Possible options to increase upstairs floor space?

[flanagaj]

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

 

  

Edited July 2, 2021 by flanagaj
Added floor dimensions

[ProDave]

The basic problem is the upstairs is a smaller footprint.  It creates a difficult / more expensive to build building which is ironic because the function of that difficulty is a smaller house.

 

I would look at the planning permission carefully including all correspondence documents you can find.  Was there a ridge height limit?  If not I would re submit making the upstairs the same size as downstairs which not only gives you the extra space you want but makes the building easier to build.  The downside is the roof will be deeper and so the ridge height will increase.  Looking at the text on the plans, this is already a second application increasing the size of a previous application so look at what the planners say.  Is there any reason they would reject it if you tried to enlarge it again?

[Thorfun]

this might be a bit off the wall but have you considered a complete redesign of the house? maybe a contemporary style property with a flat-ish roof which will give you more room upstairs might be in order? 

 

not sure what your local council is like on contemporary design but might be worth considering?

 

anyway, just a thought.

[Thorfun]

18 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Is there any reason they would reject it if you tried to enlarge it again?

also this.

[flanagaj]

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.

[Thorfun]

I wouldn't worry about neighbour objections, they don't hold much weight.

 

sounds like the planning department are ok with a replacement dwelling and so, even if the current planning expires, there is a good chance that a new application will also be granted.

 

if you go ahead and purchase this land then I would consider approaching an architect and a planning consultant and seeing what you can get away with! our plans were for a substantially larger property than was currently there and the planning department objected to the increase. something along the lines of "disproportionate to the existing dwelling". we just pointed out that under PD we could extend the entire length of the property 3m out at the back and convert the roof to a habitable space etc. which would create a building the same size we wanted but would be ugly as ****! so just let us build what we want. they said ok. ?

 

this blog post give details of our planning woes.

 

 

so, don't discount ignoring what's already been approved and finding another 'team' to build what you want and not what the vendor could get through planning. (this is exactly what we did. the approved application was for a bungalow and before that outline planning permission for a chalet bungalow. we got approval on a building nothing like those)

 

obviously, this is all caveated with it a risk that planning won't approve another application and if the current one expires you're stuck with out any permission to do anything!

 

good luck.

 

[Pocster]

Go underground my friend . It’s the only way to get more space …

[Thorfun]

1 minute ago, pocster said:

Go underground my friend . It’s the only way to get more space …

 a gem from @pocster! put it in your diaries peeps. ?

 

all joking aside. it's what we did and quite a few others on here. it's not the cheapest way to get more space but if planning are being problematic then it's definitely a great option.

[Pocster]

2 hours ago, Thorfun said:

 a gem from @pocster! put it in your diaries peeps. ?

 

all joking aside. it's what we did and quite a few others on here. it's not the cheapest way to get more space but if planning are being problematic then it's definitely a great option.

Remember that classic saying 

 

“ Real men do it underground “ 

[flanagaj]

2 hours ago, Thorfun said:

I wouldn't worry about neighbour objections, they don't hold much weight.

 

sounds like the planning department are ok with a replacement dwelling and so, even if the current planning expires, there is a good chance that a new application will also be granted.

 

if you go ahead and purchase this land then I would consider approaching an architect and a planning consultant and seeing what you can get away with! our plans were for a substantially larger property than was currently there and the planning department objected to the increase. something along the lines of "disproportionate to the existing dwelling". we just pointed out that under PD we could extend the entire length of the property 3m out at the back and convert the roof to a habitable space etc. which would create a building the same size we wanted but would be ugly as ****! so just let us build what we want. they said ok. ?

 

this blog post give details of our planning woes.

 

 

so, don't discount ignoring what's already been approved and finding another 'team' to build what you want and not what the vendor could get through planning. (this is exactly what we did. the approved application was for a bungalow and before that outline planning permission for a chalet bungalow. we got approval on a building nothing like those)

 

obviously, this is all caveated with it a risk that planning won't approve another application and if the current one expires you're stuck with out any permission to do anything!

 

good luck.

 

 

 

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.

 

[Thorfun]

opinions on here vary about architects and their worth but, for us, we paid about £10k for our architects to get to end of building regs and we think it was money well spent. they came up with a great design that we love and have been a single point of contact between all the various engineers, timber frame company, windows company and much more. plus we know they're on the end of a phone or email if we need further advice or work done. yes it will cost us an hourly rate but as we're first time self-builders having that assistance on hand is invaluable.

