Backland Development - Unadopted Road

[Cheesus]

Hi all, new poster here - hope somebody can offer some opinions please on this situation. 

 

We have a fairly long garden and have agreed in principle to purchase a section of our next door neighbours garden with a view to combining them both into one plot for a self build house / bungalow to live in. Access to the gardens is via a single track, unadopted road that ends at what is currently my neighbours garden (but will be part of the plot). We have asked a planning consultant to review the site and he has advised that the main issue is likely to be access for a fire engine as the track is around 80m long and there is no room for turning and the wheelie bin collection. 

 

They have suggested we put in for a pre-planning consultation with our council for their feedback. My question is, does anybody have any experience with finding alternative solutions to mitigate the lack of access for the fire engine in the form of either sprinklers or fire hydrants - my consultant used to work for the planning office and he thinks he has approved one previously but can't recall the details. 

 

Information online seems fairly vauge but approved document B suggests we 'should' have a turning circle of 19m - but it doesn't seem difinitive and our local fire service don't offer any information. We are also confused as to who's decision the fire engine access actually is, is it the planning office or building control? Is there any chance that if somehow we actually get planning permission, build what is approved but then the building inspector won't pass it?

 

The plot itself is 33m x 17m so not big enough for an actual turning circle, but potentially big enough for the appliance to pull up the side and reverse back infront - unlikely this would be suffucient but once we have the initial feedback from the planning consultaiton we will look at appointing a highways consultant to do a full report. 

 

If by chance we jump the fire engine hurdle then it's on to the bin wagon! 

[BotusBuild]

I know of a house being built close by (8 miles up the road in Cornwall is close by 🙂 ) where the access is narrow and a fire engine would never get in. They have a sprinkler system fitted. So it can be mitigated against.

[Cheesus]

2 minutes ago, BotusBuild said:

I know of a house being built close by (8 miles up the road in Cornwall is close by 🙂 ) where the access is narrow and a fire engine would never get in. They have a sprinkler system fitted. So it can be mitigated against.

 

Thanks for the reply, I know it will vary from region to region but this is what we were hoping to hear! Obviously there will be cost to this but if this is the case for us as well it gives us some hope!

[ProDave]

Re the bins.  There are thousands of remote houses here with long driveways and the owners just wheel the bin down and leave it at the street on bin day then wheel it back.  Don't tell me that common sense solution is no longer accepted?

 

The other issue is do you have a legal right to pass and re pass on foot and in vehicles to the potential plot?

[saveasteading]

5 hours ago, Cheesus said:

the lack of access for the fire engine 

 If close to the road then maybe a couple of hose lengths would suffice.

otherwise you need access, turning space and lots of water.

 

They will not agree to reversing a long way, and it becomes a risk for you if the tanker runs dry.

 

Bin lorries won't come in. You either wheel yours all the way out, or keep them near the road. An enclosure keeps it tidy.

Your surveyor appears to be guessing.

 

Any new nearby property where you could check their planning conditions?

[Cheesus]

16 hours ago, saveasteading said:

 If close to the road then maybe a couple of hose lengths would suffice.

otherwise you need access, turning space and lots of water.

 

They will not agree to reversing a long way, and it becomes a risk for you if the tanker runs dry.

 

Bin lorries won't come in. You either wheel yours all the way out, or keep them near the road. An enclosure keeps it tidy.

Your surveyor appears to be guessing.

 

Any new nearby property where you could check their planning conditions?

 

Thanks for the reply, the single track unadopted road is around 80m long and we would be right at the end of it - there are 2 other properties built in the same fashion but slightly closer to the end of the unadopted road but still probably 50-60m from the main road. The other properties have been built 30+ years so presumably were built under previous, less strict planning laws and there is limited information on the planning portal in relation to them.

 

We haven't ever noticed what the current residents do with their bins but we will make a note on this weeks bin day. 

