Category: Magazine

Coordinated Development Strategy Between Metis Homes and Bargate Homes: An Insight into Potential Market Manipulation and Sustainability Concerns

In the rapidly expanding housing markets of Hampshire, two prominent developers, Metis Homes and Bargate Homes, have demonstrated a noteworthy pattern of activity that suggests a coordinated strategy to maximise market influence and resource efficiency, and profit.

This article delves into the shared developments, personnel movements, and geographical overlap that indicate a potential strategic alignment between these two developers, raising questions about the sustainability of their practices and the cumulative impact on local communities.

Concerns Over Sustainability and Cumulative Impact

While the coordinated strategy may benefit the developers in terms of market dominance, resource optimisation, and profit, it raises significant concerns about sustainability and the cumulative impact on local communities. . If it is designed as piecemeal developments, where large projects are segmented into smaller ones between connected market players to avoid triggering comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), it undermines the intent of environmental regulations. This tactic results in inadequate scrutiny of the overall environmental and infrastructural impact, leading to strained local resources and diminished quality of life for residents.

Community Opposition and Call for Comprehensive EIAs

Local residents have voiced substantial concerns over the rapid development and its impact on their communities. The lack of comprehensive planning and environmental assessments exacerbates these concerns, leaving residents feeling marginalised and unprotected. There is a growing demand for comprehensive EIAs and better planning practices that consider the overall impact of these developments on the community and the environment.

Financial Incentives and Section 106 Contributions

A significant concern is that by avoiding comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), developers might be minimising their contributions under Section 106 agreements. These agreements typically require developers to contribute to local infrastructure improvements as part of their planning consent. Without thorough EIAs, the full extent of infrastructure needs and environmental impacts may not be properly assessed, leading to insufficient developer contributions. This can adversely impact the quality of life for residents and strain local services and amenities.

Paired Developments in Key Locations

Over the past decade, Metis Homes and Bargate Homes have developed several residential projects in the same geographical regions, particularly focusing on areas like Eastleigh, Winchester, Southampton, and Four Marks & Medstead ward. The simultaneous development activities in these regions suggest a synchronised effort to capitalise on the housing demand.

Creeps of Hampshire?

Questionable activities in Hampshire?

LocationMetis Homes:Bargate Homes
EastleighCanada Court (2018)North Stoneham Park (2017)
WinchesterBurlington Place (2016)St Thomas’ Mead (2015)
SouthamptonQueenswood (2019)Hamblewood (2023)
Four Marks & Medstead wardThe Green, Four Marks (2013), The Shrave (2015), Chapel Fields (2018), Hawthorn Gardens (2020)Riverwood (2016)
Boyneswood Lane (2017)

Shared Personnel and Close Proximity

The strategic coordination is further evidenced by shared personnel and close office locations. Notably, Sally Frampton, an Advance Sales Manager at Metis Homes, previously held a similar role at Bargate Homes. Similarly, Andy Cherry, a Site Manager at Metis Homes, worked for Bargate Homes for about 14 years. These personnel movements suggest a transfer of knowledge and possibly coordinated efforts between the two companies.

Moreover, Metis Homes and Bargate Homes operate from offices located in close physical proximity, sharing the same postcode. This proximity facilitates regular communication and potential strategic collaboration, enhancing operational efficiency, market influence, and profitability.

Current Developments and Implications

At the time of writing this article, both developers have submitted planning applications in the same ward, which consists of the villages of Medstead and Four Marks. The planning applications are:

  • Metis Homes: Planning application 30800/013.
  • Bargate Homes: Planning application 55318/001.

These concurrent applications further emphasise the potential coordinated strategy to develop in these regions, likely aiming to maximise their market share and influence while potentially avoiding the comprehensive assessments required for sustainable development.

Conclusion

The pattern of paired developments, shared personnel, and close office proximity strongly suggests a coordinated development strategy between Metis Homes and Bargate Homes. This strategy appears aimed at maximising market influence, operational efficiency, and profitability in key geographical regions such as Eastleigh, Winchester, Southampton, and Four Marks. Despite the lack of a direct corporate link, these factors collectively indicate a strategic alignment that benefits both developers. It is crucial for local authorities to ensure thorough environmental assessments and sustainable development practices to protect the well-being of the community and the environment.

