Stewpot

Maybe a tenor guitar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenor_guitar Not as popular as they once were, but you still see them, and I've even seen an electric one.

They sent me an electronic copy, and it's the same as the one on the planning portal. The Decision Notice has sections under different headings. I've seen several of these notices from this particular authority, and they have always listed the Schedule of Conditions between the Reason for the Decision section, and the For the Information of the Applicant section. There simply is no Schedule of Conditions in any form, either in the Decision Notice itself, or appended to it, and nor does it refer to a separate document annexed elsewhere. However, the covering letter with the Decision Notice says "Please read the schedule of conditions...", but this may just be a standard paragraph. Elsewhere, the Notice says "Subject to compliance with the schedule of conditions...", but again, this may be a standard paragraph, and I think both could be read to imply "... if there is one". I can't really believe it's happened; I should have bought a lottery ticket last week. I think you're right - I should just crack on.

I don't think this went to committee. Would I have been informed if it had? I suppose it could have been the advice of a senior colleague, or maybe the case officer just changed his mind. But even so, for the whole schedule to be omitted...? I know the Officer's Report as no legal status, but I would guess that it can be used as evidence of their intention, should this go to law. The question really becomes two more:- How likely are they to discover the error (what would bring it to their attention?), and are they then likely to go to law to try and correct it? If I build according to plans, they really only have the window design to beef about, and I don't really think it amounts to that much of a beef - they are not that unusual. Other houses in the village have similar windows, including an immediate neighbour. I think the omissions, both at the PPP stage and at this stage, is evidence of an over worked, under staffed and under valued department that simply can't keep up with the workload. I wonder how many other mistakes are slipping through. Perhaps they won't have the capacity to give this application a second glance, now, unless someone raises a particular issue.

It isn't hypothetical. In fact what appears to have happened is that the entire Schedule of Conditions has been missed off the Decision Notice. And this is not without antecedence - the Planning Permission in Principal (this is in Scotland), which was in place when I bought the plot, has a significant paragraph missing. This means that when they said my application for full plans wasn't complying with Condition 7, I was able to argue that it was, because the condition didn't actually require me to do what they thought it did. This approach was successful, although somewhat grudgingly. I now have full approval. In the Officer's Report (to be found on the planning portal, but not otherwise sent to me), there are six conditions listed, but that entire section is absent from the Decision Notice. Most of them are fairly trivial - the usual stuff about submitting colours, finishes, details of the water connection, and such like, but one refers to the design of the windows, which has been a bone of contention throughout the application process. The condition would have asked me to resubmit drawings with redesigned windows. Thanks for you links - I also found this: https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/planning/318-planning-features/22731-the-finality-of-decisions This suggests that it would require a court ruling before the council can add the missing conditions. Wasn't there some case recently where a planning department was trying out some new software, and, thinking they were filling in dummy Decision Notices to test it, the Notices actually got issued, and were irrevocable?

How set in stone is the Decision Notice for a planning application? Specifically, can the council add to, or amend the Notice, if, for example, they have granted approval, but inadvertently missed off a Condition or two? Is there the legal scope for them to do this?

But doesn't get past the plastic lining on the inside of a modern house...effectively living inside a plastic tent with a building around it. Well, yes. But no. If you've designed the building with lime in mind, you wouldn't then go and ruin one of it's advantages (vapour permeability) by installing a VCL. Really, you highlight the point that building with lime is not just like building with OPC, but quainter. Building with lime can offer advantages, but to make the most of them, it also requires a different approach to the philosophy of the building. Some people confuse vapour permeability with air tightness - they are not the same thing, but the common (mis)use of the word 'breathability' often makes people think they are.

Ain't that the truth. However, I find that if you ask people who actually know and understand the stuff, this doesn't happen (so much).

Just to preface this, I am by no means an expert. By no means. The more I find out about using lime in building work, the more, I realise, I don't know. But I have used it a little over the years, have read lots about it, and plan in using it in my own build (if the planning department ever get around to my application). Mixing and using lime mortar is a little different from a more usual Ordinary Portland Cement mix. For a start, you need to be more exacting about the quantities you use. Whereas with OPC you can make a perfectly good mix by measuring it out by rough shovelfulls, you will need to be more accurate than that with a lime mix. Many people would use a pan mixer for lime, as it can clog and ball-up in a barrel mixer, and generally require more attention. And be careful with the water. If you're mixing from lime putty (non-hydraulic lime), you may not need to add any extra water at all. To an extent, a stiff mix becomes more pliable, the more you work it, so give it plenty of time in the mixer. Using it can be a nicer experience than an OPC mortar - a good mix is workable and pliable stuff, has a much longer open time, and can be re-knocked up to bring it back to life. The long curing time of lime means that you have to give it some after care. Keep it damp and protected from direct sunlight to help prevent it drying out for at least a couple of weeks, and this will help carbonation to continue throughout the depth of the mortar. It may take months, or even years for the full curing process. You wouldn't want to use OPC and lime mortars in the same element, but if they are discrete units - ie. they don't form part of the same structural element - you may be able to do that. But why, if you are going to the trouble of using lime mortar, would you be using OPC in an adjacent element? A major advantage of lime over OPC is that it is 'flexible' - ie. if the building settles or moves a little, the lime will be able to accommodate this. It has a very long curing time, and to a certain extent cracks can be self-repairing. The other main advantage of lime is that it is vapour permeable, so it enables wet masonry to dry out, and can help with problems like rising damp. Some will tell you that it's permeability improves the internal atmosphere and living environment, too. A hydraulic lime mix is more like OPC than a non-hydraulic mix, as it has a faster initial set. To some extent there is a trade off between the advantages of lime and this quick set time, but you will still have to give it the same after care in order for it to reach its full strength. As lime mortar is not generally used these days, and its differences from OPC are no longer well understood, there is an assumption on the part of many builders that it is basically just the same stuff. I would want to be using a builder who is experienced with it (as opposed to someone who says "Oh, yeah, I've used it before"). Some builders also make the mistake of thinking that hydraulic lime is the same as hydrated lime, and as the latter is easily available in builders merchants for use as an admix in OPC mortar, these builders sometimes think they are experienced with a lime.

