Application due to go to planning committee next week with recommendation for refusal

ECO HOME: Charlie Hague and Megan Williams' roundhouse in Glandwr. PICTURE: Amanda Jackson.

FAMILY HOME: Charlie Hague and Megan Williams' with son Eli. PICTURE: Amanda Jackson

First published in News
Last updated

A YOUNG couple from Glandwr, whose controversial roundhouse has won them support from across the world, have received a blow ahead of a crucial planning meeting.

After being issued with a demolition notice by Pembrokeshire County Council, Charlie Hague and Megan Williams submitted an application for retrospective planning permission for their one-bedroom eco house early last year, and have been waiting to hear the fate of their family home since.

The Western Telegraph understands that county council planning officers have recommended refusal of the couple’s application, which is due before the planning committee next week.

However, councillors could still choose to approve the development, defer a decision, or request a site visit.

There is also a chance that Welsh Government guidelines designed to encourage sustainable development – the One Planet Development Policy – will make it possible for the couple to keep their self-built home.

“We are confident that Pembrokeshire County Council will view our retrospective application fairly in line with One Planet Development guidelines,” said Megan, aged 26.

The couple accept their house was built without planning permission, but maintain there was no other way for them to afford their own home.

“I know it’s not a possibility for everyone, and our situation here is unique, but if young people are to live and work in the area they need somewhere to live,” said Megan.

Charlie said the support the couple have received has been phenomenal.

Praise has come from Europe, Canada and America, and several people have left the comment ‘Brazil supports you’ after the roundhouse was featured on a Brazilian news website.

Charlie said: “It’s great that local people seem to be behind us too, and we really appreciate everyone taking the time support our application.”

More than 90,000 people have also signed an online petition supporting the couple’s application, and TV presenter and property developer George Clarke also backed the couple.

The application is due to be discussed on Tuesday, June 24.

Update, 2.30pm: The planning reports are now available online here.

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:14pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Andrew Lye says...

I can empathise with their plight, but they accept they built it without the benefit of planning permission.
That is NO excuse as we have planning law for a good reason.
If everyone did what they wanted, where they want to, God knows what you would see around you.
Just because they have support from around the world is not enough.
If there is a change to planning guidance/law that may help them get the retrospective permission, I will accept that.
I am NOT being nasty or vindictive, just saying that planning rules are there for good reasons and for all to follow. If you build before you get permission and its then refused, you run the risk of seeing it demolished.
I wish them a fair hearing, when it comes before the Planning Committee.
I can empathise with their plight, but they accept they built it without the benefit of planning permission. That is NO excuse as we have planning law for a good reason. If everyone did what they wanted, where they want to, God knows what you would see around you. Just because they have support from around the world is not enough. If there is a change to planning guidance/law that may help them get the retrospective permission, I will accept that. I am NOT being nasty or vindictive, just saying that planning rules are there for good reasons and for all to follow. If you build before you get permission and its then refused, you run the risk of seeing it demolished. I wish them a fair hearing, when it comes before the Planning Committee. Andrew Lye
  • Score: 24

1:33pm Tue 17 Jun 14

GrumpyMiddleagedWoman says...

Andrew Lye wrote:
I can empathise with their plight, but they accept they built it without the benefit of planning permission.
That is NO excuse as we have planning law for a good reason.
If everyone did what they wanted, where they want to, God knows what you would see around you.
Just because they have support from around the world is not enough.
If there is a change to planning guidance/law that may help them get the retrospective permission, I will accept that.
I am NOT being nasty or vindictive, just saying that planning rules are there for good reasons and for all to follow. If you build before you get permission and its then refused, you run the risk of seeing it demolished.
I wish them a fair hearing, when it comes before the Planning Committee.
Totally agree.

