UPDATE April 24th 2008

UPDATE Feb 9th 2008
Coppicing again for a month or more in the woods. Coppicing involves cutting down hardwood trees for fuel and craft timber, and letting the sun in to a new glade. Here is the scene where we are working, with hand tools only:

In case you're worried about cutting down trees, these trees, ie birch, willow, ash and alder, all grow again from the stump, and live longer than the original tree. The big set of stumps above was one tree coppiced about forty years ago. Firewood really is a carbon neutral renewable resource! It's not just words - it grows again! Here's me standing by an alder that we coppiced in 2000.

And now here's an interesting thing. About 7 metres above us, on an oak branch, hangs this nest built by wild bees. They made it last year, and the frost killed the last of the bees off. Probably some honey in there, if we were foolhardy enough to climb the tree to get it. But what a thing of beauty!

UPDATE December 21st 2007
As we enter this winter solstice five years before the end of the world, according to the Mayan calendar, we are still here and the house is in good shape. As you may have noticed from the home page picture, we have a new chimney replacing the metal outside one. This was done to make the house look a bit better (or at least more acceptable for most people's taste) and to reduce the need for frequent cleaning by having the flue go up more directly. I took the advantage of this change to build in a wacky diversion for the hot flue gases to be diverted manually, when the fire is going well, along a four-metre floor-level tunnel through rocks and cob before it rejoins the chimney. This should provide more efficient warming and allow a larger area on which to place logs for final drying. Here is the work in progress:

And here is it finished:

The other work in progress is with the planners. I, Tony Wrench, have decided to take a back seat from now on with these negotiations - call it burnout if you will, or dissillusion with the bureaucratic process of reducing everything to figures to allow us to do what we have been consistently doing - so Jane is working with Emma across the fields to produce a working management plan and a new planning application covering our joint areas that the planners can say yes to. The woodland officer at the National Park has been working with them, and it remains to be seen whether they will come up with something that the higher echelons of the planning office and the councillors can approve. We will continue to let you know of progress as it happens, and will start a new page for 2008.

UPDATE September 24th 2007
Michaelmas.

UPDATE August31st 2007
As Autumn creeps in, the garden is a world of great beauty:

UPDATE August 2nd 2007
Had a very pleasant visit from Jane Fryer of the Daily Mail. Her feature should be in this Saturday's issue, Aug 4th.

There has been extraordinary media interest in this recent refusal decision, and we have had very supportive articles written in the Times, the Sunday Express, the Guardian, and many others. Interviews also on Radio Wales and You and Yours, BBC Radio 4 (probably to be broadcast on Monday August 6th). What stays with me two weeks after the decision is, first, the complete absence of facts produced by the Planning officers to back up the assertions that this house and garden have a " negative impact on biodiversity and the environment" and that "degradation will occur to the woodland". We've been here for ten years! Can they not come up with any evidence of "degradation" so far? I despair that councillors buy this nonsense without asking for evidence.
The second thing that rankles is the very last sentence of Cath Milner's report, thrown in just so that a lazy councillor might pick it up and run with it, as one actually did:
'5. The National Park Authority considers that consent for the proposed development could lead to further applications of a similar nature, prejudicing proper planning to the detriment of the amenities and character of the area.'
'..of a similar nature..' I have written to the National Park's solicitor to ask him what he thinks it means.

UPDATE July 29th 2007
Here is a good article in the Guardian:
Article by Patrick Barkham

There were two nice pictures with the article, but we can't reproduce them here.

Someone isn't too worried, anyway.....

UPDATE July 19th 2007
We attended the committee meeting yesterday morning and were allowed to speak for three minutes. (The first time we have been allowed to address them since this saga began in 1999.) Several members spoke in our favour - one being concerned that, after all this negotiation, refusal could be based on the advice of just one officer. Another acknowledged what I said about lack of any facts to prove damage, and a third remarked that they will not be able to learn from experiments in sustainable living unless they allow some through the net. Our local councillor, Robin Evans, gave a very disappointing speech in which, despite the advice from the solicitor that they should ignore the history and concentrate on the planning merits of this application, he came out with a version of the old argument 'if we let these people get away with it who is to stop other cases springing up' as if we are some deadly disease. This was a great shame since his predecessor Essex Havard was a great advocate for sustainable development who stood up for us strongly in the early days of this case. In the end they voted for refusal by 7 votes to 4. So we shall appeal.

