Cheesus

Thanks for all the comments, I am waiting for my planning consultant to come back to me but is it generally possible to build a bin store on the small grass verge that borders the access road? Around halfway down the track there is a grit box at the side of the road, up against a wall - whilst there is no footpath as such down the unadopted road and it is a dead end I can't see us being allowed to stick our bins there however nice the store we build looks?

Thanks, I suppose we could look into this further but it seems like hassle when a sprinkler system will add a bit of piece of mind should the worst happen. The bin issue is the fly in the ointment for us unfortunately.

Welcome to my world!

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. It's the only issue / potential issue against the development so hopefully some mitigation would get us over the line. It's not like there are other issues and it would be the straw that broke the camels back so to speak. I appreciate your help, we'll explore the possibility of looking to design something and incorporate as and when the time comes for our application. Thanks for the input.

Thanks, the MasterMover looks like it could fit the bill. No idea how the planning office would police it, we're hoping to self build and would be more than happy to drag the bins ourself but I suppose we can have one if it's the difference between getting planning or not. Just to add a bit more context, this was the emial exchange that followed the report: Highways have come back with the following: “Specifically on the bins, it wouldn’t be a “Highway Safety” reason, I’m not sure we could back it up sufficiently if challenged at appeal. It is however a major amenity issue and possibly discriminatory for those with disabilities. The applicant’s proposal that residents can just drag the bins 80+ metres is heavily reliant on the person being physically able to do so; essentially a restriction for the dwelling to only be available for those who are fully able-bodied. Even then it would still be inconvenient.” I would be minded to agree with that position. Whilst the proposal would not be severely harmful to highways safety contra to Para 116 of the NPPF, I do think there would be grounds for a recommendation of refusal on the basis that the bin pull distance would be very inconvenient and contrary to Section 2.27.02 of the RDG (Pt 1), Section 12.6 of the SDG and Policy LP56(j). Happy to discuss internally if you this would help?

As promised, we now have the pre planning consultation report - mitigation for the lack of fire engine access by way of a sprinker system is fine. The sticking point is the wheelie bin access though..... I am waiting for my planning man to come back with a plan of action. All other aspects of the provisional application were fine with the slight amendment needed to a window. There is room for a bin on the access road but we don't own the road so not sure if this is an option. The report: The Highways Officer has advised that there is a need to ensure that fire and rescue appliances can get within 45m of the proposed front door – the proposal to install a fire sprinkler system in lieu of suitable access is considered acceptable. Consideration must be given to arrangements for refuse collection. The site is located approximately 85m from the adopted highway, and the bin pull distance would exceed the lengths recommended in Section 2.27.02 of the RDG Pt 1 (45m) or Section 12.7 of the Street Design Guidance (residents should not be expected to wheel bins more than 30m from the storage point). There does not appear to be room within the access road for a convenient bin storage area, nor is there room within the access for a Council waste collection vehicle (the 11.2m Phoenix 2 Duo) to reach the site in a forward gear and then turn to allow access onto xxxx in a forward gear. It is noted that the existing collection arrangements for the properties at nos xx and xx xxxx also exceed the recommended pull distances for refuse bins, however this would not in and of itself present a suitable justification for the proposed arrangement – these dwellings were erected prior to the adoption of the relevant standards and requirements.

Thanks for the comments everybody, I will be sure to update when the report comes back (hopefully) in early Feb.

Thankyou, I tried to speak with the local fire officer via the FRS HQ, a lady came back to me after a week or so to tell me to contact my local authority! Looking at the lay of the land - access could be made over neighbours properties via alternative roads. One potential option could be the unmade road is 'L' shaped with a 90 degree bend after 38m, with the plot being a further 57m to the boundary of the plot (63m ish to the centre of the plot), perhaps the appliance could pull forward from the main road into the unmade road the 38m or so and stay there and run the hoses the remaining distance? Perhaps we will know what the council think when we get the consultation results back in a few more weeks time, or at least we hope so!

I think we probable have space for a 25,000L tank, no idea about putting it underground or overground (wombling free). It wouldn't be ideal but if it was the difference between getting something through and not we would go for it if it was an option and just work round it I would imagine.

Appreciate the feedback on both points. Firstly, reference bins - this is the relevent part of local planning policy I am told: With regards to fire engine access, this is the (fairly) recent application that was approved: https://planning.wakefield.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage Below is copied and pasted from the decision notice (I understand the manual for streets remains unchanged in relation to this): It is also noted that the proposed dwelling would be around 74m from the public highway and exceeds the recommended pumping and carrying distances for a fire appliance/refuse vehicle. The submitted highway statement states that it is proposed to install a fire sprinkler system within the new dwelling to negate the need for a large fire appliance to access the site. This satisfies the requirements in manual for streets. As noted with regards to outline consent 13/01088/OUT, it is recommended that this be secured by condition. Google earth shows this house as now built, obviously we don't know if there are any ongoing issues with BCO or not.

The site won't allow for the turning of a fire appliance. The council has recently approved an application for a newbuild on a plot with similar access, the application mitigated the lack of access with the sprinkler system so this is why we went down this route. With regards to bins, we need to find out if putting a bin enclosure half way from the proposed new house and the road is possible, dunno what other residents would say. Thanks

Thanks, I assume the BCO who signs off though will be bound by the findings of the various agencies who will be consulted during the actual planning process? It's all a bit difficult for the layman to get his head round and not helped by lots of different people having differences of opinion, obviously I will pay proffessionals when the time comes but at the moment I am just trying to tiptoe my way through things without throwing too much money at it and afterall I am just a normal fella with a large back garden with some potential to build on it. One piece of advise I did receive from a builder friend was if we should ever be in a position to have a piece of land with planning permission, just sell it and let somebdoy else have the hassle - nothing worse than having your life savings invested in a pile of mud and being reliant on others. This obviously will rob us of the oppertunity to self build.

Just a little update on this one on the offchance anybody is interested.... We had the fella from the council planning department round last week to do his site visit as part of our pre planning consultation. Now I am not sure how much they give away when inspecting and how much things like this will come down to his opinion or the opinion of the various agencies (Water company, Coal Board, Highways etc.) but he was very much of the opinion that if a rule/guideline/policy couldn't be complied with it would be a case of 'what are the real world implications of this' rather than a binary yes/no situation. The bins for example, he said so what to having to drag them longer than is ideal, the next plot along do it already and with regards to the lack of access for the fire appliance, as long as it is mitigated by an approved sprinkler system maybe with a water tank on the plot then this is likely to suffice in his opinion. Now I know he may just be saying what we want to hear to avoid any awkward conversations but I suppose we will know more in the next month or so when the report is likely to come back at which point I will update further. Thanks.

Thanks, so there is a chance of this happening - however slim. Does this mean that in theory we could move in but we wouln't have any buildings/contents insurance until 10 years passed? I presume there would also be consequences when it came to obtaining a mortage, we can finance probably around 75% of the approximate budget build cost without the need for a mortgage but we would need some form of finance to take us to completion. Should we get planning then we would need to think very carefully.

Thanks for the replies, it does seem like common sense when explained as it has been above- hopefully this prevails if we can mitigate the risk. It does sound though as if there is a chance we could sink all our money into building a house only to find out we can't get past building control and then we would be absolutely stuffed if this was the case.