If people fail to follow rules, then I'm afraid they have to live with the consequences, otherwise we'd all go ahead and do what the heck we like.
[quote][p][bold]Andrew Lye[/bold] wrote: I can empathise with their plight, but they accept they built it without the benefit of planning permission. That is NO excuse as we have planning law for a good reason. If everyone did what they wanted, where they want to, God knows what you would see around you. Just because they have support from around the world is not enough. If there is a change to planning guidance/law that may help them get the retrospective permission, I will accept that. I am NOT being nasty or vindictive, just saying that planning rules are there for good reasons and for all to follow. If you build before you get permission and its then refused, you run the risk of seeing it demolished. I wish them a fair hearing, when it comes before the Planning Committee.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. If people fail to follow rules, then I'm afraid they have to live with the consequences, otherwise we'd all go ahead and do what the heck we like. GrumpyMiddleagedWoman
  • Score: 17

1:57pm Tue 17 Jun 14

teifion says...

I feel really sorry for this couple, unlike others I don't believe this will open some floodgate to 000s of illegal homes.

On the other hand anyone else think it ironic that Pembs planning folk want to pull this down but are very happy to allow estates to be built in areas that are already flooding before all that concrete is laid - just saying, apologies to bluewater or whatever If he thinks that last comment was way off topic or me just having mu usual moan ;-)
I feel really sorry for this couple, unlike others I don't believe this will open some floodgate to 000s of illegal homes. On the other hand anyone else think it ironic that Pembs planning folk want to pull this down but are very happy to allow estates to be built in areas that are already flooding before all that concrete is laid - just saying, apologies to bluewater or whatever If he thinks that last comment was way off topic or me just having mu usual moan ;-) teifion
  • Score: 6

3:37pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Justiceforall says...

I wish this couple all the best in their bid to get planning permission for their lovely house. It is not evrybodies cup of tea but people who wish to live in this type of dwelling should be allowed to. Our present system forces home owners into high mortgages or rental properties, why should we all have to pay such a large portion of our incomes to live in a traditional structure when we could build properties like this for a fraction of the cost of traditional build, that can be easily removed without enviromental impact, but will last a hundred years when properly maintained. I have been on the debt treadmill (Mortgage) for most of my life in an effort to provide a home for my family, it is a crazy waste of ones life working long hours to pay the mortgage that when you require care in later life,, the government will force you to sell said property to pay for your care. I hope the planning commitee has enough common sense to rule in favour of this couples dream home. Our planning laws are too restrictive they should be relaxed to give our children a chance to live and enjoy life without a massive debt around their necks. Who will be negatively affected .if this house is given retrospective planning permission. It is the planning laws that need some kind of reformation to allow for these dwellings. Good luck Charlie and Megan ;)
I wish this couple all the best in their bid to get planning permission for their lovely house. It is not evrybodies cup of tea but people who wish to live in this type of dwelling should be allowed to. Our present system forces home owners into high mortgages or rental properties, why should we all have to pay such a large portion of our incomes to live in a traditional structure when we could build properties like this for a fraction of the cost of traditional build, that can be easily removed without enviromental impact, but will last a hundred years when properly maintained. I have been on the debt treadmill (Mortgage) for most of my life in an effort to provide a home for my family, it is a crazy waste of ones life working long hours to pay the mortgage that when you require care in later life,, the government will force you to sell said property to pay for your care. I hope the planning commitee has enough common sense to rule in favour of this couples dream home. Our planning laws are too restrictive they should be relaxed to give our children a chance to live and enjoy life without a massive debt around their necks. Who will be negatively affected .if this house is given retrospective planning permission. It is the planning laws that need some kind of reformation to allow for these dwellings. Good luck Charlie and Megan ;) Justiceforall
  • Score: 2

3:58pm Tue 17 Jun 14

williamsmum says...

The couple should be congratulated and supported by the PCC for their insight to build such a eco friendly building albeit without planning permission. I very much doubt it will open the floodgates for other to build with PP.

But knowing this council I cannot help but wonder whether if one of them had built it or a member of their family (without PP) that retrospective planning permission would be granted!
The couple should be congratulated and supported by the PCC for their insight to build such a eco friendly building albeit without planning permission. I very much doubt it will open the floodgates for other to build with PP. But knowing this council I cannot help but wonder whether if one of them had built it or a member of their family (without PP) that retrospective planning permission would be granted! williamsmum
  • Score: -4

4:02pm Tue 17 Jun 14

williamsmum says...

williamsmum wrote:
The couple should be congratulated and supported by the PCC for their insight to build such a eco friendly building albeit without planning permission. I very much doubt it will open the floodgates for other to build with PP.