Why Bargate Homes makes me think of an episode of Law & Order SVU

“Is this how you like it?”1

The Bargate Feedback Website mentions opportunities for public feedback and encourages residents to participate in the consultation process.

However, the effectiveness of this engagement depends on how well residents are informed about the full context. They should ensure that all relevant information is provided so that residents can give informed feedback.

Both the feedback invite letter and the website are clear cases of omission in disclosure, as they fail to mention that the proposed development is outside the settlement boundaries and not included in the local development plan. This lack of transparency is significant because it does not provide residents with the full context needed to assess the proposal.

They fail to inform residents that the application might be relying on the “tilted balance” principle, which is a critical aspect of the planning process. This principle changes the default position in favour of granting planning permission and shifts the burden of evidence for objections to successfully oppose the proposal.

Additionally, the format of their expansion is designed so that none of the piecemeal phases of their masterplan meet the 150-plus dwelling threshold, thus avoiding mandatory EIA requirements. This highlights a loophole in the EHDC planning application process, which is affected by a “one size fits all” fallacy and lacks effective mechanisms to address cumulative impact situations. This approach fits the characteristics of a creeping strategy, involving a methodical and incremental approach to achieving long-term objectives without attracting significant opposition or attention.

This is like taking multiple blood donations exceeding the safe limit for a child donor, but doing so without medical (EIA) supervision. Without an EIA, there is no proper care to understand the impact of these piecemeal developments on the community. Without data collation, the effects observed by residents can be easily disregarded as there is no evidence. This likely saves costs for the developers but comes at the expense of comprehensive oversight and the community’s well-being.

Think about allocating land for housing development as if it were a blood donation (Blood Donation = Allocating Land for Housing Development).

Safety Rules

Blood DonationLand ‘Donation’
💡 NO children

💡 NO pregnant women

💡 NO people weighing less than 50 kg		💡 NO land outside the village Settlement Boundaries

💡 NO land that is not included in the Local Development Plan
MAXIMUM amount of blood donation per person – 1 pint every 56 daysMAXIMUM SIZE is defined by its relative insignificance to the donor:

💡NO significant risk to the environment that cannot be adequately mitigated (Environmental Impact)

💡 NO significant strain on local infrastructure such as roads, schools, healthcare facilities, and utilities (Infrastructure Capacity)

💡 NO significant alteration to the character of the village, e.g., overcrowding (Community Impact)

💡 NO significant risk to public health and safety, such as increased pollution, noise, or hazards (Health and Safety)

etc;

Exceptions in Standard Protocol for Safe Donation

Blood DonationLand ‘Donation’
A child can donate blood to a sibling, based on a determination that the impact on the donor’s wellbeing will not be jeopardised and any side effects can be effectively mitigated.Land that is NOT within the village Settlement Boundaries and is NOT included in the Local Development Plan can be ‘donated’ in case of significant benefits, on the basis that the impact can be effectively contained by mitigation measures.
(Economic, Social or Environmental Benefits Benefits)

Blood Donation in Crisis Situation / Land ‘Donation’
under Titled Balance (Paragraph 11)

Blood DonationLand ‘Donation’

Situation when, to address the critical need for blood, all people are accepted as donors by default.		Under the “tilted balance,” planning permission should be granted by default.
Applicable, for example, during a war due to the massive need for blood for injured soldiers.

Or, during a pandemic when the steady supply of blood donations is interrupted, as the process rules were not designed to function in such a context.		Applicable if the quantity of land that has been identified as suitable and available for housing development over a five-year period does not meet the target set to meet the identified housing needs of the community (the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites).

Or, if relevant granting permission policies are out-of-date, such as an EHDC Local Development Plan that does not reflect recent development needs.
The default acceptance of any donors in such situations is to minimise the issue at hand.
Thus, default acceptance replaces conditional acceptances for blood donation, and it is only “turned off” if it is proven that the adverse impacts of donation would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
The default permission settings can only be “turned off” if it is proven that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
These exceptions are usually carefully managed to balance the urgent need for blood with the safety of the donors and recipients.This assessment is made against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. Thus, it is vital that the case-by-case permission process is carefully managed by a fully functional planning application mechanism, capable of providing accurate determinations.
Donated blood should be from healthy donors who are free from certain diseases and have appropriate haemoglobin levels.The site must be suitable for housing development, having access to amenities and infrastructure capacity, while considering the maintenance of ecological balance and supporting biodiversity conservation.

