newhome

I’m not an expert but I believe that it depends how the planning permission is structured. If the whole scheme is under a single planning permission with no phasing then the CIL liability is due as soon as the developer starts the first property and no subsequent owners can claim CIL exemption for one of the plots. If the planning permission is phased then CIL is due dependent on the start date for each plot. It sounds like you are reapplying for planning permission? Have a read here as this might help https://khub.net/web/planningadvisoryservicepas/forum/-/message_boards/message/147502813

From the VAT standpoint it’s the difference between having wardrobes that qualify for zero rating (ie built into the recess with no structure, just doors), vs buying standard wardrobes that are standard rated. If you can DIY the ‘IKEA’ type then it may be cheaper overall even paying VAT. Depends how neatly standard sized flat pack wardrobes fit into your space in the end. I have built in ones. The doors and shelves were supplied as part of the timber frame kit and the joiner fitted them.

Well that's just poor behaviour from the people who park there. They can plainly see that it's not part of the road and is blocking your garage access. I think signs and markings won't help unfortunately - you'll need to stick a lockable post or something there to break them of the habit and make it impossible to park there I think. What do the markings on the road the other side say?

You’re not allowed to paint white lines on the road but you could put up a small chain barrier to block off the site or put a lockable post in. You’d have to remove it of course when you wanted to park there but if keeping people from parking on it is the most important thing then the bit of hassle may be worthwhile. Something like this https://www.barriersdirect.co.uk/bollards-c1022/parking-bollards-c1223/parking-post-hinged-sturdy-integral-lock-bolt-down-or-concrete-in-british-made-p517?shopping&ppc_keyword=&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIz9Xlx6GN8AIVxAyLCh1oIgBjEAQYAiABEgLU4fD_BwE

Or ‘assumption is the mother of all f... ups’ ?

Indeed he was ?. @Onoff’s references are often obscure. You’ll get used to him eventually ?

This is sort of the approach I take with my UFH. I set it to come on overnight. It heats up the thermal store and the UFH. Once up to temperature the UFH doesn’t come on again until the following night. Other than during the coldest days the temperature of the room doesn’t drop enough to notice by the time I go to bed. I started doing it that way to see whether I could make the system work with a flexible rate tariff that had the cheapest tariffs overnight and concluded that I could. I imagine you could make this work with storage heaters too but can’t see that anyone would bother to install that technology these days if they were building from scratch.

Yes definitely try the local Facebook site or sites of nearby towns and villages that the builder may have customers in. The page admins might delete your post but hopefully some people will see it. Put the post on your own page and set it to public so that people can share the post. Also Google the name of the builder and / or the company to see if you can find anyone posting about them. Use double quotes round the names to search for an exact match.

There should be no reason why the council will not exempt if the house has been demolished and they should also deal with de registering the property. Assume that your new build planning permission also includes the demolition? If so you can provide them with the PP reference and send a photo. Yes your new build will be a new entry on the VOA register and it will be banded in line with the new house you have built. Note that different councils have different views relating to when they will start charging council tax on a new build. Some will want to charge as soon as the new build is plastered, others will wait until completion. Have a search of the forum to find threads that cover this topic. Assume you understand the VAT rules relating to a demolition and new build, eg the demolition can be zero rated assuming you aren’t doing it yourself? If not there is a sub forum beneath this one that covers lots of stuff. You need to be a regular member to see it (kicks in at 10 posts).

I’m not sure if this would work as unfortunately there are no ponds anywhere round there. I imagine there would be strict conditions for disposing of oil and other potential contaminants?

