ToughButterCup

Time to move?

Which is exactly why I asked what the scientific rationale is for the requirements in relation to SSIs. None, it would seem. Maybe the requirement is about volume of discharge....? A simple explanatory sentence in the guidance would clarify the matter. (Hmmm, I wonder....)

Our plumber pointed out that the position the supplier required for our meter meant that there was ample opportunity for bypass. I told him not to, as that would be illegal. I was sorely tempted. And I am no saint. Yet.

I'm looking forward to making our own built-in wardrobes this autumn. We're not able to afford professionally made built in stuff: the quotes we had were just too high. All I need now is a bit of temporary workshop space (rented) Now, I'm off to a barby to try and forget the mental image of @pocster in girly underwear. God thats gross, gross, gross.

? Apologies: hard-of-thinking on Tuesdays

Network locally. With the emphasis on work. That's the first level of attack. Local politicians, agents, developers, builders, planners. Golf course(?). Then research the LPAs website for similar applications. Read them all. Know everything about similar applications: why? You'll be a difficult target for overworked planners. Read through all the similar cases discussed here on BH. Then, put all that research together, synthesise your findings, and put them to the BH Commentariat. We'll masticate it all for you in short order.

and @Sue B, where is that requirement to be found, please? I've mis-read the GBRs perhaps? The reason I ask is that you'd have to have a huge house and as many bedroom as Blenheim Palace to get to 5 cubic meters a day..... So whats the scientific logic behind the requirement?

There you are @oxo, hard won experience from @Johnnyt. Get a thicker skin, hit them hard. Get a full-on proper Planner. One who pays attention to detail - uncomfortably so.

See what I mean @oxo? Not 319 or 321, 320mm of backset. Now, if only I knew what backset is .... life would peachy.

@oxo, how dare you call me merely buttercup. I'm tough, OK , TOUGH. Well, I was once. ? In relation to MikeSharp01's suggestion, I think if you get a hint that sustainability is an issue, then his idea would be one way of delivering that. Mike always has good ideas.....

Hmm, @Bramco, you have me sucking my teeth here. The planning application process is complex, delicate, infuriating, demanding, and endlessly interesting. So much ambition and energy (nervous or otherwise) hangs there in the balance . And a few wrong words, a tiny bit of wrongly handled micropolitics and mammaries point at the ceiling. If outside the local planning coterie, there's no substitute for reading voraciously. In every sense of the term, Planners and their courtiers are an elite. The only counter to their laziness / dismissiveness / insularity is knowledge. And they know applicants are ambitious. THE key attribute to bend others to their will. I am very pleased indeed to know that a just-in-case-you-didnt-know post was of some use. Thanks for the feedback. Appreciate it.... Ian

@oxo, I said I'd point you to some resources on Consitency in Planning. The Importance of Consistency in Planning: a good overview An earlier thread on BH about the subject Want the source of the decision? North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 65 P & CR137. (widely referred to online)

Well @oxo, looks like you got your answer. Yes, appeal A quick canter through some of the reasons you should do so: COVID and no visit. - Pure tosh. Are they saying they can't jump in a car and visit cos of C-19? Sorry, that's convenient lazy-arsed b0ll0cks. Inspectors are at this very moment cruising the country on Inspection visits and have been throughout. Lazy, lazy lazy argument. out of character - no site visit hmmmm, how can a reasonable judgement be made if no site visit ? limits (to) size and space - tell me where those measures are limitless... do an accurate comparison of yours vs other locals, and suggest a compromise in %age terms. Skin the cat differently. Ignore local objectors. Develop a thick skin. In the words of one contibutor Stuff Em. Local comparisons: your post earlier today, excellent - the start of an evidence base: now go and get 3 more. Document them carefully. Present them well. Presentation and accuracy are key - the reputation of any Planner you employ should be based on results, and not local lore. Look at the decisions he / she wrote and analyse them carefully. You need concise, punchy, accurate attention to detail. Not reputation. Time to change Planner? Dont make yourself an easy target. Know the guts of all the local decisions in similar properties- yep, hard work. But the exercise will repay the effort. Know why applications were refused, and why they succeeded. Take @MikeSharp01's idea and run with it. It'll give the thing an interesting twist: sustainability / green agenda. Did I mention, develope a thick skin? Oh yeah..... sorry. Worth saying again. Persistence. Ian

I am aware that , for good reason, you might not want to, but could you give us a map? A Google map would do, please.

