Plans feedback appreciated

[shuff27]

Hi, new to this forum but not to selfbuilding as I completed one 10 years ago.

 

I now have an opportunity to purchase a plot which I viewed last November but couldn't offer on as our house was not on the market.  Fast forward & we've just accepted a cash offer from a buy to let buyer who has given us first refusal to stay put as tenants.  Obviously this would be ideal as wouldn't have to move to another rental property first while developing a plot.

So I've arranged to view this plot again tomorrow, fortunately it's still available - the owner has turned down offers from spec builders as he lives next door & wants to control who his new neighbours will be.

 

The plot has full PP & some quite detailed drawings done by the owner's friend who is an architect (although commercial design rather than residential).  I've attached the most important drawings (cropped to remove the owner's & architect's contact details).  I would appreciate any opinions on the current plans.  The GIA of 2200 sq.ft is larger than we require (grown up kids) so I'm minded to shrink it by 10-15% to help with a fairly tight budget of £270k.  One of the upstairs bathrooms would be removed.  I dislike dormer windows so I would prefer to replace those with ordinary casements, ideally under non-material amendments.  By shrinking the width I believe the eaves height would increase, assuming keeping the same roof pitch, which I hope would allow enough room for casements - do you think that's correct?  Would also prefer to lose the non-functional chimneys!

 

Structure would be closed panel timber frame or SIPS (used in my previous build), brick facing walls & concrete/clay roof tiles.  I would project manage the build again (retired so no other major time commitments). Thanks for any feedback.

[Mr Punter]

Looks really good.  The stairs are much bigger than needed.  The WC could go back a bit.  This would give you a more generous entrance hall.  If you don't think you will use the garage much you could just exclude that bit.

[shuff27]

16 minutes ago, Mr Punter said:

Looks really good.  The stairs are much bigger than needed.  The WC could go back a bit.  This would give you a more generous entrance hall.  If you don't think you will use the garage much you could just exclude that bit.

 

Thanks for this.  Yes I agree about the WC as I don't like not having a WC window, I would rather move it all the way to the rear or the front.  The stairs could have a quarter landing so at first floor they arrive in the space where I'm removing the superfluous bathroom at the rear left.

[ProDave]

Where abouts is this located?

 

It looks like a typical design for a Scottish house in the countryside, if so designing out the dormers might not fit with local planning policy.

[shuff27]

...the position of the garage isn't great but the planners rejected the 1st plans which had a forward facing garage door.  I've never used a garage for cars but if I did remove it I would need a location for a very large shed for all the stuff it usually stores!

[shuff27]

7 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Where abouts is this located?

 

It looks like a typical design for a Scottish house in the countryside, if so designing out the dormers might not fit with local planning policy.

 

East Midlands, in a large village where dormers are actually pretty uncommon except where new housing developments have included them in order to cram in an extra storey.  I don't believe the planners would object to their removal (but who knows with planners...) but I'm trying to avoid having to make another full planning application.

 

Interestingly, the neighbouring house to the north is a seventies montrosity (currently being remodelled) while opposite is a 17th century listed thatched cottage.

[shuff27]

I'm still pondering the garage gable with 2 obvious options;

 

a) keep the gable but turn it into living space while reducing the dimensions of the rectangular footprint.

 

b) remove the gable & just build the remaining retangular footprint which would certainly assist the budget.

 

There is an existing former garage (see pic below) right at the front of the plot which has to be demolished as it blocks the new drive entrance.  I could use the reclaimed limestone to face a new blockwork shed built under PD.  Any suggestions on size & location (obviously not forward of the front elevation) on the site plan posted above?  Would need large enough to house bikes, golf stuff, lawnmower, workbench & tools etc., probably no windows needed but light & power.

 

 

[shuff27]

Coincidentally I've discovered a certain active long-standing member of this forum lives at the other end of the same road this plot is on (I won't name him for privacy reasons but he may respond to identify himself).  I'm planning to visit his house next week for a socially distanced tour.

[joe90]

That would be such a shame to demolish that garage, can you not create a drive around it?. I am a fan of the look of dormers but they are difficult to insulate properly without looking overly chunky. I would try to loose them.

[Ferdinand]

As you are getting on, make sure that the stairs are shallow in gradient.

 

Say 35 degrees rather than the 42 allowed.

 

My mum reckoned this gave her about 5-10 years extra where she could comfortably cope with walking upstairs.

[Iceverge]

welcome welcome!

 

I might have ago at a redesign as a Sunday project later on if you like.

 

Is your Site layout plan North up? 

How close are your neighbours from an overlooking point of view?

Have you any sample pictures of the general style of houses in your area?

What kind of style do you prefer?

