ToughButterCup

I once sold a newish house with cracks like yours. The purchaser asked if I would reduce the price on the basis of the cracks. I agreed to do so if could show me a house less than 12 months old without similar cracks. Sold that day....

You call that a rant? Really? Ed, you have too positive an attitude - still - to have a proper rant: a proper juicy, spittle filled rant; one thats as unpleasant to write as it is to read; one thats as cathartic to write as it as as crotch-gripping for the reader who has to read it peeping between the fingers of the other hand. Look at all the things you do right: all the videos you publish freely, giving those who haven't got a clue (like me) just enough courage to have a go for ourselves, the guts to work at the day job Monday to Saturday and then spend evenings and Sunday on the house. Need a proper rant? Send me a copy before you publish the next one and I'll sex it up for ya. Proper job. Free of charge. ?

How long is a piece of string? Tell us what research you have already done for yourself.

Welcome. This forum is probably one of the most supportive I've seen. The quality of the answers to each of your questions depends on the detail you give us. At the moment, it's too easy to reply ' it depends ' to each of them. So I suggest you choose the appropriate sub-forum and ask there. A plan, a photo, or a scanned sketch help us to help you.

Have you considered the Planning Permission issue? Took 10 seconds to get these prices......

Soap Under Direct Supervision : its what cleaning folk do, supervise the saponification of grease stains .......... OR Sustainable Drainage Systems : can't remember which.....

Got the urinal set at the right angle too. Top man!

Welcome. We need a bit more detail to be able to help. A simple sketch plan would be great.

Well we'll have to see what Debbie has to say about that then, eh? 'She's welcome to 'im, long as 'ees back on the build on Monday 7.30 sharp ' I have such a hard life folks....

They used to be called a cleaning lady. Put a postcard in the local shop. You'll get someone easy...?

Indeed @Ferdinand so, its worth reproducing in re-formatted and slightly summarised form here. (Wish I hadn't read your post ....? until later) The summary / Bowdlerisation I supply here should not be seen as accurate. I encourage everyone to read the full text. https://www.buckles-law.co.uk/site/library/planning-news/supreme-court-clarifies-paragraphs-14-and-49-of-the-nppf In respect of applications for planning permission where an LPA does not have a five year supply of land paragraphs 14 and 49 of the NPPF are relevant. Paragraph 49 is about the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Paragraph 14 is about the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which means: approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted Unless material considerations dictate otherwise (what's material and what isn't?) Applying Paragraph 49 – the first stage Judges have adopted a narrow interpretation of what is meant by ‘policies for the supply of housing’. Namely, it is only housing supply policies that are to be considered ‘out of date’ in paragraph 49. The second issue was more simply a question of fact as to whether or not there was a five year deliverable land supply. If there was no such five year supply then paragraph 14 applies. The Supreme Court noted that it mattered not what policies caused the lack of five year supply. Applying Paragraph 14 – the second stage If there is no five year land supply then paragraph 14 is engaged. Paragraph 14 provides for what is commonly caused the ‘tilted balance’ in favour of granting planning permission. Namely, planning permission should be granted unless adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. Two issues are important to understand in relation to paragraph 14. Firstly, the development plan (including the housing supply policies) retains its statutory force under section 38(6) but the focus shifts to ‘other material considerations’. The ‘other material considerations’ will then be determined in accordance with the national guidance in paragraph 14. Secondly, whilst the housing supply policies are to be considered out of date for the ‘other material consideration’ assessment (the narrow interpretation) planning weight may still be given to other policies in the development plan. However, such weight must be considered on the ‘significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’ test founded on the golden thread of sustainable development. This ‘tilted balance’ test is a matter of planning judgement and the weight to be given to remaining local development plan policies is a matter for the decision maker. The specific policies restricting development in the Framework remain applicable under paragraph 14 includes not only restrictive policies within the Framework itself but also development plan policies for which the Framework refers. The example given being greenbelt policies. Neighbourhood Planning – Written Ministerial Statement. Though not mentioned in the Supreme Court decision, it is worth noting the effect of written ministerial statement of Gavin Barwell (Minister of State for Housing & Planning) on 12 December 2016 (“the WMS”). The statement provides as follows: “This means that relevant policies for the supply of housing in a neighbourhood plan, that is part of the development plan, should not be deemed to be ‘out-of-date’ under paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework where all of the following circumstances arise at the time the decision is made: This written ministerial statement is less than 2 years old, or the neighbourhood plan has been part of the development plan for 2 years or less; the neighbourhood plan allocates sites for housing; and the local planning authority can demonstrate a three-year supply of deliverable housing sites.” While the WMS is currently the subject of legal challenge, its current effect is to preserve the neighbourhood plan policies as ‘up to date’ within the paragraph 14 ‘tilted balance’ assessment. Therefore, together with all of the other non-local plan housing supply policies, they will remain a material consideration to be weighed under paragraph 14 as part of the planning judgement of the decision maker. Caution to challengers of planning judgement decisions The Supreme Court also took the opportunity to re-enforce the role of the Courts in judicial challenges to planning decisions. On matters of planning judgement the judges noted that the planning inspectorate should be considered analogous to that of expert tribunals and that Courts should not unduly intervene in policy judgements within their area of specialist competence. This highlights the great difficulty applicants will face challenging planning judgement decisions solely on the Wednesbury reasonableness grounds (and especially those of the planning inspectorate). The Court continued by noting the judges of the Planning Court ‘are entitled to look to applicants, seeking to rely on matters of planning policy in applications to quash planning decisions (at local or appellate level), to distinguish clearly between issues of interpretation of policy, appropriate for judicial analysis, and issues of judgement in the application of that policy; and not to elide the two’. Lesson: there are no real winners and losers in the Supreme Court’s clarification of the interpretation and application of paragraphs 14 and 49 of the NPPF. For local planning authorities the Court has helpfully retained the material relevancy of non supply of housing policies in the planning judgement of the decision maker. However, at the same time decision makers may likely attach less weight to such policies (as they affect the supply of housing) in their planning judgement under the ‘titled balance’ test in paragraph 14.