Yes I think I could ask for that maybe but the small side road off which the entrance is proposed also has a very small car parking area for those using the cemetery and the allotments. I guess one of the objections by the council is that the car parking area could be used for overspill from the business. It’s a pity that there are no parking restrictions on the verge and along the road where the existing business is really. Yes definitely I will be asking for that, and also that this is done early in the development otherwise we will be waiting years for it to have any effect? Yes permission was refused in 2005 because of the proximity to the cemetery. Refused on appeal too. Outline PP was granted in a position even nearer the houses (before the 2 new houses were built here). As you say that would be an even worse position for us. It would also be a more expensive option for the owner as the road level is much higher than the field at the site of the proposed entrance. Also the outline planning was granted on the basis that there was an existing entrance onto the field at that location. There isn’t, and the only entrance there is the entrance to my drive directly opposite so that was a lie in the application. There was a fairly spectacular road accident between a supermarket delivery van and a tractor towing a trailer of muck at that point a few years ago so there is a genuine road safety issue that could be raised in any objection. It really is not safe to place a new entrance along the main road into the village. It’s a pretty big field. Easily big enough to graze sheep and much bigger than either of the 2 sheep fields nearest to it across the road. If it has to be built it is the least worse place for it to be built, and you’re right we definitely don’t want it nearer. I’m not clear why it has to be in the village however as surely a business of this size no longer belongs in any village? It’s long past the era of servicing the cars for village folk, and the argument that it is difficult for local people to access locations further afield doesn’t work as by the very nature of the business all customers have vehicles already.

They have secure storage already, not in the village.

I am going to go and take photos tomorrow to use in my objection. It is ugly currently which is one reason why the council want it gone. It is also right at the entrance to the village and it creates a very poor impression with an ugly building and cars dumped everywhere on the verges, pavements and roads. They have applied for 32 car parking spaces and additional space for vans and trucks. The area being used is 6000 m2 so huge compared to what they have now. Surely a 6000 m2 operation isn't just a small local business expanding, it's a large operation. 6000 m2 is pretty large surely? Most local car maintenance places in commercial areas aren't as large as that surely? I'm not sure whether the noise is complained about currently as the Community Council haven't said. They have just said that there are numerous complaints. I am definitely going to complain about potential noise from tools. It doesn't state the hours of operation but it seems that they do a 24 hour recovery service From the planning application: It's outside the settlement boundary and the land is currently classified as agricultural. The garage owner has owned the land for some years and in the last few years has stopped even mowing the field and he now claims that it's not suitable for agriculture. That is clearly nonsense as it could easily be used for growing crops or grazing sheep like many of the fields nearby. This is what they have said in respect of planning Everything the community council does is biased. They made numerous objections to the houses being built here due to the perceived danger of the road. My next door neighbour was even asked not to leave his bins outside his house as it was apparently too dangerous, yet they are claiming that it's fine to have customers and recovery vehicles using the access road almost opposite the first house. I asked the council secretary when it was decided that they were supportive of the new development as claimed in the planning application, and she said that they were supportive of the business being moved elsewhere but hadn't actually gone as far as saying that they were supportive of the new location as she knows that this just moves the problem elsewhere. I guess we will see what happens. I spoke to my neighbour the other side in the listed cottage. He isn't supportive of the development either and will object. He is also worried that using part of the field for this purpose will set a precedent and further applications for other businesses on the field may follow.

Thanks. I am going to state something similar to that and I will also say that whilst there is road noise here it also means that there is more than enough noise here already so we shouldn't be subjected to any more noise. The way that the supporting statement reads is that as there is road noise any further noise shouldn't be a problem.

It’s not being put away from where people are living though is it, it’s being put opposite a number of dwellings. The guy has already dumped old wrecks in the field. The field is for agricultural use, not for the purpose he wants to use it for. The community council objected to the houses being built here because the road was apparently too busy and dangerous yet they now support additional traffic on the road because it means the garage being moved further away from where they live. They have admitted that it just moves the problem. If every agricultural field was allowed to be developed as an industrial site because the owners felt like it where would it end? There are plenty of more appropriate sites well away from all houses and where there are already commercial operations.

Yes of course but there are local garages in industrial units in the local towns. This is a guy who wants parking for 32 vehicles and additional parking for trucks and vans in a village of 400 people, and many people who live here are elderly without a car. He has cars parked all over the verges, roads and pavements currently, and wants to expand. We don’t even have a shop currently! I’m sure that would be more useful to villagers than a large garage. There is already a mobile mechanic who covers this area. Expansion of a business of this type belongs in a designated commercial area, not in an agricultural field IMO. Most villagers who have commented have said that they support the proposal as they can’t wait to see the back of the collection of cars and the mess, not because they really need a garage in the village. A couple of people have questioned why we need a business of this type in the village. Here are some of the comments. I hope the garage succeeds this time as maybe then all the cars will be removed. If that gets all the old wrecks he insists on parking along the old A1 off the public road, it's no bad thing. I'm interested to know why the CC are so keen to support and keep the garage in the area? in its current position it really doesn't help promote us as a village people would want to venture into due to the ridiculous amount of cars on either side of the road, the muddy state the grass gets churned into and the fact that if you have a pram, small children, are walking a dog, elderly, use a walking stick or wheel chair you've got no chance of being able to use the pavements and end up having to go onto the road, so the idea that it will be moving is music to my, and I'm sure many other people's ears. But the proposed new site will just be an eyesore, again not really encouraging people to come into the village as that field is already starting to look like a junk/scrap yard! Why can't it be relocated more inland?

