chris p bacon

Welease Bwian....

Part of the problem with Brown field development is when it is a single site adjacent to existing commercial/factory sites. An example in this town is a cosmetics company that closed ( moved to Poland) and the site lay empty for some time, it was the only commercial site on one side of the road with factories on the other. one of these is a concrete block plant which runs 24 hours a day. The site was listed in the 10 year plan as residential so Kiers purchased, Sound/noise surveys were carried out and as a result mitigating measures to reduce noise were taken into account in the design of the site. It then went through the normal planning process and was given permission. When the first occupants arrived (Social rather than purchased) within a week there were complaints about noise from the concrete plant and the enviromental health officer issued a notice to the factory to reduce the noise. The only way was to cease production overnight but as it is a 24 hour a day operation that isn't possible as the kilns would cool. The existing factories had objected to the residential infill as they feared that the 2 don't mix. It was settled eventually with the plant production continuing as before. The housing association offered a rent reduction and the complaints stopped overnight. An issue with renovation is that no matter how much money you throw at some houses, they just don't come up to a reasonable standard. At present my project is a shop to house conversion, it is near the station and there are now parking restrictions outside to stop commuters parking on the street and blocking the road, this meant that as a retail premises it had no value as it is isolated from the main town area. Built in 1875 it has had very little, if any money spent on it, and now has severe structural problems due to damp rotting the internal timber structure. It was unmortgageable and so had trouble finding a buyer. I purchased it and after negotiation got planning permission for its conversion. It is 2 storey (3 with the cellar) and has 10' ceilings, at 800 square feet internal it isn't huge but by stripping the building completely and reducing the ceiling height to just under 8' I am able to get a 3rd floor in and increase it to 1200 square feet making it a decent sized 2 bedroom house. I will deal with the structural stability and when finished it will be insulated to modern standards with an efficient heating system and hopefully somewhere nice to live. But with all this there comes a marmite decision. As it is opposite the oldest house in sandy (1500's) then the conservation officer got his way in making me keep the shop front, so although a house it will have a wall of glass on the pavement. I'll do it but it is a PITA getting all that glass through building regs as it leaks heat. The comparision with new over renovation, is that had I been able to demolish but rebuild exactly to match, then the cost of the new would have been 60% of the cost of the renovation, and a better end result.

The more I read in this thread, the more I think MS are using everyone for their own testing.

Big Jim has been scanned in various poses but I think he was in his Hi Viz gear.

It may not be how often and where they're found, but more how many. If the numbers are very low a hard winter could see off a big enough proportion of them to make it too hard to recover. I'm sure I have seen a study that explained the reasoning behind their protection and it made sense, but can't remember where?

It is a particular sub species of newt "Great Crested Newt" that is protected. They don't stop development but you have to provide an alternative habitat for them. I'm a developer and even I understand we must protect what we have as when lost we can't get it back.

In the 1930's some council houses were still being built with outside privies. All of the council housing in this area has undergone massive expenditure in the 1980's to update and extend for bathrooms and kitchens (I worked on a lot) even now they are starting to be dated again, they are not that bad but they certainly aren't that good either, 9" brickwork and no insulation.

Here we go again. If you cut the sarcastic remarks you won't look like a troll. To answer your points. I'm often asked by people "If I buy a plot of land will you build the house of my dreams" my answer is "No, I'll build a house the planner wants you to live in" Over the years I've submitted applications for houses and they've been rejected because "They have too much detail of the local vernacular design" or "They are too sympathetic to the neighbouring properties" As a developer I don't get to choose what we build, it comes about after some protracted negotiations with the LPA until a design is reached, that conforms to what they want to pass. As for renovation, You have to realise that the built enviroment we have now has come about over several hundred years and what you regard as a "historical built environment" hides some of the poorest buildings it's possible to live in. In Potton people think they are buying a Victorian Terraced cottage until surveyed and then they find a (very poor) timber framed building from the late 1700/early 1800's that are so expensive to renovate that they are in a state of limbo as planning won't allow major works to bring them up to a modern standard. They are just about mortgageable so they end up as cheap but poor housing. The sad fact is that some designs of house that people find "quaint or attractive" are actually inefficient and wasteful and are too expensive to bring up to a modern standard of living. I live in a Victorian house, outside is original (except windows) but inside it is a modern house, I renovated it 17 years ago, and it would at the time have been far cheaper to have demolished it and built it again.