But knowing this council I cannot help but wonder whether if one of them had built it or a member of their family (without PP) that retrospective planning permission would be granted!
Sorry my error it should have read
'I very much doubt it will open the floodgates for others to build without PP'
[quote][p][bold]williamsmum[/bold] wrote: The couple should be congratulated and supported by the PCC for their insight to build such a eco friendly building albeit without planning permission. I very much doubt it will open the floodgates for other to build with PP. But knowing this council I cannot help but wonder whether if one of them had built it or a member of their family (without PP) that retrospective planning permission would be granted![/p][/quote]Sorry my error it should have read 'I very much doubt it will open the floodgates for others to build without PP' williamsmum
  • Score: -3

4:25pm Tue 17 Jun 14

GLW6491 says...

We had planning permission turned down to replace an existing structure with a house of the same shape, size and footprint. So why should it be one rule for Charlie and Megan who built their house deliberately avoiding applying for planning permission, and another rule for us?
We had planning permission turned down to replace an existing structure with a house of the same shape, size and footprint. So why should it be one rule for Charlie and Megan who built their house deliberately avoiding applying for planning permission, and another rule for us? GLW6491
  • Score: 13

4:26pm Tue 17 Jun 14

GLW6491 says...

GLW6491 wrote:
We had planning permission turned down to replace an existing structure with a house of the same shape, size and footprint. So why should it be one rule for Charlie and Megan who built their house deliberately avoiding applying for planning permission, and another rule for us?
... I should have said - IN the same village.
[quote][p][bold]GLW6491[/bold] wrote: We had planning permission turned down to replace an existing structure with a house of the same shape, size and footprint. So why should it be one rule for Charlie and Megan who built their house deliberately avoiding applying for planning permission, and another rule for us?[/p][/quote]... I should have said - IN the same village. GLW6491
  • Score: 6

9:00pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Welshman23 says...

Enough rules are broken in the Kremlin, let's hope common sense prevails. They should have sought planning permission.
Enough rules are broken in the Kremlin, let's hope common sense prevails. They should have sought planning permission. Welshman23
  • Score: 7

7:48am Wed 18 Jun 14

Reginald B. Smithe says...

Few bitter people in Pembrokeshire, I see :)
All siting rules are rules, yet when councilors and heads of councils break the laws and rules for greed and own needs where are these warrior screams and protests then ?
Few bitter people in Pembrokeshire, I see :) All siting rules are rules, yet when councilors and heads of councils break the laws and rules for greed and own needs where are these warrior screams and protests then ? Reginald B. Smithe
  • Score: 8

8:10am Wed 18 Jun 14

Gogledd says...

I agree that they should have gone for planning permission...but...m
e being me...if they had lots of dosh they would be able to buy planning permission wouldnt they.
I agree that they should have gone for planning permission...but...m e being me...if they had lots of dosh they would be able to buy planning permission wouldnt they. Gogledd
  • Score: 0

9:17am Wed 18 Jun 14

teifion says...

It's a pity that the people of Pembrokeshire has no faith in it's council but might I suggest it's down to Bryn Jones and the IPG shower ?
It's a pity that the people of Pembrokeshire has no faith in it's council but might I suggest it's down to Bryn Jones and the IPG shower ? teifion
  • Score: 1

9:39am Wed 18 Jun 14

Justiceforall says...

