Planning and water treatment advice required

Slimbo

Hi All,
I have recently purchased a site that has FPP for 2 dormer type dwellings sitting on .8 of an acre.
The problem I have is that I very much like the area but the houses that are already approved don't sit right within the village setting. They are too big as the area is mostly cottages, and these would be sitting in the middle of them.
I want to re-submit plans that would include smaller dwellings but more of them that would better suit the area.
I am not being greedy and am new to this type of build (I usually do renovations/refurbishments). The proposed dwellings would be half the size of the 2 larger dwellings already approved, so the resale value would roughly work out the same for 2 versus 3/4 smaller units.
I have approval for 2 water treatment systems to service each house individually. Would I be permitted a larger treatment plant that could service more units commonly, is there such a system for an area of this size. Or is this question ludicrous as its a waste of time even trying for more units in the first place.
Thanks very much for any replies.
Slimbo:)

Jimbo

Councils usually prefer individual treatment systems as oppossed to a common system as individual sytems are managed by the individual house owners and not the council/management company. Therefore the council may not look favourable on your proposal if you dont have the space for individual systems. There are also other issues to consider if the number of houses is to be increased - can the local infrastucture (watermains, roads, etc) deal with more houses? You should also consider the extra trouble you may have trying to sell 4 houses rather than just 2 with the current state of the housing market.

IMO, if you are not going to make any extra profit from increasing the number of houses, why draw all that extra trouble on yourself? The cost and time involved re-applying is hard to justify.

muffler

In a nutshell what you are proposing to do is to build 3 or 4 small houses as opposed to the 2 houses previously granted and in order to accommodate the increase you want to inastall one single package plant instead of the 2 that were previously approved.

First of all Im going to blunt here and say that your comments about the approved houses not being suitable for the area is a bit rich. If the weren't suitable they wouldnt have got planning would they? I think you are trying to look for a reason to increase the density and you may be trying to convince yourself but certainly not us. I dont know why you just couldn't have stated this at the outset.

Now to answer your question. In relation to planning you can never rule anything in or out. The density is one problem you will have to overcome. Another will be maintenance of the package plant. Then you or your architect will have to be aware of any quotas that may exist in relation to increasing the number of housing units in that town over a specified period.

All in all I would suggest that you look for a pre planning meeting with the local planner.

-unlaoised-

IMO the person who achieved planning permission for the 2 houses with treatment systems did very well. the minimum site area for a house with treatment system should be 2000 sq metres.
I reckon the only way you could increase the density on the site would be to connect to main sewage.

stackerman

Oh dear Muffler, if you really believe - "If they weren't suitable they wouldnt have got planning would they?" then you really have your head in the sand !!

sydthebeat

keving wrote: »

Oh dear Muffler, if you really believe - "If they weren't suitable they wouldnt have got planning would they?" then you really have your head in the sand !!

look, the OP is obviously a developer wanting to increase the density on a site in order to maximise profits...... however he wont be able to do it, its against so many policies i could write a thesis on it.

As for the question whether the dwellings are 'suitable' or not, id much rather put my money on the planners opinion and not some developers.

I agree with unlaoised in that who ever got permission for 2 houses on 0.8 of a site was very very lucky......

to the op i have three words "gift horse" and "mouth".

muffler

keving wrote: »

Oh dear Muffler, if you really believe - "If they weren't suitable they wouldnt have got planning would they?" then you really have your head in the sand !!

And what has that statement got to do with the thread?

I could safely say I have forgotten more about planning than you would ever learn so if you have something positive to contribute here then please do so otherwise you'd be better off staying away from this forum.

stackerman

Muffler, what I am trying to say IS positive and should be noted. I too have had alot of deelings with planners and their departments, and you can't assume that what has been granted is suitable. I for example know of one time where a planner said that plans were not suitable but his repacement (when he moved on) was happy with same and gave a grant. You need only look out you car window while driving around to see many examples of bad design impacting on the look of the countryside. I am not one of these people who get on their high horse and say no one should build in rural areas, I fact the opposite. But the some of the house designs getting grants are bad, eg too big or fussy and not in keeping with their settings.
What I was saying with regard to this post is that that you cant assume anything when it comes to planning matters, including the matter of the plans being suitable. If I was Slimbo I would simply be thankful for what seems a good deal and get on with the build.

Mellor

keving wrote: »

Muffler, what I am trying to say IS positive and should be noted. I too have had alot of deelings with planners and their departments, and you can't assume that what has been granted is suitable.

