ToughButterCup

Hoselock Kwikstage Dursiol (pushing it a bit that one: the blocks do have a male and female 'end') Click flooring Cladding SDS Nulok roofing HeP 2O 'Taint warit yoused ter b is it?

And here, in his usual elegant prose, is Martin Goodhall's summary of a recent judgement in relation to Isolated House(s) in the Countryside ( @JSHarris's point above). Indeed, had this judgement been available at the time of the application for the land in question, Planning Permission might well have been given. However, the decision would still turn on the Delegated Officer's interpretation of national policy. The point at issue is that over-interpretation of policy is not a good idea. ' ... Excessive legalism in the planning system is always to be deprecated. The Court therefore agreed with the respondents’ submission that its task is to construe the words of the policy itself, reading them sensibly in their context. This is not a sophisticated exercise, and it need not be difficult. It is, in fact, quite straightforward. Planning policies, whether in the development plan or in the NPPF, ought never to be over-interpreted. As this case showed, over-interpretation of a policy can distort its true meaning – which is misinterpretation. ...'Goodhall April 2018 Accessed June 2018 For the sake of completeness, here's the source documentation. I believe the ramifications of this decision could very well have a significant bearing on the outcome of planning applications submitted by self-builders. In brief, the NPPF and associated planning documentation should not be over-interpreted. My choice quotation from the documentation; Excessive legalism in the planning system is always to be deprecated. (Martin Goodhall April 2108 accessed June 2018) and IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT PLANNING COURT MRS JUSTICE LANG DBE Accessed June 2018 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/610.html

I have had a few very civilised chats with the local Enforcement Officer. We are on first name terms. So my preference is for careful preparation based on a thorough review of the particular documentation in this case, and generally understanding what the global issues are. Going in harder is for later: much later. As for squeaky cleanness - there are some advantages in the plodding Germanic approach I tend to use (without realising that that's what people (Debbie) calls it) @daiking PMSL. You have a point, up to a point. There is local concern - the LPC have talked to me about it and it is a standing matter for discussion every time I show my face anywhere near a local councillor. I never raise the matter with them. It was the County councillor who emailed me to ask about progress. You are right to raise it though; I'll think about it. It's not doing me any good because it diverts effort and attention from the build, but I'm watching that As for my therapist: she (Debbie) would say ' .... pick your fight... ' and ' .... get the bloody roof finished....' Want something done? Ask a busy person. @newhome, I follow his blog assiduously: skim the irrelevant stuff and enjoy his beautifully crafted sentences for those bits in which I might have some interest.

Yes, yes and yes. Widening the net is a good idea. Doing that will be a bit hit and miss, but.... The ' ... It's up to them argument ...' The quick answer - because the Planners won't. And I am not enforcing anything: I can't. But I can point to Injustice (or what I see as that). I may be wrong, in which case I will just have to suck it up. But I'm not into the ' ..... but it's too hard for me ..... ' argument presented by someone whose salary we all pay. I have asked myself : what would my reaction be if the person in question (the person pushing the planning legislation to it's limit) were my very best mate. What would I do then? I would talk to him and work it through. But, in this case, despite lots of good will and effort on my part, that hasn't worked. Detail isn't appropriate here. No, @ProDave, that's the other side. Maybe what is driving this is my misguided sense of having to follow rule. The evidence - at least locally - is that some people do what they please. And get away with it because of the ' .... That's up to them .... ' approach. In which case, what's the point? Stuff it, I'll build a shed on my land and then use it as an office, ignore our GCNs, kill them at will if they are in the wrong place, tap into the local water supply and tell nobody, lie to the planners for as long as I can get away with it. When judgements go against me, I'll Appeal, when that fails, I'll just do it anyway.

Here's the full text of the HoPs email to my local councillor and sent to me.... We appreciate that this is not a satisfactory situation, however, the developer is making use of permitted development rights which we believe provide a loophole for someone wishing to live on a site, but one which we cannot easily deal with. We tried a few years ago to take enforcement action on a very similar case elsewhere in the borough and lost. We are therefore reluctant to go down the same road unless we have a strong case. It is probably a matter on which we will need to get specialist (and expensive!) legal advice. My fear is that, through false analogy, the HoP is kicking this can down the road. This case may well be stronger than the one to which he refers. Even Google Maps documents the ludicrous state of affairs thus; Click this link It takes you to Google Maps. Look at the date on the bottom of the image. It shows that the satellite image was taken in 2018. You can see our build at the top (roofless house) and the plot of land -the one of concern here- directly to the south Now click on the street view link for that map (or click here) It takes you to an image taken at street level. Look at the date of the image : it's 2009. As luck would have it on that day, the Street View image shows a yellow notice of Application for Planning Permission (for a house) was fixed to the gate of the Old Quarry. The Street View image has not been updated for nine years, but the map has been. The foundation you can see is for a stables, NOT for a house PP for the house was refused at Appeal long ago (March last year). The owner is dragging out the build for the stables as long as he can. So far about 30 blocks have been laid in 9 years. The HoP defines that as ' ... [a situation] we cannot easily deal with... ' My attitude to that is - you are paid very high salary - dealing with difficult stuff is your job So, I need to get stuck into this one (not at the expense of my own build). The first step is some thorough research. Hence the question - to which decision is the HoP referring when he says We tried a few years ago to take enforcement action on a very similar case elsewhere in the borough and lost. (?) My bet is that he makes a false analogy. Let's see if my 'nose' is right

