This post takes another digression from National Parks to consider what this crushed house says about the failure of the planning system to respond appropriately to the risks posed by climate change.
It took a couple of days but the national tabloids have picked up on the story, first featured in the P & J (see here), about the couple whose new self-built house was crushed by falling rocks at Benderloch. The narrative in the press is the couple are lucky to be alive, which indeed they are. The untold story is the failure of Scotland’s planning system to protect people from natural hazards.
Why are we allowing houses to be built under cliffs?
I have to admit to having aspired at some points in my life to moving to a house with a cliff and hill behind, where I could do some gentle bouldering and fell running from the back door. Building houses directly below cliffs or steep slopes, however, is just not sensible. So why and how did Argyll and Bute Council ever grant consent for this house to be built?
Unfortunately, while its possible to identify the house – there has been only one planning application to build a new house below Ben Lora in the last five years – Argyll and Bute Council remove all documentation from their planning portal after planning permission has been granted. The only way therefore to understand whether the Council properly considered the risks of building a house in this location would be through a Freedom of Information request.
People have always built houses in dangerous locations, a prime example being active volcanoes which get abandoned after major disasters but then gradually re-colonised until the next eruption. People need somewhere to live and risky land is often cheap.
Cliffs are a bit like volcanoes. While it is certain chunks of rock will fall off at some point, it is difficult to predict when. What the owner of the crushed house said in this case, about there being no known incidents on this site while attributing the rockfall to the action of frost and water, rings true and illustrates the problem.
Historic and Environment Scotland have claimed rockfall is becoming more frequent and have blamed the closure of the Radical Rd in Edinburgh and many of their historic buildings on climate change (see here). However, there is no historical data from across Scotland to substantiate this and no straightforward scientific explanation for why this might be the case: with fewer frosts, we have less freeze-thaw action, one of the main agents of such erosion, than we had in the past – on lower ground at least.
It is very difficult therefore to determine whether the collapse of part of the cliff in this case was associated with climate change or not. That doesn’t mean to say the planners were right to consent to a house being built in such a location – they clearly weren’t.
Why are we still allowing houses to be built on raised beaches?
Where we do have good data, however, is on the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the impact this is having and will have on sea-levels. The crushed house was on a raised beach, created as the land gradually rebounded as it was relieved from the weight of the glaciers, and the cliff that fell on it previously marked the shore-line. If Greenland’s ice cap melts completely (see here for media coverage of some of the complexities) sea levels are predicted to rise by 7m, enough to put many of Scotland’s raised beaches, including those by the coast at Benderloch, underwater.
What this should tell us is that even if the risk of building a house under a cliff might seem justifiable to some, allowing houses to be built in places that are at risk of rising sea-levels or flooding is completely stupid. So why is the Scottish Government still allowing it to happen?
It appears likely that Britain’s insurance companies are ahead of government and the planning system when it comes to the risks. The press reported that the couple had lost everything and a crowdfunding appeal had been launched to help them – individual people are wonderful at helping others.
That raises the question, however, as to why the insurance companies aren’t paying? While it is possible the couple neglected to insure the property but it is also possible they were unable to do so (just like many houses built on flood plains). Our current system is brutal, it allows people to lose everything.
What needs to change
If we had a proper system in Scotland for monitoring and researching landslips and rockfalls, as I have advocated, what has happened in this case would be properly investigated and lessons could be learned. While I hope Argyll and Bute Council may set up an inquiry into what has gone wrong, they are completely strapped for cash and given all the other landslips in their area it is not that likely they will do anything.
This case provides another example of how we need to change how land is used because of natural hazards and climate. We don’t just need to end grazing on unstable slopes and plant them with trees, we need to re-think where development happens. The planning system has done that for flooding but not yet for landslips or rockfall.
We also need, however, to enable developments – including houses for people – in places safe from natural hazards while reserving land for nature. That means reforming our system of land-ownership. If you have not read it I would highly commend Andy Wightman’s proposals for a “Land for the People (Scotland) Bill” (see here).
