ToughButterCup

Objections: forewarned is forearmed. Here's some practical help May I suggest that if you are pressed for time you follow the link (above) to the Government's own advice of what cannot be considered. My oh my, sooooo much rubbish is routinely talked about planning proposals.

Breaking ground today and your post is therefore particularly welcome. Help me @MikeSharp01 get my head round this, please.... In the photo above, the former shows how the foul drain is connected to the shower drain the holes in the former allow you to check that the concrete has flowed to the level of the bottom of the former and the final level of the concrete will be level with the top of the former The floor make up elsewhere will be (say) 25mm higher than the top of the former It's Monday, and I feel like a Bear-With-A-Small-Brain today. Have I got this right?

Exactly. That's what I remember. The insulation might well handle it, though. I'll be interested to see what happens Ian

indeed.

@Onoff, tell me I've got this wrong..... UFH under the wet area of the shower floor? I kind of wince at the thought of heat near the shower drain. Evaporation......

£5.00 per hour. Worth double that for the entertainment value. The image of him using a blower to clean the bed of a low loader will stay with all those of us who watched it. Billows of dust arcing high into wind and descend in a dense cloud round his head. Priceless. The way he attacked a huge lump of best Lancashire Glacial Till with a house brush had us all pi55ing ourselves. And his idea of steel-toecaps had the ground workers enjoying themselves stamping on his toes. "I say! That was decidedly uncool Mr Simpson" "Less uncool than dropping that road plate on your foot eh?" Off he went to buy a pair of Aldi's finest Worth every penny. Ian

6F2 (recycled) as opposed to 6F5 (fresh). 2 is £9.20 per tonne and 5 is £10.50 round here.

Bush Telegraph?

Seriously, teenagers is where its at (man)

I had the same issue. Solved by employing a teenager. Well, one and a half. Let me explain. I found out the hard way that the lad in question, despite protestations to the contrary, didn't know how to use a deck broom, or hose, or shovel or leaf blower. And had to be taught. Taught by the other teenager I employ. Had to be taught that each vehicle that left the site would cause the same problem, and the sooner the mess was cleared up the easier his job would be. Had to be taught that a leaf blower doesn't work well when used against a strong wind. Had to be taught that eye protection, though '...seriously uncool, man...' is essential. Had to be taught that a shovel outperforms a deck broom with large lumps of clay. Both lads from the same locality, one very privileged indeed, one the opposite. Not hard to work out who taught whom.

Since this thread is all about evidence, what evidence is there for the TLF? (Taddington Liberation Front) Hmmmm?

Hmmm. Time to put this to bed: and go for a long walk. Wiser, more cynical. I am grateful for your eye for detail and depth of engagement, @Ferdinand Ian

Thanks @Ferdinand. You are right, it's put up or shut up time - nearly. The German in me says it's simple. It's late. The reasonable in me says , so what, let it run. The annoyance in me says why the Hell should we bend over for those who shout loudest? The irritated in me says words written in an official capacity can easily be meaningless, even when its a simple matter of looking at a submission date. My aim? To point out unfair procedure when it exists.

That's yer GCN. It is perfectly legal to -in order to prevent injury or death- remove one to a place of safety. Its a good idea to wet your hands before doing so.

Yer a proper wind-up-merchant aren't ya? () We are even now trying to recover the children's' pocket money: why? They, as paid up members of the Herpetology Club, went round the local ponds and -laden with buckets of harvested GCNs- brought them back to 'our ponds'. Full PP brought our folly to light and many thousands of pounds later, I contemplate our stupidity at leisure. With a slight smile. We have created two extra hibernaculae so that future generations will be able have the same experience we had last weekend. A GCN waltzing brazenly across our bedroom floor looking for all the world as if it was, like we were, starting our daily commute to work.

Well @Mr Punter, how else is it possible to read the the text below ? (here is the full text) The text italics below is the response of the application validation manager.... [...] Your comments have been noted , and I can confirm that a review of this case has been carried out. I should firstly point out that the Local Planning Authoritys (LPA) decision notice clearly states that if you wanted to appeal against their decision to refuse planning permission you must have done so within 6 months of the date of the notice. The decision notice is dated 12 May 2016 and 6 months from that date is 12th November 2016. I should point out that Article 37 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 confirms that an applicant who wishes to appeal under section 78 of the 1990 Planning Act shall serve notice on the Planning Inspectorate within the time limit specified. As you are aware, in the case of a planning development, the time limit specified is 6 months. You served notice with the submission of the appeal form and supporting documents and this was received online in the Planning Inspectorate on 22 November 2016, 10 days after the time limit. We are therefore unable to take any action on it. [...] And here is the original Appeal Application form showing clearly that the form was submitted late This has the distinct whiff of maladministration for me.

The Inspectorate either mean what they say about time scales, or they don't. Fairness, or not.

You'd want me to to evidence that statement wouldn't you? Here goes. The list of documentation See 23rd November and 7th December Now look at the 9th of March I rest my case. You can appeal twice. I don't care about the outcome. I don't care much about the ins and outs of the technicalities of the planning argument. I care about fairness of process. And I'm cross, but wiser. Thank God I allow myself a visit to the pub on Fridays.

Because it hits them right in the bank balance, @joe90

Had a quick look at the study web page, and was delighted to find a link purporting to explain '... the reliability and validity of this study...' Here is that page Here is a website that explains what validity and reliability is And here is an authoritative framework for assessing website content. I was delighted to see at least a delicate nod to validity and reliability in the Internet. There is some way to go. Old lecturers don't die, they just smell as if they have. Ian

And the Antichrist is here too! What more could a builder want for?

The fence exists. The hedge is about to be growing. Your intention is clear. Explain to those who have a right to ask. Ignore everything until there is a credible threat to your bank balance. Take the fence down when you say you will. Pass 'Go', collect £200 Ian

Let it all wash over you until someone threatens a course of action which will hit you right in the bank balance. This has little to do with the fence or law. Be warned by the lack of polite initial contact "How's the fence-building going then?" followed by a light hearted discussion. Some other agenda is playing itself out, and likely as not, you'll never know. Wait, force delay, prevaricate, forget, refuse signed-for mail, look the other way, until your bank balance is attacked. Unpleasant, yes. But low-energy. Low worry. If, on the other hand, the complainant asks to chat, engage, smile, reassure. Agree.

If you (we) are prepared to put the time in (reading like a demented bookworm) then it's almost all here. Wot I need now is a personal master switch that enables OFF to be selected for an hour or so in the evenings and every other weekend. Does ECObuild sell those?

When was the last time you were hit with a medicine ball or two? 2 mill metal.