How much can I build on site?

[Gimp]

So the plot of land I recently bought in Wales I have designed a building for. The build I would say sits well in the land, I would judge as not too big or too small. It has at least a good 2.5 meters or so on all sides, 4-5 meters at the front and diagonally perhaps 7-8 meters from the corners of the house, roughly. Its a two bed property about 10 meters front to back & side to side, not perfectly square though, just a bit under 60sqm footprint. Now my thought is that as its on a slope the surrounding land is essentially buffer space between myself and the next door neighbours who have both wide gardens putting their properties a reasonable distance from my proposed build. My build location is unlikely to be directly in their eye much at all really. Since my site is on a hillside 25 degree pitch average its of little use as a serious garden (I'm no gardener) so would be a waste of build if I were to go overboard on retaining a lot of outside space at the expense of a decent sized but not overly large build as I see it. Essentially I would see it as a waste of a good site and the build falling far short of its potential. 

 

The previous outline planning permission had a piddly little chalet bungalow on it that I think would have been a terrible waste of the land, the dormers in the roof would have made upstairs an awkward space, possibly impractical given the width of the thing. Now I'm pretty determined not to do that build so I really only want to do the build I have designed. I don't mind going to appeal or whatever to do it if needs be, it has not gone forward to planning yet, but as this is my first time I don't know how edgy planning might be when it comes to 'how much can I build on site'. I would not of course wish to build up to the boundary, it makes sense to have some surrounding land, yet I am concerned in case I get an awkward bugger from planning. Many of the other houses in the village either open out onto the street or just have a small plot of garden mainly in the back, many of the new builds as well. So I guess I was wondering if anyone has any experience of issues with how much you can build on here?

 

Personally, I'm not willing to build what the planners may want. To me with present low interest and inflation on the rise the land I believe will be a better investment than the money in the bank as I got it cheap as well. I want to build what I want, of course I realise you cannot go overboard but my general thrust is that as long as I'm reasonable in terms of size of build and it looks like it sits well within the land then that would be acceptable to most. Considering of course the need for this build to have modern insulation levels and a 800mm wide staircase to me it seems reasonably sized.    

[MikeSharp01]

Yes getting some advice might help - essentially planners just apply the rules, local planning and national guidelines if you steer a path between them all will be well. The planners don't have a view on 'what they want' its just what fits within the rules. Interestingly our planners in Whitstable told us that they liked our application 'because it was different' and although it challenged the street vernacular it did not breach any of their rules. We did a preplanning check with them, cost £400 but was worth every penny because we had them on site and explained what we were doing and their only concern was the ridge height, as long as we stayed below a notional line they would be happy. In the end we went about 300mm above the line but by carefully arranging the massing of the building they accepted it because your eye was not upset when drawing a line between the ridges on each side. They even allowed us to have jet black cladding when they had made the next door house lighten their dark grey cladding. Our architect, not saying you cannot do it yourself, just took the local planning and national guideline rules and our spec and steered a path. Where it came close to being a risk they, with our help, beefed up the argument to show how we met the rules.

 

[Gimp]

31 minutes ago, Sensus said:

How long is a piece of string?

 

You can build as much as does not have excessively adverse impact on the character of the area and the amenity of your neighbours.

 

How much that is on the specific site you have bought is down to a detailed 'constraints and opportunities' analysis, of the site itself, its context, and local Planning Policy, for which you would be well advised to employ the services of an experienced architect or architectural designer.

 

 

Twice the length of half of it  That's the technical answer, lol.

 

Thanks, Sensus, this helps a lot. I think I've got a fair bit in my favour in the 'constraints & opportunities' so a detailed analysis may be worthwhile here. I was just wondering I suppose if there was a kind of ratio of garden to build space or just down to individual planner concern. As Mike has pointed out below if its down purely to the rules then I think I should stand a decent chance. I'll look up the local & national policy, I'm thinking though its likely to be ok as I think I'm being fairly reasonable with what I am proposing for the site. I guess I maybe have a bit of an old skool view of planning as being subject to the whims of individual planners, but if they have to back up what they say with the rules then its not so bad.