On the broader front, I still don't understand it. In this summer's e-version of The Land magazine (see Chapter 7 in Links page), there is an article about how few owner-built houses there are in Britain (less than 10%) compared with other countries. In Austria the figure is over 80%, Italy over 50%.... Do you think the British bureaucrat may feel uneasy at someone who builds their own house, just like that? Especially if it is a warm, comfortable, secluded eco-house that only cost £3,000? What if everyone was allowed to do it? Is that it?

UPDATE July 11th 2007
The Senior Development Management Officer of the Planning Dept of PCNP has emailed to say that the officers are recommending refusal to the committee, which sits on Wed 18th July. This house is so beautiful to be in, and the garden so fruitful and bursting with life of all kinds, that I still cannot believe that in a world of such environmental spoilation and with spreading patches of such ugliness, there are still people paid to work on having this home demolished. The relevant part of the officers' report, dealing with the ecology officer's assessment of whether we can sustainably live off and manage our woodlands, can be read here.
What low impact proposal will ever withstand this level of nit-picking? With an attitude that interprets an organic permaculture garden and reed bed as "degradation", and the assertion that our carrying out careful thinning and coppicing of the woods will be "further degradation", it is clear that they can make up arguments to scupper this policy for ever.
The only sensible reaction to the news I can think of is to go out and pick some more blackcurrants.

UPDATE May 22nd, 2007
We have received an email from Pembrokeshire Coast National Park saying the application is being delayed yet again. Here is our reply.

UPDATE May 2nd 2007
We have produced a Woodland Management Plan and have sent off revised plans for the roundhouse showing a small porch at the front (rather than a free standing greenhouse) and a chimney flue going though the roof, rather than out at the side, as now. We hope that the committee will hear our application this month. Here is Jane putting in poles for the runner beans.

UPDATE Feb 1st 2007
The meeting below has been again postponed, due to illness of one of the planning officers. I have sent a summary of our points to them (here without photos or attachment).
Will they accept that this house does make a positive environmental contribution? Do they still think that this house has, in the first inspector's eyes, "an unsightly and incongruous appearance"?

UPDATE Jan 27th 2007
The decision was further postponed, following emails and replies mainly concerning whether this site could be said to produce a 'positive environmental contribution' within the meaning of Policy 50. We live on what was a piece of bracken-covered bank, while maintaining a field of high ecological value, and on this bank have created three new habitats - a permaculture garden, a roof environment (not acknowledged by anyone in authority) and a small reed bed. The Park ecologist argues that according to surveys in 1995 this was 'marshy grassland' and any loss of this is not an ecological improvement.
The backdrop to this ongoing nit-picking is the warmest winter ever across Europe, with daily debates about whether people like you and me, and even politicians, should/could reduce their greenhouse emissions to sustainable levels in time to prevent runaway global warming. There are probably a few hundred people in Wales living at sustainable emission levels, and a good proportion of us are doing it DESPITE the authorities, whatever their rhetoric.
Over the last six stormy weeks we have at least been able to benefit from the strong winds by erecting our wind turbine. It is a very low mast, so does not catch much wind, but has at least allowed us to use electric lights very sparingly and to communicate with the world by email. The Park ecologist is worried about the 'disturbance' our turbine might cause. Over the nine years we have lived here our main aim has been to live in harmony with nature, encouraging biodiversity in many ways and trying to maintain a very low eco-footprint. We are having a meeting with planning officers and ecologists this Wednesday, after which they will probably prepare a revised report for the February meeting.

UPDATE Dec 12th 2006
The determination of our application has been postponed, following our reply as set out below, so talks will now take place before mid-January.

UPDATE Dec 7th 2006

The Saga continues:
We heard today that the Pembs. Coast Nat. Park Planning officers are recommending to next week's planning committee, on Wednesday the 13th Dec at 10 am, that our application be REFUSED. The reasons are, in brief,
1. that the garden and the reed bed are new habitats in what was before a 'semi-natural' field corner
2 that the woodlands we have are not enough
3 that plastic polytunnel and polycarbonate workshop roof are not sustainable materials
4. that the house is 'unattractive, sporadic development' to quote the first inspector's phrase from 2000ad report.

