What would fit ? - Plot size.

[V8NRG]

If I was to acquire a plot of land roughly measuring 26m x 22m and seeked to build upon it, what (in the esteemed opinion of PHers) would fit on the plot ?

One 3-4 bed house ?
Two 3 bed semis ?
Two 2 bed semis ?

The plot fronts on to an un-adopted road at one of the 26m boundaries and has vehicular and pedestrian access.

The other boundaries are (looking in from the road):
To the left – existing houses back garden (22m boundary)
To the rear – existing houses side garden (26m boundary)
To the right – Woodland (22m boundary)

Any thoughts appreciated.

[Red&WhiteMonkey]

I'd want to know whether there is a realistic chance that planning permission would be granted. Is it in an urban area or rural?

[Sam_68]

RedWhiteMonkey said:

I'd want to know whether there is a realistic chance that planning permission would be granted. Is it in an urban area or rural?

^^^ What he says, but my first reaction is that your limiting factor is likely to be the plot depth of 22m.

If this backs on to other gardens the Planners are likely to want 10.5m back gardens. If you work on about 8 metres as the minimum sensible depth for the houses themselves, it leaves you 22-10.5-8 = 3.5m plot frontage.

This isn't enough to allow frontage car parking spaces (which need to be a minimum of 4.8 metres deep) and most authorities require min. 5.5 metres in front of an integral garage, so the chances are you will be effectively limited to drives or parking spaces beside the houses.

You can also probably rule out Tonker's 3 storey town houses as most authorities would demand an increased back garden depth to compensate for the increased overlooking of the gardens to the rear, caused by the extra storey.

If you work on 3 metre wide drives plus 4 metre frontage width houses (which are bare minimum figures for a 2 bed), you're looking at a total frontage width of 7 metres per plot, so not quite enough for 4 x 2 bed houses. I suspect that your best option would be a pair of 3-bed semis and a single 3 bed compact detached.

... but that's assuming a fairly urban/suburban setting. The alternative would be a pair of 4 bed detached, each with a drive beside it.

Edited by Sam_68 on Wednesday 4th August 19:56

[mk1fan]

You could fit four terraced 3-bed houses with restricted access, ie no vehicle, to the rear.

Or six flats - mixture of 1 and 2-bed with parking at the rear and communal gardens

Has it got any planning consent already? I'd speak to the Planning Dept about what, if any, development would be allowed.

Don't get too carried away though. You don't want to apply for too many dwellings else you'll also need to provide a proportion of social housing. It's either five dwellings or eight. Can't recall exactly at the moment.

[Sam_68]

mk1fan said:

You could fit four terraced 3-bed houses with restricted access, ie no vehicle, to the rear.

Where do you put the parking?

mk1fan said:

You don't want to apply for too many dwellings else you'll also need to provide a proportion of social housing. It's either five dwellings or eight. Can't recall exactly at the moment.

It varies from authority to authority. But don't worry about it too much, 'cos the chances of you fitting enough on to reach the trigger levels are very slim indeed (though the most draconian authorities I'm aware of actually have trigger levels of more than one house!).

Edited by Sam_68 on Wednesday 4th August 19:59

[mk1fan]

Sam_68 said:

Where do you put the parking?

At the front.

Sam_68 said:

It varies from authority to authority. But don't worry about it too much, 'cos the chances of you fitting enough on to reach the trigger levels are very slim indeed (though the most draconian authorities I'm aware of actually have trigger levels of more than one house!).

I'd question that. The number is in the Planning Act rather than down to the individual Local Authority to set the figure.

As for reaching trigger levels well I can think of one configuration that would physically provide 12-flats although probably not suitable for the site itself.

[Sam_68]

mk1fan said:

Sam_68 said:

Where do you put the parking?

At the front.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

See my calculation above; 10.5m back garden + 8m deep house + 4.8m deep parking space into a 22 metre plot depth does not compute.

Obviously the 10.5m back garden is not an inviolable rule, but it's a pretty good guideline and won't be far off what most LPA's would demand (they're often not too worried about overlooking relationship between new plots within a development, but tend to be fairly strict on the relationship to neighbouring existing properties).