[Mr Punter]

I cannot see why this would not be acceptable a little larger.  Make the floors the same size and get rid of the step in the roof and the kink in the flank walls.  It will be simpler and better thermally.  I would make the footprint 400mm shallower and 400mm wider and have a normal pitched roof.  It will help mitigate the increased ridge height.  Don't sink it down to the extent that you may have drainage / damp / flood issues.

[flanagaj]

31 minutes ago, Thorfun said:

opinions on here vary about architects and their worth but, for us, we paid about £10k for our architects to get to end of building regs and we think it was money well spent. they came up with a great design that we love and have been a single point of contact between all the various engineers, timber frame company, windows company and much more. plus we know they're on the end of a phone or email if we need further advice or work done. yes it will cost us an hourly rate but as we're first time self-builders having that assistance on hand is invaluable.

 

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.

[Thorfun]

11 minutes ago, flanagaj said:

budgeted for 3d models which are a nice to have

DIY that using Sketchup. 

[flanagaj]

On 02/07/2021 at 08:47, Thorfun said:

this might be a bit off the wall but have you considered a complete redesign of the house? maybe a contemporary style property with a flat-ish roof which will give you more room upstairs might be in order? 

 

not sure what your local council is like on contemporary design but might be worth considering?

 

anyway, just a thought.

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. 

 

[Pocster]

@flanagaj

 

Typical council 

 

48 minutes ago, flanagaj said:

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,

So it has to conform with everything even though there’s an entire mix of building styles . We had exactly the same issue .

Firstly ignore the fact that the neighbors will object ; (expletive deleted) ‘em 

My solution to this was a design that took ‘elements’ of neighbouring properties I.e a nod to them . Similar roof tiles for example to ‘ blend ‘ it better .

You have a nearby house with stone . Perhaps integrate that as a feature .

Of course this is really for the architect to come up with . 

[flanagaj]

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.

[Thorfun]

5 hours ago, flanagaj said:

but the plot sits just outside the conservation area and the conservation officer had quite quite a few comments. 

I'm confused as to why a conservation officer is involved when it's outside the conservation area? surely if it's outside then anything goes?

[flanagaj]

50 minutes ago, Thorfun said:

I'm confused as to why a conservation officer is involved when it's outside the conservation area? surely if it's outside then anything goes?

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.

 

[Thorfun]

Council’s and planning have no rhyme or reason for their actions. I wish you all the best with it all. 

[flanagaj]

@Thorfun Thanks.  I'll post the outcome.

[caliwag]

I haven't read all the posts but are you convinced that the landing has enough headroom? Any scope for a one and a half height extension, giving a 'sun room' off the living space and more space 'upstairs'?

[Ferdinand]

Please could you post a site plan, showing the permissioned footprint and dimensions and directions.

 

From the plan you could eke out a little space for Bed 3 by switching to a spiral staircase towards the top end of the current stair. But headroom ...?

 

You could also save a bit of space in the Ensuite and perhaps make the bed end of the master a little narrower. Or swap ends with it. But that would leave the ensuite facing south.

 

Then would change it from a boxroom to a tightish single

 

I won't link to it from here, but I'd consider a new application following the orientation of the one being done on the other half of your plot, which seems to be larger and has permission aiui. But do some intense homework first, as you are doing.

 

I'd also suggest having a walk round the village to see if there are any self-builders who have finished that you could bounce some ideas off, who will have gone through the whole process in your place.

 

Ferdinand

 

[Bitpipe]

On 02/07/2021 at 14:53, pocster said:

Go underground my friend . It’s the only way to get more space …

 

@pocster, @Thorfun and myself obviously listened to a lot of Jam when we were younger.

 

We have friends in a nearby, quite posh village on the Thames.

 

They bought a single story traditional cottage and were not allowed to exceed ridge height, so they built a full footprint basement and contemporary flat roof 1.5 story on top. Sailed through planning.

[SteamyTea]

On 02/07/2021 at 17:11, pocster said:

Remember that classic saying 

 

“ Real men do it underground “ 

In the undergrowth upon the lady's front garden I find best.