Roundhouse,
hut etc at Brithdir Mawr
Summary of
our points so far
This is a summary of the points we would have made at the meeting at
We have agreed a contract
with the Tir Ysbrydol Trust, two copies of which are
attached as ‘Estover Agreement’. This will ensure
adequate supplies of wood for fuel and crafts without depleting woodland
resources in any way.
I attach two copies of amended workshop plans,
now designated 3a and 4a, to replace 3 and 4 in the application. Please note
that the roof now slopes the other way, and that there are four higher but
narrower windows to the south, to partly compensate for loss of roof light.
Please amend the application to be for a
greenhouse of recycled glass, of the same dimensions, ie
4m long, 2 wide and 2 high. No concrete will be used in the base.
The roundhouse building is
based on celtic designs found locally and
demonstrated in the Park’s own Castell Henllys. It is earth-sheltered, built of natural materials,
and landscaped and sited to be invisible from any surrounding high points or
public footpaths. I have already given details of its construction, but have
received so many requests for further information that I wrote a book ‘Building
a Low Impact Roundhouse’ that still sells well and is available on Amazon or
from Permanent Publications. The roundhouse’s appearance has been appreciated
by thousands of people. Please refer to the guestbook of my website www.thatroundhouse.info to confirm
this. It has been the subject of many educational visits, TV programmes,etc.
We are considering building a
more solid chimney up through the roof, and a more discreet solar water heating
panel on the outside (which is at present admittedly DIY in appearance), but
cannot afford the money this would cost unless we have permission to remain
there.
Please note that in the SPG
to the new policy it states, in defining ‘Low Impact’: “Detailed information on
the building’s construction and its total environmental impact rather than just the appearance will be
a material planning consideration.” (my italics).
Your officers and advisers have
failed to prove that any protected habitat has been
damaged in any way by our being here, nor would be by allowing our application.
May I repeat here the comments of the ecologist who produced our environmental assessment:
Response to PCNP Ecologist’s
comments on the Roundhouse Application at Brithdir Mawr (06/381)
1.
The subjective nature of Phase 1 Habitat surveys is
well documented (Cherrill & McClean,
Journal of Applied Ecology, 36, 989-1008). In this case, the CCW Phase 1 Habitat survey,
conducted in 1995, is misleading. From
that survey it would appear that the roundhouse and associated buildings have
been built on marshy grassland. However,
the photographs given in the ecological report clearly show that the roundhouse
and associated arable habitat has been built on a bracken dominated bank (a
habitat of low ecological value).
2. Two new habitats have
been created (arable and marginal/swamp). However, it would be impossible to
achieve 75% of a livelihood from land-based activities (as demanded by policy
50) without the creation of these habitats.
3. The authority’s
ecologist argues that the two new habitats created have a lower ecological
value than the habitats they replaced.
This view must stem from the misleading 1995 CCW phase 1 map. However, photographic evidence given in the
ecological report clearly shows that the habitat replaced was continuous
bracken (a habitat of very low ecological value). Therefore the new habitats created have added
to the ecological value of the site, particularly the arable habitat which is
of value to UKBAP priority listed species such as bullfinch and song thrush.
4. All the species recorded
in the marshy grassland in the 1995 CCW survey were recorded again in the 2006
survey (which also includes an additional 23 species). The area of marshy grassland mapped for the
two surveys is broadly of the same magnitude.
From this there doesn’t appear to have been a negative impact on the
marshy grassland.
5. The marshy grassland
community (broadly equivalent to the National Vegetation Classification (NVC)
community M23) requires either grazing or mowing to maintain its status. Without management it will succeed to
woodland. The marshy grassland has been
managed by the occupants of the roundhouse by cutting back and weeding out
intruding willows and alders. Therefore
the management has had a beneficial impact on the marshy grassland.
6. It is not my view that
the proposals are likely to have an impact on protected species such as dormice
and bats (as stated in the planning officer’s report). The conclusion of the report clearly states
that the impact of the development on protected species will be negligible.
(Leander
Wolstenholme 11th January 2007)
I enclose a set of
photographs of the site before and during the roundhouse construction. Please
note that the site was entirely covered in bracken. We still have, annually to
weed bracken from around the house, through all the
garden, and around the reed bed. Scrub and bramble are occasionally controlled,
and the field is constantly cleared of encroaching willow, bramble, alder and
birch, to preserve it as a rich marshy environment. We graze it annually and
will this year graze it more intensively in late spring, on the advice of the
CCW conservation officer, to maintain it.
No grassland at all has been
lost. The roof is approx 120 square metres of mixed grass where once was
bracken.
This whole farm is maintained
to the highest conservation standards, and the upkeep
of our fields in Tir Ysbrydol and here has been used
as an example by the ESA scheme. We have also been applauded for our hazel and
alder coppicing. This is a once common practice that is now rare except in
holdings like this, which helps create an ancient habitat for dormice and
invertebrates. We receive visits from environmental courses who find it hard to
show students examples of regular coppicing being carried out.
Overall, our positive environmental
contribution has been to preserve this field from what could be the ravages of
modern agriculture, to respect and conserve habitats, including in the coppiced
area, and to enhance biodiversity, especially for bird species such as thrush
and bullfinch. As I have already mentioned to you, this holding has been
subjected to analysis by Dr Mary Hancock from
I hope these points will
convince you that we fulfil all the requisite remaining criteria for acceptance
under policy 50. If you are willing to acknowledge this, then we do not need a
further meeting. If not, please let me know as soon as possible what any remaining
obstacles are, so that you may proceed with this to committee.
Thanking you for your
thorough treatment of our points, and for your
flexibility in considering what is, after all, a challenging and novel planning
issue.
Yours sincerely,