This image best illustrates coverage and overlap. Weight is another factor - perhaps not so important. Its roughly one third of its slate equivalent, I think.

Jack leg?

And this is how quickly the tiles can be replaced.... Clear the broken tiles, shove under the tile above and .... 10 minutes later all six tiles have been pushed into place There's a gap in the tiling to allow for the fact that some idiot or other put the Kwikstage too close to the house.? Rookie scaffold error that....

The Party Wall Act is the place for you. Here is the answer I and others gave to a very similar problem Ian

? Are you posh or wot? The wind is due to drop later today, I'll pop up and fit the replacement tiles and take some photos for those who are interested in Nulok

Yes. But.... In this case there's no lifting surface behind the slot: so, to pursue the aviation analogy, I am hoping I have created several lift dumps. And just in case I haven't, i've harnessed the boards to half a tonne or so of metal, and that in turn is secured to a section of up-wind scaffolding. OK, in view of tonight's little set of gust fronts, you're going to tell me I should have taken the boards off the scaffold aren't you? Bugger.

????

Rag-tops, always the weakest link in any Landy. Never quite had the courage to fit one on mine.

I'd be extremely interested in reading that advice - or reading round that advice. The lifting force local to that corner of the house is directly proportional to the wind direction. In this case anything North of North West really 'gets it'. My little bit of aerodynamics understanding makes me wonder if I have - in creating the slots - merely created three or four turbulators that would be likely to puncture any drag bubble (downward pressure) there might be above the boards - thus increasing the lift acting on the boards. 'Nother sleepless night in store, it seems.

Sufferin' scaffold boards Batman! Them boards is a flyin' ! Where to Robin? Off the scaffold and onto the roof Batman And there indeed they sat sneering at us. This one is quite artfully placed... This one was angrier and smashed a few more tiles than the first one And now for the good news. The tiles are Nulok tiles. Theres already quite a bit written about them - here if you want to follow it up The good thing about them is that they are very easy to replace : I mean even a doddery old codger like me can do it First, throw the broken tiles off the roof (yes I checked to see if Debbie was out of range) and and then replace the tiles. I haven't done that yet...... because For once I obeyed SWMBO, and came down off the scaffold because it was quite lively up there. But not before I had attached the scaffold boards to the scaffold with 3 tonne straps and not before I had thrown one scaffold board per bay down off the scaffold. I wanted to allow the pressure from tonight's gusts to dissipate rather than lift. So now, from the ground the scaffold looks like this; Replacing the tiles? Easy. Slide a new one under the clips. Job done. Had our roof been a normally slated roof, couldn'a done that now could I? Well - I'll do it when the wind dies down; have to do what SWMBO says (occasionally).

I cannot remember the excuse. The reason was the normal one. Insufficient production capacity. Spun as ' ... a success - related problem ...'

Ditto on ours.... Craig'll be along in a bit to confirm.

18 weeks eh? Only 18 weeks. DURISOL, ordered November 2016, delivered end of April 2017. Just sayin' ..... Oh, and by the way, if you now break / lose / otherwise mislay / under order / have a meat head on the team who couldn't give a toss and so breaks a few / you'll have a similar wait. I learned to use the enforced wait to plan: wish I'd done more.

DURISOL finds communication difficult . Now where have we heard that before? Properly used the product is excellent. Why allow your incautiously phrased website content to threaten that?