Smaller house - new planning permission needed?

Siamsa Sessions

Hi all,

Apologies if this is in the wrong thread/location...

We have planning to build a 2,000 sq-ft bungalow on a site I own. We have been unable to get a mortgage as my other half owns a house that's in negative equity. There's no issue with both of us being in permanent, full-time positions, proven repayment capacity, savings, etc.

Anyway, we were going through the numbers (again!) the other night, and between what we've saved and a personal loan (25k) from the Credit Union, we'd have 80k to spend.

Now, we're thinking about building a 800-1,000 sq-ft bungalow which the 80k would cover (based on estimates I've got from two different builders).

Two questions then:

(1) Does this sound daft/reasonable?

(2) Would we have to go through the planning process again, or could we submit an amendment to the current planning permission we have for the 2,000 sq-ft house?

Thanks for reading, and any pointers would be greatly appreciated.

Rabbo

80k would be very very tight for that size house. Make sure you include all other expenses,- supervision fees, legal fees, development charges, connection charges, etc, etc.
Also ensure that builder is pricing for a house that will comply with building regs- this can only be specified by the supervising engineer/architect/surveyor.

You would require planning permission to revise the previously approved plans, this will also have a cost! The planning application would be more straight forward than the original application but the procedure will be largely the same (allow 3 months for final grant)

Gumbo

You need a new planning application.
Assigned certified.
Design certified.
Health and safety representation ( but these 3 could in theory be the same person/company).

Then you need to build the house to current building regulations. I have to be honest. I think 80k in nowhere near enough.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

galwaytt

As kceire says above, and I agree with him that 80k is anywhere near enough

Siamsa Sessions

Thanks for taking the time to reply folks.

I'll certainly take on board the extra costs (outside of the actual building) that you raised.

Gumbo

Siamsa Sessions wrote: »

Thanks for taking the time to reply folks.

I'll certainly take on board the extra costs (outside of the actual building) that you raised.

Best of luck. Keep us updated on the progress.

county5

Hi how did u get on? I originally got planning 6 years ago for a 4,500 sq ft house & now know a house half this size will be plenty for me. I'm just wondering how to go about getting planning for a totally different house & cut out my expensive architect as I have a certain house in mind.

sydthebeat

county5 wrote: »

Hi how did u get on? I originally got planning 6 years ago for a 4,500 sq ft house & now know a house half this size will be plenty for me. I'm just wondering how to go about getting planning for a totally different house & cut out my expensive architect as I have a certain house in mind.

use a less expensive architect ?

county5

Thanks for your help einstein

Gumbo

county5 wrote: »

Thanks for your help einstein

In fairness, its the obvious choice.
I want to downgrade my BMW, so I buy a cheaper car.

You could look at Technicians but depending on location, the face time with planners, roads, drainage etc required to gain permission for a new dwelling can make it not financially worthwhile for them.

Siamsa Sessions

Howdy again,

We submitted the updated, smaller plans about 3 weeks ago, so it'll be another 5 weeks before we hear back, and then 4 weeks after that before planning is officially granted (all going well!).

We didn't have to go through the full planning process, but we had to include details of the original planning. We went with the same technician as last time as he knew the ins and outs of what we were doing.

Now, as then, we went with a fairly standard design and don't expect too much difficulty with planning being approved (famous last words?)

The results from the original percolation tests were accepted this time around so that saved some time and money.

Re costs and certification: I spoke to an engineer just last week and we're going to go with the self-certified/opt-out option. Part of the reason is cost and part of the reason is the amount of work I'll be doing myself.

Hope this helps. Any questions, just send me a PM.

By the way, does your original planning still stand after 6 years? I thought most planning permissions are valid for 5 years.