I think you missed the point keving.
The OP tried to portray that the two houses were unsuitable, and that was his reason for deciding to change the plands, his opinion (as the developer) was that 4 smallers houses would be more suitable.
Mufflers points were not to be taken strictly, he was highlighting that the fact the planners idea of suitable is a little more accurate than the developers.
The issue of the suitability of the site is a very thinly veiled attempt to up the units per acre. (so thin that a blind man can see through it)

stackerman

True

muffler

keving wrote: »

Muffler, what I am trying to say IS positive and should be noted. I too have had alot of deelings with planners and their departments, and you can't assume that what has been granted is suitable.

First of all telling anyone that they have their head in the sand is contributing sweet FA to this thread and consequently is a negative post. As has been said by others here you have missed my point completely.

The OP is obviously a developer who buys a property with PP for 2 houses and under the the thinly veiled guise of stating that the approved houses are unsuitable he in actual fact is looking for ideas as to how he could maximise the development of the site. If thats the info he is looking for then he is posting in the wrong forum as I dont see why we should give encouragement or advice in this instance as there are too many factors involved. As to the point of whether the houses are suitable or not I would have to accept what was granted by the planners over an opinion of a developer.

keving wrote: »

If I was Slimbo I would simply be thankful for what seems a good deal and get on with the build.

Agreed.

Villain

muffler wrote: »

And what has that statement got to do with the thread?

I could safely say I have forgotten more about planning than you would ever learn so if you have something positive to contribute here then please do so otherwise you'd be better off staying away from this forum.

Muffler with all due respect that kind of retort is just as bad as saying you have your head in the sand.

I'm sure you have a lot expierence of the planning system however there is always cases that surprise people. A realative of mine has secured planning under very very weird circumstances ones which I can't go into in a public forum at the moment but anyone that has seen how planning was given and what for are very surprised including local councilor's. No corruption involved on their part but its very surprising. So while you may have forgotten more about planning than others know I very much doubt you know the ins and outs of every planning office in the country.

The op has stated his intentions and without seen the plans or the location where they are proposed to be built I think it is very unfair to tar him with the greedy developer brush.

muffler

Villain wrote: »

Muffler with all due respect that kind of retort is just as bad as saying you have your head in the sand.

I'm sure you have a lot expierence of the planning system however there is always cases that surprise people. A realative of mine has secured planning under very very weird circumstances ones which I can't go into in a public forum at the moment but anyone that has seen how planning was given and what for are very surprised including local councilor's. No corruption involved on their part but its very surprising. So while you may have forgotten more about planning than others know I very much doubt you know the ins and outs of every planning office in the country.

The op has stated his intentions and without seen the plans or the location where they are proposed to be built I think it is very unfair to tar him with the greedy developer brush.

Have you read the entire thread at all?

Please stay on topic.

Villain

muffler wrote: »

Have you read the entire thread at all?

Please stay on topic.

Yes I read it and my reply was on topic, I was stating that planners don't always give permission in keeping with the area and style of houses surrounding it and I think it is very unfair to critcise the OP for wanting to build 4 small houses as opposed to 2 large ones.

If your reply was on topic mine surely is, as rather than posting stritcly about the water treatment system you were having a go at the op. I'm simply saying that perhaps the op's intentions may be well intentioned. Two sides to every coin

Mellor

Villain wrote: »

The op has stated his intentions and without seen the plans or the location where they are proposed to be built I think it is very unfair to tar him with the greedy developer brush.

I don't think its unfair at all. Location and plans do not come into it at all. He has given the area of houses and sites. He siad he wanted to scale the houses down as they dont sit right. This would be fine, so scale the houses down. But he wants to increase the numbver of units, the site is already at capacity. The point about the resale being the same is false also, the price of a house isn't pro-rata to its area.
Maybe he had the best intentions, and didnt relise that the site wouldn't accomodate the lot. But it won't, and unless the council agree that the houses granted dont suit then there is little chance of getting it by.

I think it is very unfair to critcise the OP for wanting to build 4 small houses as opposed to 2 large ones

that in its self no.
But it has been stated that the site can barely hold 2 houses, left alone 4. I honestly don't believe that this is solely out of morals. The monetary gain has to affect his decision. Igf it was based soley on morals, then why not build two scaled down versions

Villain

Mellor wrote: »

I don't think its unfair at all. Location and plans do not come into it at all. He has given the area of houses and sites. He siad he wanted to scale the houses down as they dont sit right. This would be fine, so scale the houses down. But he wants to increase the numbver of units, the site is already at capacity. The point about the resale being the same is false also, the price of a house isn't pro-rata to its area.
Maybe he had the best intentions, and didnt relise that the site wouldn't accomodate the lot. But it won't, and unless the council agree that the houses granted dont suit then there is little chance of getting it by.