The 8 metre house depth isn't fixed, either, but that's about the bare minimum if you are going for narrow frontage and deep footprint (which is the most land efficient arrangement). You can go to a shallower depth of footprint, but the width of frontage will then have to increase as a consequence and since increasing frontage width means increasing rear garden area to no benefit, you tend to find that plotting efficiency goes down.

In answer to Tonker's question, the market for flats is very location sensitive, but at the moment, and as a broad generalisation, most major housebuilders won't touch flats with a stty stick. Having said which, we've actually been selling them quite well on the few sites where we'd been left stuck with them from Planning approvals dating to pre-downturn days. But it would be a hell of a gamble and not one I'd take without substantial market research.

I'd also add that - as a general rule - the market is very sensitive to plot quality at the moment, so semis or (preferably) detached units show a substantial advantage in revenue per square foot over terraces, as the saleability and revenue will be heavily influenced by details like parking provision, rear garden access and proportions. If the arrangement isn't perfect, you have to discount to attract the punters and revenue per square foot takes a nosedive.

mk1fan said:

Sam_68 said:

It varies from authority to authority...

I'd question that.

You can question it all you like. You're still wrong.

mk1fan said:

The number is in the Planning Act rather than down to the individual Local Authority to set the figure.

Completely and utterly incorrect in every detail.

There is a national indicative minimum threshold of 15 dwellings referred to in National Planning Policy (which is quite different to the Planning Act - it's national guidance, not a legislative instrument), but authorities should set their own threshhold (which can be higher or lower) on the basis of a housing needs survey in their area. Even if they choose to apply the indicative threshhold of 15 dwellings, it is open to challenge unless they can provide robust evidence to justify that threshold. See advice here from the Planning Inspectorate.

I'd also point out to the OP the obvious problems implicit in the fact that access is onto an unadopted road... if it's not adopted, what rights of access and use do you have, can you get the drainage out, what impact will it have on marketability and sales revenue, etc., etc.

Edited by Sam_68 on Wednesday 4th August 21:57

[Sam_68]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

[Sam_68]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Practicable, useable parking spaces are as wide as developer garages. The bare minimum width for a parking space is 2.4 metres, but many authorities now stipulate wider drives as a minimum (3.2 metres is common) and I certainly wouldn't go below 3m drive width if I wanted to give my purchaser any chance whatsoever of being able to actually open his car door, so the rough figures I quoted above wouldn't be affected (at least not enough to be thinking about squeezing another plot on).

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Then you're squandering a 3.5 metre (minimum) width of shared access drive when you could have direct access to the (admittedly unadopted) road. 26-3.5 = 22.5m , so you've increased build costs and complexity but are pretty much back to square one on developable plot depth and have reduced your frontage width from 26 metres to 22...

And if you were talking about using frontage parking with such an arrangement, you need a 6 metre deep area in front of the 4.8m deep parking space to be able to manoevre a car in and out, so instead of a 3.5m wide shared drive, you're looking at 6 metres turning corridor + 4.8m space + 8 metre deep house + 10.5 metre deep garden = 29.3 metres into a 26 metre plot depth. Does not compute, again...

It might be possible to come up with something clever if you have full details of the site, but we don't... the OP asked for a rough guide as to what was likely to be practicable. If he wants to contact me via my profile, I'd be happy to consider providing a detailed design, but I'll warn in advance that I'm not cheap (you get what you pay for... if you pay peanuts, you risk getting someone who doesn't know his Planning Policy from his Planning Act ).

[V8NRG]

Thanks for all the info guys.

I had no idea about the required spacing for cars / gardens etc.

I initially thought it would be a struggle to fit two small semis on there so I’m quite surprised at some of the things suggested.

My impression of the site and surroundings lead me to think , 2 three bed semis or possibly 2 three bed detached properties would fit well with enough parking and garden area.

The plot is in a suburban area, services connections are available within 50m of the plot.
Ground level changes from level with the neighbouring property at the left to +180cm at the border on the right .
There are a few trees on the plot, mostly near the borders.
There have been 2 new property’s build nearby (within 300m) in the last 10 years, one three bed detached and one four bed detached.

