Replacement dwelling guidance

[Russdl]

First of probably many questions highlighting how far behind the drag curve regarding self build I really am...

 

I'm struggling to find any clear guidance on what is and isn't permitted for a replacement dwelling. 

 

We own a fairly tired 1950's detached bungalow in a small village on the outskirts of Salisbury and want to demolish it and rebuild in a slightly different position on the plot. Can anyone point me towards the guidance documents I should be reading?

 

Thanks.

 

Russ.

[Tennentslager]

Russ

I don't know but from previous answers to similar questions...

You'll need planning permission for your new build...ergo you need to read read read the local plan and speak to planning 

 

You'll also need permission to demolish and think about services/access etc

Good luck

[Russdl]

Thanks. I have done plenty of reading but can't seem to find anything that gives any clear guidance on what may be permitted (ridge heights, building lines increased area etc).

 

Before I formally set off down the planning route I wanted to have some feel for what may or may not work and to the best of my knowledge, in this neck of the woods,  planning will only 'talk' during the pre-app stage (which many seem to view with a jaundiced eye) and I want to know lots more before then anyway.

 

Russ.

 

Edited August 9, 2016 by Russdl

[ToughButterCup]

Hello, and welcome.

Here's the link to far too much detail.

 

And here is a comprehensive list of all the discussion on buildhub about Permitted Develpoment

 

Regards,

Ian

[Gone West]

I got outline permission for a two storey replacement dwelling for my bungalow first. I then did some drawings and took them to the planners to get their reaction. Then submitted full application and got the first of three refusals before going to planning committee and getting unanimous approval. Whether you get permission or not depends more on the planner considering your application. If they like the look of it you're successful otherwise not and they'll quote lots of ambiguous policies to back up their refusal.

[Russdl]

Ah! 

 

Thanks Ian. Now why couldn't I have found all that!

 

(shuffles off embarrassed, looking for glasses and a comfy chair...)

[dogman]

Russ

from my experience ( with planning to do exactly as you want to do ) its never clear cut.

first point of call is your local parish plan if you have one as it will give an idea of what will be allowed.

I would say ask for a meeting with a planning officer, but ours charge and its their opinion only

Our pre-advice stated single story only with a similar footprint 

We have got permission for a two story with a 150% increase in size.

 

Speak with your neighbours and local parish council to get them on board as it reduces the chance of any objection.

 

Also key is to look around the local area as this will give you an idea of what has already been passed.

[Russdl]

Thanks dogma, sounds like you achieved the kind of thing I'm after.  I've not run my ideas past the neighbours or parish yet as I'm keeping my hand close to my chest at the moment, not sure if that's wise but it seems like it to me in the early stages...

 

I've started trawling through the links that Ian provided but so far it seems it's more 'permitted development' and not 'replacement' guidance. I'll get back into it and keep digging.

 

thanks all for the replies so far.

 

Russ.

[Russdl]

I like that plan of action Peter, I think I might explore that route, thanks.

 

Russ

[Ferdinand]

I will just comment that you need to take care in what order you do things. If you remove (or possibly sufficiently remove) what is there already, then you may find that you are suddenly treated as a blank site.

 

eg If that were to happen somewhere where PP would not normally be granted then the development opportunity may have been lost.

 

I know that is not your circs, but the same type of event can occur. Perhaps if you remove a shed, then have your PD rights taken away as part of your application, you will struggle to replace the shed.

 

I think that our user @Construction Channelis doing some creatively extensive alterations under Permitted Development, though that is in an agricultural situation. He may have some interesting things to say.

 

Ferdinand

 

[Russdl]

Thanks for the advice Ferdinand.

 

My bungalow will stay firmly(ish) rooted to it's plot until I have a clear 'yeah' or 'nay' from the planners.

[PeterW]

So if you are creative you can add to the current footprint without getting planning for some pretty low cost extensions. These include lean to and other structures and as long as they are not requiring building regs you can quite quickly add to the footprint of the house assuming PD hasn't been used in the past and you aren't in a conservation area. 

