RE: BNG and Self Build

2025-02-03T09:44:27Z

Andrew Chalmers:

On the UU issue. We had an appeal decision in Bolton Appeal Decision APP/N4205/W/24/3343705 albeit straight Green Belt rejection in reality for a single dwelling. The inspector was not convinced that much weight in the balance should be given to the UU's effectiveness because the decision would be made at appeal and therefore it was not the council making the decision and also because the UU referred to regulations not the main Act. So wording of UUs probably needs to be closely examined closely too.

Very useful, exactly the situation I was referring to in my last question. Has to be said, the reference to the 2016 Regulations in the UU, rather than the Self-build Housebuilding act, was a bit of an obvious faux pas.

I wonder, though, whether anybody can point to an example of a UU that has been correctly worded, in order that it is enforceable if it happens to be the SoS, rather than the LPA, that is granting planning permission?

RE: BNG and Self Build

2025-02-03T09:35:42Z

In reply to James - I think its laregly that before that nobody actually ticked the CSB box on the form, even if they were genuine and now that BNG applies, its made agents more aware of this (esp where CIL hanst been adopted). I am certain many are not intending to build themseves (I had one with a couple in their late 70s/80s submitting an outline, for example) but, maybe they would input into the design and therefore still qualify as CB, whilst not actually getting their hands dirty.

An applicant applying for CSB and selling it on to somebody who then designs their RM and builds it and lives in it...yes, exempt (unless legislation says it needs to be secured at OPA stage, and cant be done at RM?) Informatives are used and conditions such as "The BNG Plan must comply with XXXX"

A plot with FUL can be sold as CSB...the purchaser would need a S73 to include their input into a new design. Or they build as approved and arent BNG or CIL exempt.

BNG at RM stage...every decision has the deemed condition anyway, unless exempt, so if it turns out its not CSB, then yes, they need to discharge the BNG condition before they can lawfully start...but they will have an outline saying its exempt...hmmm? (or they dont and start and then it doesnt apply to retrospective apps anyway) Minefield.

In reply to Mary, interesting PINs say S106/UU. We are always encouraged to condition wherever possible...

Anyhow, Im still left with "How are LPAs requiring folk to evidence they are genuine CBSers...as per the question on the application form?

RE: BNG and Self Build

2025-02-03T09:18:28Z

On the UU issue. We had an appeal decision in Bolton Appeal Decision APP/N4205/W/24/3343705 albeit straight Green Belt rejection in reality for a single dwelling. The inspector was not convinced that much weight in the balance should be given to the UU's effectiveness because the decision would be made at appeal and therefore it was not the council making the decision and also because the UU referred to regulations not the main Act. So wording of UUs probably needs to be closely examined closely too.

RE: BNG and Self Build

2025-02-01T10:22:21Z

I have another question to add to the mix.

I note Cheryl's comment that "every indvdual dwelling is now coming in as CBS purely to avoid BNG". Whilst this may be the motive for some applicants, I'd suggest there is also something else going on.

There are thousands of people wanting to build their own home and only a handful of single plots available. Historically, most single plots are built by small developers on a speculative basis and it is important these opportunities continue so that new developers can enter the market and have a supply of available sites to enable them to grow. Those wishing to build their own homes will pay more for a plot than a developer, as they don't need to factor in a profit margin. There are lots of single unit permissions being marketed as self-build opportunities to try and capitalise on this. However, many of these permissions cannot count as SBCH plots as they are full permissions. This might not dissuade the buyer, but the level of primary input into design and layout is debateable. Decision makers might want to consider if a full application is capable of achieving the BNG self-build exemption (unless the applicant is building their own home, at which point the consideration may be what if they don't end up building and sell the permission on?).

I would suggest that if a plot is being advertised for sale as a SBCH opportunity, then it should be in outline form, allowing the incoming purchaser to have primary input into design and layout.

