ROUNDHOUSE BENEFITS FROM POLICY 52
The story of the Roundhouse (1) at Brithdir Mawr (2) has taken another turn.
Mark Fisher, 17 September 2008
Following the failure of the planning application last year, Tony Wrench withdrew his individual application, and instead a new application was made for a community development of eight roundhouses, with Tony’s included. The Times today reports that this application has been successful (3 - the P word is mentioned).
There are some good learning points in this story. I wrote last year to the Pembrokeshire National Park Authority (PNPA), which is the planning authority that turned the application down. My concern was with what appeared to me to have been a misuse both in spirit and intent of an ecological survey in a continuing effort to find a killer blow against the Roundhouse, condemned by enforcement for many years to demolition. It seemed to me that permaculturists would now have to get inside the minds of the conservation industry - their LBAPs, SAPs, HAPs, targets etc - as well as the planners, in navigating through the development process.
I had a long reply from the PNPA pointing me to Policy 52 of the Joint Unitary Development Plan for Pembrokeshire - Low Impact Development (LID) Making a Positive Contribution. This policy was adopted in 2006 and it lays out the framework in which applications for LIDs will be considered (4):
“Dealing with proposals under Policy 52 needs to be seen as a process because the Authorities won’t just be considering the buildings that will be used, but also the activities that will be carried out and whether they will achieve positive benefits”
While as permaculturists, we would buy into the achievement of positive benefits through our activiries, this was not entirely the criteria by which Tony’s application was turned down (it depends on what you consider is a benefit), and I doubt if it is a criteria that is used in any other type of development in the Park. Having said that, I would thoroughly recommend reading this policy, as it gives extensive detail on the contents of a management plan that has to be submitted along with the application.
The management plan is an excellent tool for the discipline that should be undergone in approaching such a development. The policy also gives a clue as to why the combined community application from Brithdir Mawr was successful:
“Both a planning application and related management plan must cover all development comprehensively, particularly where a proposal is for a large area of land or number of residents and activities. Piecemeal proposals will not be acceptable”
This is a good news story. Our thanks must go to all those who responded to the consultation on the Policy during 2005/06, and particularly to LAMMAS who met with the PNPA. It is unfortunate, though, that LAMMAS heard only days before Brithdir Mawr that their planning application for 9 eco-smallholdings and a community hub with community transport was turned down by Pembrokeshire County Council (5). LAMMAS submitted an impressive array of documents in support (6):
- Overall management plan
- Woodland Management Plan
- Traffic Management Plan
- Permaculture report
- Business Plan
- Community Hub Plan
- Welcome Point Plan
- Terrace Design
- Individual Plot Management Plans