Building on greenbelt land

[Guest sibon]

Also, brownfield land is often contaminated: sites previously used for factories, petrol stations, etc.

It's possible but sometimes expensive to remediate it.

 

There is a simple way around this. Simply dig out the contaminated soil and swap it for clean topsoil from, say, the Peak District. Hey presto, contaminated brownfield site becomes clean and usable brownfield site.

 

But, boo, a bit of the Peak District becomes horribly contaminated. Still, there's no law against it. So who cares?

 

There is a major Sheffield landowner who does exactly this. I won't name them, because last time that happened on here, the post was deleted almost immediately.

 

What it must be like to have friends in high places.

[LeMaquis]

No: it "shouldn't" be left empty; but surely the decision is up to whoever owns it.

 

If the decision were left to the owner there'd be a lot of contaminated land out there. Which brings me back to my original point which you contradicted.

[Cyclone]

As I understood it, anyone can get permission to build on greenbelt land as long as the property is residential and eco friendly??

There are strict rules though I think. Very high efficiency and low impact.

The rules should come up on a Google search.

 

It's not that easy. Permission CAN be granted, but that doesn't mean it will be.

 

Being eco-friendly isn't enough, from what I've read the house will need to be breaking new ground or somehow exemplary, simply copying another eco-friendly house that got permission previously would result in a failure to get permission.

 

---------- Post added 23-08-2016 at 08:48 ----------

 

There is a simple way around this. Simply dig out the contaminated soil and swap it for clean topsoil from, say, the Peak District. Hey presto, contaminated brownfield site becomes clean and usable brownfield site.

 

But, boo, a bit of the Peak District becomes horribly contaminated. Still, there's no law against it. So who cares?

 

There is a major Sheffield landowner who does exactly this. I won't name them, because last time that happened on here, the post was deleted almost immediately.

 

What it must be like to have friends in high places.

 

I'm pretty sure there are quite a few laws about the disposal of contaminated waste.

 

PM me the name of the person if you would, it sounds like a fascinating story.

 

---------- Post added 23-08-2016 at 08:49 ----------

 

If the decision were left to the owner there'd be a lot of contaminated land out there. Which brings me back to my original point which you contradicted.

 

Only until it becomes economical to have the land cleaned and to build on it...

[Jeffrey Shaw]

If the decision were left to the owner there'd be a lot of contaminated land out there. Which brings me back to my original point which you contradicted.

Er, no- I explained that Local Authorities are empowered to require remediation.

[LeMaquis]

No: it "shouldn't" be left empty; but surely the decision is up to whoever owns it.

 

Er, no- I explained that Local Authorities are empowered to require remediation.

 

There are two issues here and you jump from one to the other. The law says one thing. You prefer the other. When I deal with what you prefer i.e. that contaminated land should be left as it is at the owner's prerogative, you just say what the law is. Which isn't the point.

 

Why don't you say why you think owners of contaminated land should be allowed to leave it as it is.

[andrejuan]

It's not that easy. Permission CAN be granted, but that doesn't mean it will be.

 

Being eco-friendly isn't enough, from what I've read the house will need to be breaking new ground or somehow exemplary, simply copying another eco-friendly house that got permission previously would result in a failure to get permission.

 

In the back of my mind I recall something like that, so you are probably right.

 

Some years ago I was working with a chap who had built a house on a green belt beauty spot, It certainly wasn't what you would call an "eco" house.

He told me the story that he had gone to planning with artist paintings of the area

with and without the house. He then asked the panel to agree that the house actually improved the view.

He got permission and built a "castle" complete with moat.

(There was I think some ref. to a building once existing on the site many moons ago)

Edited August 24, 2016 by andrejuan

[lil-minx92]

It's not that easy. Permission CAN be granted, but that doesn't mean it will be.

 

Being eco-friendly isn't enough, from what I've read the house will need to be breaking new ground or somehow exemplary, simply copying another eco-friendly house that got permission previously would result in a failure to get permission.

 

In the back of my mind I recall something like that, so you are probably right.

 

Some years ago I was working with a chap who had built a house on a green belt beauty spot, It certainly wasn't what you would call an "eco" house.

He told me the story that he gone to planning with artist paintings of the area

with and without the house. He then asked the panel to agree that the house actually improved the view.

He got permission and built a "castle" complete with moat.

(There was I think some ref. to a building once existing on the site may moons ago)

 

Yes that is another route to building in the greenbelt. There is a little known policy that allows one to rebuild wherever there was once a building. Can't remember the detail or whether there has to be some resemblance to the original building. I remember our university planning lecturer telling us about this. It is different to the brownfield development rights. Hence people pore over historic maps to find such instances- there is no back stop date.

[Cyclone]

I don't think that's "little known", pretty much anybody who has any interest in self building will be aware of it, and if that's the case then surely it's covered in "I'm a professional 101" for anyone who actually works in that area (planners, architects, etc...).

 

The building has to still exist though doesn't it. And you can only rebuilt to the original footprint (unless you get additional PP of course).

[lil-minx92]

I don't think that's "little known", pretty much anybody who has any interest in self building will be aware of it, and if that's the case then surely it's covered in "I'm a professional 101" for anyone who actually works in that area (planners, architects, etc...).

 

The building has to still exist though doesn't it. And you can only rebuilt to the original footprint (unless you get additional PP of course).

 

No the building could have disappeared long ago.

[BHRemovals]

id something loses it's protected staus, it means it was never protected in the first place.