I don’t see why planning permission would not be granted (but I know they can be difficult).


Edited to add : There is no planning permission of any kind in place at the moment.
If i intended to build 2 three bed detached houses on it what would the plot be worth? (just rough guestimate, I’m after a ball park figure?)

Edited by V8NRG on Thursday 5th August 12:03

[Sam_68]

V8NRG said:

My impression of the site and surroundings lead me to think , 2 three bed semis...

You should be able to get a pair of 3-bed semis and a 3 bed detached on there reasonably comfortably.
As a guide, a pair of our most popular semis (830 square foot), each with a garage beside it, takes up a frontage width of just under 16.5 metres, and a compact 3-bed detached (say 950 square foot) with a garage beside it would take up about 9.5 metres frontage width, which ought to be spot on.

V8NRG said:

If i intended to build 2 three bed detached houses on it what would the plot be worth? (just rough guestimate, I’m after a ball park figure?)

East Mids isn't my patch, thank God, but as a very, very rough ballpark figure, assuming a 'clean' site with no major problems or abnormals, I'd suggest maybe £175K to a small housebuilder.

But the fact that the road isn't adopted might be a major issue.

[ukwill]

one of these?

[V8NRG]

Thanks ukwilll, I don’t think that would be “in keeping” with the surrounding area though.

Sam 68, do you have any floor plans of the properties you mention ? or a link to a website ? They sound rather small.

The plot is actually near the East Berks / Surrey border and is currently part of a relative’s garden. Any project would probably be done on a profit share basis with the current owner, meaning not having to pay for the plot in the first place.

I’m just trying to get an idea of what could be done at the moment then will attempt to do some rough cost / profit calculations to see if it is feasible.

[herbialfa]

Garden?????

I'd first speak to the planners about the viabilty!

The first thing the planners would say..... "out of keeping with the surrounding area!"

What I'm trying to say is if the surrounding properties all have large gardens then the L.A. prefer to keep that density.

So is it a defined plot i.e. boundaries or just a large garden which could be sub-divided?

Could you not post a screen shoot from Google Earth?

[V8NRG]

herbialfa said:

Garden?????

I'd first speak to the planners about the viabilty!

The first thing the planners would say..... "out of keeping with the surrounding area!"

What I'm trying to say is if the surrounding properties all have large gardens then the L.A. prefer to keep that density.

So is it a defined plot i.e. boundaries or just a large garden which could be sub-divided?

Could you not post a screen shoot from Google Earth?

In reality it is large garden at the moment but I believe this part is registered with the land registry as a separate plot due to it being purchased separately to the house originally.

The garden is currently 4-5 times bigger than any other in the street.
The current house and garden have a plot size of around 2,000 m2 the subdivision of the garden would leave the current house with a plot of 1,400 m2 and the plot for development would be around 600m2.

[herbialfa]

Just had a quick check through my files.

Latest development I have on file was 28x24m.

2 4 bedroom houses which are now being built!

link to the developers web page!

http://www.walnutfarmdevelopments.co.uk/#

[Sam_68]

V8NRG said:

Sam 68, do you have any floor plans of the properties you mention ? or a link to a website ? They sound rather small.

They are typical developer semis... hunt the websites of big developers like Persimmon, Bellway, Redrow, Miller etc. and you'll find something similar.

V8NRG said:

The plot is actually near the East Berks / Surrey border and is currently part of a relative’s garden.

That moves the goalposts rather a long way... sorry, I was assuming East Midlands from the location listed on your profile. Land value is likely to be significantly higher, in that case.

But the fact that it's back garden is bad news. Apart from the valid issue that Herbiealfa raised of maintaining plot density characteristic of the area, the recently elected Government has a BIG downer of 'backland development'. You might get away with it if there is a road frontage, but don't count on an easy ride through planning.

And at risk of becoming tiresome through repetition the fact that the access if from an unadopted road is a potentially major issue in a number of respects.

With all the above factors taken into account, a pair of 4-bed detached houses sounds a better prospect.