We all know one of those. A nod and a wink lives near Preston ?

Trawled through that a few times : but I'm beginning to think about phone call is what is needed.

Wyre Borough...

Folks, which type of court hears planning issues?

@newhome: what a friggin good idea. Can't beat them? Join in.

Exactly. Not sure about the hammer, though.?

I need to do a bit of research. I want to find out which cases my LPA has presented for consideration in a court. The Head Of Planning locally responded to a recent request of mine (to prevent someone using a caravan as a domicile rather than a worksite hut) saying simply, based on a similar local case, that it would be difficult to do and cost too much to enforce. I'd like to find out whether the analogy the Planning Officer draws is correct. To do that I'd like to find out which Planning issues have been presented for consideration at court by our Local Planning Authority.

'S wot wimmin are for innit? Nagglin' an' ferretin' stuff out innit? Come to think of it, 's 'ow she found me.

Try doing multivariate analysis for either of those disciplines and then tell us it isnt.

I've almost given up trying Gary.... November for a roofer, 10 weeks for my next door neighbour chippy ; ask at the pub where all the trades drink - polite smiles and ; I'll get back to ya mate....

Make sure you create a pit for waste concrete. A shallow trench, a few pegs and four boards will do. Get the driver to flush the concrete into the pit; hey presto, a level, firm work surface - almost free of charge.

You can't . You need to know the people involved. Here Be Dragons. Lots of them. Get a contractor you can trust.

Ask them by email. Keep a copy. 5 working days' silence means get on with it. When they try and charge you, send them a copy of the email.

And there's the trap. There are so many ways of accounting for (kidding oneself about) the true cost of a self-build. Everyone has their own idea of what constitutes a cost, and what doesn't. And yet everyone wants to know. Of all the people who visit us, everyone, and I mean everyone always wants to talk about cost. The only fair, consistent and publicly available models of costing a build are given by the the RICS, or SPONS. Those models don't work very well for self build (they weren't designed for that). I stopped listing mine (on BH) because of some consistently tactless comment. So people tend to keep schtum. Just in case they might be seen as having overpaid I suspect. You will get a close a figure as possible asking on BH. But local variations always apply. The thing is, once you are hooked into a new-build, there's no going back. No reserve parachute. You just dig in and get the job done.

I found an exact one meter error (in the placing of one marker) Its a bugger when you pay people to make mistakes for you and then have to check for yourself. But that's this self-building game. A snagging retainer works well too. So far I have (on the basis of evidence) retained £9600. And not a peep from the contractors whose work has needed remediation.

It's part of the game. The antidote is networking. With the emphasise on working.

and Don't even think of it where piling is concerned. The consequences of putting piles in the wrong place (as a result of inaccurate setting out) are substantial. A surveyor with a Total Station will get it right to within 3mm. The first thing the piling company will want to see is an accurate plan and soil profile. The risks associated with errors at this stage are significant. Check the survey yourself by Pythagoras by all means. PS our piler had it's own GPS equipment: they double checked our setting out.

Heart in mouth, I always try to get Debbie to use power tools, with me hovering in the background. Sometimes, there's flat refusal, others incomprehension (cam-ing out in an impact driver) . But she tries. I kind of wish she didn't want to.....

Our windows people, Gaulhofer, take the opposite view. They disappear into mm level detail. We'll see when they come and fit them.... Ian

Thought I'd bump this thread to show progress (only interesting in terms of how to solve this problem with Durisol ) and to ask a question: Do I need to put a bit of underboarding under the in-fill pieces of Durisol? This is progress so far.... (have a look at the original image of the same area above) ( the top of the block is now 28mm or so below the top of the rafter verge so I can cap it off with 25mm of PIR and then felt and batten) What interest me though is this gap.... The wall will be clad: the cladding sits on 50 by 50 battens and then there will be some standard cladding outside that: in other words the gap will disappear. But the gap won't be sealed (I suppose), so wouldn't it be a good idea to put some underboarding on top of the wall that's already built, but under the in-fill that I am about to fix into place with concrete? Once that's in there, that's it.