Cumulative amount of donations and type of donor

Blood DonationLand ‘Donation’
Donating over 1 pint of blood every 56 days should require medical supervision. It is understood that donating above that amount has significant effects on the donor.
General principles state that projects involving the construction of more than 150 dwellings require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as they have significant effects on the locality.
Donating two times 0.51 pint of blood during that period should also trigger the need for medical supervision.Constructing two sets of 76 dwellings in the same locality should also trigger an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

The significance yet differs based on the donor type; for instance, a person weighing 30 kg should only donate 210-315 ml.


Similarly, the significance varies for rural settings.

References

  1. Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, S1 E10 – Closure ↩︎

How to Effectively Force a Council to Repeat the Public Consultation on a Local Development Plan (LDP)

To effectively force a council to repeat the public consultation on a Local Development Plan (LDP) before and after the draft is published, you would need to engage with the process actively and understand the statutory requirements. Here are the key steps and considerations:

Steps to Request Repetition of Public Consultation

1. Understand the Regulatory Framework

The public consultation process for local development plans is regulated by laws and guidelines, such as the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Localism Act 2011. These regulations outline the stages and requirements for public consultations.

2. Identify Grounds for Repetition
  • Lack of Adequate Consultation: If the initial consultation did not reach a significant portion of the affected community or was not sufficiently publicised, this can be grounds for a repeated consultation.
  • New Significant Information: If new information or changes arise after the initial consultation, which could significantly affect the plan, a further consultation might be warranted.
  • Legal Non-Compliance: If the consultation process did not comply with legal requirements or procedural rules, you can argue for its repetition.
3. Engage with the Consultation Process
  • Provide Feedback: Submit detailed feedback during consultation periods, highlighting any deficiencies in the process or new information that justifies another round of consultation.
  • Organise Community Support: Mobilize local residents and community groups to submit similar feedback, emphasising the need for adequate and comprehensive consultation.
4. Request Formal Review
  • Write to the Council: Formally request the council to repeat the consultation, providing clear reasons and supporting evidence.

  • Petition the Council: Organise a petition among local residents to show widespread support for repeating the consultation.

5. Escalate the Issue
  • Legal Challenge: If necessary, consider a legal challenge through judicial review, arguing that the consultation process was flawed or inadequate.

Material Considerations

Public Involvement: Ensuring that all stakeholders, especially those directly affected, have a fair opportunity to participate in the consultation.

Transparency and Adequacy: The consultation must be transparent, adequately publicized, and provide sufficient information for informed feedback.

Compliance with National Policies: The consultation must align with national planning policies and guidelines, ensuring a fair and inclusive process.

Request for Repetition of Public Consultation on the Local Development Plan

To count towards the proven Five Year Housing Land Supply, the planning approval must refer to land that meets certain criteria

Here are the key points to consider

1. Deliverability
  • The land must be deliverable within the five-year period. This means that there should be a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within this timeframe.
  • Evidence of deliverability might include site assessments, planning status, and infrastructure availability.
Infrastructure:

While the exact requirements can vary, generally, for a site to be considered deliverable, it should have access to essential infrastructure, or there should be a clear and feasible plan for providing it. 

This includes:

- Access Roads: There should be suitable access to the site for construction and future residents. If an access road is not already in place, there should be a clear plan and commitment to building one.

- Utilities (Media): The site should have, or be capable of having, essential utilities such as water, electricity, gas, and sewage systems. If these services are not yet connected, there should be clear, feasible plans and commitments to provide them.

While the local planning authority ensures that sites included in the Proven Five Year Housing Land Supply are deliverable and have the potential for development, the actual provision of infrastructure such as roads and utilities is typically the responsibility of the developer, often secured through planning conditions or obligations.

To ensure that infrastructure is provided, local planning authorities can use planning obligations, also known as Section 106 agreements, to require developers to contribute to or directly provide necessary infrastructure as part of their planning permission. These agreements can stipulate that certain infrastructure must be in place before development can proceed or before any homes can be occupied.

