jack

But what the client did was clearly intensely stupid, and they (not you) ended up paying for their actions. Yes, some inconvenience to you, but they could just as easily have manipulated a PDF produced by the earlier architect to remove a note about a survey not being complete.

I've made it something of a mission to defend architects on this site, but in this case, I agree with you. Unless there's some legislation or caselaw supporting his position, the PI excuse is lame, imo. I appreciate why an architect would contract to retain ownership and control. It gives you a lever if you haven't been paid, for example. But if the client doesn't want to use the architect beyond a certain stage, and they're paid up, I can't see any reasonable basis for not releasing the CAD files. I also don't follow your conclusion about an architect being legally responsible for downstream modification and manipulation by others. How is that possible? If you email the files, you have a cast iron record of the form in which they were sent. Any modifications after that are clearly outside your control and responsibility, and therefore surely can't be your or your PI's responsibility? With suitable disclaimers (not that I think they're even necessary), what's the problem?

We mentioned to our architect that we were tired of being asked by everyone who saw his (very modern) plans whether we were going on Grand Designs. He said that if we did that, he'd be out the door immediately!

The alleged discounts were a large part of my wife's interest, but I wasn't convinced there'd be that many.

My wife worked at a small film and television production company when we met. I've seen a few bits and pieces of the process - definitely not glamorous!

We know someone with contacts into the Grand Designs production office and we were asked if we wanted to apply. My wife would have done it, but I have no interest in appearing on television under any circumstances, let alone stressful ones!

I'd assume that was the reason, and enjoy the resulting feeling!

Interesting. There's clearly more going on than is reported in the article.

That definitely isn't what I take from the headnote you quoted. Perhaps the case as a whole says more. I'm going to stop arguing now, as I think it's a bit of a moot point given that this part of the covenant clearly has no practical effect. My suspicion is that whoever drafted it just used standard language for such covenants, and didn't consider whether it could actually apply to this particular situation.

But I'm not saying that it's safe simply because it's sold within Europe. I'm saying that the device is sold within Europe, hence buying it from AliExpress should be no worse than buying the same device from a European retailer. I concede that there's a risk that even though they look identical, there's a difference between what you get in Europe and from AliExpress.

Playing devil's advocate Jeremy, you've had no trouble identifying the land from intrinsic evidence, so it's the other clause that I'd be relying on!

I think your arguments are generally sound, except that it's the benefited and burdened lands that need to be "reasonably close together", rather than the dwellings. I think it passes that test, but not all the others. Also, having read your comments above, I misinterpreted the covenant when I initially skim-read it. For the sake of others that might make the same mistake, all of the stuff up until "AND FURTHER" is actually protecting the right of the vendor to build other buildings that interfere with the light and air enjoyed by Jeremy's property by way of the "green land". The only rights that the green land enjoys are "such rights of light and air ... as they would be entitled to if the property hereby conveyed and the green land were in separate ownership and indefeasible rights of light and air as at present enjoyed in respect of the green land had been acquired under the Prescription Act 1832." If I interpret this clause correctly, then all it's saying is that the green land enjoys a specific, limited right to light and air only to the extent that it would have existed had the properties previously been owned separately at the time Jeremy's land was conveyed, and even then only to the extent that such rights would have been acquired under the Prescription Act 1832. In other words, I don't think you should even look at the current right to light laws to interpret this part of the covenant. For example, I don't think that common law rights are covered by this clause, unless they're referenced in the Prescription Act 1832. Since no dwelling on the green land appears to have had such benefit of light and air (although you might want to check out the "Prescription Act 1832" to be sure!) at the time of conveyance, I can't see that any such right can exist now.

We had a couple of bits and pieces from Aliexpress - some ball valves and motorised valves in particular. All were very good quality, and the two or three suppliers we used were responsive and spoke perfectly understandable English. I also bought some LED dimmers that I know have CE certification (they're sold through a couple of EU websites, and an electrician on another site has taken them apart and checked that they meet local standards). We had problems with a couple of them, and again, the supplier was helpful and responsive. I'm sure the experience isn't always this good, but I'd happily use AliExpress again. The prices were less than half of what I could find locally for identical hardware. You do need to keep in mind that you don't get a VAT reclaim (for those building new), so with that and the delivery delay, I think the price needs to be really keen to make it worthwhile.

Ouch. Suggest you bring a cake.