[Gimp]

33 minutes ago, MikeSharp01 said:

Yes getting some advice might help - essentially planners just apply the rules, local planning and national guidelines if you steer a path between them all will be well. The planners don't have a view on 'what they want' its just what fits within the rules. Interestingly our planners in Whitstable told us that they liked our application 'because it was different' and although it challenged the street vernacular it did not breach any of their rules. We did a preplanning check with them, cost £400 but was worth every penny because we had them on site and explained what we were doing and their only concern was the ridge height, as long as we stayed below a notional line they would be happy. In the end we went about 300mm above the line but by carefully arranging the massing of the building they accepted it because your eye was not upset when drawing a line between the ridges on each side. They even allowed us to have jet black cladding when they had made the next door house lighten their dark grey cladding. Our architect, not saying you cannot do it yourself, just took the local planning and national guideline rules and our spec and steered a path. Where it came close to being a risk they, with our help, beefed up the argument to show how we met the rules.

 

Thanks Mike this was also very helpful. I guess my view was I envisaged a planner saying that it needs to be a bit smaller here or there because there impression was that it was too big or whatever so it is good that, "The planners don't have a view on 'what they want' its just what fits within the rules" as that what I was afraid of as I was not sure how planners operate these days. So I'll acquaint myself with the rules and go by them as I'm normally quite decent with that stuff though I'm thinking odds are I won't have to do much work as the design build is not real excessive or anything. I think with the space on site to the neighbouring properties buildings is enough that there will be absolutely zero issue with overshadowing, etc particularly as the neighbouring properties are further up the hillside than my plot so they would have trouble proving that one. I guess my thought was if I had one argument and the planners had their own argument not based on anything than their judgement and then having to challenge that judgement in an appeal, but if its just based on the rules then it makes it all a lot easy going I would think.  

[Gone West]

1 hour ago, MikeSharp01 said:

Yes getting some advice might help - essentially planners just apply the rules, local planning and national guidelines.......

 

 

Unfortunately planning policies are worded in a suitably ambiguous way to allow the planners to approve, or not, what ever they want. It also depends on your LPA and their competence.

 

 

[Gimp]

Just now, PeterStarck said:

 

Unfortunately planning policies are worded in a suitably ambiguous way to allow the planners to approve, or not, what ever they want. It also depends on your LPA and their competence.

 

 

I was starting to wonder about that, the plot I have lends itself to avoiding many negatives. I'm willing to accept where a negative might occur but if a planner just states that something doesn't fulfil a requirement in the rules & the rule is ambiguous/abstract then I'll just have to push on and take it further nothing that can be done about that I guess if a planner is objectionable for whatever reason and plays it loose on the rules from their side to justify the objection.

 

I've noticed in the village where I have the plot that some of the recent builds aren't exactly in keeping with the traditional builds, but perhaps planning played it easy on these with regard to build style/site context. My build is a little different to the rest, modern with traditional aspects but I think fits in more than some of the more recent builds. Will just have to hope that the planners are positive on it as I don't wish to copy other builds just to play it safe as would be a shame for the site I think and of course myself.  

[ProDave]

Check your local planning policy.  There will be things like minimum distances between facing windows, a certain amount of amenity space being needed such as parking, possibly turning space, bin storage space, clothes drying space, maybe even bike parking space etc.

 

if the outside space is very small, they might remove your permitted development rights. That is a PITA if you want something simple like a shed. So perhaps preempt that by including any sheds you are likely to want in the initial planning application.

 

It certainly amazes me sometimes here just how little outside space you need. In the town here, there is a trend for back building behind existing houses which leaves both the original and the new house with only a tiny outside space. But it seems if you can fit two wheelie bins and a rotary clothes line it seems to be "enough"

 

There are other building regs things to think about, like if you have a window very close to a boundary it might have to be fire rated glass etc.

 

[MikeSharp01]

30 minutes ago, PeterStarck said:

Unfortunately planning policies are worded in a suitably ambiguous way to allow the planners to approve, or not, what ever they want. It also depends on your LPA and their competence.

