ToughButterCup

How do I find out what that time limit is, please?

Thanks for all the replies, and the good wishes. I am not thinking of this issue in terms of Salamander Cottage winning or losing. I am thinking about fairness and the newts. They don't have any advocates. And while it is more than possible to argue that the law is itself stupid - GCNs are very common round here - the haphazard way in which, on the face of it, the law is being interpreted is symptomatic of sloppy thinking and poor personal and institutional practice. And many round here grumble, but do nowt. I do not begrudge my neighbours anything. I reserve my annoyance for people who are paid to do a good job, but don't. Excellent organisation need cost not a penny more than its lazy, sloppily organised partner.

@MrsRA agrees with you completely. But J's 'Middle way' appeals a good deal too. Sleep on it for a few nights. No rush.

Thanks Terry for the calm analysis. But I feel like taking Declan's advice. However, long ago, I recognised that in business dealings, feelings are dangerous and often irrelevant. @MrsRA will be the final arbiter. She has a highly developed sense of which battles to pick, and I trust her judgement far more than I do my own - except in stacking dishwashers and navigating microlights or cars. Thanks everyone for piling in and helping me work this one through. Time for a walk on the fells and a think.

Cutting through nonsense is always welcome. But, I have a strong feeling that, in the end I will feel bad about myself long term if I don't do something to mark the unfairness. Question is what? What is appropriately subtle, marks the systematic failure of the local planning system, and yet sharp enough to cause the odd intake of breath? And thus initiate change at system level to prevent disregard for simple fairness.

Hmm, Ferdinand. I need to go for a long walk in the rain, get soaked, come back and do a few hours' CSS and JavaScript coding to get myself back into kilter. And then, while in a good mood, decide whether to poke the hornets nest with a sharp stick.

Perhaps at this stage, a little further explanation is required. I do not begrudge our expenditure. I do not feel traduced by the fact that neighbours appear to have 'got-away-with-it'. But I do care deeply about fairness. I spent years of my professional life encouraging professional people to act fairly - and to point out ways in which they could analyse their own practice and analyse whether they were being fair. And how to put it right if they weren't. Now, I have to decide whether I can live with myself if I do nothing - and let unfairness win. It's lonely.

Thanks for introducing me to this the framework. I will think about it.

That's exactly @MrsRA's argument. And exactly why I have made this post. Thank you so much Temp. I really appreciate it.

Why does my build require an EPS Licence, and the other new-builds either side of me don't? The problem is simple. People are building and have built either side of my property. For those three -yes three- properties, the planning process has taken no account of the local population of Great Crested Newts. Yet for my build I have had to have the surveys done, had to apply for the EPS licence, and I'm now in the process of fulfilling its requirements. All four of our properties are exactly the same distance from the ponds containing the newts (Great Crested Newts). What's so special about the other three properties that they aren't subject to the same law? I have tried to remedy the situation politely, quietly, diplomatically. But this week a Planning Department straw broke my back. What that straw is doesn't matter. LPAs have a statutory duty to consult all relevant interested bodies before a decision is made in respect of an application. In the case of the other three planning applications all within 50 meters of my property, no account was taken of the duty to protect GCNs. What have I done about it? I have written to the Head of Planning at the LPA explaining the situation, and giving clear evidence that GCNs are being killed, and pointing out that there is a simple avoidable unfairness in the administration of the four separate applications. Mine was the only on which was required to take account of the EPS issue. I have taken the advice of a local planner (the excellent, sharp-minded Jane - details? PM me). Her advice is to go nuclear because of the simplicity of my case. Before I do, I thought I'd run it past you all. Just as a final check before I take to the keyboard in earnest. I am minded to; Inform the Police that there is an ongoing offence against the Countryside and Wildlife Act See the Local Parish Councillor whose remit is planning See the County Councillor who has responsibility for planning Go and see my MP about it (Cat Smith) Write to our Council's Chief Exec and explain that I have raised the issue with the Head of the LPA, but that he avoided answering my question My instinct was at one time to deal with this at as low a level as possible. But not any more. Advice from any of you to back off a bit will be more likely to be listened to than the opposite. "Well, lad, can't take a joke? - Shouldn't have joined then should ya!" That Parachute Regiment Sergeant's admonition lovingly hissed into my ear during the 1970s is easily transposed to; "Can't take a joke? Shouldn't have applied for Planning Permission should I !

Those videos are a useful bit of CPD for me. The technique of digging - and then placing spoil prior to later loading it - is interesting. I found myself replaying the action bits at quarter speed.

This makes you wonder a bit.

Hmmmm. Serious food for thought here. I can feel a few phone calls coming on and a chat with a couple of local farmers.

Where's JS Harris when you need his brand of indignation to support you ? Phhhhhhh, what use are Welsh plumbers? Jocks are just as bad, and as for Essex boys, they're worse.

Listen, Ferdinand, the eight fingers I have left are working hard enough, what's the odd missing consonant among fiends?