So, my question is this: If an applicant applies for outline permission for a single dwelling with the intention of selling this on as a self-build opportunity, then there is an expected exemption to the BNG requirement and there should be no need to submit BNG information with the application. If the buyer is a self-builder then the exemption continues, but if the buyer turns out to be a speculative developer, then BNG shall apply. It seems to me that given BNG is deemed to apply to every planning permission, that BNG information shall be required by the developer at RM stage. I think there is a general idea to avoid setting a condition for this, but how would this be managed - is it simply a consideration in the RM application?

RE: BNG and Self Build

2025-02-01T09:01:38Z

I believe the latest NPPF has been amended so that SBCH no longer carries a 10% exemption of affordable housing. It seems the full AH amount is due.

RE: BNG and Self Build

2025-01-31T19:03:17Z

A question for you, Mary. If a refused application is accompanied by a UU that's considered acceptable by an LPA, do you think that the UU have to be amended in any way if the matter went to appeal? The conditionality section of most UU's refer to the LPA in question. But, of course, if an appeal has been lodged then I guess it's no longer the LPA making the decision...

RE: BNG and Self Build

2025-01-31T14:28:53Z

Have a look at PINS' inspectors training manual - that and a bunch of decisions make it clear a UU/106 is most appropriate. Extract below from Housing Chapter, subsection on Self Build and custom housebuilding.

The Description of Development is relevant, but not determinative. Though in case of PiPs, I understand counsel's advice is if Self/custom build is in the DoD that's sufficient as any technical details can be assessed against that (though would recommend clear informative & text in report noting the relevance) and you can refuse if it looks like a sepculative build.

And some LPAs change the DoD from the application removing "self build" but hopefully with BNG shining a spotlight that practice will stop. By now it should be clear to everyone that self build is a specific type of housing (analagous to tenure) even if it is C3.

Mary

PS - QUick plug - SHARE WITH YOUR MEMBERS - free intro to self and custom build for members 19 Feb! https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/a-guide-to-custom-and-self-build-housing-for-elected-members-within-lpas-tickets-1206745150229

RE: BNG and Self Build

2025-01-30T12:51:44Z

Interesting comments Cheryl.

While I tend to agree that the system and costs of doing legal agreements for small plots seems over the top, others seem to think that UUs are the way forward.

Clearly descriptions would be obvious but again what weight do they have?

Conditions - others may wish to comment, but conditions are to make a scheme acceptable. As I've said for years, a house is a house, so it is hard to see whether a condition is legal anyway, we should not be granting permissions for houses on the grounds that they are for self build or custom build alone where they are contrary to policy.

We are obviously all trying to tick the box ultimately to satisfy tests against a pretty unrobust register (but that is the test).

And if you own or have acquired a site or have a permission why would you even bother being on the register.

And the register is about overall "desire/demand/interest" not about satisfying a particular individual's need. There is no legal requirement to actually provide permissions for a specific individual on the register, just enough permissions to meet the totals. You could in theory have nobody on the register satisfied - because they can't take up the permissions anyway.

Ultimately we have to be satified the permissions are for self/custom build. I'm not sure they are different in terms of tests, although stand to be corrected.

RE: BNG and Self Build

2025-01-30T11:15:11Z

A basic question:

What weight can we give the self build biodiversity net gain exemption as evidence to define a permission as meeting self build requirements?

Hello...new here, but we have been pondering the BNG and CSB thing, and yes, every indvdual dwelling is now coming in as CBS purely to avoid BNG, even barn conversions, apps involving demolition.

Maybe I'm reading this Q wrong,What weight can we give the self build biodiversity net gain exemption as evidence to define a permission as meeting self build requirements? but zero weight. The CSB evidence is needed to demonstrate BNG exemption.

The application form asks "Does your LPA require you to evidence CSB?", or words to that effect, in the BNG section. How are LPAs asking applicants to evidence this, if you are at all?