Have to somewhat agree Peter but they can get caught out if it goes to appeal because the inspector will look to check the boundaries of their thinking in my experience anyway. Worked through 3 or 4 appeals (although with others) and this seems universally the case. The most common thing that helps is 'have they allowed similar things in the past' so if you can show that they have then they are likely to roll over. This is kind of built into their approach, an old friend is a retired planning officer, so red lines are really red lines cos once they let it through somewhere it will go everywhere unless they can block it with a change to the local plan (takes years). So just find examples of where what you want is already happening, ensure your argument draws on this, preferably many examples, and is set a little bit back from it, so you are not pushing the envelope, and things should be OK.

[MikeSharp01]

16 minutes ago, ProDave said:

if the outside space is very small, they might remove your permitted development rights. That is a PITA if you want something simple like a shed. So perhaps preempt that by including any sheds you are likely to want in the initial planning application.

 

We included the shed because we were worried, and we said so in the submission, and in the end they said nothing about removing permitted development rights in the planning permission when it came through.

[ProDave]

9 minutes ago, Sensus said:

 
 

Similarly, the Government has published optional 'National Space Standards' on the internal sizes of dwellings, which supposedly LPA's can adopt as minimum local standards if they see fit, but I know few who have so far attempted to do so, and I feel certain that if many do, it will lead to test cases whre the decision is that if someone chooses to live in a very small property, that's up to them, not the LPA.

 
 

 

You have to consider building regulations as well as planning. They DO set minimum sizes of an "apartment" and things like door width, corridor width, space in kitchens, activity space in bathrooms etc. So in effect they set the minimum size a house has to be.

 

Of course you can have a 1 bedroom house with two very small "studies" or "store rooms" if you can't meet the regs for all 3 bedrooms, so there is some wriggle room.
 

[ToughButterCup]

2 hours ago, Gimp said:

[...] So I guess I was wondering if anyone has any experience of issues with how much you can build on here?   

 

Spend £1000 on advice.

Work out who is the sharpest self-employed  planning consultant around - by reading their applications and looking at the results of their applications. A real eye for the nitty gritty detail is what you need.

Then go down the pub and listen.

The go to the local golf club and listen.

Not all on the same night

Ian

[ProDave]

16 minutes ago, Sensus said:

 

They don't stipulate the minimum size for an 'apartment', and activity spaces in kitchens, bedrooms, bathrooms etc. are only applicable on Category 2 and Category 3 dwellings (ie. they are optional, not mandatory standards).

 
 

They do in Scotland
 

[Ferdinand]

I would say absorb all the stuff above, then talk to a Planning Officer to find out what the local policy and practice are. IT may only be guidance, but complying with it will save you the aggro of an Appeal and perhaps 6 months and a lot of work, unless you are Captain Mainwaring and enjoy such things !

 

In practice the main bits of space you need to allow for will be:

 

The Building. SPace standards may apply but since you want it large not small that should be OK.

 

Space Around the Building so you are far enough from boundaries. Usually means 1m+ iirc.

 

Parking Spaces, which will mainly depend on how many occupants and/or bedrooms you plan. EXtra bedrooms can be smuggled in by e.g. subdividing later if you really need to. Approx 12-18 sqm each. My LPA require 2 for 2 bed, 3 for 3 bed+. Minus 1 if you are on a good bus route near a town centre.

 

Private Amenity Space i.e. garden. in my LPA minimum is 50 sqm.

 

SPace for your soak away etc which tend to need to be 5m from a boundary or as similar as possible.

 

Then they may require turning space on site but often not since research showed that reversing out onto a main road was ess trouble than expected and the requirement was loosened in the Manual for Roads and Streets over a decade ago.

 

Then there is the usual stuff about habitable room to neighbour habitable room facing distance etc, but at this point that is not relevant.

 

So max building size means roughly 50sqm in front or side for parking, the same behind for the private garden, and a 1m stripe around the building to avoid the neighbours. Narrow strips will not count for amenity space. UNless you are two beds or less you really want more than fifty sqm of amenity space so it could appeal to families etc.

 

Phone up your LPA and ask for those details. Have a site plan and / or block plan online or ready to email plan or link so he can have a look on the spot. Or know how to find it on the Councils map on their website as that is what he will look at.

 

Ferdinand

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2016 by Ferdinand

[Ferdinand]

I think my questions are all suitable to be framed as policy questions .. which all Planners should answer anyway - with an informal diversion into a consideration of your site if you guide the conversation appropriately. That is why you need the map up,your sleeve.

