Leaderboard

I've got some props here that'll do it, RSJs with lorry trailer 'landing legs' on top, good for about 20T each, let me know if you want them. Been in the nettles four years and can't see me doing much with them any time soon. I made them to hold up an oak frame barn so I could dismantle it safely.

Why..? take bricks out below the wall plate and jack from there..??

Sorry yes I just mean you connect up the pipes before paying the tray. Mine needed a 45 degree bend and short length of pipe (which I did in solvent weld) plus the 45 degree bend that came with the trap (which was a compression fitting).

Well the holiday let is almost complete Today we turned on the Solar. So far generating about 4.5kW (8kWp system), not bad for a partially overcast spring day Weve got the solar on the holiday let roof, but then it also comes through our main house supply. 2 Apollo Gem optimisers, so the house runs off 1 phase, the other 2 phases power the holiday let and any excess is diverted to 3 water tanks: 2x DHW (one in holiday let, one residential) 1x Buffer tank for ASHP So if the hot water is already warm enough, the buffer tank will heat up which is useful for these shoulder months where it can be a bit chilly sometimes in the evening in the main house Hoping this will bring our £300/mo elec bill down! (All our heating, cooking etc is on elec as no gas)

b+q do caustic soda, other outlets may be availabe, no need for Ew

If S3 and S2 form a 2 way switching pair, then you will need a 3core & earth (for the 2 way switching) AND a 2 core and earth (to feed power to the other lights) between them. Use 1mm for everything. 1.5 is simply not necessary for 99% of domestic lighting and in some cases is awkward in some light fittings. Remember safe zones.

Saw a really nice one where they created a plinth for the taps to sit on - basically mounted them in a box and went sideways into the wall for the water. Looked nice and you couldn’t tell it was a “fudge” Other option is to set a piece of Polystyrene in the floor where they will be going against the wall, then chop it out, fit the pipe work and then backfill with rapid set.

If you live in a damp environment, like Scotland...... or the building is going to be open during winter I would steer clear of ply, osb is better as in my experience ply seems to attract black mould, even stuff I have stored has got mould spots on it and no other wood close by had suffered.

One thing you have not mentioned yet is the ring beam around the perimiter. This joins all the joist ends together. So it has the effect of spreading the load on one beam to adjacent beams. So someone jumping on the floor at the edge, the load won't be placed on one beam, but shared by several. Likewise a high static load on one will be shared by adjacent beams. Our static caravan which is much the same construction, though with a shorter cantilever is made of timbers that look more like 3" by 2" I think it has something like 2" steel angle around the edge as a "ring beam"

I've decided I'm going to start tackling the garage. There's far too much non car related stuff in there by far. There's nowhere else for it to go mind but it'd be nice to at least be able to walk in there. I've got to stop dumping "stuff" just inside the rear door rather than homing it somewhere.

Why would anyone want to encourage a bat to live in/on their house. We have all heard about the problems people have had. I like that, very Gothic.

Thanks @Ferdinand that's a lot of useful information. @Dicky what advice did the planning consultant actually give you? I think this is going to sound a bit blunt, but really I want to be honest and help you get your house built. That is what the planning consultant should have done. The house is larger, taller, different materials, different design and differently placed on the plot to the other houses in the street. Virtually no compromise has been made to try and get it approved. It seems clear from the report that they gave you the chance to alter these things. Many people on here have had very difficult dealings with planning and would often love them to be specific about what the actual problem is. TBF it also seems that they are somewhat obsessive about the bat issue and have ample time to write up massive reports. Three very easy changes can be made that would make the house much more likely to be approved. 1. Render the front, the stone would look out of place. 2. Remove the front bay and make the centre window smaller, I can see that breaking up the front might improve the look of the house which might also be your thinking, but planning disagree. It doesn't really add much useful space inside and can easily be designed out if planners don't like it. 3. You could change the windows to have a vertical aspect. Pairs of windows with a vertical aspect on the front would be more in keeping with the street and might actually look better. These things are all mentioned in the report and changing them doesn't really alter the house. I think if you compromised on these you would probably get away with the size, height, spacing etc. However the fact it has already been refused won't help. But I would make these changes, put it back to planning and see what they say. 4. If the wanted a larger gap to next door, you could probably lose 500mm off the width, making the dining room narrower, turning the table around and moving the wall across at the entrance to the kitchen if you want to keep the lounge the same size. Narrowing the entrance to the kitchen wouldn't lose much useful space. I don't think it would compromise the bathroom or bedroom which are quite long. 5. It would be useful to show the height of the existing house relative to the proposed house. The planners seem to be assuming it is much taller, it probably is, but it is hard to argue without the numbers. If it is much taller and they really object to it, you could knock about 800mm off by making the centre part of the roof flat. Often this has to be done when a house is quite deep to stop the roof getting really high. It would be more expensive to build but it would considerably reduce its bulk from the street. Of note when I looked at the plans, two things that I though so odd I had to comment. 1. The stairs are 800mm wide and turn back on themselves. This would leave not only a narrow 800mm wide hall upstairs, but harder to see is the return would be less than 1.5m above floor level in the downstairs hall, narrowing the downstairs hall to only 800mm at that point. I am not sure if it is to be boxed in putting an odd wall across the hall or maybe the stairs are to be open. When you come in the front door you would be looking at the back of half the staircase. It is not a great design, I cannot fathom what the architect was thinking about. A wider(0.9-1m) straight stair, 3m long, would be much better although it might a bit tight to fit in front to back, downstairs you could move back the entrance to the kitchen, but the problem would be the master bedroom entrance. If this is the case you could have a quarter turn in it with the bottom turned 90 degrees in the now wider hall. People would also be able to see right through to the kitchen, really improving the sight lines. 2. Downstairs and upstairs ceilings are both 2500mm high then the kitchen is 2640mm tall which would mean it has a step in the ceiling randomly across the room. Why not make downstairs 2600mm tall and upstairs 2400mm tall which would more befit a large house anyway and make the kitchen ceiling all one height. Hopefully with a bit of compromise you can get your house built.