Not for me

If it's your solicitor pushing for it, push back, for sure. I'd use the arguments above, and encourage him to forward them to the buyer. If the buyer doesn't need a mortgage, then there's no third party compelling them to get this insurance. You're therefore effectively being asked to pay a premium for an optional, and probably valueless, insurance policy that would in any event only benefit the other party. They might as well ask you to pay their mortgage application fee, imo. We have various covenants on our property from the early 50s. Stuff like no circuses or shooting galleries, no lived-in caravans, the requirement to maintain a hedge between points B and C on the plan (but there's no B or C shown on any version of the plan we've been able to find). We were told that the mortgage provider required us to pay for covenant insurance directed to covenant that said the original 1952 seller had to approve the appearance of any dwelling house built onsite. This clearly dated to the time when the surrounding land was subdivided (it was a farm and then a quarry), and the seller clearly couldn't suffer any damage from us technically breaching one interpretation of the language by knocking down the original dwelling and redeveloping the site 60 years later. It was going to cost ~£800, from memory. It was mentioned once before the mortgage was finalised, but it somehow didn't get raised again until weeks after we'd moved in. I ignored the solicitor's reminder around that time, because as far as I was concerned, if it was a requirement of the mortgage, they shouldn't have given us the money without it. In the end, we never heard about it again..

Sure, but the neighbours' comments you were asking about have no more relevance to building in the countryside than they do to development generally. Using an experienced, local planning consultant is by far your best bet for dealing with this issue. I'd say that neighbours' potential objections have fallen even further in relative importance, given the broader planning challenge you face.

Absolutely not. Re: spacing, there's planning guidance covering all aspects of overlooking, including what is considered reasonable spacing between, eg, rear elevations of properties. From memory, the distance is 21 or 22m. If you're over that, there's simply no basis for objection. As for devaluing their house, again, that isn't a planning consideration and will be ignored. Joe90 is dead right about the building site too - if inconvenience associated with building were a planning consideration, nothing would ever get built, as someone is nearly always inconvenienced by the construction process. Just bear in mind that things get built all the time, often (usually?) in situations where the surrounding properties are affected. The planning office will only consider valid planning objections, and on the face of it, your neighbours don't have any. Also bear in mind that it's very rare for a member of the general public to come up with a valid, reasonable basis for objection that won't already have been taken into account by the planning officer. The odds go up a bit if they engage a planning consultant, but most don't. In my opinion, the main risk associated with objections is that if you get a certain number of them (5 is common, I believe), that may be a trigger for the application to be brought before the council's planning committee. At that point, things can become more difficult, stressful, murky and unpredictable, because councillors rarely have the knowledge or experience to apply the law correctly. This can go your way, but can also go against you. You can always appeal, but that adds to the cost, time and stress of getting permission.

Nicely done, glad it worked out so well. Well if they're the only objections you face, great! Why do so many people think not wanting to look at a house in the distance is a reasonable basis for objection? If that were a basis for objecting, there'd never be any new builds other than in remote areas.

Jeremy mentioned someone he knew building a temporary ramp out of a weak concrete mix. They just broke it up after signoff. I'm going to try for signoff without doing anything about ours. If they insist, I'll ask them for their help in coming up with a solution. It's private building control, so I'm hoping this isn't something they're going to care too much about. I know for a fact that I could pull a wheelchair across the existing threshold if needed, and if we had a friend or relative who needed level access, we'd buy or make a portable ramp.

Sure, if the developer is Taylor Wimpey sized, I wouldn't for a moment have suggested this approach. I had the impression it was a smaller developer, but looking back, there isn't actually evidence of that, so I may well have jumped the gun.

Agreed, and I can't see why they'd be so reticent to do it given a willingness to pay for it.

It depends on how long you plan to stay, but are you able to design a house that will have everything you need right now, but be easily extendable in the future (ideally under permitted development) to give a house that is more appropriate to the plot? One approach would be to go for something L-shaped, with provision to extend by filling in the internal corner with another room downstairs and a bedroom above, and perhaps going out on the ground floor with a single storey extension. You could get an awful lot more space this way in the future while having something perfectly liveable and affordable today. You should be able to bring a larger house in at less than £2000/m2 with some careful planning. A nice, simple floorplan is easier and cheaper to build than something "interesting". With careful planning and buying, kitchens and bathrooms (both major expenses) can be done a lot more cheaply than some end up paying. You may not be in a position to project manage, but even being involved in purchasing can help bring the costs down. Builders aren't that interested in saving every last penny by shopping around, so there's definitely a few bob to be saved if you do some of the running around on big ticket items yourself.

I don't believe any sanding is needed. You may want to confirm whether a sealer/primer is recommended for whatever floor covering you plan to lay.

I don't know about the need for moisture readings, but the stuff on the top is called laitance, and it should be removed (by sanding) before any form of adhered flooring goes down: https://www.easyflow.org.uk/additional-services/laitance-removal-screed-sanding/ There are some newer screeds that allegedly don't develop laitance, but the possible costs of rectifying the floor if it fails in the future makes me think that you should sand it anyway.