Bosch GTX 10 XC. Because I'm a Bosch, and lack imagination. Vorsprung durch Selbstbau.

Here's the starts to a plan of attack: 1. ... An 'overdominant rear extension failing to respect the character and appearance of the subject property' , does not deny you the chance to make an extension that isn't over dominant. What is meant by over dominant? Its either dominant or not. Over dominant means - to me - the author isn't quite sure of him(?)self. Chink of light already. '...would adversely reduce the size of the garden and affect the existing sense of openness....' Any extension reduces the size of any garden and always of necessity reduces openness. I smell weakness in the agument application site is constrained by containing a narrow, irregular rear garden compared to other buildings. Is this correct? In percentage terms, how correct is the author? If for example you garden is 20% smaller - would a 20% small extension help things? the result of which would be a cumulative harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. So is the argument that yours is the straw that breaks the Camels back? If so , BINGO. Principle of Consistency applies (more on that later - just got in from work, knackered) 2 How correct is this as the additional bulk would result in a two storey height flank wall on the boundary of a public footpath, which would create an oppressive sense of enclosure to the route, that the existing set back respects. Look for local precedent: Argue along the lines you allowed this here, here and here so why not now. Principle of Consistency applies 3 Same argument as 1 above More particularly, the depth and bulk of the first floor level extension and its close proximity to neighbouring residential properties, results in an overbearing and dominating effect for the residents Can you reduce the depth and bulk? Map? Plan? so we can help more. Sorry this is a bit hasty - in a rush. Regards, Ian

Right. Now we can do something about it.... I'm on a phone browser, let me switch to a decent machine....

Ah Choice Theory. Love it. Quite close in some ways to the notion of heating a house and how warm people feel. All over the house it's a balmy 21 - 22 "I'm cold" comes the plaintive cry. Oh fer gaaauuuud's sake, how much effort did we put in to making sure the undefloor heating stabilised at 20 - 22 . When the FRIGGIN THEORY was based on male perceptions of warmth . Rational Actors indeed.

They're not paying for it @jack, the customer is. Selfbuild is Self-interest writ large. Trades have zero incentive to save on materials. Unless intelligent engagement with the whole build kicks in. How many of us here have - on our own sites - been horrified at the waste, ullage, overage, call it what you will on-site? On ours, I nearly decked one oaf for simply destroying 7 or 8 Durisol blocks. That bit of vandalism caused the loss of £1000 worth of concrete. I've already explained how we adjusted for that bit of rank stupidity...

His technique was cheaper, and altogether simpler. Build a BFO wall. Buy and deploy a big BFO Rhodesian Ridgeback, and make and hang pair of BFO steel gates.

There's no place for emotion on this... let's focus on facts. What does the decision notice say?

All credit to you for having that approach. Knowing why you are not doing what you and others might reasonably expect you to do is challenging, healthy and stops the '.... Why didn't you do it like this ? ...' question dead in its tracks For what its worth, my stock answer to that - often ill-intentioned - question is ' Because I'm not you ' (and add whatever epithet needed to get rid of my annoyance under my breath) Often TFFT. ? Wecome . Ian

That word: says it all. I have a great deal of sympathy for all concerned in this sorry matter. Many factors have contibuted to an entirely unsatisfactory outcome for all. The root of it: mis-handled micropolitics, I think

Stuff the objections. Seriously, stuff em. The only thing that matters is the Decision Notice. Address the issues listed there, and you stand a chance. Post the Decision Notice would you please (copy / paste). Thanks

Nearly. During that period, the caravan became a house. So the owner shot himself right in the 10 Year Rule (see below) The Notice is merely quashed. And Earlier the Inspector commented: Ah, thank the Good Lord for the 10 year rule, eh? I think I agree Ian. He is also, pending the outcome of that process, able to submit another Planning Application. But this time, I have a strong feeling that the Enforcement is likely to be as water-tight as @pocster's glazing or @Onoff's shower tray. In other words, he won't be able to live in the field in anything pending a successful planning application. The excellent thing about this decision is that the owner has had to allow the Inspector to have access. We now - six years later - know exactly what is there. And we know what truth claims were made about what is on the field.