 

I would agree that the planning consultant is guessing at this stage, until the applicaiton goes in we won't know for sure what the planning offices concerns are, we're just trying to manage expectations with regards to the likelyhood of being able to build 'our' house. 

[saveasteading]

I think 80m isn't that far, so they might be OK. 

We found that the bco was relaxed and that prevailed over planning, oddly.

 

[Cheesus]

17 hours ago, ProDave said:

Re the bins.  There are thousands of remote houses here with long driveways and the owners just wheel the bin down and leave it at the street on bin day then wheel it back.  Don't tell me that common sense solution is no longer accepted?

 

The other issue is do you have a legal right to pass and re pass on foot and in vehicles to the potential plot?

 

Thanks for the reply Dave, with regards to the bins - it's just been flagged up by the planning consultant as a potential issue prior to the planning consultation and then the applicaton proper in time. We will take not on bin day this week what others do. 

 

My next door neighbour appears to have access, the point of access being within the potential plot. 

 

Thanks.  

[Cheesus]

7 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

I think 80m isn't that far, so they might be OK. 

We found that the bco was relaxed and that prevailed over planning, oddly.

 

Thanks, so there may be some hope? Time will tell I suppose.

 

 

[Oz07]

I was looking at a plot with this problem a year or so ago. Ended up leaving it. The vendor couldn't convince me that I wouldn't end up in a situation whereby the house would be built (at worst) or plot purchased and the BCO would refuse to sign off on the design because of this. You can use alternatives such as sprinklers or mist systems but when I looked into this it is still only up to a max distance from the highway. I think the ideal route would have been to take the plans (or in your case some indicative sketches) and have a meeting with Building Control and potentially the local fire service and see if you can get some agreement before purchasing. In my case it was falling on deaf ears with the vendor, their plot is still for sale today, surprise surprise.

[Cheesus]

5 hours ago, Oz07 said:

I was looking at a plot with this problem a year or so ago. Ended up leaving it. The vendor couldn't convince me that I wouldn't end up in a situation whereby the house would be built (at worst) or plot purchased and the BCO would refuse to sign off on the design because of this. You can use alternatives such as sprinklers or mist systems but when I looked into this it is still only up to a max distance from the highway. I think the ideal route would have been to take the plans (or in your case some indicative sketches) and have a meeting with Building Control and potentially the local fire service and see if you can get some agreement before purchasing. In my case it was falling on deaf ears with the vendor, their plot is still for sale today, surprise surprise.

 

Thankyou for the reply, we think it's worth a speculative punt - given it's 50% our land already and the puchase of next door would only be subject to obtaining planning. See what comes back from the planning officer and then approach BCO and/or fire service for their comments. 

[Mr Punter]

On 06/09/2025 at 09:54, Cheesus said:

We are also confused as to who's decision the fire engine access actually is, is it the planning office or building control?

 

It is the fire service who will say what they require.  They should be consulted by the planners but you can approach them directly for guidance.

[Oz07]

When I looked into it BCO was the most important one. Planners just seem to use guidance and plans can look like they comply (as in the case I was interested in) but even if you have correct width and gradient access along with turning circle, the distance from a hydrant point can still kill it. So planners will pass without ever speaking to fire service. It is up to BCO to be happy it complies before they sign the place or design off. I forget what section it's in but think its specifically mentioned in the building regs doc. I had a look at the thread I posted but it wasn't quoted in there.

[Cheesus]

33 minutes ago, Oz07 said:

When I looked into it BCO was the most important one. Planners just seem to use guidance and plans can look like they comply (as in the case I was interested in) but even if you have correct width and gradient access along with turning circle, the distance from a hydrant point can still kill it. So planners will pass without ever speaking to fire service. It is up to BCO to be happy it complies before they sign the place or design off. I forget what section it's in but think its specifically mentioned in the building regs doc. I had a look at the thread I posted but it wasn't quoted in there.

 

Thanks, it's refered to in Approved Document B. 

