Second to none
With one high-quality self build already behind them, John Bearman and Stephanie Rogers were excited to do it all over again – on the plot next door
After successfully completing a self build, John Bearman and Stephanie Rogers decided to do it all over again, this time a neo-georgian home with classic and modern details
Buoyed by the success of their first self build project, John Bearman and Stephanie Rogers were keen to repeat the experience and expand on their newfound knowledge. ey were weighing up options and had just decided against investing in an ambitious local construction opportunity, when they heard that the sale of the house next door – a two-storey, 1950’s chalet-style property – had fallen through.
“We’d been marketing our own home as part of the venture we’d been looking at, and amazingly we found a buyer really quickly,” says John, “As we’d then pulled out of the investment, we decided to maximise the situation, go ahead with the sale, and buy next door instead as a development project.” e couple had initially dismissed the property as the garden was smaller than their own. Revisiting the site, however, they could see potential – while realising that simply replicating the style of their first self build wouldn’t work here.
“We’d constructed a high-spec, Arts & Crafts-inspired house on a generous plot,” says John. “ere were features we wanted to take from it, but this site was smaller and we couldn’t just build a scaledback version. Second time around, I wanted to try something different with both the appearance and the construction.”
Developing the plans
e pair decided to work with 2-4C, the team who had designed their first self build, to come up with the plans for their new home.
Conscious they were replacing a relatively modest structure, John and Stephanie wanted to avoid an overly ornate or imposing building. Having looked around the local housing stock, they settled on the idea of a symmetrical, neo-georgian property with classic exterior design details such as sash windows and a shallow, hipped roof.
Suggestions of decorative columns, gable ends and circular windows were rejected before they eventually arrived at an elegant, well-proportioned design that would fill the width of the site. e main facade of the house would be broken up by a central, doubleheight bay. “e bay creates a more interesting roofline,” says John, “It also meant we could have really large windows and masses of natural light on the landing.” e only downside would be the lack of space for a garage, but there was scope at the back of the house for a garden room to provide storage.
Inside, a dining room and living room would lead off from an impressive entrance hall. ere would be a capacious, open-plan kitchen-cum-family room with glazed doors at the back, and a sightline from the front door right through to the garden. From the hall, a feature staircase would lead up to the airy landing and on to a master suite, family bathroom and two further bedrooms. Above, the attic would contain an office, guest suite and storage area. “e big, bright hall and landing were important features,” says Stephanie, “You walk through those areas several times every day, and if they feel light and spacious, it makes the whole house feel spacious.”
From previous experience, John was aware of the merits of holding a pre-planning meeting with the relevant officers, to highlight any major issues ahead of submitting the full application. No points of contention were raised at this stage. Nevertheless, by the time the couple applied for full planning permission, they had amended the original design to include a crown roof rather than a hipped one. is meant a larger roof area with a steeper pitch. “is would have made the second floor more user-friendly, as we’d have had better ceiling height and a gentler slope to the walls,” says John, “Unfortunately the roof was judged to be too high and overbearing, and the plans were rejected.” ankfully, the couple were allowed to amend and resubmit their application, rather than having it refused outright (which would have added cost and delay). e consultation period was extended and, four months and two revisions later, in November 2017, full planning permission was granted.
A shaky start
Soon after approval came through, demolition works began onsite.
ings didn’t go to plan, however. “We came home from holiday to find that instead of clearing the site, the demolition contractor had just driven all the waste and rubble into the ground, pushing up the levels,” says John. “I refused to pay until everything was taken away and disposed of properly. Fortunately, I’d allowed a 10-day margin
‘‘ is is an easy house to live in. It really suits us and everything is in just the right place.’’