 

Jonathan

[shuff27]

8 minutes ago, joe90 said:

That would be such a shame to demolish that garage, can you not create a drive around it?. I am a fan of the look of dormers but they are difficult to insulate properly without looking overly chunky. I would try to loose them.

 

Unfortunately the demolition is a condition of the PP.  The new driveway will be to the left & although in theory there would be enough room to enter/exit the old garage would completely block the required visibility splays for vehicles & pedestrians.  Budget permitting I would also use the reclaimed stone to build a new front boundary wall of maybe 600mm H, replacing the fencing you can see in the picture.

[shuff27]

13 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

As you are getting on, make sure that the stairs are shallow in gradient.

 

Say 35 degrees rather than the 42 allowed.

 

My mum reckoned this gave her about 5-10 years extra where she could comfortably cope with walking upstairs.

 

Good point.  ATM I'm a sprightly 58 but hoping to live in the new home as long as poss!

[shuff27]

18 minutes ago, Iceverge said:

welcome welcome!

 

I might have ago at a redesign as a Sunday project later on if you like.

 

Is your Site layout plan North up? 

How close are your neighbours from an overlooking point of view?

Have you any sample pictures of the general style of houses in your area?

What kind of style do you prefer?

 

Jonathan

 

Thanks Jonathan, any design ideas most welcome.

 

The plan is north up, I reckon the rear elevation faces ESE.

There are no real overlooking issues - the property to the north has a blank gable end & to the south the plot owner has just built a new double garage attached to his bungalow & will be building a new 1.8m brick boundary wall.

These pics show the plot owner's bungalow (new plot on LHS); the 3 properties to the north - note the 70s house next to the grade2 listed former blacksmith's forge; the grade 2 listed cottage opposite.

 

 

[Iceverge]

It looks a lovely location. 

 

The planners bizarre decade by decade approach to building aesthetics isn't isolated it seems. Nonetheless the pictures give some clues as to what they might find acceptable. 

 

@joe90 I agree about the garage. However the project of building a garden wall from stone is wonderful. Undertaking a slow manual project by the roadside is just about the best way of meeting all your neighbours.

 

Right I'll get to work! 

 

 

[shuff27]

18 minutes ago, Iceverge said:

It looks a lovely location. 

 

The planners bizarre decade by decade approach to building aesthetics isn't isolated it seems. Nonetheless the pictures give some clues as to what they might find acceptable. 

 

@joe90 I agree about the garage. However the project of building a garden wall from stone is wonderful. Undertaking a slow manual project by the roadside is just about the best way of meeting all your neighbours.

 

Right I'll get to work! 

 

 

 

Please bear in mind that ideally I want to get any changes to the existing PP design signed off as non-material amendments.  I'm not sure if all planning depts use similar guidelines so here is the list in my location;

 

"We are likely to accept the following as non-material amendments to previously approved plans:

Reduction in the volume or size of the building/extension where the overall appearance and scale of the scheme is not significantly changed.

Reduction in the height of the building/extension where the overall appearance and scale of the scheme is not significantly changed.

Amendments to windows, doors or openings that will not have any impact on neighbouring properties or that would significantly impact on the appearance of the building/extension.

 

We would normally consider the following to take the development beyond the scope of the permission and therefore the non-material amendment process could not be used:

Increase in the size of the building/extension.

Increase in the height of the building/extension.

Relocating or moving the position of the building/extension.

Changes which would conflict with a condition on the original approval.

Significant changes to an external facing material.

Additional or repositioned windows, doors or openings that will have an impact on neighbouring properties.

Changes which would alter the description of development from the original application.

Amendments that would warrant re-consultation of either neighbours, internal or external consultees."

[Iceverge]

Alas I was nearly done before I read your above post. Have a look at the below and see if you have any thoughts.

 

I have retained the ridge height, the location and orientation but changed the layout, the size, and the appearance.  I have moved the kitchen dining into the sun. It amazes me how much main living areas end up at the dark north of a house. I have simplified the stairs meaning there will be more useable space below. The utility is much bigger and leads onto a carport area. The living is smaller but still a descent size and will allow for conversion to a bedroom later if required. This coupled with a wetroom WC will allow groundfloor living should it be needed. I elimated an ensuite but added 2 walk in dressing wardrobe areas. The front of the house is more balanced. The garage is detached and larger and should provide some additional separation between the neighbours. I have not included any fireplaces but one or two could be added to the kitchen or living room as required. 

 

Notes: Gross internal area 157m2, All walls 400mm externally and 150mm internally. Doors all 2100x900mm. All cabinets shown 600mm deep. All beds are king size except the master is superking. 

 

Jonathan 

 

I just noticed I forgot a door on the family bathroom. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[shuff27]

Many thanks @Iceverge some very useful stuff here.