Let me see if I can find a couple of useful thoughts. I've read the Appeal Decision, and a number of docs from the original application (not all 36), including the D&A, and the Planning Officer report. I can't find a dimensioned plan of the existing house or plot; I may have missed it. I think your Design and Access document does not address these concerns sufficiently, rather it is a list of statements - it needs a planning argument (is that in a document I missed?). It provides an argument based on your build, but does not address the planning policy concerns expressed by the Council in terms understood by the Council. I think the Appeal Report is quite short because the Inspector felt that the couple of concerns he mentioned sink it, but any future application would need to address the points in the Council report too. The Council had clear planning grounds for rejection, so the Inspector has only gone into it far enough to establish his verdict (that is normal). To be honest, I agree with them on the rejection, because the App does not make a convincing planning argument imo, and - if I have understood what happened correctly - not meeting the full procedural bat report requirements of the Natural Wales body (or whatever it is called), such as 3 occasions of survey not one, is fatal to an application. I accept that I could be wrong on that last point if it has been addressed via docs I have not read. Your application was rejected for reasons architectural, and also for some details that are actually procedural. The importance of the streetscape is in rhythm and appearance, as it is a ribbon development on a route from the community. It is not a question of being just generally acceptable; the Council want some features to be regular, repeated well, because that row of houses set the backbone of the street pattern. If you had that bungalow they then may have been adaptable; as it is they wish to keep the rhythm of the housing row. It is my view that the Council want the roofs to be quite regular, and gaps between the houses, and the windows, to be similar. These were all mentioned in the documents for the Committee, but at ground level there seems to be variety. Some gaps have a garage; but some others have a wall or tree. The Assessment also mentions dreaded bat reports; you have one but they say it has not been done quite sufficiently. And so they say bats may still exist in your vicinity. I would say that this is what a Planning Consultant should have done. That is, discovered the requirements and addressed each of them one by one. So what can you do to fulfil the demands of the committee, whilst still building a pleasant dwelling for your family? Trying to be practical, I think: 0 - You are probably stuck with the roof and house size profile on the first floor upwards, and the width of the existing house. That likely means you are stuck with the existing footprint of the house except for maybe going backwards perhaps 50% on the ground floor. The external material and fenestration needs to be essentially unchanged - even maybe consider just putting skylights on the rear not the front. Though perhaps in-roof solar panels would be good on the front. I would also put the frontage of the dwelling on the building line, since that was mentioned. Can you establish whether the Council would have *any* flexibility on footprint, is you preserve the general "face" of the house? Even 1 or 2m in width may help. 1 - You could perhaps do a full width single storey 'extension' around the back, for a kitchen diner or whatever depending on the sun and so on. 2 - I think you should consider a full footprint basement. 3 - I think you could also consider a garden room for an office or a gym or a cinema room if these are in your requirements. 4 - I think you will need to consider your treatment of the side 5 - Find a treatment of the gaps between the houses that largely conceals your rear single storey extension, eg a 2m or 2.5m wall with an archway for your drive, or evergreen bushes etc. 6 - Is it possible to get an extra storey in the loft in the existing envelope but with a basement? You may also need a basic Planning Strategy. Since the Council objections are about the size and look, I would perhaps put in an applying for a Certificate of Lawful Development for extensions up to the same size and approx appearance as your intended final version under Permitted Development. That should help poleaxe any objections to something very similar when you apply for a newbuild, as Planning should not really be concerned too much with internal layout on a house that far from its neighbours. Then do a full planning app for a newbuild in the same building envelope. That is assuming that you come up with something that is Ok for your needs that meets those terms. Ferdinand Decision 3243827.pdf 19_1187_FUL--236970.pdf Current Proposed Elevations.pdf

You should get a clean picture with the Ariel.

18, that is 4 more than my house, and some of mine are singles.

Have you got enough sockets @Big Jimbo..? Concerned you’ve skimped on them ....

Now Ed Miliband is back on the Labour front bench I’m hoping we might get those free owls they promised

What you need is to get on and restore those Capri's. That should keep you busy for a few weeks. God I hope the lockdown won't last until you have finished them........

Concentration. Just emptied an entire packet of coffee into the cafetière not the caddy, as I was thinking about bird boxes. Birdbrains, more like. Pah.