AliMcLeod

"very nearby" as in you know you can connect to them for minimal costs, or "very nearby" in that you know where they are but that's about it. There have been people who have services very nearby who have had quotes for £10Ks for connection due to service routings/capacity limits/providers wanting someone to pay for them upgrading their infrastructure etc..

Yep, I have plenty of those and use them with both direct device-to-device association (association groups) and device-to-hub comms. What Adam2 was looking for here was a singe device multi-channel relay (6 in this case) which gave direct as well as Z-Wave control over the 6 channels independently. https://www.amazon.co.uk/WallWand-Z-wave-Touch-Panel-relays/dp/B07GYR91C2 Of course, it could be put together with a switch grid and multiple Fibaro devices, but i suspect Adam2 want something that looks a bit nicer. The touchwand site seems to be back up, but very slow for me http://www.touchwand.com/products/wallwand-z-wave-touch-panel-6-relays/

I was thinking function rather than legalities. I'd be bold enough to say that having such a set-up would reduce any future potential buyers market significant. But, if it works for you and is your forever-home... Its one hell of an ugly thought experiment It'd be interesting to hear whether your mono-pitched roof would be more or less expensive to build over a traditional dual-pitch.

Not what you're asking, but no upstairs WC?

Sounds like a spec-sheet for a standard developer-built new build

That does work, but does not provide the direct-control relay option. Can do the same but cheaper with Amazon Fire tablets too.

I'm getting a big "Account Suspended" error when going to the touch wand site, and the product is listed as not available on Amazon. Are you sure it is still available? I'm looking for something similar but have not found anything that meets the wife-aeshetics-approval rating yet :.

I'm still not clear what area of land the OP has purchased - the red one (from planning docs?), the green one from the ROS website (but stated is is from title deeds) or something else altogether. If we could get a larger view of the ROS one, we might be able to see how that relates to the red one (as per the Thorfun's post above)

Comedy Gold from Handforth Parish Council Planning & Environment Committee Thursday 10th December 2020 Best watch it before it gets removed from YouTube...

I'm sure I saw a sprinkler in the ceiling of one of the rooms in the "let's go see how it finished" bit at the end.

Since labour rates are a large part of most builds (there are a few on here where some have done a significant amount of work themselves), it might be worth factoring in average wage increases in those 17 years, as well as looking at inflation figures.

Highland Girl, it would help (me at least) if you could summarise (with site maps if possible) What is on your approved planning application - site map, approved building position (and if possible, overlay with actual building position)? What is on your title title deeds? What site was marked out by you and your architect, and where the approved building position and actual building position are in relation to that? In each case, as much detail as possible as to how each relates to other areas (ie, other plots, landmarks, fences, buildings etc) would help,

I'd be getting proper advice before assuming these points are correct - as it stands, you have built a house on someone else's land.

It's not clear (a site map showing approved and actual would be useful) but it sounds like the house is actually more than 4 meters away from where it was meant to be (as per approved plan), but has encroached 4m outside of the owned plot. It sounds like that 4m area might be farmland, so potentially not marked as residential. Highland Girl, have you spoken to the architect? Have you actually moved into the house (I note you say it has no completion certificate yet). Have you submitted your VAT reclaim (ie. is this waiting on the completion certificate)?

As hinted at above, I'd revisit your "buy plot for £600K, build for £350K, valued at £1.5M+" figures. if this was the case, then much more experienced developers would be all over it. How long has the plot been on the market? I also suspect your MIP is on a £600K house - don't assume the bank will automatically lend you £300K for a plot of land when you have no means of building a house. As to your core question on how to get additional funds - with you having no access to any collateral, then a bank is unlikely to lend you the money to complete the build. And, even if they did consider it, they'd be looking for proof that you can build for £350K. Getting planning for multiple dwellings and buying and splitting is your best option. Again though, unless you've found this plot and other developers have not, I suspect this will already have been looked at.

I wonder if anyone has ever managed to get their consultant do as results-based costing. ie. Get the planning through, get a bonus, don't get it through, the fee is less.

Agreed, that's where I ended up yesterday and responded with a very basic "that's disappointing by I'm ok with the extension" note.

Thanks, that's exactly what I did in my covering email: Didn't stop the sample brochure being uploaded to the portal alongside my email though.

Nowhere near; it was validated on the online portal in the middle of October, so its not an extensive delay.

I've applied for our planning to be "renewed" (actually a new application). Some background here: I've today received this from the planning department: I'm torn on this - I minded to agree since its not impacting us and it might produce a smoother path to getting approval. This is basically the same application that was previously approved. However, I'm loathe just to let planning away with such a basic error. But, I know they're under-resourced. Can anyone think of any other things I should consider when deciding why I should, or should not, agree to the extension?

Thanks, yes, this is what I intend to do.

Thanks for all the responses. In the quote in my initial post, the 3 headings are each excerpts from the Low Carbon Checklist document. The sentence I pasted under each is from an email from the planning officer. So, the actual checklist did not ask for a brochure, but the planning officer did via that email. As confirmed above, we are in Scotland. It still seems daft to me that this is being asked for when this is the same plans that were previously approved and I can't find any local planning change. I guess this is just the standard inconsistency we expect even within the same planning office.

That’s exactly what I’ve just been doing and found this. This one has not been approved yet, but will go find one that has. That’ll give me a starting point. No mention of manufacturer but I’ll look to add that. I just don’t want to be locked in before we’ve actually made a choice. I’ll add “or similar to” in the wording.

That would make sense if this new ask was to do with the overall plan, but it’s purely in relation to showing how we aim to minimise emissions. Naming the manufacturer wasn’t required in our initial application (where solar panels were indicated but not specified) and I don’t believe anything has changed in our local plan to require it this time around.

For various reasons, we haven't been able to proceed with our build, so are in the process of renewing our application prior to its expiry at the end of the year (although its not actually a renewal, but a re-application). We've submitted the same plans as were previously approved, but, as expected, we're now being asked to comply with some additional requirements. One of these is a Low Carbon Checklist. This was quite an extensive document so I spoke to the Planning Officer and he asked that we just need to provide statements on: My question is whether Planning should (can?) really ask us to provide specific solar panel manufacturer brochure at planning time? Surely a statement on what we're planning to do (eg, total solar panel capacity) should suffice at this time? We've not yet decided whether we'd go with MVHR - the original plan was not to but we may revisit this. Again, does this really need to be defined at Planning Application/Approval time? Also, although these do not seem too onerous, I was wondering if anyone has some boilerplate text we could re-use?