Leaderboard

Just a tip.. If you decide to mix and match beware that there are an infinite number of shades of white. They all look white in the show room but when you get a bath from one place next to a basin or pan from another the difference can be obvious.

There is a middle path here. First off, I wholeheartedly agree with all the views expressed, from the fact that pissing off planners, the council and neighbours may cause long term ill-feeling, as well as more hurdles you have to jump over, to the flip side that this is plain unjust, in your case grossly unjust, to the tune of more than just a couple of £k. If we don't attempt to address unfairness like this, it will continue, and others will face similar problems. So, I think I would very politely request that the local authority state their case clearly and unequivocally for requesting that you put in place all the GCN harm mitigation strategies you've had to do whilst the neighbouring builds have not. Be clear that at this stage all you want from them is a clear, evidence-based, rationale for the difference in the decisions for each PP, and that you require them to provide the evidence that supports each decision. My guess is that this can go two ways, they can comply with your request and effectively admit that they've applied to different policies to adjacent developments, or they can try and fob you off. The most probable is that they will try and fob you off with an argument unsupported by any evidence at first. If you then politely ask for the evidence, they may well realise they are in a difficult position. What happens after that is anyone's guess, but some things cannot happen. They cannot rescind the planning permission they have granted to the adjacent developments, neither can they retrospectively apply additional conditions, so you're not at risk of upsetting the neighbours. If your request is polite and carefully worded they have no cause to get the hump with you, either, and if they do they know that you have recourse to the LGO for redress. You could decide to just pass all the information you have to the LGO and let him/her decide what to do. That pretty much takes you out of the loop and lets someone independent look at whether there was a failure of process within the local authority, that failure being that they seem to have not applied law and planning policy fairly and even-handedly. The LGO has powers to seek redress from local authorities, I believe, so could decide that you should be compensated, but again you would be one step removed from this process, also, it's slow, so in all probability it wouldn't affect your relationship with the planners until you were past caring.

I'd have knocked his fackin teeth out. What a complete prick.

I am also late to this debate and affected by delays from my planners totalling two years (appeal not heard yet). Initially I would go nuclear but Jeremy's note above about a halfway move seems more sensible. Go for it but in a reasonable way. Don't take it lying down or they will walk all over you and look smug going it, these planners need a kick up the jacksey. Best of British and keep us informed.

yes, I was thinking about insulated plasterboards and I gather the building regs insists on upgrading insulation if any remedial work is done. Though what they dont know...... It will not matter about the new look as the whole house will probably need replastering once we have finished. Nod - salt inhibitors?? I shall have to look that one up. Many thanks, Guys.

Just a word of caution. That link above downloads a pdf document that is not SPONS, but that contains links to what looks like a malicious Russian website. From the limited look I've had (in a sand box for safety) this is not a link to SPONS. If you are running a Windows machine, I would urge extreme caution, as my experience is that being diverted to a plain http site on a Russian domain that won't easily resolve to an IP address (which itself is suspicious) is highly likely to result in malware of some description getting to your machine. Not my sphere of expertise, I know just enough about this stuff to be dangerous! The Russian URL it tries to direct to (from the links within the document it downloads) is http:// dzaipdf . ru (DO NOT GO TO THIS URL! I've disabled the link by adding spaces)

Thanks Terry for the calm analysis. But I feel like taking Declan's advice. However, long ago, I recognised that in business dealings, feelings are dangerous and often irrelevant. @MrsRA will be the final arbiter. She has a highly developed sense of which battles to pick, and I trust her judgement far more than I do my own - except in stacking dishwashers and navigating microlights or cars. Thanks everyone for piling in and helping me work this one through. Time for a walk on the fells and a think.

TPO Tranquiliser If you are having trouble with TPOs (and I have had a lot of trouble with TPOs), this is a recommendation from Arsie on the Gardenlaw forum: Tried it last night - recommended and not *that* strong if sharing. I make it 4 units of alcohol each. I used an orange/mango smoothie for part of the juice, and added a splash of Cointreau to take the sharpness off slightly, and garnished with rubbed mint leaves. A squeeze of lime juice just before drinking might also be good. I also used crushed ice in the glass (half the volume) rather than a shaker, and a drinking straw. tasty, but I'll take a White Russian in preference for the winter. Ferdinand

I sometimes think we should have a "useful tips before you submit a planning application" sticky here. On it would be things like, before you submit an application, or seek planning advice, do the following: - Fill in any ponds that might possibly contain Great Crested Newts - Remove the roof from any structure on site that might possibly house bats - Remove any indication of there ever having been oil tanks or any other form of hazardous substance from the site. - Fell all and any trees that you think might possibly restrict what you want to do. - Run a bulldozer over the site to scrape the topsoil clear and remove any evidence of there ever having been a trace of anything of ecological value there. - If you suspect there could be archaeology, dig down to a depth as deep as your foundations will be over any area you may have to excavate as a part of the build. - grub up and remove any old hedges that might be in the way, lest they contain nesting birds, dormice etc that could impact your application adversely. (the above was written tongue-in-cheek, but I'd suggest that doing all, or some, of it would save a lot of self-builders a great deal of money...................)

Update - Sunamp asked me not to give the figure they have quoted, but I don't think it unreasonable to say more than a single unit but less than their current buy one get one half price offer (basically what they are proposing to supply is a complete 2 cell unit, and a second without the hydraulic components). They suggested anyone interested contact them directly to discuss their requirements. I still have to speak to them about some technical queries. Further info to follow in due course.

We brought everything from our local independant bathroom shop and I am glad that we did they were absolutely brilliant, they helped us with all the designs and made us realise why the ones that we had dreamt up wouldn't work, they matched the lowest internet prices without us forcing for a discount, stored it all for us and have been brilliant with faults or us loosing bits (fast flow shower wastes) replacing them free of charge and delivering all the bulky items as and when we needed them.

Just been through the woodburner versus bioethanol issue with our build. Both Planning and Building Control almost insisted on a woodburner as a secondary form of heating, particularly during power cuts (which happen quite often up here). Neither of us particularly wanted one as we felt that in a well insulated, triple glazed house a woodburner would give out too much heat, plus there's the cost of the hearth, flue and fitting and also the faff and mess of cutting, seasoning and storing the logs. We didn't really want a hole through the wall for an air feed either. We therefore started looking at an easily controllable, clean burning bioethanol fire of about 3kW capacity as an alternative. Granted the cost of the fuel is a disadvantage but for the amount of use it would get there would be very significant cost savings over a woodburning stove. After doing some research it transpires that the reason that woodburners have been specified up here for the last 10 years or so is that, if nothing is specified, the SAP calculations presumed that 10% of heating wiould be via electricity and, as this was always thought of as an environmentally damaging energy, the building failed. Now however, in Scotland at least, things have changed and the high proportion of wind and hydro generated energy is taken account of and the automatic 'fail' doesn't seem to happen now. The SAPS guy for our build said that as a bioethanol fire is classed as a biomass source then there shouldn't be a problem and it actually improves the SAPS calculations as a result of not now needing a flue or air feed. However, to satisfy both SAPS and Building Control the fire must be 'non-portable', ie fixed to a wall or floor.