Yes I may look at that. Assuming all 4 neighbours do object - the 2 houses further down the road from me (single storey listed cottages) won't really be able to see it. The ones the other side nearer the proposed site are not happy. Makes me laugh as we weren't allowed to change the windows to larger more modern looking ones because the house 'would lose the cottagy feel' said planning and now here we are intending to construct a large commercial building!

The proposal is for 6000 m2. That's 1.5 acres so not a small business proposal at all IMO !!

Numerous people have asked to buy the site. Always rejected. He applied for PP previously to develop the existing site for housing (a few years back). It was granted for 2 houses.

My neighbour has asked the Community Council why they haven't been notified and why I'm not on the list. The CC has replied and only neighbours adjacent and within 20m need to be notified but they will be posting details through the doors of the 4 houses here tomorrow. There are numerous complaints from the village about the current business. It's why they want it gone. They have said that noise shouldn't be a concern as there is already road noise here. The access is not really an issue - it's down a small road (dead end) that leads to the cemetery. They will create a new access in the old stone wall somewhere down that road.

I'm looking for some advice on opposing a proposed commercial development in the field opposite my house. The business in question is currently within the village and operates out of a building there. There are always a ton of cars parked all the way down the road on the grass verge that are from the garage. Either vehicles owned by them (they do roadside recovery work as well as car maintenance), or vehicles that they are working on for others. They claim that moving the garage to a different location would be advantegous to the village as they will still have access to the garage whilst removing the nuisance and vehicles. The site that they want to move it to is in a field opposite my house. The field is zoned agricultural and outside the settlement boundary. They claim that the field is overgrown and not useful for agriculture and there are no other suitable sites within the settlement boundary. It has become overgrown since they stopped mowing the field but it's true that it has never been used since I moved here more than 10 years ago. The ground adjacent to the far end of the field (similar in nature) has just been taken over by the village allotment society so clearly this type of ground can be made useful for growing crops. The proposal is for a building and 32 car parking spaces along with a designated area for van and truck parking. So a bit more than a small garage operation! The supporting statement says that the community council has indicated that it is supportive of the proposal. Unsurprising really given that they create a mess of cars everywhere in the village currently .... The supporting statement also notes that further to a pre-application assessment the placement of the building has been moved slightly to screen the site from the cemetery. The small village cemetery is next to the allotments. I can't really see the cemetery or allotments from my house currently but a large commercial building with extensive parking is a different matter entirely. It notes that they are not looking to site the garage directly in front of the 4 houses here so as not to interrupt the sea views we have here currently. Does the pre--application assessment indicate that the LA are likely to approve this development? The neighbour notification list surprisingly doesn't include my house, but it notes that my next door neighbours who are nearer the development by a few metres have been notified (they haven't). My neighbours saw it noted earlier today on the community council's Facebook page. Any advice on how to object to this is appreciated. Thanks!

This one https://www.karndean.com/en-gb/floors/products/rp90-fresco-light-oak Went for the Da Vinci range due to the better wear layer.

It’s not great for dogs in truth. Mine don’t go on it much as they are generally in the tiled areas but they do slip more than on tiles and it’s also more noisy. The best hard flooring I had for dogs was Karndean in my old house.

Folk who sent in October appear to have been paid. Mine took 20 weeks in 2018 without the Covid excuse so they're almost back to (their) normal ?

Why does this point at an issue with the actuary or insurance broker? If someone lies on their application or doesn’t declare something relevant that could make a material difference to the policy or ability to claim against it then the only person to blame is the policyholder surely? It’s like people on here who source a standard buildings and contents policy before the house is finished and don’t tell the insurer. If something happened and the house burnt down they may not be covered. That’s the risk you run if you do not disclose anything of relevance.