I am wondering about all of the people that do not believe this house should stay, because rules have been broken, Have any of you actually been in one of these dwellings. There is a lot of world support for this house, why do you think that is? why are so many people happy to live in a little sterile box loaded by mortgage debt, with no land to grow their own food . Planning laws need to be reviewed. All new builds should have large gardens. We recently had a windfarm sub station being built without planning permission, it was allowed to remain even though it was negatively impacting on local residents,The world is watching your decision PCC planning committee. I too have been a victim of senseless planning decisions. We should all support individuality and be living by the law of nature, and not by the rules short sighted bloated bureaucrats. George Orwell and Aldous Huxley spelt it out in their famous books. There is plenty of room in our society for alternative living that is no burden on the tax payer. The trouble is that people who blindly comply without questioning anything, are scared of individuality and take it as a threat to their belief corporate controlled systems, we do need good open minded planning laws which ensure we are not all living in unhealthy overcrowded shanty towns, If there were thousands of rural houses like Charlies and Megans across Wales, they would not adversely impact the local evironment.. These beautiful quaint houses enrich rural Pembrokeshire/Wales. If you get a chance go and see them they are fantastic.
I am wondering about all of the people that do not believe this house should stay, because rules have been broken, Have any of you actually been in one of these dwellings. There is a lot of world support for this house, why do you think that is? why are so many people happy to live in a little sterile box loaded by mortgage debt, with no land to grow their own food . Planning laws need to be reviewed. All new builds should have large gardens. We recently had a windfarm sub station being built without planning permission, it was allowed to remain even though it was negatively impacting on local residents,The world is watching your decision PCC planning committee. I too have been a victim of senseless planning decisions. We should all support individuality and be living by the law of nature, and not by the rules short sighted bloated bureaucrats. George Orwell and Aldous Huxley spelt it out in their famous books. There is plenty of room in our society for alternative living that is no burden on the tax payer. The trouble is that people who blindly comply without questioning anything, are scared of individuality and take it as a threat to their belief corporate controlled systems, we do need good open minded planning laws which ensure we are not all living in unhealthy overcrowded shanty towns, If there were thousands of rural houses like Charlies and Megans across Wales, they would not adversely impact the local evironment.. These beautiful quaint houses enrich rural Pembrokeshire/Wales. If you get a chance go and see them they are fantastic. Justiceforall
  • Score: 10

4:06pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Theodore1 says...

Many people visit rural areas and villages to enjoy the buildings of bygone times. All were built without planning consent. The erratic layout of old villages and dwellings contributes to much of the appeal of Britain. So why persecute people who wish to build something unique?
Many people visit rural areas and villages to enjoy the buildings of bygone times. All were built without planning consent. The erratic layout of old villages and dwellings contributes to much of the appeal of Britain. So why persecute people who wish to build something unique? Theodore1
  • Score: 4

8:37pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Eira1973 says...

Justiceforall wrote:
I am wondering about all of the people that do not believe this house should stay, because rules have been broken, Have any of you actually been in one of these dwellings. There is a lot of world support for this house, why do you think that is? why are so many people happy to live in a little sterile box loaded by mortgage debt, with no land to grow their own food . Planning laws need to be reviewed. All new builds should have large gardens. We recently had a windfarm sub station being built without planning permission, it was allowed to remain even though it was negatively impacting on local residents,The world is watching your decision PCC planning committee. I too have been a victim of senseless planning decisions. We should all support individuality and be living by the law of nature, and not by the rules short sighted bloated bureaucrats. George Orwell and Aldous Huxley spelt it out in their famous books. There is plenty of room in our society for alternative living that is no burden on the tax payer. The trouble is that people who blindly comply without questioning anything, are scared of individuality and take it as a threat to their belief corporate controlled systems, we do need good open minded planning laws which ensure we are not all living in unhealthy overcrowded shanty towns, If there were thousands of rural houses like Charlies and Megans across Wales, they would not adversely impact the local evironment.. These beautiful quaint houses enrich rural Pembrokeshire/Wales. If you get a chance go and see them they are fantastic.
I honestly don't believe people are "happy to live in a sterile box", but not all of the county's residents have family-owned land that they can build an (admittedly beautiful and resourceful) eco-friendly home upon.
[quote][p][bold]Justiceforall[/bold] wrote: I am wondering about all of the people that do not believe this house should stay, because rules have been broken, Have any of you actually been in one of these dwellings. There is a lot of world support for this house, why do you think that is? why are so many people happy to live in a little sterile box loaded by mortgage debt, with no land to grow their own food . Planning laws need to be reviewed. All new builds should have large gardens. We recently had a windfarm sub station being built without planning permission, it was allowed to remain even though it was negatively impacting on local residents,The world is watching your decision PCC planning committee. I too have been a victim of senseless planning decisions. We should all support individuality and be living by the law of nature, and not by the rules short sighted bloated bureaucrats. George Orwell and Aldous Huxley spelt it out in their famous books. There is plenty of room in our society for alternative living that is no burden on the tax payer. The trouble is that people who blindly comply without questioning anything, are scared of individuality and take it as a threat to their belief corporate controlled systems, we do need good open minded planning laws which ensure we are not all living in unhealthy overcrowded shanty towns, If there were thousands of rural houses like Charlies and Megans across Wales, they would not adversely impact the local evironment.. These beautiful quaint houses enrich rural Pembrokeshire/Wales. If you get a chance go and see them they are fantastic.[/p][/quote]I honestly don't believe people are "happy to live in a sterile box", but not all of the county's residents have family-owned land that they can build an (admittedly beautiful and resourceful) eco-friendly home upon. Eira1973
  • Score: 1