 

My main takeaway is to take advantage of the south gable end by swapping over the living & kitchen/dining rooms as you suggest.

 

The approved plans allow approx 200m2 - the plot seller & his architect freely admit they went for the largest possible footprint in order to maximise the plot sale value.  I'm working on approx 180m2 as an ideal size for our needs.  In particular we need a larger living room than you have drawn as we have a large piano to fit in!  Your large utility/plant room is good as we'll have the usual UFH manifold & MHVR kit etc.  So to scale up from your 157m2 I would propose moving the north elevation out approx 2m. (happy to lose the carport).

 

Re the upstairs layout, beds 2 & 3 need to be similar sized doubles to avoid strife from my 2 kids, even though they're both adults now!  The 4th bedroom can be smaller as it will be my wife's sewing/hobby room (not in use as a bedroom).

 

The detached garage would most probably be vetoed by the planners even in a new full planning application - the seller had a pre-app meeting which included discussion of potential garage positions & he ended up with the ungainly compromise shown above.  In any case I'm minded to do without a garage & just have a storage shed.

 

What software did you use BTW?

[Iceverge]

Glad to help. The software is SketchUp. It used to be free but I think it's a paid version now. If I wasn't so lazy I'd learn something that I could do scaled drawings on. 

 

We're in the process of moving from a 60m2 house to approx 180m2. 

 

I'll miss how proximate everything .If we were to do it again I think 150m2 or less would be fine. 

 

The piano is certainly a consideration. 

 

Planners seem to occupy a different universe at times. From my experience though they take a one look at a plan and decide. Then spend hours looking for reasons to justify their first impression. 

[TerryE]

On 21/02/2021 at 10:22, shuff27 said:

Coincidentally I've discovered a certain active long-standing member of this forum lives at the other end of the same road this plot is on (I won't name him for privacy reasons but he may respond to identify himself).  I'm planning to visit his house next week for a socially distanced tour.

 

That's me BTW. ?

[TerryE]

By way of context our LPA is South Northants; they are notorious for their pickiness compared to the adjacent MK and Northants LPAs.  The village is classed as what they call "modestly sustainable", which is a mid-grade classification that is a nod to the fact that whilst there are some estate developments done in the 70s and later, the core of the village dates back to the 1700s and includes quite a few nice cottages, etc. such the two listed properties adjacent to this plot.  To be fair to the LPA, this policy has seen the general look and characteristic of the village improve considerably over the last 35 years, as (with one notable exception) the more eyesore pre-80s developments have been replaced by more sympathetic ones.   

 

I suspect that the existing garage stonework isn't constructed to the quality that they would like given its adjacency to the listed cottage, hence the demolition condition.

 

To give an idea of the low bar they (at least used to) set for NMA, I applied for one to change my front door material, and this got a peremptory rejection as not a non-material change, (the planner didn't even bother to contact me).  I immediately contacted him to ask why this was viewed as an MMA, given that the door isn't even visible from the public highway; his response was: we treat all changes to the principle elevation as material, and the fact that it isn't visible from the road isn't relevant as callers to the house will see that it is different from the approved plan.

 

I can see a path to approval of the sort of changes @shuff27 wants, but in my mind the challenge would be to keep then to MMA rather than a full material application.

 

If you don't plan to use the garage then one obvious area of cost saving would be to remove it entirely. We like many on the road (including the listed cottage opposite) don't have a garage.  The house will need adequate off-road parking -- say for three cars -- but I can't see the need to mandate a garage, as a defensible planning decision, IMO  Modern cars will happily survive unsheltered parking for their design life.

 

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by TerryE

[Ferdinand]

56 minutes ago, TerryE said:

you don't plan to use the garage then one obvious area of cost saving would be to remove it entirely. We like many on the road (including the listed cottage opposite) don't have a garage.  The house will need adequate off-road parking -- say for three cars -- but I can't see the need to mandate a garage, as a defensible planning decision, IMO  Modern cars will happily survive unsheltered parking for their design life.

 

 

@OP.

 

If you intend to collect waifs and strays of the car world like Terry you will need about 4 garages. One for a tractor. Two for the two halves of the other car. And one to rebuild it in.

 

Then the real car can live on the drive.

[Dave Jones]

lift the roof height so you get full size rooms upstairs if possible.

[TerryE]

1 minute ago, Ferdinand said:

If you intend to collect waifs and strays of the car world like Terry

 

?? ? You obviously don't know Jan.  We share one car between us, and I am not allowed to collect waifs and strays of any sort.  ?

[Ferdinand]

Just now, TerryE said:

 

?? ? You obviously don't know Jan.  We share one car between us, and I am not allowed to collect waifs and strays of any sort.  ?

 

Gentry? Fergie?

 

Or does she not know?