Wightman is an anti-communist liberal dreamer. Scotland is a capitalist country. No amount of adjustments and reforms alters that. Society will remain divided by class and the ruling class will remain in power and control…with their exclusive private property rights and the armed forces to implement them. They don’t have all this capitalist crap in China, the world’s leading super-power.
Seems a bit harsh on the planners, Nick. Surely the primary responsibility is on the people who choose to build.
Looks like they took a bit of rock away from the base of the cliff to get bit more space. May not be relevant.
Also note some forestry above has been recently clear felled.
But at the end of the day, rocks fall unpredictably.
Half built houses are not simple to insure.
Hmmm, David, I am not so sure. People are desperate for housing and I think the state has a role protecting people from either building or buying houses in stupid places. Development on flood plains was cheap, made a fortune for developers, but I would regard who have been paying the price since as innocent and that is one of the reasons why the planning system is now supposed to prevent development on flood plains. Why are landslips different?
I should point out that the house was replacing a previous tiny house which had been there for many years. I don’t know if its footprint extended closer to the cliff than the previous one.
Thank you, the perils of commenting on something from afar! It is raises some interesting questions about the planning system and risk. My understanding is generally once the principle of development has been agreed its rarely reversed in Scotland and it would be a very brave planning authority which tried to refuse to let someone rebuild a house (and there are complex issues of course of the loss in value to the land). In the Mercantour, however, in France which I wrote about a few months ago I saw notices on houses basically saying they were to be pulled down because they were no longer judged safe (even though they had survived Storm Alex in 2020).
I think there is a good case for local; authorities providing some guidance on dangerous sites for housing, having seen the results of the failure to understand such hazards when siting houses etc – not just houses. For example, when investigating SEPA flood warnings for SEPA, one example near Huntly was the building of not only houses but also an old folks home on a site that locals had recorded floods of nearly a meter deep in past years. Evacuating the old folks home when these floods came, was a wee epic and the local authority thereafter had to build expensive flood protection measures. “Should not the house buyers have been warned of this danger before they bought/built their house there?” locals demanded at the subsequent public meeting. “Well no ” said the local authority rep lamely, “It is really up to the buyer/builder to assess the safety of a site!” Really? Many people building or buying such houses are of urban origin and have no awareness of the hazards. Also, local historical knowledge is often of key importance in even realising what risks exist. There are also some sites where long established housing is already extensively established and risks are emerging. Classic examples are some of the coastal old fishing villages at the foot of raised beaches on the east coast like Gardenstown. The raised beach slopes above them may be largely soil. I have climbed on them and seen many fresh cracks in the soil cover 4-5 cm wide so fresh you realised the whole slope had moved a significant distance downhill in the last few days.l
Apologies for getting slightly peripheral to the topic but does anyone know if outdoor access is a statutory consideration in planning applications? A development near me has significantly reduced access to an area of land and there is nothing in the planning application to suggest that this was considered.
Hi Niall, the answer is yes but there are two parts to this and its complex. First, the simple bit, development projects need to consider the impact on access rights during the constructions period which is why access management plans are often included in planning application documents and these usually consider impact on access rights. The more complex bit is about land where access rights are exercisable being converted into a development where they are not – this is a change of planning use. Those are covered by Local Development Plans and what should happen is that as part of the process for allocating land for specific purposes the impact on access rights is considered. That often does not happen, eg as with Flamingo Land at Balloch where the land was allocated for Visitor Experience without proper consideration of people’s ability to enjoy what is parkland. The practical answer is to check your LDP and the consultation on this……………..if the development is outwith the development plan, the impact on access rights would be a material reason for objecting to the application.
It’s a historical application which has now gone ahead and I only noticed when I actually saw it that the access road which used to be open or maybe had a vehicle barrier now has a full high gate and the boundary fence at this point has been extended to meet the gateposts.
There seems to be nothing in the application documents about outdoor access.
Used to be a golf course, now a garden centre. I suspect the point is moot as it will inevitably be houses soon like the surrounding former fields.