If you want to know the full reasons and read the full officer's report, why not email her?

Our reply is that we can discuss all these points, and should do rather than having a straight refusal. Our letter is here.

UPDATE Dec 3rd 2006

We now have a new 200w. wind turbine up and running. Here is Jane using the box for a wonderful store of this year's preserves.

UPDATE Nov 21st 2006

BBC Online have just done a nice piece with pictures,, by Paula Dear, on our life here. Click on here to see it.

UPDATE Nov16th 2006

The planning committee visited us last week for a site visit. At last! It was fine. The officers will be writing a big report though, so we didn't get a decision yesterday after all. Maybe mid-December......

UPDATE Oct 18th 2006

We hear that some media reports have said that we are now legal and have permission, etc. There is a new policy in place, yes, (and can be viewed at www.pembrokeshirecoast.org.uk then Planning then Policies then Guidance Notes and click on Low Impact Development) but we are still in the end game of a very long match, and reports of success are premature. Meanwhile, it has been the warmest summer since records began. Global warming is kicking in. We need a government drive to encourage people to live in a low impact way. My conclusion about living in a house like this and trying to live sustainably is that yes, it can be done, but only if the authorities want to see it happen and support you. Struggling just to be here has taken up so much time and energy.

We have heard today that the Planning Committee will be paying us a visit, for the first time since this saga began, on November 8th, and will hopefully decide on our new application on November 15th. It will be lovely to meet them outside our hobbit home, and hope the sun shines for them.

UPDATE September 13th 2006

It has been a great year for fruit of all kinds - red currants, blackcurrants, apples. Here is me picking Autumn Bliss raspberries this week, and the grapes ripening above our front door.

Note from October: these have made 2 gallons of wine.

UPDATE July 30th 2006

The National Park has this week registered our new application for the roundhouse, the hut, a small polytunnel, a cobwood workshop and a small wind turbine. The last three are new and will be to draw all our self-sufficiency operations within the same curtilage, in order to cut transport costs, to increase our renewable energy supply in the winter and to meet the requirements of the new Low Impact planning policy for Pembrokeshire, which requires, among other things, that at least 75% of our basic needs be met directly from produce from the land. As far as I know, we shall be the first case to be considered under this new policy by the national park, so I have endeavoured to put a full case to them, and trust that they will look favourably on it.

In case you should get the urge to knock out a quick application one weekend, please note that our application took about four days to put together and involved this much paperwork, in addition to the application forms:

UPDATE June 13th 2006

We shall this month be putting in a new application to the Pembrokeshire Coast national Park under Policy 50 - Low Impact Development. The planning guidance notes have not yet gone through all the approval stages, so we cannot put them here yet. You may find something up to date here.

Basically, we shall put in an application for this roundhouse, the strawbale hut, a polytunnel, a small wind generator and a new low impact workshop in the bushes. The last three are to bring together other elements that are currently more dispersed, to increase efficiency and lower our ecofootprint, and to grow more vegetables.

Emma, a couple of fields away, will also be applying for her strawbale huts and maybe a low impact barn in Tir Ysbrydol. She has recently had the good news that a planning inspector has allowed her appeal on the woodland hut shown here - she has a 5 year permission, conditional on her carrying out wood management and coppicing in the zone where the hut is.

UPDATE May 9th 2006

Plenty has been happening on plans to form an eco-village in Pembrokeshire. This news report is a good summary: Pembrokeshiretv.com

UPDATE Feb17th 2006

It has been a productive new year. The Nat Park have produced a consultative document on the Supplementary Planning Guidance for Low Impact development that is positive in many ways. Three of us from Lammas ecovillage project will be meeting forward planning officers from the Park and Pembs County Council to make it a bit more workable if we can, before it is set in stone. The full text can be viewed on the Park's website.

