flanagaj

Looking at street view would seem to suggest that most of the properties are indeed set back from the road.

Is it true that getting planning for a garage that will sit in front of the main house will be problematic? The bungalow is shown below and there is plenty of room to the left of the house to put a garage in angled at 90 degrees to the main property. This would then enable the single garage attached to the property to be used for other accommodation purposes?

Thanks. I was absolutely shocked when I looked yesterday and saw moisture resistant 18mm * 600mm * 2440mm chipboard flooring at £22 a sheet!. I nearly fell off my chair. In 2007 when we refurbished our current property, I was paying circa £4 / sheet Would be good to understand what products have been hit hardest by inflation. For example, knowing that timber has gone up a lot, might change the design decision to use oak or cedar cladding to clad the whole upper floor of a contemporary build, and instead have to rethink or use an alternative material.

I am very behind with current build costs, and the last time I investigated them it was circa £800/m2 (budget self build) - £1400 (high end quality finish) Given the rampant inflation associated with building material I suspect that these figures are way off in today's climate. Does anyone have the current accurate figures? Thanks

Ok thanks.

So my wife and I have the funds to purchase a plot, but we would need to secure finance for the build. The plot is 400k and we anticipate the build being < 300k so on paper it is < 50% LTV. Are there any leaders out there who would be willing to provide finance to those of us who contract as opposed to being a perm employee?

Thanks. That does sound like a very good investment and I will have a look.

@Thorfun Thanks. I'll post the outcome.

I completely agree the attached image shows the plot in white and the conservation area is the area shown in red to the North. So the house will not sit within the conservation area.

It does seem like it's a lucky dip. We were hoping to go with the local stone as shown in the current plans, but then instead of slate tiles we are hoping we can sway a style more like this below. Maybe even have a zinc roof too, but who knows whether any of that is possible.

A flat roof is what we would ideally like, but the plot sits just outside the conservation area and the conservation officer had quite quite a few comments. The ironic thing about it though is that the next house up the road is a typical late 70s / early 80s style which is god awful and 2 houses down there is another bunch of houses which again are not pleasing on the eye. So the architect in his brief made the following comments. You would also like to explore a more contemporary design which we agree would work. However, I draw your attention to the conservation officer’s comments on the latest (failed) application on this site where she says. ‘…core policy 57 which requires that new development should respond ‘positively to the existing townscape and landscape features in terms of building layouts, built form, height, mass, scale, building line, plot size, elevational design, materials, streetscape and rooflines to effectively integrate the building into its setting’. It is these things we need to address within a planning statement and demonstrate how the proposals respond positively to its context. Planning Considerations & Constraints There is quite a bit of planning history on this site with a number of refusals and an approval won at appeal for a house a little smaller than the current approval. Having already been enlarged to the current design the locals will undoubtedly resist any further developments. However, there are no policy reasons why a larger house could not be approved with the right design. The houses up the road and down the road are shown below. So a real mixed bag of the traditional stone of the area and 70s/80s style awfulness.

That is basically the angle my wife and I are coming from too. So the fees we have been quoted are not too far removed from your own. We can reduce our a bit too as they have also budgeted for 3d models which are a nice to have.

Thanks for the reply. I will have a read of your planning woes. I have spoken to a local architect company and did baulk slightly at the associated costs which are roughly 4.5 - 6k for the brief and design sketches and planning submission and then another 6k for all of the associated technical drawing (building regulations) those costs are ex VAT. I appreciate you can get a lot of this done on the cheap and I have gone with a very well known and reputable architect practice.

The interesting point of this is that although the land is being sold with planning permission. The planning expires in 2 months and I don't think the vendor has any intention of making a material start. As result the sale is going to be on the basis of planning being approved, so this could be use submitting a revised planning application which whilst this won't be cheap it means we are not at the risk of having purchased a plot that we cannot do anything more with. I did start looking through the planning documents and there was a comment from a neighbor which read "Neighbours 1 letter has been received. Summary of main points raised:  Concern about overbearing impact  The overall ridge height of the proposed dwelling has increased on the newest plans.  It would be preferable to us if the proposed building was 'sunk' further into the ground at FFL so that the overall ridge height remains as per the current approved plans" The planners comments were "(8.2) Siting, Scale and Design The proposed dwelling is very similar in style / external appearance to the approved dwelling with its principle elevation facing Moor Hill with external materials comprising stone plinth with timber cladding above and sate roof with brick chimney. The siting is generally the same but has a larger foot print. The span is deeper from front to back with a lean to single storey element across the full width of the dwelling. The proposed dwelling is also set further forward than the approved dwelling by approximately 0.6m and wider by approximately 0.8m (to west).The site is very slightly wider than the appeal site as the west boundary of the plot has been moved approximately 0.75m further west and appears to correspond to the east boundary of the site approved for the replacement dwelling under 18/02743/FUL. Internally the larger dwelling has been re-designed considerably and has 3 bedrooms (previous approval had two bedrooms). The proposed FFL (87.80) is higher than the approved dwelling (87.35) and the ridge height is higher, resulting in an increase of height of approximately 0.75m higher than the dwelling approved on appeal. There are associated changes to the proposed fenestration. The proposed FFL has been queried with the applicant who states this is to avoid the need for a separate connection to the public foul sewer due to invert levels and would avoid associated disruption to traffic. It is considered that this can be afforded little weight in relation to the permanent impact of the height of the proposed dwelling. Nevertheless, taking into account the additional comparison information submitted, including a street elevation, it is judged that whilst the overall the larger scale of the dwelling will give rise to a more significant visual presence on the site and in the street scene (less ‘small cottage’ like in scale) on balance it is not considered to result in such harm to warrant refusal on the grounds of harm to the visual amenities of the locality. Although larger, it is generally retains a similar feel and style and is not considered to result in an unduly cramped form of development in the context of the surrounding built form and landscape. Proposed scheme aboveApproved scheme above The relationship with the replacement dwelling approved on the site of Moor Cottage (not yet built) would effectively be similar to when permission was granted for it in in the context of the dwelling approve on appeal. The replacement dwelling for Moor Cottage would be sited slightly further west than the original Moor Cottage in relation to the appeal dwelling. It is not considered that the currently proposed dwelling would adversely affect the spacing between the dwellings, as approved. It is therefore concluded that the proposed dwelling is acceptable in terms of siting, scale and design." A topographic survey was carried out on the land but I don't know if the current plans are on the basis that the land is going to be excavated down or whether it's being built where it is. As a result, this will of course impact the height of the ridge.

The currently approved planning application on the land we are in the process of purchasing is for a chalet style property (image below) as you can see the upstairs is not very spacious and as things stand it's basically a 2 bed with a box room. I am trying to see what options are available to enable the small room to be increased in size and I wanted to ask what experienced forumites would do. The options I see so far are. 1) A new planning application to make the upstairs the same size as the ground floor. 2) As above and also change the planning application so the stairwell (spiral stairs) are inside a column which moves the stairs outside the main footprint. Hope that makes sense The issue we have though, is that there is quite a lot of history already on the site regarding planning. The image shows the originally passed design (dotted line on drawing) and then it was subsequently increased in size. The property can be moved closer to the road by a meter and a new architect we met on site said the pitch of the roof could be shallower and there is scope to sink the house lower. So 1 and 2 are possibly viable, but if not then I am struggling to see how space upstairs could be increased? The upstairs internal floor size scaled off the drawings is 8.5m * 5.72m