not cut any chase with the planning department when applying.
I used professional planning consultants the last time thinking this may help, it did get me a little further than the first refusal but in the end the same outcome minus £950 fees out of pocket. I have decided to go for Stables and sell on once built.

Consult a Planning Consultant. They’ll let you know your chances of success, and an initial consultation will cost less than you think.

Hmm, maybe something in the ‘firewood’ idea – something in the back of my head about permitted development rights and seasonal residence for forestry operations.

slowpuncheur – cheers for the comment, sound like you know a bit more about this than I do – I wasn’t aware there was a difference between “greenbelt” & “open countryside” designations but previous email correspondence with the local council planning department suggested it was greenbelt classification & referred me to the guidelines;

In terms of new housing, this can only be accepted where it can be demonstrated that there is a locational need for a new dwelling, to maintain and support a suitable and established use within the greenbelt, (such as agriculture or forestry). It would also require to be demonstrated, that there is a need for the residential use to be out with an existing settlement. If a case was to be made in support of a new dwelling, in connection to a proposed new, suitable greenbelt use, the applicant would be expected to live on site in temporary accommodation for a 2 year period, to demonstrate the need for a permanent presence on site, tied to the operation of the then ongoing and established use. Thereafter, a statement providing justification of this, would require to be put forward in support of any application for a new dwelling. In some circumstances, the conversion of existing, redundant buildings, which make a positive visual contribution to the landscape and are structurally sound and capable of conversion without substantial rebuilding works, can also be accepted.

If the requirement for a permanent dwelling on site tied to a rural industry e.g. forestry or agriculture if anything like in England & Wales, it’ll be extremely difficult to prove you need to be living on site. Typically it works if you’ve got livestock that might need 24hr attendance but for anything else, the planners are reluctant to believe that it’s necessary.

I’ve just had a quick look at the new Scottish planning policy to see if there is any crossover with the NPPF for England & Wales. Under that there’s a mechanism known as ‘paragraph 55’ which can be a route to obtain planning for a new dwelling in the open countryside or greenbelt. The house has to be of exceptional innovation or sustainable and the planning process can be risky and expensive. Unfortunately I couldn’t find an equivalent. As others have said, consult a local planning consultant or an up-to-speed architect! In my experience some planning consultants can be very timid and conservative, so get references.

Here’s the NPPF paragraph for anyone who’s interested:

“55. To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be
located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.
For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in
one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities
should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special
circumstances such as:
? the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their
place of work in the countryside; or
? where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a
heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure
the future of heritage assets; or
? where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and
lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or
? the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling.
Such a design should:
– be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design
more generally in rural areas;
– reflect the highest standards in architecture;
– significantly enhance its immediate setting; and
– be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.”

Thanks fionap that’s interesting – the last 2 bullet points on “paragraph 55” give faint hope, as long as there’s a relevant section in the Scottish version that is… getting married in 3 months so we’ll be having a more in-depth look at options after that, don’t want to resort to the 40 foot haystack route!

Cheers all!
J

Half a dozen sheep on the land and some chickens. Voila a small-holding.

Place local to me that is a livery yard, temporary planning was granted due to needing to be onsite to tend paying customers horses/24hr call for the vets etc.

However, his permanent planning permission was not granted for two or three years until he could build up the business and prove it was viable and the profit generated was sufficient to support the mortgage/funding of the house.

i.e. you can’t just do it part time/on the side as a hobby, its got to be a full time and viable occupation proved by accounts.

Mcj78 – where exactly is the property? If you are not willing to disclose on open forum then send me and email willgibson28 at gmail dot com.
I would be interested to look into it a bit further just out of personal interest regarding greenbelt and planning and also maybe I can help a little. I’m an architecture student (also worked a few years in offices) and been doing a few planning apps recently in England.

Even if you get planning, what about services like water, gas and electricity? If not close, you may be looking at a lot of money to get connected.

Hmm, maybe something in the ‘firewood’ idea – something in the back of my head about permitted development rights and seasonal residence for forestry operations.

Unfortunately unless you’re primary processing wood from your own land firewood production is classed as some sort of commercial use for planning. you might get lucky if its a hazel coppice and you can demonstrate you need to be on your one legged stool to watch your burns… google ben laws

The normal route for this is the last bullet point about a building being of outstanding architectural significance. Fair to assume that won’t come cheap. Just home its a brownfield site as previous buildings there.

voila a small holding

No it’s actually more like a large violin

Approach one of the building control or planning dept guys in an adjacent local authority, West Dumbartonshire or Inverclyde will do. Give them a bung and they will sort you out. They all know each other and do ‘consultancy’ work.