It has also been a good month for coppicing a bit of hazel and silver birch. The latter makes nice turned bowls if you turn it rough before it splits. Here's me cleaving some of the bigger bits on site before taking them to the workshop. The rest will stand to dry, preferably for two years, before we use it for firewood.

The inspector reported at the end of 2005 on the Joint Unitary Development Plan for Pembs County Council and Pembrokeshire Coast National Park (JUDP). The bit that concerns us is Policy 50, which the inspector recommended be carried through as revised. There are a couple of stages still to go through before this is officially adopted, but the probability is that it will not be changed much, if at all, so here it is.

Policy 50 Low Impact Development making a Positive Contribution (Replacement Policy)

Low impact development that makes a positive contribution will only be permitted where:

i) The proposal will make a positive environmental, social and/or economic contribution with public benefit; and

ii)All activities and structures on site have low impact in terms of the environment and use of resources; and

iii) Opportunities to reuse buildings which are available in the proposal’s area of operation have been investigated and shown to be impracticable; and

iv) the development is well integrated into the landscape and does not have adverse visual effects; and

v) the proposal requires a countryside location and is tied directly to the land on which it is located, and involves agriculture, forestry or horticulture; and

vi) The proposal will provide sufficient livelihood for and substantially meet the needs of residents on the site; and

vii) The number of adult residents should be directly related to the functional requirements of the enterprise; and

viii) In the event of the development involving members of more than one family, the proposal will be managed and controlled by a trust, co-operative or other similar mechanism in which the occupiers have an interest.

5.4.58 Sustainable Development has emerged as the overarching objective of the planning system in the last decade. This policy provides a context for permitting development in the countryside which contributes to that agenda (see paragraph 2.2.3 National & Regional Section of the Plan) as an exception to normal planning policy where the proposals are tied directly to the land and the proposal provides sufficient livelihood for the occupants.

5.4.59 Proof that there is a positive contribution from the development in terms of the environment, the use of resources, and a combination of social/economic benefits will be needed. Public benefits might include providing services to the community. Proof that the proposals will achieve a neutral or at least the lowest possible adverse impact for each part of the government’s sustainability agenda must be submitted.

5.4.60 To this end any proposal will have to submit an integrated site management plan,
biodiversity and landscape character assessment together with
a business and improvement plan and sustainability action plan for the site.
These will detail the activities and structures on site and the environmental management of the site as well as sustainability objectives to be achieved by the development.
The Business Improvement Plan will also provide evidence of the functional needs of the enterprise and financial information as to the likely returns to be achieved. It will be necessary to establish that the land use activities proposed are able to support financially the occupants.
The applicants will be expected to enter into a S106 agreement relating to the continued operation of the site, and based upon the site management plan.

5.4.61 A Supplementary planning guidance will be prepared setting out a step by step approach to considering proposals under this policy. The guidance will include a comprehensive checklist of sustainability design and construction matters to be included in any assessment.

A checklist will include the requirements for development and associated activities to:

•Be of a scale appropriate to the site and the enterprise proposed
•Accord with sustainable construction and design principles
•Use materials which are natural, renewable, recycled and where possible locally sourced
•Incorporate comprehensive measures to minimise energy use, light pollution and waste production
•be capable of easily being dismantled and removed from the site and the site restored to anappropriate state in accordance with the terms set out in the management plan

5.4.62A In advance of preparing supplementary planning guidance the report ‘Low Impact Development –Further Research’ will be used as interim supplementary guidance to inform the application of this policy.

5.4.63A Within the National Park developments must demonstrate themselves to be compatible and not adversely effect the special qualities of the National Park landscape (Policy 5 & 64).’

At this moment in time it is hard to see any significant difference between this policy and their existing policies, except that low impact livers will have to fill in more forms and write more reports. Business Improvement Plans figure much less in our lives than the ability to chop and store good firewood. Applicants under this policy will have to prove a level of self-sufficiency and financial support from the land that few low impact livers could achieve. It would also seem to rule out any person living on a low impact settlement who is not of full working age, ability and fitness. This is a policy carved out of fear of the unknown rather than openness to a sustainable alternative way of living, but it is all there is, so far, so we will have to do the best we can with it.

(This was written in Feb. 2006 - before amendments to the Special Planning Guidance - see above)