Are people buying a house to live in, or an investment ? If the latter then I'm often reminded of the line in most sales offers "The value of your investment may go down". The reality is that the chances of being blighted by a development that makes a significant impact on the value of a home is very rare (I can't even think of one), homeowners are more than capable of blighting their own home and lowering its value by the choices they make in decoration and lack of maintenance. The upside is that with others spending their money and improving areas it generally results in a rise in values. Obviously that doesn't suit the negative narrative of greed and corruption that comes with planning topics.

Kind of you to give your staff "accommodation".... Do they sort through the kits and put them on a spreadsheet for your personal gratification....I bet you daren't look at the one with the tab "Portescaps".....

I'm with dpg. Before doing anything see how it runs with straight DC.

I've tried one at a show and found it excellent to use, My friend purchased one and is in the process of using it and the results are really good. If I can't pinch it off him I'll certainly be buying one. Bit of a plug for Green Scene in general, I've had loads of stuff off them (5kg of ballast!) and been good service and product

Yes there would be an isolator and a non return valve if these had been fitted in the past to an old style mixer (where the cold & hot could mix and return up the opposite supply) Are you a hard water area ? That might explain why you can't turn them at all as they'll be caked in scale. This is what it's like here and so I have marked on the calender to turn them all every 4 months, takes just 5 minutes to do. As for a tool to turn them off....theses things are made to no standard apart from the bore size so it's screwdrivers, coins or my old favourite ...the tab on a Yale key (always in the pocket). Get as good as you can to replace them although if hard water it doesn't make much difference sometimes.

Now I understand. As you are not a near neighbour you cannot object as it has no bearing on you. The neighbours could, but by not objecting created a 'de-facto' position. If they had objected then it may have been pursued for refusal, but as it was by then existing with no objections then the planning department could lose at appeal as they had to show it was detrimental but had no evidence to prove that. By conceding to some variations then the builder/owner was showing a willingness to conform. Welcome to my world.........

You do live in a bit of a rough area don't you Horse. Although I'm surprised you haven't one at the bottom of the garden for the kit overflow..........

Actually taking a second look, they aren't non return valves by chance. Not unusual to find them under a sink if it was an old fashioned mixer tap.

Turn off the house and replace them, they are speedfit valves and I've found them a bit cheap and nasty. A cheap replacement is these http://www.screwfix.com/p/isolating-valve-15mm-10-pack/32802 But I use these everywhere (although I get ones with a handle/tab from plumb centre) http://www.screwfix.com/p/full-bore-isolating-valve-15mm/46860 The reason I use these is they are a 'Full bore' and so don't restrict the supply. If like me you're hard water area no tap or valve lasts forever as they get gummed up and won't turn.

It might look like that, but it could be that the builder was able to argue his case over the interpretation of the existing planning law. Regarding the Dormer window being refused, it may well have had nothing to do with ridge height but overlooking down into an adjascent property. When refused there would have been a specific reason given and if the applicants were adamant their application was correct then they would have won on appeal with costs. I've often found the reason for refusal is not always what the applicant tells you. Look up the application online.

Hmmm, that looks more low quality shanty town style accommodation...... I'm presuming that's for "family" but in reality rented out or it's somewhere for the house slave to live.

