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...
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...
No comments:
Post a Comment