[Cheesus]

Just to provide a little sort of update on this, I have emailed the fire service safety officer (their website has a contact for developers/housebuilders to ask fire safety questions), they replied in a couple of days advising that they do not get invovled and this is a job for building control only. 

 

We have also been shown a recent planning application that was approved in fairly similar circumstances within our local area, the planning application contained a report from a highways consultant that advised that the dwelling would be fitted with an approved sprinkler system to mitigate against lack of access. Planning was granted with the condition the sprinker was fitted and kept. I am not sure if planning applications work on a 'precedent' basis or if every case is assesed individually. 

[Fred F]

We had a similar issue with a 50m lane which was also not wide enough (needs to be 3.7m). It was never a planning issue - it only came up with building control. 
 

We also tried to speak directly to the fire service but they would only respond to formal consultations through building control. Both of them just said we had to comply with approved document B and didn’t provide any guidance on what might be acceptable. It was quite a frustrating experience with us throwing ideas at them until something worked. 
 

In the end I was able to comply with approved document B by widening the lane using grass grids (there is more than 3.7m of total width but only 3m was hard standing) and I used swept path analysis software to show that, whilst there was not space for a full turning circle, there was ample room for a fire engine to do a three point turn by driving from the lane into our driveway, then reversing back out onto the lane, and then driving forwards the way it had come. Our gates need to be wide enough to allow this to happen. 
 

Hope that helps. I imagine it is different for all fire services and BCOs as there is flexibility under the building regs to show equivalent compliance without exactly meeting the letter of approved document B and hence there is an element of judgement involved. 

[ProDave]

10 minutes ago, Fred F said:

In the end I was able to comply with approved document B by widening the lane using grass grids (there is more than 3.7m of total width but only 3m was hard standing)

This is all a bit silly really as the public single track road we live on is only 3M wide, and the turning head at the bottom of the road does not meet the turning circle requirements.  So it should "fail" and no new houses be allowed because a Fire Engine cannot get to them according to the standard.

 

But strangely, the bin lorry, very similar size to a FE makes the journey every week and does not have trouble turning round, as have many larger delivery lorries.  And on the one occasion a real FE came down our road, it was not troubled by the 3M wide road, and was not troubled by the sub standard turning space.

 

It really is irritating when the "standard" is so detached from actual real world requirements. 

[Cheesus]

On 14/09/2025 at 12:25, Fred F said:

We had a similar issue with a 50m lane which was also not wide enough (needs to be 3.7m). It was never a planning issue - it only came up with building control. 
 

We also tried to speak directly to the fire service but they would only respond to formal consultations through building control. Both of them just said we had to comply with approved document B and didn’t provide any guidance on what might be acceptable. It was quite a frustrating experience with us throwing ideas at them until something worked. 
 

In the end I was able to comply with approved document B by widening the lane using grass grids (there is more than 3.7m of total width but only 3m was hard standing) and I used swept path analysis software to show that, whilst there was not space for a full turning circle, there was ample room for a fire engine to do a three point turn by driving from the lane into our driveway, then reversing back out onto the lane, and then driving forwards the way it had come. Our gates need to be wide enough to allow this to happen. 
 

Hope that helps. I imagine it is different for all fire services and BCOs as there is flexibility under the building regs to show equivalent compliance without exactly meeting the letter of approved document B and hence there is an element of judgement involved. 

 

Thanks for the reply. Since my post the Fire Service has replied back in much the same vein as your reply - speak with BC. I think there could be enough room for a 3 point turn infront/at the side of the development, we have commisioned a highways consultant to do a report for us so hopefully a combination of this, a sprinker system and maybe even a water tank may provide sufficient mitigation to the risk. Once the highways report is completed we will be having a pre-planning consultaiton hopefully to get some clarity. 

 

 

[saveasteading]

Fire engines are designed to be maneuverable. And there isn't a real world problem with a 5 point turn, or 7, as thr emergency had been dealt with by that stage.

Hence I think bco tends to be pragmatic. Plus, if the building meets fire regs the tank water should sort a typical fire , and not need a big water store on site.  Our bco was happy that we had a 3m3 drinking water store that could be used.

