Disabled serviceman and special dispensation for house building in the green belt!

[HMC]

I was half watching breakfast news today and there was an item about a double amputee Bristish serviceman (alas, I can't recall in which conflict he sustained his injuries, possibly Afghanistan?). There is a great deal of fuss because a local authority have declined permission for him to build a bespoke bungalow suitable for his needs in an area of greenbelt countryside. Apparently even the PM and David Cameron are on their case.

Far from being a no brainer, I find myself supporting the Local authority's position. Of course society owes a debt to their injured servicemen and women (putting 'politics' aside for a moment) - but I can't see that allowing our dwindling unspoilt countryside to be compromised is in any way justifiable however 'deserving' the plantiff is

I would support a grant to help him build an appropriate house - but not in the greenbelt

What do you think?

It's in the grounds of his current house though, NIMBY's the lot of them.

i personally think homes for any people are more important than green spaces.

the LA in this case should be ashamed of themselves.

I think that the LA should be finding ALL disabled people suitable accommodation - within planning law and the UDP. So I wouldn't say 'yes of course he can build on green belt', BUT if it is within his current grounds then I would support stretching the point, I think.

It's been in the news for weeks, only today report showed the actual proposed are for the bungalow. It's in his grandads garden looking out over hills with tree's behind. Looked a reasonable plot to me.

I understood that the reason he wants the house there is because it is near his parents?

Hence he can live independantly, but with support close by.

It's not quite the same as wanting to stick up a random bulngalow in the middle of the brecon beacons, is it?

If they allow him to build in green belt land, they would have to let anyone build there.

This has made me really annoyed. He has given a huge price fighting for our country and he should have been able to have a house built close to his parents.

Somebody would claim the presedant had been set no doubt, but so what, it's his families land.

Anyone and everyone has to abide by planning law on their own land.

I think his need for suitable housing as a disabled person should be met, but I don't see that the way in which he lost his legs is a reason to be exempt from the law.

Is it a law they are citing though? Not read the details or is it someone in local government simply saying no. What criteria is the proposed plans not meeting? What I heard was that it would "spoil the view" surely that's a personal opinion and not a law? What defines that view?

Hi there, Sorry hope what follows is not too boring and technical but just thought it would be useful to set out the background to the probable reasons as to why the Local Authority has refused his application.

If you want to build in the green belt then it has to be within a list of types of buildings/uses, which is set out in national planning guidance. A house in someone's back garden wouldn't fall within this list. If what you want to build doesn't fall within that list then it is classed as 'inappropriate development' and there has to be 'very special circumstances' to justify allowing the building to go ahead.

However personal circumstances cannot usually be taken into account as either 'very special circumstances' in the Green Belt or to justify any building that is contrary to planning policy. There are only very rare occasions when personal circumstances are taken into account, and having worked in planning for eight years I've not yet seen anything allowed on this basis.

The problem being that if you take one person's circumstances into account to justify something that wouldn't normally be allowed, then where would you draw the line as to whose circumstances you could and couldn't consider? It would be incredibly difficult to decide which personal circumstances were more important and could be taken into account.

Hope this makes some sense!

I agree that fields and open spaces shouldn't - wherever possible - be sold off for development however against that I do think that you should -within reason- be allowed to build what you want in your own garden, and that this man should be put in a position of having his own home where he can live with some independance. And in a sense that should be irrespective of whether he lost his legs whilst serving his country, in a car accident or through illness.

and its a bungalow, ffs, not like he's building a turreted castle or something

if it goes against the town planning laws then it should not be allowed IMO. surely the procedures and restrictions on building have to apply to everyone equally and the types of construction which are allowed is most likely clearly set out.
otherwise, as said above, where do you draw the line on whos personals circumstances allow them exemption and who's doesn't?

A lady near us has been granted permission to build a specially adapted bungalow in the grounds of her family farm.She was paralysed fro the waist down in a horse riding accident,and needed somewhere near her family,but that could also accommodate her physio equipment.The council ruled that it was an exceptional case and passed it,but stressed it was a rare exception,and people shouldn't see it as setting a precedent.Personally,I'm pleased for her.

ffs, let's show a bit of humanity here. It is an exceptional case, regardless of how the man became disabled, he deserves the right to independent living but with family near by, if they have the land and the finances in place then it is ridiculous to oppose it.

This is a tricky one.

Obviously we all feel very very sympathetic to the servicemean who is disabled.

The problem is that if the local authority allow this then they will be setting a legal precedent that anyone with a disabled relative to circumvent planning regulation in the area.

I think it is this later issue that is driving the planning decision here.

I wonder if it might be possible to put a temporary wooden structure in the garden. Not a mobile home but a proper wooden home - like those really nice 'home office' buldings you can buy.

It would give the son the private space he needs but not a right of permanent structure. I am sure that the planning authority could put severe restrictions on the authorisation for a temporary structure.

I guess it might be poor solution if he has a family and kids as well.

Didn't these grandparent's actually approach their neighbours and they raised no objection to the buildings being proposed...?

What were the official reasons given for the refusal?

I don't know what the official reasons were, but it was a split decision and the deciding vote was a 'No'

I think the one reason was that the council were unhappy that the decision would set a precedent for other planning decisions...

If he is allowed, why not a person who can not afford to buy a home elsewhere and whose parents are happy to build them a home in their green belt garden? Do they not deserve a home too?

Would planning allow an annexe to the main home to be built, rather than a separate dwelling though? It would still give independence.

Is this the guy whose grandparents wanted to build him a bungalow in their garden? Looks like a compromise may be reached.

Common Sense provails at last.

OP - I agree with you 100%.

If this man had lost his legs in a different way (car crash for eg), would they still be looking for ways to help him?

I don't agree with Greenbelt land being built on for any reason personally.

When you buy a house the land doesn't automatically become yours does it? (i am not a homeowner so unsure here) i thought that the HOUSE was yours but the land remained the local authorities (unless you bu ythe land then build the house of course)

Of course the land automatically becomes yours when you buy a house, you buy the land it stands on too.
I'm sorry that the countryside is being swallowed up with development but this is what happens when a lot of people want to live in one place.
When you have the majority families squashed into crampt conditions so a few middle class NIMBY's can go for walks on a Sunday afternoon I see red.
And who says it belongs to the government or the council anyway, who says they get the right to decide what's built and what isn't, so much for being born free.
One developer by us had the planning department all over him with mm's being questioned when it came to height 15 years ago, fast forward to the labour government and somebody else buys a one storey building for £250k, applies and gets planning permission for a 2 storey building and it's worth £2 million. I wonder how much cash he had to put in a brown envelope.