I have to say I'm always at a loss to understand that because of the job I choose to do, I'm greedy. Everyone has the same opportunity that I had to do it. I found it very easy and I've never borrowed a penny to do this and I've never owed a penny to anyone. It took a year to build the first house by working for 4-5 days then spending evenings and all the available time on the build. No holidays or luxuries and a really strict home budget meant that at the finish I owed no one. I am not alone and know quite a few that have done it that way, So if working your bollox off to get on in life means I'm greedy then I must have the wrong dictionary. Infill, this is the prefered option under planning law. It would be far easier for me to buy a green field site and build there than inbetween 2 existing houses. Garden Grabbing, again this is the prefered planning option, There are very few people who want a large garden nowadays, my own is a quarter acre in the middle of town and in conversation with an agent I'm told it will make it hard to sell the house, to the point where it might devalue the property. It must be remembered that as a builder I don't hold a gun to someones head to sell the garden, they come to me with an offer. The problem with Planning is that no matter how well thought out and workable the legislation is, it cannot take into account or deal with the petty jealousy that arises from it.

Contamination isn't an issue on the site as it was a loading terminal and subject to very strict procedures. The main issue goes back to the original permission given to BP to build the site. In the permission was a clause(s) which stated that when it was finished, the site had to be returned to heathland. As planning is a legally binding agreement between 2 parties it's not something that can be ignored. BP have sold the Drill sites and other land in Purbeck to another company (name escapes me) and they are now charged under planning with dealing with the site. Dorset County Council are sympathetic to the railway and it's thought there is a way around the problem but it's not a 5 minute solution.

Oh, if only it were that simple.......I could have saved thousands over the last few years. I do this for a living and I'm often quite amused as to the reasons why people don't like planning applications near them. A couple of years ago I built a bungalow in Little Paxton near St Neots and 2 of the neighbours were the most objectionable people I've met in a long time. The build took just over 3 years to complete and during that time I was physically assaulted by one neighbour (75 yrs old) continually held up with petty complaints to planning by the other resulting in meeting after meeting with the planning officer on site. In the end the planning officers assigned the most senior to the build and I had to deal with him directly (fine by me) they made complaints that I was disturbing bats (No evidence of bats on site) had found and moved Great Crested Newts (yeh right) in fact you name it I'd done it. In the end I would build another house elsewhere, return for 3 months then as the complaints increased leave site until they calmed down. The bungalow was finished and sold very quickly even though I was honest and wrote a full report of the antagonism and gave it to the buyers, they already lived nearby and where fully aware. At the finish I had a meeting with planning after the property was sold. they showed me the file and the admin girls asked how I'd coped, they had been running a book on how long I would last (they all lost) it seems the neighbours had been ringing up to 3 times a day asking for the site to be stopped, there were approx 900 phone calls logged as well as 100 emails and several letters. The funniest one was where they'd asked for the permission to be stripped and to have the bungalow demolished, not realising that the planning permission was the same one that their own houses had been built under 2 years before. Had it of been possible to do as they ask it would have meant the demolition of their own properties. I did take great delight on the final day as I waited to hand over the keys to the new owners, one of the neighbours came over and spoke to me, I thanked them for making me wait, as with the market changes in the area I'd made £50,000 more than anticipated and with the other builds I'd had the best year ever.

I remember standing at the blocks at KX listening to the Deltics Start up, most locomotives seemed to be shut down then to contain the fog of fumes.

Sadly "Grandfather rights" don't have much standing within planning law. Personally I think projects such as these should have a much wider scrutiny so they show how it benefits other areas or the rest of society and the credit is offset against local but vocal opposition. (I'm starting to notice it with East West rail around here)

The current planning law was updated only a couple of years ago to "free it up". Whatever planning law is changed suits one but not another. Picking up on your first point, whether you paid a premium for a semi and it is now devalued as a terrace has never been a planning issue, Planning does not take into account the financial return for the owner or developer it decides whether a project falls within the scope of current legislation. If it is overdevelopment then there must be a reason given within the decision as to why the planning officer thought it did not need to comply. Planning decisions are searchable online (with the address or ref no) and all paperwork acrued during the process is publically accessible. No idea where you are but here semi's do not command a premium over end terrace, it's the number of bedrooms that count and the floor area. An end terrace is essentially a semi still.