flanagaj

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

Wow. I wasn't expecting 12k. I assume that is also not VAT exempt.

@Bitpipe I appreciate this will vary according to the works required, but the sort of questions I still would like to answer is 1) What if anything can you do on the site if you haven't exchanged contracts and the current 2 storey building plans are just slightly too small for your needs and the basement is a must. Even if it was just 50% of the footprint? 2) What is a ballpark figure for the surveys / SE. The footprint of the property as it stands if the basement was the size of the house is 9.5m * 7.5m so quite small. 3) When people talk about the m2 costs of building a basement does that cost include excavation, footings, floor, cast concrete walls and tanking up to ground level so that the next step of the build process would be putting in a beam and block floor? 4) What are current estimates for a basement. I appreciate that is difficult to answer? Thanks

We have sold our property and have had our offer accepted on a building plot. The plot price is reasonable for the current market and we obtained a price that we were very happy with for our house, but inflation is concerning me. I feel the 2% inflation figure is actually way off and if you take inflation with regards to building materials / costs it is running higher than 2%. My concern is that build costs and construction costs are going to push the build costs way in excess of our budgeted £1000 - £1300 m2 Are other self builders seeing that their build costs are now beginning to spiral?

Good question. Sorry, but I just assumed BC was local area. For £150 that is definitely worth doing.

Currently contemplating adding a basement to to a new build. Only reason is that the site is quite small and the current plans cannot increase the footprint of the building nor to add a garage. Apologies, if this is a daft question, but I read that before even considering having a basement you need to find out the water table for the site. Does this simply require bore holes to be drilled on site or can the information be obtained from known geological surveys that may have been done in the area?

Thanks for the replies. Given there is a house next door that was recently built, will BC not be able to provide a very good indication as to what depth and width the footing need to be or can the makeup of the ground be very different from one plot to another?

Sounds as though you did exactly as I would be planning. Good point regarding the architect. My main motivation was just to ensure the smooth running of everything up to plate height. I don't really understand of have the inclination to be dealing with groundwork related issues ... and was hoping that by using an architect it's a crucial part that I could sort of forget about. That decision does however depend on how much it adds to the cost if I used an architect to manage that aspect of the build. I suppose using a single building contractor for the whole stage, does help simplify things considerably.

Not wanting to get ahead of myself, but I am struggling to contain my excitement as after 20 years of wanting to do a self build the planets look like they may have at last aligned. Our house sale has been agreed and is going through and our offer on a building plot has been accepted. So fingers crossed. Having been a cabinet maker in a previous life and refurbished numerous properties I am planning on doing most of the finishing work myself, second fix carpentry, bathrooms (inc plumbing) and the kitchen. I also have a brother who is a roofer and I know an electrician and carpenter for the roof. So as to get things moving quickly I was planning on using a single building contractor for groundworks and taking the structure up to plate height before then taking over and managing the remainder of the project. If I go down this route can I save quite a bit of money or would you need to project manage every stage yourself to save the most money? I also want to understand whether I would need an architect to manage the builder up until this stage? Thanks

I have identified a small plot which has planning for a 3 bedroom detached house. It's quite small and there isn't really scope to increase the footprint of the property as the original plans have already been slightly increased. So unless there are services running underneath the property which would make a basement tricky, would adding a basement be a possibility so as to add the required extra space?