 

When you go for planning you have the double whammy of  a larger footprint to start with, and probably an eyesore the neighbours want shot of !!

[Russdl]

I've read about that approach before Peter and I found it most interesting. I shall certainly keep it in mind if I find a 'brick wall' in my way.

[joe90]

In my case the local planning department have been very unhelpful ( and have a reputation for it). The planners insist on replacing our bungalow with another bungalow or a room in roof. We want a cottage ( it is in Devon !!!!) we are two years and four planning applications into fighting and are now waiting for our appeal to the Secretary of State. The reason for our  appeal is that national planning policy overrides local planning policy, a"bungalow" is a style and national planning policy states that local planning policy cannot dictate style. We also have many local properties that are cottages and as we have 1.1 acres we feel a modest 3bed cottage is a resonable request. My point is don't underestimate the local planning department , there is no national guidelines on what is allowed. My architect told us that if we lived 1mile away in Cornwall it would be passed with no problem and probably finished by now. I wish you luck.

Edited August 9, 2016 by joe90
Add

[Russdl]

Thats really interesting Joe, thanks very much for that little gem regarding a bungalow being a 'style', I shall store that nugget away.

 

I wish you luck with your appeal, it sounds like they would have to be insane to refuse... 

[Construction Channel]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand said:

I will just comment that you need to take care in what order you do things. If you remove (or possibly sufficiently remove) what is there already, then you may find that you are suddenly treated as a blank site.

 

eg If that were to happen somewhere where PP would not normally be granted then the development opportunity may have been lost.

 

I know that is not your circs, but the same type of event can occur. Perhaps if you remove a shed, then have your PD rights taken away as part of your application, you will struggle to replace the shed.

 

I think that our user @Construction Channelis doing some creatively extensive alterations under Permitted Development, though that is in an agricultural situation. He may have some interesting things to say.

 

Ferdinand

 

You don't understand the hardship these "hoops" have caused

2 hours ago, Russdl said:

Thanks dogma, sounds like you achieved the kind of thing I'm after.  I've not run my ideas past the neighbours or parish yet as I'm keeping my hand close to my chest at the moment, not sure if that's wise but it seems like it to me in the early stages...

 

I've started trawling through the links that Ian provided but so far it seems it's more 'permitted development' and not 'replacement' guidance. I'll get back into it and keep digging.

 

thanks all for the replies so far.

 

Russ.

 

If you want to move the footprint you are looking at a "new build" unfortunately. The only reason I am "getting away with" PD ATM, is because I am currently converting an agricultural building into another commercial building. You can label it as a holiday let or accommodation for a birthing nurse if you like but it has to remain a "conversion" otherwise I would be in no better position as a guy trying to build in a field. 

 

To to be a conversion afaik you have to leave the "majority" of the building in tact. Now this is the sticky part. I am including the party wall as part of my walls. Therefore I still have 2 out of 4 walls standing. And I am fully aware if the planners want to cause me trouble I could easily end up with a very expensive shed I can't live in. 

If you want to move the entire footprint I seriously doubt you will have any chance of PD

 

hth 

Ed

[Russdl]

I definitely want to move the entire footprint and I definitely want to remove the entire original bungalow so definitely not PD though as PeterW mentioned earlier, PD could be used as bit of leverage at some stage.

[Construction Channel]

Might be a cunning plan. I wish you a smoother journey than my own

[joe90]

It may be as simple as pre planning advise from the council. It's got to be worth a try

[Russdl]

Thanks Ed. It seems as though 'wishing' and 'hoping' play a significant role in the planning process. I'll wish me luck as well!

[dogman]

Russ

have a look at your local planning portal. You will be surprised at how many new houses are built and how many are self build. Have a look at those both passed and refused and it will give you an idea as to how your local planners think. 

I am removing the old dwelling completely and moving the new dwelling slightly off the old footprint. As a replacement and a self build you will not have to pay any CIL as long as you build a new dwelling which saves a fortune in fees.