 

A wise man - if my Latin is not too rusty that is the meaning of Sensus and he always sounds quite wise and HOG (which I declare to be an adjective)  - will always leave 1m on all sides, policy or not, so that he can put scaffolding up on all sides without having to involve or pay ground rent to neighbours or council for the next 25 years when he wants to paint it or similar. In my LP a scaffolding on pavement license is the best part of 100 ukp a week plus buggeration squared.

 

It is also a buffer zone which reduces the likelihood of neighbours taking umbrage at your PP and becoming aeriated.

 

Ferdinand

 

Edited November 20, 2016 by Ferdinand

[Ferdinand]

That gap is what I call a Cat Killer.

 

Poor Tibbles will fall down that and get stuck, and die horribly.

 

It is also the size of gap that will fill with crud that can never be cleaned.

 

Build right into the wall, or make it wide enough that a person (not necessarily an American person) can walk through. THe same goes for valleys on roofs or valleys where a conservatory roof meets the building.

 

Ferdinand

[joe90]

Gimp, I wasted two and a half years fighting planning, wasted £1000 on a planning consultant who was rubbish. Don't be afraid to take it to appeal if you get refused. I wanted to build two story and the council wanted a bungalow or room in roof. The appeal process is not rocket science, in fact I was advised that if you use simplistic terms ( not too technical) then you stand a good chance. I hoped  to win but with some small concessions but in fact I won on ALL points and had no concessions. The inspector even used some of my own words in her judgement. The inspector told the LPA that my build did fit with their policies ( suggesting that they did not interpret their own policies correctly). I did my appeal myself and cost me nothing but a little effort. Tip, the LPA are not allowed to dictate style!, my argument was that a "bungalow" is a style. I ended up with four planning applications trying to appease the LPA. But you are allowed two goes for one fee. Go for it. I can send you a link to the applications and the appeal if you want. J

Edited November 21, 2016 by joe90
Typo

[Gimp]

2 hours ago, joe90 said:

Gimp, I wasted two and a half years fighting planning, wasted £1000 on a planning consultant who was rubbish. Don't be afraid to take it to appeal if you get refused. I wanted to build two story and the council wanted a bungalow or room in roof. The appeal process is not rocket science, in fact I was advised that if you use simplistic terms ( not too technical) then you stand a good chance. I hoped  to win but with some small concessions but in fact I won on ALL points and had no concessions. The inspector even used some of my own words in her judgement. The inspector told the LPA that my build did fit with their policies ( suggesting that they did not interpret their own policies correctly). I did my appeal myself and cost me nothing but a little effort. Tip, the LPA are not allowed to dictate style!, my argument was that a "bungalow" is a style. I ended up with four planning applications trying to appease the LPA. But you are allowed two goes for one fee. Go for it. I can send you a link to the applications and the appeal if you want. J

Hi Joe, yes a link to the applications and appeal would be grand if you can. The current outline planning permission for my plot from the previous owner which I hope to replace with an entirely different build reads in the conditions of approval, "This consent benefits for a single dwelling, of a bungalow or dormer style bungalow only. Reason. In the interests of visual amenity and the amenity of adjoining properties." I'm thinking this is probably because the application put forward by the owner was for a dormer bungalow so they would not then want to deal with a change to an entirely different build going forward. My thought is by submitting a new application for OPP then it will all be reassessed on the build style I put forward, i.e a house. Most of the village is traditionally houses, only recently has there been dormer bungalows built, though it makes me wonder if someone on planning is pushing for dormer bungalows to be built despite the style not being traditional to the village.

 

If the above condition from them is a sign that they only view a dormer bungalow as permissible on this plot then a precedent such as yours could be very useful and could save me a lot of time and hassle. I'm hoping it won't come to that, as to be honest with you the site itself would be underutilized by a long way with the small dormer bungalow that was proposed. While I would not seek to build to borders or dominate the site with a build for profit (I intend to live in it anyway rather than sell once built) I think it is a shame to waste a site on a build that is too small when something could really be made of a site if you know what I mean. I'm hoping that since the previous OPP was back in 2013 things will have moved on and hopefully I will get a planner that is positive on what I'm proposing and go by the rules rather than having their own agenda.     