A visit to the NSBRC taught me that I should ask the various Utility companies to come out and mark their services for me - rather than poke around below ground myself and see if there was smoke in these pipes or wet stuff in those. Got the paper work sorted out, got the official map for the water pipes. Asked for Mr Water Utility to pay me a visit, which he promptly did. Me: Hi, I'm keen not to put a digger bucket through your pipes - would you be kind enough to tell me where the water pipe is? Mr Utility: Sorry mate, can't do that. Have you got our official map? Me: Yes, I have: it's a bit vague. But you high-tech Utility people have got things like CAT scanners and stethoscopes and diving rods and all sorts like that. And, the key thing is you know what you are doing. I don't. Mr Utility: Nahhh, we don't do that, 'aven't got a scanner and I gave away my last pair of diving rods the other day (I am not taking the pi55 here) Me: so what are you suggesting then? Mr Utility: Just dig an 'ole son. (I'm an old codger of 63 you know!) Me: But the point of me asking you here today is to get an authoritative opinion on where your water supply runs. What happens if I discover a pipe which isn't a water pipe, and, as a result of the misidentified pipe, I dig through yours? Mr Utility: Ah, well..... Just dig an 'ole..... it'll be reet.... Two days later, I get a receipt from United Utlities thanking me for prompt payment for £50. Deducted from my account. Is my crossness justified?

Oh Gordon Bennett..... thought I'd left all that behind.....

Yes, thanks, J. The key issue for me is that I had my head in piles and wasn't looking around to see the bigger picture. Calvinmiddle's post (above) and now yours have made sure that I won't (in the words of the song) '...get fooled again...' I will read the HT report (again) last thing tonight. So tomorrow's meeting at 10:00 will be interesting. More soon.

Ah, heart-in-mouth stuff this. The phone goes - new number - no half second when you can adjust to the person you know is on the other end because the name flashes up on the screen. Starting a phone conversation with a technical expert, but hoping for an emotionally literate, customer-focused, technically easy to understand response is not a pleasant feeling. Add to that a mobile phone with a hiccup and a slightly distracting tomcat (Sid) who fastens himself to my leg in mid-sentence, a recipe for miscommunication. Semi-Undaunted because I've done a bit of homework. I prepared a Briefing Pack for the Piling Contractors. They've got all the information I have got in front of them and I've asked for an initial chat. Important this: first impressions and all that. Imagine then my delight when I hear a man's voice says, you don't need [This Company X] because .............. and it would be better for you to use a different piling system because............ Customer Focus. Yippee! (PM me for the details of who and which company). And he proceeds to give me the low down on why screw piles are likely not the best system. Our Soil Investigation makes it clear that our land is not suitable for piling with screw piles. He's just saved me a lot of money. A lot. And I'm grateful. And they do MVHR and this and that and the other for new-builds. Who am I going to contact and ask for a quote for MVHR, this that and the other? Right. No brainer. Interesting then that another company [ Company Y] has already submitted a quote '... based on the information [ I ] have provided...' (which was exactly the same as to the former company) amounting to £23,000. Company Y manufacture the piles and licence an installer to do the work for them. In this case I would need to be really sure who takes appropriate professional responsibility for using screw piles - and be able to explain why they were not using another system instead. And in dealing with one quote which involves two companies, I'm asking myself where's the potential for conflict of interest? This sentence in their quote set my teeth on edge... '...As you are no doubt aware, some piling schemes are installed to a ‘set’. This means that the actual works and final costs can invariably increase on the day of installation...' 'Can' and 'invariably increase' written next to one another. The best I can say is that the sentence wasn't drafted with care. The Plot Thickens One contractor (PM for details) rings up and says. " Your piling requirement is for about 200Kn, so it can't be done with a mini piling system. So for the spec you have it'll need CFA (Continuous Flight Auger) piles - or some other system. Mind if we pop round to have a look at the site? I've had a look at the briefing pack you sent us, looked at Street View on Google Earth and I'm a bit concerned about access to your site. I just need to have a quick look. Will Wednesday morning be OK?" Customer focus writ large. Before the guy arrives (this is written on Tuesday, the day before he comes) I am well disposed to his company approach. He's told me that the two quotes I already have need to be re-read in the light of the access issue - and that one of them - the company that wants to use mini piles - probably hasn't read my briefing pack well enough. So that's why I changed the title of this post to [...], not so clueless of Lancaster So now I'm wondering whether the TAF (Temporary Amphibian Fence) forced on us by our blessed newts (I love them really) have screwed up access to the site. And in any case, this exercise has taught me that access needs to be considered for every large delivery. That is bigger than a 7.5 tonner. Hmm, how to do that efficiently? Ideas on a postcard please..... (06:00) Tuesday 08:10: See this comment by CalvinMiddle, and his further reference to this document...... (here). Bottom line; do your basic research. Interesting day ahead. Oh dear another over-long day ahead. Fun this retirement lark!

No, I haven't thought about it. Yet. That important little word. Yet. More reading. Thanks for the nudge. Ian

Thank you very much indeed. It's exactly this sort of exercise which adds value to users' experience because it makes it easier for them to drill down to the facts. Ian

Ah! Excellent. I was hoping to get a reply from you Steamy. Thanks. Ian

Thanks very much indeed. Deep into it all now: it's an extremely interesting subject. I am particularly grateful for the reading on Error Correction stuff (Least Squares method) Bit too high-brow for me, but no less interesting for all that. I have decided to use an optical level, and I found this brilliant set of videos that takes beginners like me from how to read a staff to being able to check the readings I think I'm going to begin by doing all the readings and noting the results by 'steam'; maybe then see if I can find a simple Excel Spreadsheet that systematises - and checks for errors. Never a dull moment this house-building lark.

BINGO. That's the one. Hemorrhoids, here we come.