This is a fantastic letter written by David Eisenberg of DCAT in the USA - August 3, 2013 Ben Pykett, Assistant Chief Executive Pembrokeshire County Council, County Hall Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire, SA61 1TP Dear sir, Regarding the decision to require the demolition of Charlie Hague and Megan Williams home constructed without prior permission on the grounds that "There is a lack of proper justification for the benefits of the low-impact development in this case for this matter to be given sufficient weight and to outweigh the policies which seek to control development in the countryside." Please allow me to identify myself. I am David Eisenberg, co-founder and Executive Director of the Development Center for Appropriate Technology in Tucson, Arizona USA (dcat.net). I am a former residential and commercial building contractor, served 5 years as the founding Vice-Chair of the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) E06.71 Subcommittee on Sustainability (now the full ASTM E60 Committee on Sustainability), served two terms on the national Board of Directors of the US Green Building Council (USGBC), am the recipient of a 1995 National Award from the World Organization of Building Officials for “Promotion of Innovative Indigenous Building Materials,” and the 2007 Affiliate of the Year Award from the International Code Council (ICC - the national organization of building officials in the US) and the 2007 national USGBC Leadership Award for Organizational Excellence, as well as serving on the original drafting committee for ICC’s inaugural 2012 International Green Construction Code, and have written, taught and lectured around the world for the past twenty years on sustainability and the built environment and particularly on the regulatory aspects and challenges. I write to you now after learning that the appeal to save Charlie Hague and Megan Williams home has been lost and there is a decree that it be demolished within two months. I want to plead with you to set aside this decision in the light of the degree to which this home is an exemplar of the very goals laid out in your national One Planet Development Practical Guidance Technical Advice Note 6 dated October 2012. In particular I point to the very purpose of the existence of this program: An excellent letter in support of https://facebook/pages/Charlie-and-Megs-Roundhouse/143456382471743 One Planet Development – the policy context 1.5 The Welsh Government’s Sustainable Development Scheme, ‘One Wales: One Planet has an objective that within the lifetime of a generation, Wales should use only its fair share of the earth’s resources, with its ecological footprint reduced to the global average availability of resources of 1.88 global hectares per person (the global availability of resources in 2007). This is a very challenging but necessary target. and further: Essential characteristics of One Planet Development in the open countryside 1.9 TAN 6, reflecting Planning Policy Wales, lays out a set of essential characteristics that all One Planet Developments in the open countryside must have. These are that One Planet Developments must: —Have a light touch on the environment – positively enhancing the environment where ever possible through activities on the site. —Be land based – the development must provide for the minimum needs of residents in terms of food, income, energy and waste assimilation in no more than five years. —Have a low ecological footprint – the development must have an initial ecological footprint of 2.4 global hectares per person or less with a clear potential to move to 1.88 global hectares per person over time – these are the Ecological Footprint Analysis benchmarks for all One Planet Development (para 2.11). —Have very low carbon buildings – these are stringent requirements, requiring that buildings are low in carbon in both construction and use. —Be defined and controlled by a binding management plan which is reviewed and updated every five years. —Be bound by a clear statement that the development will be the sole residence for the proposed occupants. The basis of my request that you set aside this ruling and reverse it is that while the above guidance was being developed, this couple engaged in exactly the desired activity - which was unfortunately at the time, illegal, and thus they could not have found any such official sanction, justification or support. Thus their offense is mainly one of timing, in that had they done precisely the same things once this national goal and guidance was in place, they would be national leaders in the effort to achieve crucial and nationally recognized objectives. The official statement that "There is a lack of proper justification for the benefits of the low-impact development in this case for this matter to be given sufficient weight and to outweigh the policies which seek to control development in the countryside." flies directly in the face of the official position of the national government of Wales, as indicated in the above quoted sections. This is a miscarriage of both law and justice, as it represents a very tangible setback against this national goal, and in no way can be considered a positive step forward. As serious, in my view, the extent of the tragedy is not limited to this particular family but extends to the destructive and expanding view that governments are incapable of acting in the interests of ordinary citizens and only work for the preservation or expansion of power and control of the already wealthy and powerful - a view that has gained ascendency in my own country to the enormous detriment of all. Please do not give greater credence to those views by carrying out an act that may be rationalized by the technical application of the law but goes against common sense and reason, and in this case, the very goals that are largely achieved by the very thing being destroyed. Therefore, I ask out of my deepest sincerity as one who has worked with the regulatory regimes from local to national in the US for over twenty years to create positive change and enable exactly the exemplary kind of building that this couple has created, that you reconsider this and immediately withdraw the order to demolish so that a more thorough, and thoughtful process may proceed. Because such guidance for all future building projects of this nature now exists, there should be no fear that this action will set in place a precedent. The very situation that compelled this couple to build without approval has now been remedied. Thank you for considering this. Kind regards, David Eisenberg Executive Director Development Center for Appropriate Technology PO Box 27513 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7513 dcat.net DCAT - Development Center for Appropriate Technology dcat.net
Posted on: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 22:34:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015