Richmars, there’s a small random row (4 I think) of council built terraced cottages from the 50/60’s across the road – about 30m away – so fairly sure there’s facilities in the area to connect to ( they do sit slightly higher as the landscape there slopes gently so wouldn’t obviously find out the exact details until we had a full site survey done which would be a bit further down the line)

Footstomper – my other half’s dad used to keep a couple of savage Shetland ponies & a one-eyed Clydesdale horse, Toby, up there so stables would be fitting! Problem is both of us work so suddenly deciding to throw up stables / kennels as a new bona fide business venture to get planning for a house on the land would be a bit of a stretch.

Ajc – that’s my worry, we’re hoping to do something sympathetic to the site/area which would be highly efficient, low impact (read “cheap to run”) & using modern construction methods, but it might not be grand designs enough, if that’s what they’re looking for.

Rene59, I like your style 8) but I fear my other half would rip my clockweights off if I suggested it…

For reference we’re in Renfrewshire

In the Scottish Borders there is a local ‘clause’ for getting old agricultural buildings reused (as residential)- anything in your area?

Could you not sell the land to developers and let them take the risk? With the cash that is generated you might be able to buy a house that you might not otherwise be able to afford? Or, work with a developer to build a few affordable homes and use the profit to do the same. It might be easier to get permission for the affordable stuff rather than a single house for yourself.

br – only thing I can see is this sentence from the planning guidelines

In some circumstances, the conversion of existing, redundant buildings, which make a positive visual contribution to the landscape and are structurally sound and capable of conversion without substantial rebuilding works, can also be accepted.

we’d certainly be making a positive contribution to the landscape as currently it looks a bit forlorn in the middle of some pretty well groomed farmland but wether or not that’s a case on its own remains to be seen

cb – to be honest we’d rather either build a single dwelling for ourselves on it or tidy it up, fence it & rent it out to local farming / agriculture – few folk have been in touch asking about purchasing it but my other half wants to hang onto it for sentimental reasons.

J

Get taylor winmpy (other house builders are available) to put in an application for you, they just keep on going until (regardless of its impact) they get what they want…. 😐

If I recall correctly, there was a recent(ish) episode of Grand Designs where a woman managed to build on green belt land. Required top level eco design though, but looked ok in the end. Not sure how applicable rules will be in that there Scotland though.

Join a golf club, get invited to join the freemasons, take the councillor in charge of planning to the horse racing for the day and (wink wink) put his bets on for him and come back with a big bunch of fivers that he *won*. Then build anything you like. It works here in S*******shire.

Richmars, there’s a small random row (4 I think) of council built terraced cottages from the 50/60’s across the road – about 30m away – so fairly sure there’s facilities in the area to connect to ( they do sit slightly higher as the landscape there slopes gently so wouldn’t obviously find out the exact details until we had a full site survey done which would be a bit further down the line)

Sounds fine. I only mentioned it as there’s a half built house not far from me that was on the market, and the estate agents made the point of saying there was no mains (anything!), and the nearest was several miles away! Clearly someone didn’t check!

It’s probably fine, but if your father in law also did any timber treatment at the site as opposed to just cutting stuff up then there’s a risk of quite problematic contamination from the arsenic and creosote materials historically used. A contamination assessment will almost certainly be requestd as part of a planning application, so worth factoring that into budgets if you get that far.

Some of the comments above are helpful but basically it is very difficult to get consent for resi in the green belt. It’s unfortunate that the buildings there have collapsed as that could have formed part of an argument for a replacement building in a different (resi) use. There isn’t any mileage in smallholding, forestry etc arguments – it comes down to making the case in the context of the policy designations for the land. Part of the green belt purpose is, as well as maintaining openness, to restrict ‘sprawl’ and amalgamation of existing urban areas. Therefore, building even on the edge of an existing settlement is likely to be tricky.

You would do best to have a chat with a planning consultant who knows about the policy angle rather than a ‘have a go’ advisor, which architects or developers can sometimes be.

EDIT: Meant to add, the Renfreweshire GB boundary was only reviewed in 2012/13 so is pretty up to date – difficult to argue that change is due therefore.