As someone once said, the difference between a professional snooker player and an amateur is that the professional chalks the tip of his cue before he misses.

If the problem is caused by the sealant, the product description itself says that it will be difficult to remove once it's dry. In that case, I think you should refer this back to the people who applied the sealant. If they did so without your instruction, or if you didn't discuss it, and any possible problems it may cause, then I think it must be for them to put things right. If the patio is dangerous to use, it is clearly not good enough. As a last resort, you could try using something like this www.amazon.co.uk/YUET-Strimmer-Trimmer-Rotating-Replacement/dp/B07ZHHS8P3/ not so much to remove the sealant, but to roughen the surface and make it less slippery. But I fear it may also damage the appearance of it.

I could be wrong, but I can't see any foundations. If the rebar isn't connected in to foundations, they may be strong, but the columns will have no stability.

Here's an idea: Talk to the builder about your concerns. As you do so, casually lean against one of the columns. Wear a hard hat. If the column doesn't move, and the builder doesn't flinch, maybe they're stronger than they look. However, I reckon the column will fall, and when it does the builder will leg it. Two tasks completed at once.

To begin with, I thought some of the other comments were overly harsh, but the more I look at it, the more I feel the need to join in. I disagree somewhat about the mortar beds. What we see is not particularly pretty, but in close-up, I don't think they are overly thin, and a knob-end filling in that gap, whilst not the pinnacle of best practice, is not unusual. The important thing is, is it all straight and plumb? But has the building inspector been involved in this at all? It may come under permitted development rights, but it still has to be built to a satisfactory standard. Who designed it? Others have already asked, but what do you mean by a floating extension? Surely you don't mean one just sitting on the ground, do you? I ask, because suitable foundations are hard to spot in any of your pictures. No sign of any trenching, or of a raft. And as has been said, if that lintel shuttering is complete and all there is to it, the finished lintel will have badly inadequate overhangs for it to bear upon the columns. In fact, I would feel better if those columns were buttressed in some way, not just a stack of unsupported blocks, one on top of the other. Does the rebar go through into any foundations? Are they going to be tied in to the adjacent structure, and if so, how? With the apparent lack of foundations, and inadequate lintel overhangs onto seemingly unsupported columns, I for one would not want to stand under that lintel.

Both of me??? Maybe we're both making the same point. Mine was that what appears to be a 7 in 12 chance of a win, isn't. It's a sham, and, assuming there actually are 'winners', the algorithm behind it is doing something else. If your comment about it being random is to say that it is based on a random selection across the customer base, then maybe that is right (who knows). What it certainly ain't is representing what it purports to be - ie. an equal chance of landing upon any sector of a wheel divided into 12. But it's not statistics (the domain of those who want to sell you something, or get elected), it's probability. Spin a coin. As you say, every spin is a new event, and previous results are no prediction of the future. It's possible to spin it a dozen times or more, and get the same result (statistics). It's possible, but it won't happen (probability).

I've been with Octopus for 18 months now - not through choice; my previous company was taken over by them. I've not seen any signs of trouble with them, however they've just emailed me to say that prices are going up for the second time since May (I'm on a variable tariff). As an aside, I submit my meter readings every month (gas and electric), and in return, I get a free spin of their "wheel of fortune". It's just a graphic that you click on. The wheel is divided into 12 sectors - 5 win nothing, 5 win £1, and 2 win 50 and 100 quid, so I get 7 out of 12 chances of winning something twice a month. After 13 months I had won nothing, so I wrote to them to point out that this makes me the unluckiest man who has ever lived (the chances of losing 26 consecutive times at those odds is less than 1 for every person that has ever lived - by a considerable margin). I don't trouble with it any more. They replied that it was meant to make meter reading 'fun' (Jeeezz..!), and assured me that people do actually win on it. I still think that it should actually behave as it appears it should.