I found that the local planner liked traditional design fitting in with the existing houses so that is the route we took. I also expected them to ask for a reduction in size and height so built slightly higher and larger than i wanted however it went through without problem to my surprise.

I did mine without any professional help including the design and plans for submission.

I asked the local parish councillor around and talked them through our plans very early on and answered any of their questions, although some say they have no influence most have the ear of the planners. As for the neighbours they can create merry hell so be open with them and include them as early as you can. My neighbours wanted the new house moving away from the boundary so i suggested that two story would enable me to do that to which they agreed.

Remember as a replacement dwelling there is a limit of 150% increase before it causes major issues.

Good luck  

[jack]

59 minutes ago, dogman said:

Remember as a replacement dwelling there is a limit of 150% increase before it causes major issues.

 

I don't believe there's any numerical rule unless you're in the green belt (I think the number is 40% in that case).

 

We replaced an 87m2 bungalow with a 289m2 two storey house in approximately the same position on the block without so much as a comment from the planners.

 

A significant question is what impact the replacement house will have on the street scene. If you're in a row of bungalows, you'll face a much bigger battle than I'd you're the only bungalow in a row of large two storey houses.

 

I'll try to find some conversations we had about how to approach neighbours. It's a very fine balance to be drawn between making them feel involved and appreciated, and making it clear that you aren't seeking their permission or input on your plans!

[le-cerveau]

Our project is similar:

We are demolishing the existing bungalow and replacing it with a 2-storey house with a slightly larger (filling in the gaps) footprint, although we are not moving it much, just off the boundary.

My blog has the planning battle details in it, but go for what you want, providing it isn't wildly out of character, even go slightly over so you that have a pre-determined compromise plan and the planners can be seen to have won something from you.

[Gone West]

12 hours ago, Russdl said:

I definitely want to move the entire footprint and I definitely want to remove the entire original bungalow so definitely not PD though as PeterW mentioned earlier, PD could be used as bit of leverage at some stage.

 

I used the PD argument to help get the outline permission. I'm living in the bunglow while building the house in the garden, there's less than 1m between the two at one point. There are some pictures on my blog.

[Stones]

I would be contacting your local Planning Authority and asking them to tell you / provide you with a copy of their replacement dwelling policy.  You are not asking for pre app advice, simply wanting to establish what local policy is, what it allows and does not allow.  They will have a policy, it's simply a case of getting hold of it.

 

Once you know what the policy is, you frame your application and design statement in policy terms.

 

For example:

 

Excerpt from Orkney Islands Council policy:

 

" During the early 20th Century there was a shift from using local and natural materials for the construction of buildings in distinct local styles toward a more uniform system using mass produced synthetic materials. In some instances, these dwelling houses, often built of concrete block, are now in need of replacement. Throughout the Orkney countryside there also exist examples of converted wartime buildings which have been adapted for domestic use and later structures, such as blocked-in caravans, which are legitimately in use as dwelling houses, which are substandard, are impractical and are unsuitable for use as living accommodation. Potential replacement properties are not limited solely to these examples, however, and it may be the case that the owner of a property has just cause to replace a more modern building that dates to recent times. The replacement of an existing habitable rural dwelling house, or a former dwelling house which meets the test of dereliction, with a single new dwelling house will be supported where it does not feature on the Orkney Local List. Whilst there is no requirement for any replacement building to be of the same proportions or size as the original, it should be located in the same position as the building to be removed unless there are demonstrable planning benefits for an alternative location. Only one replacement dwelling house may be delivered per existing house through this route and planning conditions will require that the original dwelling house must be completely dismantled prior to the commencement of the construction of the replacement building. This option applies primarily to dwelling houses which are not constructed of natural or local materials using traditional methods. The Council recognises that, on occasion, a property which is occupied and is in use as a dwelling house is either unsustainable or is of poor quality/design and is failing as a building. In these instances it may be desirable to replace the building with a more suitable alternative, which meets the demands of modern regulations and modern living."

 

The final couple of sentences, and earlier reference to substandard, impractical and unsuitable for use as living accommodation would be the reasoning I would use to support any application.