I recently drove accross the peak district - What a barren landscape in places.

HOWEVER, there seemed to be loose stone outcrops everywhere. Why not allow small self build communities in areas like this where people have to utilise materials directly from the site? Also make it a condition of consent that they also have giant bird blender wind turbines to provide all their [exclusively] electrical needs.

Other possible areas include small coastal Islands

Crazy ? or viable?

Why?

Once upon a time where I live was also an area of outstanding natural beauty - not any more. Why should all new developments tag on to urban areas such as mine? And I don't mind having wind turbines in my back yard - in fact- the more the merrier. Also bring on the Severn Barrage and incorporate wind turbines along the full length of it.

Tough times call for tough decisions and it seems to me that times are soon to become very tough indeed - especially in terms of energy provision. A truly sustainable solution is to build with whatever is in your back yard, and to make use of sustainable energy sources wherever they are most prevalent.

Another example - allow self build in the shadow of power stations and set up district heating schemes with the [currently wasted] hot water from cooling systems. I wonder how much energy is dumped in this way via water outflows into the sea? There is certainly a tremendous amount wasted at Aberthaw power station near me.

I'm not talking about develoment on a massive scale, though this may ultimately become necessary. The current policy seemsto be to build on flood plains! Something has to change there

For starters, how about just enough permission to satisfy the demand of like minded people who would like to self build? Permission could be linked to strict criteria, ensuring that any buildings fit well with the local vernacular.

Earth sheltering would also be inconspicuous , maybe built encorporating stone filled gabions as opposed to concrete? Would it be possible to engineer such a design?

I'm generally in favour with low impact development in the countryside but I'd rather see it tacked onto existing villages. I live on the edge of the Peak District and most of the people who live in my village, and other villages around and about, work in tourism related activities, local services or are commuters to Sheffield, Derby or Nottingham. That is not a sustainable situation post Peak Oil.

In my opinion, the thing to do is expand villages that are currently not viable, i.e. they can't quite support one or other of the vital local services, like a primary school, shop, pub, bus service etc. That way these services can be added in a self supporting and cost effective way improving the lives of all the residents. This could be done through rural exception sites (inc. self build plots) which keep the housing affordable in perpetuity and required certain criteria to be met before being allowed to purchase. For instance, you work locally or from homes, have no car (car pool instead). The sites could also include craft businesss, light industry etc.

I read today that fossil fuels multiply human labour by 70 times. We're going to need more people growing food in the countryside in the not too distant future. Would make sense to start re-populating rural areas now in a thoughful way rather than just cramming people into dismal housing estates in cities.

Posted By: Chris Wardle In my opinion, the thing to do is expand villages that are currently not viable, i.e. they can't quite support one or other of the vital local services, like a primary school, shop, pub, bus service etc. That way these services can be added in a self supporting and cost effective way improving the lives of all the residents. This could be done through rural exception sites (inc. self build plots) which keep the housing affordable in perpetuity and required certain criteria to be met before being allowed to purchase. For instance, you work locally or from homes, have no car (car pool instead). The sites could also include craft businesss, light industry etc.

I couldn't agree more. I've seen how it works in Belgium. Over there you can find all sorts of businesses operating out of purpose made home offices. Across the road from us we had a doctor, a dentist, a hair dresser, a post office/bank and a cycle repair shop. All of which were seamlessly integrated into the village. Typically all you could see as a sign out front and perhaps the provision of a slightly wider driveway to allow parking. Contrary to popular belief they didn't cause a noise or traffic problem - on the contrary many people could walk there and fewer people had to commute.

Why don't we go the whole hog? Let's scrap planning permission, building regs, and all the other red tape. . . . . lets decide on a certain 'plot size' in which any one can make/build/live however they want to. . . . if they want to dig it up and make an earth shelter, so what! if they want to block pave it and put in upvc, so what!. . . . . the only difference would be, when they tried to sell. . . . . . .then they would be taxed on the environmental impact - how many trees they had chopped down. . . how many tonnes of concrete they had used. . . how well insulated and long lasting the dwelling they had produced. . . . . .similarly, perhaps they would get a bonus, if they factored into their design , things that already there, like established trees/hedgerows. . . .

The ultimate idea would be, to encourage people to produce buildings of low impact on the environment, because if they didn't they would loose out in the long term. . . . . . as far as 'local services' go. . . . these are essential, but I think the onus should be on the owners of the plots in specific areas to provide. . . . . . by factoring in such services as home delivery points, post offices, schools etc, they are contributing to the increased value of their own plots. . . .. . perhaps it may even encourage a community spirit of sorts - where it was beneficial to the owners of adjoining plots to make sure that their plots were attractive to other - potential purchasers. . . . . .

Posted By: luditeWhy don't we go the whole hog? Let's scrap planning permission, building regs, and all the other red tape. . . . . lets decide on a certain 'plot size' in which any one can make/build/live however they want to. . . .

The problem is that rich people, who can evade or afford whatever tax you care to throw at them, would build enormous, ugly, resource-guzzling monstrosities in all of the lovely unspoilt places.

I'm in favour of strategic planning, i.e. designating certain areas for development and other areas not for development. However, I don't think the current process for deciding on what gets built is really doing its job. Most of the buildings that people love and cherish were built before we had planners and most of the awful ones have been built since.