We currently aren't, but are putting it in the description (most agents dont), checking site area isnt too big (we had one where it was double the exemption size) and if approved, condition it for CSB. That also then leads on to "does it need to be specific as either SB or CB? I dont think so whilst there's a difference, the legislation doesn't differentiate? Welcome thoughts on how you would require an applicant to evidence they are CBSers? On the register? They dont need to be. SB mortgage in place?...I guess that would work for single plots, but not outlines where the plots will then be bought by individual SBers.

On the UU/S106, I am of the view its not needed for single plots. Curious why some think its necessasry and the desciption with a condition wont suffice? We do use a 106 for multi-plots though.

RE: BNG and Self Build

2025-01-28T17:16:54Z

Thanks, Kulwinder. I stand (well sit) corrected. I typically work in Kent and Essex where uptake is much lower. I should have checked before assuming everywhere else was similar

RE: BNG and Self Build

2025-01-28T12:07:14Z

James Chapman:

I don't know the figures on a national picture, but consider that Kulwinder may be wrong in thinking 'most' authorities have CIL in place. In my experience, only a few do.

According to Planning Resource it's around 200 with published plans (including for consultation), as of 12 April 2023...

RE: BNG and Self Build

2025-01-28T10:50:22Z

I might be reading the question wrong, but that sounds like the tail wagging the dog. The exemption isn't evidence; it can be applied if there is enough evidence that the application meets CSB requirements.

RE: BNG and Self Build

2025-01-28T10:08:21Z

Useful exchanges going on here.

A basic question:

What weight can we give the self build biodiversity net gain exemption as evidence to define a permission as meeting self build requirements?

RE: BNG and Self Build

2025-01-27T21:12:39Z

I generally support Kulwinder's views on the subject. IMHO LA's have been truly woeful in their attitude towrds SBCH with most actively trying to prevent such development in their areas. The LURA references to what can count and how need in any given year accumulates is a direct message to authorities who think they can simply disregard the need. Many people want to build their own homes and authorities need to recognise this and facilitate it through policies.

On the 3 year timeframe, Mary correctly points out that there is no such requirement in SBCH. Rather the requirement is under the CIL regulations. I don't know the figures on a national picture, but consider that Kulwinder may be wrong in thinking 'most' authorities have CIL in place. In my experience, only a few do. I regularly see authorities mix up the 3-year self-build exemption under CIL with the SBCH legislation, and also the BNG legislation, now that's with us.

I don't think a self-builder should be required to own their property for 3 years. I think it highly likely that they shall because for such people, they are designing the home of their dreams. But circumstances change. If you fall ill shortly after completing your home and you must sell then any 3 year rule will cause unnecessary stress.

The 3 year timeframe for CIL simply deals with money. Government(s) want to encourage SBCH and recognise that it can contribute strongly (sorry, Andrew) to housing numbers, like it does on the continent. Giving a CIL exemption to SBCH supports the growth of the sector, but I do recognise that some people might try and game the system for advantage. An applicant can fill in the CIL form and claim self-build relief, but if they sell within 3 years they must pay the full amount of CIL charge - it's not even graduated, it's all or nothing. This 3 year period acts as a deterrent to those who think they can complete the house, save on the CIL and then sell soon after completion. The 3 year rule for CIL relief seems appropriate to me, but maybe graduating it would be fairer.

RE: BNG and Self Build

2024-12-30T09:47:15Z

Just ICYMI, there is a BNG for self build online training session scheduled for Thurs 9 January: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/biodiversity-net-gain-csb-homes-in-the-planning-process-tickets-1112632175789

Its free for anyone in local gov (with a gov.uk email - funded by MHCLG). To get the FREE promo code email Vicky at taskforce@righttobuild.org.uk

RE: BNG and Self Build

2024-12-23T15:33:02Z

Mary Elkington:

To be fully clear - the three year occupancy is only related to the CIL Regulations self buidl exemption. There is nothing the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding act and regulations about three year occupancy.

Quite correct. Though, given most LPAs have CIL regimes in place, it is difficult to imagine that any genuine self-builder would not wish to apply for the exemption, so further confirming intent.