The council don't necessarily have to agree that the houses granted aren't suited they may just agree that 4 smaller houses are also suitable.

I'm not saying I know 100% that the OP's intentions aren't purely profit motivated but I don't think anyone else here knows 100% that they are.

Op how many bedrooms and bathrooms were in the houses that you got planning for and how many are you proposing now?

smashey

I think a big chill pill is required here now.

sydthebeat

Villain wrote: »

The council don't necessarily have to agree that the houses granted aren't suited they may just agree that 4 smaller houses are also suitable.

I'm not saying I know 100% that the OP's intentions aren't purely profit motivated but I don't think anyone else here knows 100% that they are.

Op how many bedrooms and bathrooms were in the houses that you got planning for and how many are you proposing now?

it has been expained above why that is not an option.

Villain

It may well be an option depending on the size of the houses and number of bedrooms bathrooms etc. Especially if the council agreed to a shared treatment system.

sydthebeat

Villain wrote: »

It may well be an option depending on the size of the houses and number of bedrooms bathrooms etc. Especially if the council agreed to a shared treatment system.

without knowing exactly what LA is involved here, i will say that its extremely unlikely that such a development would be granted permission on such a small unserviced rural site. It would be contrary to the sustainable development and proper planning of the area.

unless of course the OP is a philanthropist who wishes to construct a small retirement village of 4 no. 2 bed single storey dwellings and undertakes to manage the development themselves for a stated number of decades.....

perhaps he/she is... who knows...

Slimbo

All I can say is WOW, I really have started something that was totally not the way it was intended. I am certainly not a developer, although I have lefdt a logistics managers role last year to renovate property. Some may say that I am by category I am a developer, but I wouldn't agree as I am only trying to go in a different direction career-wise.
So the PP for the 2 houses is great and I would gladly run with them, but they honestly don't sit right.
I really must be mad to want to build 4 instead of 2.
However, the 2 I already have planning for are 2-storey dwellings, 4 bedrooms and a bathroom upstairs and downstairs(none ensuite).
They will stick out like white elephants in a really senic area. They will be surrounded by small quaint cottages(about 6 in total).
The cost of building and selling the 2 houses will be cheaper and easily less time consuming than building 4 units. But the 4 units will just look miles better.
Since I posted I have had a couple of estate agents out to the site and they tell me that I will make about 40k extra through the 4 units which is obviously great news as this is going to be a business. But the additional time,labour,materials versus profit would be ridiculous to persue.
However, and I'm sure I will be shot down for this......but I only want to make a living and money does'nt do it for me, i'm happy with what other things I have got going on in my life. My last job was constant stress and I don't want to go back to it to be honest.

Lastly, I am still going to see waht the council have to saty as I hope they see sense as they have destroyed 2 beautiful villages very local with their pastoral coloured houses, and the locals agree with me which is important.

Now please be gental with your replies, it was like ye were talking behind my back the last time...he...he...he!!!

stackerman

Slimbo. the councils often get it wrong. You have nothing to loose if you try for the 4, its not like they can take the sitting planning grant away from you. I do however hope it is for the right reasons, on this I take your word and wish you the best.

sinnerboy

Slimbo - take a morning out to thoroughly read through the LA planning file

the planners report , environmental health , drainage , roads ..... it will reveal a hell of a lot to you .

depending on what you read .... speak then to the planning officer about a fresh application

Mellor

Slimbo wrote: »

I am certainly not a developer, although I have lefdt a logistics managers role last year to renovate property. Some may say that I am by category I am a developer, but I wouldn't agree as I am only trying to go in a different direction career-wise.

You mightn't like to hear it, but that makes you a developer. Don't be put off, developer had become a nasty word, people think of huge developments ruining the area. It doesn't have to be this, and certainly doesn't mean this. Generally on any build other than a single dwelling somebody is acting as a developer.

But the 4 units will just look miles better.

Few would disagree with you that they would look better. Its the site size that males them unsuitable. As a waste water treatment unit is needed the units per acre (measurement of allowable density) drops considerably.



Your proposal is exactly 5 units per acre. How does that fit with the development plan for the area, if one exists. By the opinions of other posters, a combi waste water unit is the only chance of fitting it on. If you can convince the planners that 4 houses is more suitable than 2, then they might let you use a combi unit, but this is totally up the the relevant LA. I think some refuse point blank.