[kandgmitchell]

You will find that the planners will be ambivalent. They will consult highways who will say that this is a private track and as long as the vehicle movements from it do not impact their highway network they will have no comment to make. Environmental health may flag up the refuse situation but will basically say the occupants will have to store their bins within so many metres of the highway for collection otherwise it will not be picked up. Apart from that they are unlikely to be interested.

 

They aren't the problem. It will be Part B of the Building Regulations which sets out access for firefighting that is. Fire appliances only carry so much hose so need to get close to the building in the first instance. They want to get hose access to all parts of the building within 45m of their appliance. It is Building Control therefore that you will need to convince that your fire mitigation proposals will still meet the requirement which is:

 

1) The building shall be designed and constructed so as to provide reasonable facilities to assist firefighters in the protection of life.

2) Reasonable provision shall be made within the site of the building to enable fire appliances to gain access to the building.

 

The problem these days is that competition between local authorities and the private sector means finding someone to consult with prior to making an application is not easy. Why would a private BC contractor spend time with you going through proposals only for you to engage the local authority and visa versa. I fear you will not get a definitive answer with respect to building control until you are a way down this route (excuse the pun). Have a good look at requirement B5 and see how close you can get to the guidance as you may have to take a calculated risk on gaining BC approval. Finally, remember that post Grenfell and now with the new Building Safety Act there is not much appetite out there for regulators to take risks on interpretation of these sort of life critical matters on your behalf.....

[saveasteading]

1 hour ago, kandgmitchell said:

Building Control therefore that you will need to convince

@kandgmitchell that's nicely explained.

Going back to the actual regulation is often the way forward.

If you can summarise the logic in  meeting the requirement  then the bco can more easily be 'reminded' of the requirements. If it is written down  then it can go in their file. 

[Cheesus]

Thanks for the replies, it does seem like common sense when explained as it has been above- hopefully this prevails if we can mitigate the risk. It does sound though as if there is a chance we could sink all our money into building a house only to find out we can't get past building control and then we would be absolutely stuffed if this was the case. 

[Oz07]

That was my conclusion too. Although I think after 10 years you would be insurable and sellable as wouldn't be a new build. 

[Cheesus]

48 minutes ago, Oz07 said:

That was my conclusion too. Although I think after 10 years you would be insurable and sellable as wouldn't be a new build. 

 

Thanks, so there is a chance of this happening - however slim. Does this mean that in theory we could move in but we wouln't have any buildings/contents insurance until 10 years passed? I presume there would also be consequences when it came to obtaining a mortage, we can finance probably around 75% of the approximate budget build cost without the need for a mortgage but we would need some form of finance to take us to completion. 

 

Should we get planning then we would need to think very carefully. 

[kandgmitchell]

On 14/10/2025 at 20:10, Cheesus said:

It does sound though as if there is a chance we could sink all our money into building a house only to find out we can't get past building control and then we would be absolutely stuffed if this was the case. 

You aren't going to get as far as building out the house only to be refused a completion certificate. The problem with the access will be identified by building control as part of your full plans application, if you ignore a private BC then they will withdraw and the project will revert to the local authority, if you still keep building they then will eventually serve a compliance notice or a stop notice. 

 

In short you will not get ten years of occupation with or without insurance, I can't see a mortgage company wanting to get involved either.

 

Your planning application will be speculative, fine, to an extent every planning application is speculative so you are committed to spending some money. No doubt most of the design/layout for the dwelling will be done for that application. As soon as you get planning then develop the scheme further, enough to be able to make a building regulation submission, it doesn't have to be fully done because you are testing the access issue. Choose your building control supplier and get an application submitted, it doesn't matter if it's ultimately rejected for say lack of structural details, you can always come back with those later, it's that access you want to get engaged with. If a solution can be agreed then finish the detailed work and press on. If no agreement can be found and the access is deemed not to comply then at least you know.