2. Suitability
  • The site must be suitable for housing development. This involves compliance with local planning policies and alignment with the broader strategic housing objectives.
  • Suitability also takes into account environmental constraints, access to amenities, and infrastructure capacity.
3. Availability
  • The land must be available for development now. There should be no legal or ownership barriers that would prevent development from commencing.
  • Availability may be demonstrated through landowner agreements or developer commitments.
4. Achievability
  • The development on the site must be achievable within the five-year period. This includes financial viability and the likelihood of obtaining necessary planning permissions.
  • Achievability also considers market demand and the developer’s track record in delivering similar projects.
5. NPPF Compliance
  • The proposal should support the objectives of the NPPF, such as promoting sustainable transport, high-quality design, and climate change mitigation.
6. Community and Environmental Impact
  • The planning approval should consider the impact on the local community and environment. This includes preserving the character of the area, protecting green spaces, and mitigating adverse effects.
  • Public consultation and environmental assessments are critical components in evaluating these impacts.

Conclusion

For a planning approval to count towards the proven Five Year Housing Land Supply, it must demonstrate that the land is deliverable, suitable, available, achievable, and compliant with NPPF guidelines. Ensuring these criteria are met is essential for maintaining a robust and effective housing supply strategy that balances development needs with community and environmental considerations.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Meaning of ‘When Assessed Against the NPPF as a Whole’

Objectives of Public Objections to Successfully Oppose a Development

When opposing a development, particularly one that is outside the settlement boundary, not included in the local development plan, or being pushed under Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), it’s crucial to focus on specific objectives.

Development Outside the Settlement Boundary

Objective: Emphasise the importance of preserving the designated settlement boundaries to prevent urban sprawl and protect rural areas.

1. Contravention of Local Policies
  • Highlight that the development contravenes established local policies that define and protect settlement boundaries.
  • Reference specific policies within the local development plan that aim to restrict development outside these boundaries to protect the character and integrity of the village.
2. Impact on Rural Character
  • Argue that the development will negatively impact the rural character of the area, leading to urban sprawl and loss of green spaces.
  • Provide evidence or examples of how similar developments have degraded rural environments.
3. Infrastructure Strain
  • Point out that existing infrastructure (roads, schools, healthcare facilities) is not equipped to handle additional development outside the settlement boundary.
  • Stress that such developments could lead to overburdened services and reduced quality of life for current residents.
4. Environmental Concerns
  • Emphasise the potential environmental impacts, such as loss of wildlife habitats, increased flood risk, and pollution.
  • Use environmental assessments or local biodiversity records to support these claims.

Development Not Included in the Local Development Plan

Objective: Argue that the development should adhere to the current local development plan, which has been designed to meet community needs sustainably.

1. Lack of Strategic Planning
  • Argue that the development is not part of the strategic vision for the area as outlined in the local development plan.
  • Highlight how the local plan was created through a comprehensive process involving community input and expert analysis.
2. Precedent Setting
  • Warn that approving developments not included in the local plan sets a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to unplanned and unsustainable growth.
  • Reference other cases where deviations from the plan have led to negative outcomes.
3. Community Consultation
  • Stress that the local development plan was created with significant community consultation, and any deviations undermine this democratic process.
  • Argue that bypassing the plan disregards the community’s expressed preferences and needs.
4. Sustainability Issues
  • Highlight how the development may not align with the sustainability principles embedded in the local plan.
  • Provide specific examples of how the development could fail to meet sustainability criteria, such as energy efficiency, transportation links, or resource management.

Development Under Paragraph 11 (NPPF)

Objective: Demonstrate that the development is not sustainable or necessary, even under the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

1. Unsustainable Development
  • Argue that the development does not meet the sustainability criteria outlined in the NPPF.
  • Provide evidence that the development will lead to negative environmental, social, or economic impacts.
2. Question the Accuracy of the Five-Year Housing Supply
  • Question the accuracy of the reported shortfall in the five-year housing supply. This shortfall’s exact accuracy dictates the benefit of the proposed development and its value in determining whether the adverse impact on the village outweighs it.
  • Reference reports or studies, including those submitted by the developer, that question or highlight discrepancies in the housing supply figures.
3. Adverse Impacts
  • Emphasise that the adverse impacts of the development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
  • Use detailed assessments to show potential harms to the local environment, infrastructure, and community.
4. Conflict with NPPF Policies
  • Highlight any conflicts between the proposed development and specific policies within the NPPF.
  • Argue that even under Paragraph 11, the development should not proceed if it contravenes key NPPF policies, such as protecting the Green Belt, promoting sustainable transport, or preserving heritage assets.