[joe90]

I will get the details and post for you, or anyone else to have a gander at, in the meantime here is a picture of our foundations in the site:-

 

 

[joe90]

here is the link to the planning application. note it says refused but also says appealed and granted?

 

http://publicaccess.torridge.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NUPZNPQK07X00

 

hope it works, i am a builder not an IT person.

[Gimp]

21 hours ago, joe90 said:

here is the link to the planning application. note it says refused but also says appealed and granted?

 

http://publicaccess.torridge.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NUPZNPQK07X00

 

hope it works, i am a builder not an IT person.

Thanks for that Joe much appreciate it. Looking at it I think odds are your site is in a different situation/context to mine being a 'Replacement Buildings in the Countryside' as they call it and Policy DVT4 I would thought unlikely to apply to mine which is a proposed new build on a brownfield site within the settlement boundaries of a village though surrounded by countryside. Its handy thought to see the rules drawn upon by planning officers in opposition to a scheme. I think here the planning officers were being over zealous in their application of the rule, its not that large an increase and I think the adjudicator looks like they saw it the same way. Maybe the planners just thought they should oppose any small increase as a matter of course under this rule as it didn't state otherwise. The issue over the replacement being closer in style to the surrounding properties than what was there previous seems like the planners were being overly concerned with the aesthetical change I think.

 

The guy who did the previous OPP for my site was an ex-planner from the council apparently, looks like he knew his stuff on the planning side, the quotes decently on the local planning policy. I think he fell down on tackling the design side though, perhaps he should have passed to a more design mined bod for this. The whole design I think has been designed to be as inoffensive as possible to anyone (no side windows to neighbouring front garden, small dormer bungalow build) but in trying to please everyone else and planning really falls short of site potential for the inhabitant. I'm thinking that the site being brownfield site within the settlement boundaries of a village will keep at bay a lot of rules they might otherwise bring against me so making a decent sized build feasible so worthwhile being bold in submission.  

[joe90]

Glad it was of some use, however if it is a brownfield site and fits with the local vernacular ( other than the new stuff the council granted planning for) i still think you have a good chance of appeal, what have you got to loose? We have a national housing shortage and I do believe ( through much reading) that the planning inspectors from government want houses built despite petty local planning policies. Developing brown field sites is being encouraged to save green field sites. Franky I would go for it. Can you find any other properties similar to what you want built recently ( precedent). I have come across so many people that have won their appeal despite local planning refusals.   Best of luck and keep us informed.

[joe90]

16 minutes ago, Sensus said:

 you will need the appropriate professionals to give you a decent chance of success.

 

I tend to disagree, our planning consultant was an ex local planning officer for our local council and frankly she was rubbish, I could have done a better job myself ( and saved myself £1000). See if you can access the appeals website and find local appeals to planning and the details and outcomes, I think you will learn a lot from this, also the appeals office were very helpful in making sure I had input all the correct info.

[joe90]

I have no problem with agreeing to differ, I spent two and a half years fighting the local planning system and reading a great deal on the subject, yes I did win and I believe in no small way because I kept it simple and pragmatic and to the point,  my (ex) planning consultant was highly recommended  but frankly her case was far from simple and I think too much techno babble. She did not win her case for me.

 

 

[joe90]

10 minutes ago, Sensus said:

Whilst your Planning Consultant was woefully weak on the design content, you're probably doing her a disservice by disregarding the 'technobabble' as you put it. The Appeals Inspector will have read this and assessed it in terms of policy position before moving on to your Appeal Statement, so it will have done part of the job for you, even if you're not aware of it... so she will have partially won the case for you, even if you don't know or accept it.

I don't want to be picky but to clear up any misunderstanding my planning consultant had no input into our appeal whatsoever, her job was to help us win our planning application with the LPA when a local councillor called our application into committee because he thought our application was completely reasonable. Any "woefully weak" " techno babble" in the appeal was mine. 

[joe90]

I am surprised about that as the appeal web site is supposed to list all relevant documents for all to see and comment on if they see fit. Our consultants input does not exist on the appeals web site. Also the LPA had to copy all their relevant documentation in their defence to me and information from previous applications were not forwarded to me.

Edited November 22, 2016 by joe90