Our indecision is final

Since our meeting with the Council we've been working through the implications for the two-house option.  The overlooking issue seems to have receded in our minds as windows can be positioned accordingly (good lady wife pointed out that our current house has virtually no windows in the south face; I didn't want to point out that this was one of its issues...). 

Instead the killer blows are parking and turning areas.  Two spaces for a three-bed and turning area for an ambulance are feasible, but the profit margin is squeezed.  To shift up to a four-bed we have to provide another space, eating into the garden of the house in front.  And, of course, any profit is contingent on selling them, and will people buy a large patch of gravel with a house attached?

Email off to Knott this morning asking for an estimate of fees to draw us up something palatial.

We still hope its a two horse race between Knott and Potton, although we would dearly like Potton to change their jockey...

Investment Opportunity!! Buy!! Now!! Tomorrow could be too late!!

Rang the regional sales manager at Potton last Monday to talk through the possibility of putting one or two properties on the site. Answerphone message said he was back from leave that day.  Waited for the phone to ring that day.  Never happened.

Tuesday.  Nothing.

Wednesday.  Zip.

Thursday.  Zilch.

Friday.  Yep, you guessed - silence.

Monday (today).  Not there.  Left another message .

I can only conclude that Potton Kingspan have infinitely more work than they can cope with, find people ringing up to give them 'buy signals' downright irritating, and we should all pile in as investors as quickly as possible.

Or, perhaps, they just employ numpties.  Who knows?

The final freebie

Had our pre-application discussion with the Council's planning officer in the atrium cafe of the council offices.  Concurrent with our meeting was an emergency planning meeting which involved dozens of ambulances and fire engines arriving, as though the senior managers of the emergency services all drive around in emergency vehicles.  The world as seen through the eyes of a five year old...

I remain unconvinced regarding the opening negotiating position recommended by Knott.  I think, had we tabled more realistic 4-bed plans we would have learnt more about the parameters we have to work within.  As it was, all we learnt, at least as regards massing, was that two five-bed houses on the site is too much (which we knew) and that two four-beds would be more realistic (which we could have guessed), but that two properties of any size on the site may be one too many (which we feared).

Her biggest gripe was overlooking by the rear property.  And whilst its true that it would be up a slight slope above the existing row of bungalows there is enough mature garden and trees to provide screening.  She said that she had consulted with the planning officer who actually came to look at the site, but there's no substitute for being there.

Given that hurdle, plus the need to be 21 metres from the front property, and with a big enough turning area for an ambulance, there are enough planning considerations to complicate things.  At least she was happy with the prospect of jumping out of ground floor windows of the front property into the path of something coming down the drive from the rear house, but she did say building control may have something to say on that subject.

I don't think we could put much more than a dormered three-bed on the rear of the site (the fact that the adjacent two-storey is much higher than the proposals we tabled didn't seem to cut much ice) which begins to make the numbers unattractive and not worth the risk of ending up with too many houses in the current climate.

One aspect that I hadn't appreciated was how the costs have risen since I last put in a planning application (apparently ex-colleagues of the good lady wife had a lot to do with reviewing the planning process and its costs - gee, thanks).  A planning application is something like £335 per property, not per application, plus there is a (refundable on rejection) £700-odd legal charge to arrange the infrastructure improvement payment, which for two properties could be several tens of thousands (which we were aware of).

I was happy with the idea of punting a couple of hundred quid on some plans drawn up by me for a two-property solution, but a four-figure sum feels more of a reasoned investment than a mere punt.  We need to look at both the plans and the numbers very carefully...

At least the pre-application was still free, but probably only for the rest of this year...

Unrelated events, or all part of the cosmic oneness?

On the way out of the Council offices, having hand delivered the letter responding to their points and requesting a conversation, I run over a squirrel.

The next day the planning officer calls back and offers a meeting next Wednesday.

Unrelated events?  Or is this how the world really works...

Potton Homes - dig your own hole

Have further failed to endear themselves to me by writing to me as "Mr Maxey".

The Big Society - it's good not to talk

Despite requests for some face time with the Council to discuss the pre-application, they've decided to write back to me.  It's always tempting to read too much into individual situations, and the bit of me that admits to taking sneaky peaks at the Daily Mail immediately jumps to the conclusion that this is all symptomatic of public sector cutbacks. It's probably nothing to do with it at all, of course.  But having a conversation about the pre-application is an attempt to save both sides time and money later on by avoiding a formal proposal that gets rejected. 

Also, the letter hasn't come from the planing officer who visited the site a couple of months ago and the responses suggest a lack of awareness of the context (or, put another way, an inability to read ridge heights off a plan in order to recognise that a two-storey building overlooking a bungalow probably doesn't lead to privacy issues).  The main points are these:

• Some slightly barnpot suggestions of where windows should be concentrated which, I think, may lead to greater over-looking issues
• A dislike of garages in front of the principle elevation, but a tentative okay to bring the building line forward a bit
• A suggestion that any drive over 20 metres long (which would apply to any property in the rear) should have a turning area big enough for a delivery vehicle (the words 'piece of string' come to mind) or ambulance, or may even have to be two-way.  Can't really argue against the ambulance bit, but two-way access would be a killer.
• A five-bed detached house needs four parking spaces.  For our OTT pre-application proposal that would be parking for eight cars, plus sufficient area for turning.  For ambulances.  Not going to happen.

The main irritation at the lack of an opportunity to have a chat about it all is that the letter also tells me that what we're proposing is too big.  No surprise; we opened the bidding high deliberately.  But too big by how much?

The letter came a few days ago.  Having read it, I left a voicemail again asking for some face time.  No response to date, so a chasing letter will be on its way shortly.

Maybe its all a public sector conspiracy to keep the Post Office afloat?