Conclusion

Opposing a development effectively requires a strategic approach, focusing on clear, evidence-based objections tailored to the specific context:

  • Outside Settlement Boundary: Emphasise preservation of rural character, infrastructure strain, and environmental impact.
  • Not in Local Development Plan: Highlight lack of strategic planning, precedent setting, community consultation, and sustainability issues.
  • Under Paragraph 11: Argue unsustainable development, challenge housing supply claims, demonstrate adverse impacts, and highlight conflicts with NPPF policies, and question the accuracy of the reported shortfall in the five-year housing supply.


By addressing these objectives, you can build a compelling case against the proposed development.

A Relevant Case Where a Developer Initially Won Approval on the Basis of Paragraph 11 but Subsequently Lost in Court

A relevant case where a developer initially won approval on the basis of Paragraph 11 but subsequently lost in court is Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2020] EWHC 518 (Admin).

Case Summary

Gladman Developments Ltd appealed against the decision of the Secretary of State and local planning authorities, leveraging Paragraph 11 of the NPPF, which provides a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Gladman argued that the “tilted balance” should apply because the local authorities did not have a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, rendering local policies out of date.

Court’s Decision

High Court Ruling: The High Court upheld the rejection of the applications despite the lack of a five-year housing supply. It ruled that development plan policies could still be considered under the tilted balance, and local plans’ policies should not be disregarded when applying Paragraph 11.

    Court of Appeal: The Court of Appeal confirmed this decision, emphasising that even when the tilted balance applies, it does not exclude development plan policies from consideration. The court found no error in the decision-making process of the Planning Inspector and the High Court, noting that they correctly applied both the NPPF and local development policies.

      Implications

      This case illustrates that the application of Paragraph 11 does not automatically guarantee approval if there are substantial adverse impacts or conflicts with existing development plans. The courts reinforced that environmental designations and other material considerations must still be weighed appropriately.

      HOW 2: Comment on a planning application #20240626

      YOU CAN DO IT

      via portal

      CLICK HERE to get to EHDC Planning Application Portal

      by post

      EHDC Planning Services
      PO Box 310
      GU32 9HN Petersfield

      via e-mail

      planningdev@easthants.gov.uk

      Remember to ALWAYS provide:

      1. Your full name, as anonymous comments will not be considered.
      2. The address of the plot of land that the planning application is about.
      3. The planning application reference number.

      Please Note:

      1. All comments you make will be available online through the council website, so only include information you are comfortable sharing publicly. Rest assured, the council will not publish your name.

      2. You must comment on a planning application within 21 days of it being registered, the deadline for each application is specified online. Unless there is a reason for an extension of the deadline, such as the EHDC portal being down.

      How to Ensure Your Comments are Taken Seriously

      Planning authorities are legally bound to consider only material planning considerations when making decisions on planning applications. These considerations include factors such as local and national planning policies, environmental impact, traffic and access, air and water quality, design and appearance, economic benefits, flood risk, heritage and conservation, infrastructure and service, land use, public opinion, sustainability and residential amenity.

      An objection grounded in these considerations is more likely to be taken seriously and have an impact on the decision-making process.

      Material Planning Considerations

      When considering planning applications, councils should be focus on a range of material planning considerations.

      These factors can vary slightly depending on local regulations and policies, but generally include the following:

      Material Planning Considerations: Heritage and Conservation

      Heritage and Conservation considerations focus on the protection and enhancement of historic and culturally significant buildings, structures, landscapes, and areas. These considerations ensure that new developments respect and preserve the historical and architectural integrity of heritage assets while contributing to the area’s overall character and identity.

