Hi all, we've got planning permission for our Hut in East Lothian :-) Artist's impression:
With conditions.
Most of them are things we've already told them we'll do either because they're within the definition of a Hut or included in the Covenant we signed as part of the purchase of the wood e.g. the foundations will leave no permanent trace, we won't be running a business from there (so why do they feel the need to reiterate?).
The condition we're going to have to do some work on is :
Within three months from the date of this planning permission, a Site Management Plan and a Woodland Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in advance by the Planning Authority. The submitted Plans shall include a timetable for their implementation. Thereafter the approved Site and Woodland Management Plans shall be updated every 5 years for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The updated Site Management Plan shall include details of the hut should it become obselete or redundant in accordance with the requirements of condition 7 above. The Woodland Management Plan shall include details of any tree felling requirements and volumes per calendar quarter, restocking details including volumes and species, regenerative woodland management proposals, management and protection of new growth from deer/squirrel/rabbit browsing. The site and woodland shall thereafter be managed in accordance with the Site Management Plan and the Woodland Management Plan so approved
I know the other wood owners who have applied for planning permission have done this and have kindly shared a copy. Has anyone else come across this and/or have any views re this requirement?
National Planning Framework 4 (www.gov.scot)
NPF4 is important. Policy 30 (d) removes much of the ability to put false hurdles in the way of hutting. A hut in a woodland, away from other developments, is clearly and obviously supportable by nature and scale and is compatible with its surroundings. Enuf said.
The determination of NPF4 that they "will" be supported (with the statement on our obligations) is far more important than the planning framework commitments prior to NPF4 which were "to be encouraged" (I think). Planning Authorities are only getting away with "conditions" because we see them as Authority Figures and, well, they must be right, right? They are as ignorant, stupid, and short sighted as we all are at times. Huts are new and they will get their response wrong for some time yet. Not their fault, really. Ignore superfluous conditions. Let them try and enforce an ENO. Nae chance. Mark
I think the planning authority has quite a lot of discretion regarding conditions. Yes they have to work within the law, but the legislation is simply not that prescriptive (thank goodness). They can only consider 'material considerations', but how a piece of land is managed is surely material to its use and development. The applicant can appeal against the condition if they believe it is unfounded or unreasonable or whatever. Equally they can put in a application to remove the condition. But the condition does not seem unreasonable to me
Lorna
My tuppence.
I do not believe they are correct in requiring a Woodland Management Plan as I do not believe it is a statutory requirement to have a WMP. I do not have one, never have. I suspect it is another ruse by a council to put hurdles in Hutters way. You could have responded that you have not, do not currently, and will not breach any condition that requires a WMP without submitting a WMP and having it approved before such woodland works commence.
If I were asked I would ignore them, build my Hut, await an ENO. Planners have to follow legislation. Legislation does not require a WMP so it cannot be tied to be required just because there is a Hut. That would be as correct as requiring you to wear only green and brown when at the hut. They could only ENO against a missing WMP if you did something which required a WMP (e.g. felling more than xm3 per annum). Mark
I think the reason they make 'not running a business' a planning condition is because then it brings an activity that is not necessarily a planning matter within the planning enforcement purview. Yes, for a full-on business use you might need to apply for 'change of use', but running a business might be considered incidental to the primary use (in your case as a 'hut'). If you started running a business there, with the condition they could take action against you for 'breach of condition', whereas if there was no condition, it would need to be sufficient to require an application for 'change of use' before they could stop you. (Goodness knows what they think you might do, but maybe it's that unknown quantity that a simple condition resolves without having to speculate.)
Hi Sam, thanks for this. I got a copy of a couple of other owners' plans and adjusted them to incorporate the recommendation of an ecology report we had done a while back. It's with the council now so hopefully will be accepted and we can get on to the exciting bit, the build.
Hi William, we're thinking along the exact same lines :-) And thanks for the excellent advice, I like the idea of a simple minimalistic approach, will do. Re the look of the Hut, we're really chuffed with it, the real thing will be dependent on our building skills !
Well done Lorna! A great achievement. Your huts looks lovely, more like a temple in the woods.
We have a small wood ( and are building a gut in it) but I don't know much about woodland management plans; our "plan" is mainly in our heads and on some scraps of paper. Essentially: more bio-diversity, thinning of crowded conifers, some clearings for daylight/flowers/insects, encourage native tree species (tree guards on any wee oak saplings that come up), leave lots of deadwood and standing deadwood for the beasties and woodpeckers. I don't think producing a woodland plan need be particularly onerous. It could be a simple table or grid showing bullet points of actions and completion dates. Keep it simple, small-scale and do-able.
Stepping out of my knowledge base here, but I sometimes think these conditions are written down primarily for the local authority to demonstrate that they have covered their own arse should there be any "trouble" or complaints further down the line. They can show that they "did the right thing" by setting conditions. Local authorities are short staffed, overwhelmed and have lost many of their more experienced staff through re-organisation and cut backs. They are nor really resourced to be checking on the on-going implementation of a woodland management plan or micro-managing small developments. I think (just my opinion) that they are trying to make sure developers don't just go off and do their own thing, destroy habitats and overdevelop sites.
Keep it simple and minimalistic. Only give them info they have asked for, don't get too flowery. The more info you give, the more potential clarification they may seek.
Enjoy your hut to be.
Congratulations Lorna! (And that's a beautiful-looking roof structure.)
I'm not a woodland or hut owner but have come across a few folk who prepare Woodland Management Plans. The best I came across was Sheena Raeburn of RFB Landscape Architects. No idea of cost I'm afraid but Sheena will probably know who could prepare a Site Managament Plan too.
Look forward to seeing construction photos and updates once you get building!