That said, most genuine self builders are happy to sign a UU and many won't have an issue with three years. In addition, given the definition in the SB&CH legislation, the home will by defintion be principle residence (not holiday let etc) for the builder/first occupants - something most people will be happy to commit to in a UU.

Absolutely...

Re the numbers increasing - 13 years self build has been in the NPPF, and 8 years since legislation, most LPAs have struggled to get to grips with this - it's great (IMO) that the BNG means LPAs will have to better monitor and acknowledge the number of self build appliations. This will help 'calibrate' the numbers they are seeing in the register.

Agreed. But I would still like to see more LPAs pro-actively factoring in credible secondary data sources - from the likes of Buildstore - when assessing demand, as is suggested by existing legislation.

Currently, most only address the matter when presented with such data at appeal. That isn't terribly positive or pro-active, in my view.

Always a good shout to check out guideance and advice notes on righttobuild.org.uk - not perfect, but bust there is. Paricularly as the NPPG is so out of date (does not reference LURA changes and much more).

Agreed.

RE: BNG and Self Build

2024-12-23T14:00:11Z

To be fully clear - the three year occupancy is only related to the CIL Regulations self buidl exemption. There is nothing the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding act and regulations about three year occupancy.

That said, most genuine self builders are happy to sign a UU and many won't have an issue with three years. In addition, given the definition in the SB&CH legislation, the home will by defintion be principle residence (not holiday let etc) for the builder/first occupants - something most people will be happy to commit to in a UU.

Re the numbers increasing - 13 years self build has been in the NPPF, and 8 years since legislation, most LPAs have struggled to get to grips with this - it's great (IMO) that the BNG means LPAs will have to better monitor and acknowledge the number of self build appliations. This will help 'calibrate' the numbers they are seeing in the register.

Always a good shout to check out guideance and advice notes on righttobuild.org.uk - not perfect, but bust there is. Paricularly as the NPPG is so out of date (does not reference LURA changes and much more).

RE: BNG and Self Build

2024-12-23T13:18:12Z

Thanks all. Interesting readin (and lots more detail than I expected!).

RE: BNG and Self Build

2024-12-23T12:51:36Z

So long as there are specific deliverables baked in to a UU or S106, there's no reason why monitoring that would require a huge resource on the part of an LPA. If in 3 years time after the grant of permission, the required proofs haven't arrived, the permission is invalid, end of; the onus is on the persons who are bound by the undertaking to demonstrate compliance. In my view, there's actually no reason why LPAs shouldn't be able to provide a template UU or S106, one that can be customised for site circumstances, but which ensures the requirements of legislation are met.

SBCB is one part of the answer to the housing crisis - in sheer numerical terms, large, sustainably located developments are always going to be the main answer. But SBCB will likely be required as a partial component of all larger schemes.

That alone, however, will not be enough to satisfy the need to ensure a diversity of supply. Individual CFSB sites will rightly play a strong part in delivering that aspiration - most self-builders contemplate CFSB because they don't want to live on large, anonymous estates - and so policies that specifically and fairly acknowledge that need should be part of any future Local Plans.

RE: BNG and Self Build

2024-12-23T12:33:36Z

Thanks Kulwinder for the 3 year occupancy confirmation, I'd missed that and other information. I agree that ambiguities in the earlier implementation of self build did not help and while I'm far from convinced simplistic tick-box registers prove much at at we do have more clarity through subsequent legislation.

I suppose fundamentally while self build could contribute to housing numbers there is little evidence certainly locally where I work that this will solve the housing crisis and perhaps the early messaging that "get on the register will get you a plot cheap from the council" was wrong. Also the efforts to carry out the process, evaluate a UU or other legal agreement etc seem completely disproportionate for a single dwelling. And while there is a requirement for 3 year occupancy (not checked specifically for the detail) it seems unlikely given resources in planning departments that this will ever be checked further down the line. So could be largely meaningless - but at least you get a house and can tick the self-build box.