      Material Planning Considerations: Residential Amenity

      Residential Amenity refers to the overall quality of life and comfort experienced by residents in their homes and neighbourhoods. When evaluating planning applications, authorities consider how a proposed development will impact the living conditions of nearby residents and the general ambiance of the area.

      Material Planning Considerations: Design and Appearance

      Design and Appearance in the context of material planning considerations refer to the aesthetic, functional, and contextual attributes of a proposed development. These considerations ensure that new developments are visually appealing, functionally appropriate, and harmoniously integrated into the existing built and natural environment.

      Material Planning Considerations: Environmental Impact

      Environmental Impact refers to the effect that a proposed development may have on the natural environment. This consideration is crucial for ensuring that new developments do not adversely affect ecosystems, biodiversity, natural resources, and the overall quality of the environment.

      Material Planning Considerations: Traffic and Access

      Traffic and Access are critical factors in evaluating planning applications. These considerations focus on the impact a proposed development will have on the local transportation network, road safety, accessibility for all users, and the adequacy of infrastructure to support the development.

      NON-material Planning Considerations – these are not relevant to the decision-making process

      When considering planning applications, councils typically exclude non-material planning considerations. These factors are not relevant to the decision-making process because they do not directly relate to land use and planning policies.

      Common non-material considerations include:

      1. Effect on Property Values: The impact of a development on the value of nearby properties is not considered a valid planning issue.
      2. Personal Circumstances: Individual personal circumstances of the applicant or neighbours, such as financial situations or specific health needs, are generally not taken into account.
      3. Private Disputes: Disputes between neighbours, such as boundary issues or personal disagreements, are not planning matters.
      4. Loss of a Private View: The impact on an individual’s private view from their property is not a material planning consideration.
      5. Commercial Competition: Concerns about new businesses competing with existing ones are not typically considered in planning decisions.
      6. Moral Objections: Objections based on personal beliefs or moral viewpoints, such as opposition to the type of business being proposed (e.g., betting shops, fast food outlets), are usually not taken into account.
      7. Construction Disturbances: Temporary inconveniences during the construction phase, such as noise, dust, and traffic disruptions, are not considered material planning issues.
      8. Covenants and Deeds: Private legal agreements, such as restrictive covenants in property deeds, are not planning matters.
      9. Speculative Developments: Concerns about future developments or changes that are not part of the current planning application are not relevant. While speculative future developments are not relevant on their own, the cumulative impact of already approved or pending applications should be considered to understand the broader environmental and community effects. Thus, assessing cumulative impact ensures all related developments are factored into the decision-making process.
      10. Economic Impact on Local Businesses: General concerns about the economic impact on local businesses, aside from land use considerations, are usually excluded.

      Understand what you are up against

      Rural Planning: Approvals Outside Local Development Plans and Settlement Boundaries

      References

      Water Butts

      Water butts are large containers designed for collecting and storing rainwater, typically from the roof via downpipes. This stored water can then be used for various purposes, primarily in gardening and landscaping, to reduce the use of mains water.

      Key Features and Benefits

      Collection and Storage
      • Water butts are connected to the downpipes of a building’s guttering system to collect rainwater runoff.
      • They come in various sizes and shapes, typically ranging from 100 to 300 litters, although larger ones are available.
      Uses
      • The collected rainwater is primarily used for watering plants, lawns, and gardens.
      • It can also be used for cleaning purposes, such as washing cars or outdoor surfaces.
      • Reduces demand on mains water supply and helps lower water bills.
      Environmental Impact
      • Using a water butt helps conserve water, especially during dry periods or droughts.
      • It contributes to sustainable water management practices.
      • Reduces the volume of runoff entering the drainage system, which can help prevent flooding and reduce the burden on sewer systems.

      Installation and Maintenance

      Installation
      • Typically placed near the downpipe of a roof guttering system.
      • Often comes with a tap or spigot at the bottom for easy water access.
      • Can be connected to other water butts to increase storage capacity.
      Maintenance
      • Regularly check for debris that might block the inlet.
      • Clean the interior occasionally to prevent algae and mosquito breeding.
      • Ensure that the lid is secure to keep out leaves and pests.

      Water butts are a practical and environmentally friendly way to conserve water, especially useful for gardeners and those looking to reduce their environmental footprint.

      Sources