9:37am Thu 19 Jun 14

vicky moller says...

The rules are there to stop damage to the land, economy, communities. This home does no damage. There are plenty of rules that could be applied to allow them to stay without creating precedent, eg permission with conditions such as not selling, temporary permission, for their use only, for their lifetime. Or they could change the use to educational and residential and use it to teach others this uniquely beautiful inexpensive self build approach.

Sadly it is so difficult to change rules without first breaking them that many find this is an essential tool for progress. Planning was necessary along with industrialisation because of conflict between residence, industry, agriculture, amenity. Before this there was little conflict and development was organic, meeting needs with the nearby resources. Homes and lifestyles like Charlie and Megans illustrate how we can remove this conflict of interest and benefit nature, agriculture, social needs and the economy together. Of course it must stay. It is just a matter of how much time and money the council chooses to waste to reach this conclusion. As said they have plenty of rules in the tool box to allow it. Good luck planners, get it right, cariads.
The rules are there to stop damage to the land, economy, communities. This home does no damage. There are plenty of rules that could be applied to allow them to stay without creating precedent, eg permission with conditions such as not selling, temporary permission, for their use only, for their lifetime. Or they could change the use to educational and residential and use it to teach others this uniquely beautiful inexpensive self build approach. Sadly it is so difficult to change rules without first breaking them that many find this is an essential tool for progress. Planning was necessary along with industrialisation because of conflict between residence, industry, agriculture, amenity. Before this there was little conflict and development was organic, meeting needs with the nearby resources. Homes and lifestyles like Charlie and Megans illustrate how we can remove this conflict of interest and benefit nature, agriculture, social needs and the economy together. Of course it must stay. It is just a matter of how much time and money the council chooses to waste to reach this conclusion. As said they have plenty of rules in the tool box to allow it. Good luck planners, get it right, cariads. vicky moller
  • Score: 2

6:28pm Thu 19 Jun 14

teifion says...

Didn't Jamie Adams get retrospective planning permission?

so what is this "rules is rules rubbish" ?
Didn't Jamie Adams get retrospective planning permission? so what is this "rules is rules rubbish" ? teifion
  • Score: 1

10:28pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Ian_snelly says...

teifion wrote:
Didn't Jamie Adams get retrospective planning permission?

so what is this "rules is rules rubbish" ?
Sweet, you think democracy exists in the real world - the truth is the greedy, he freemasons and the inherently pushy get what they want whatever the Law,morality or decency says
[quote][p][bold]teifion[/bold] wrote: Didn't Jamie Adams get retrospective planning permission? so what is this "rules is rules rubbish" ?[/p][/quote]Sweet, you think democracy exists in the real world - the truth is the greedy, he freemasons and the inherently pushy get what they want whatever the Law,morality or decency says Ian_snelly
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree