MintSprint

New development is treated differently (less stringently) than impact on existing development.

Yeah, if you comply with the 45 and 25 degree rules, they're redundant (in fact the methodology in the document we're talking about basically says that if you comply with the 25/45 degree rules, you don't need to go any further) In fact, you've got to be doing something completely horrendous to fail the full analysis; the standard they set isn't terribly high.

OK... let's have some fun. What have I said that you dispute?

I'm sorry, but on the very good evidence of a number of things you've said on this thread so far, I don't.

Approved Document A to the Building Regulations may be useful, if you're trying to do it without soil testing or the input of an Engineer. Pages 36 and 37... In the absence of testing to determine the MPI, depth will need to be to the satisfaction of the Building Control inspector, and they will certainly want to be below the level of any evident intrusion by tree roots.

This is the correct answer. Both fees and 'service level agreements' vary from Authority to Authority. In my experience, it can vary from 14 days up to 'we'll do it when we get round to it, but active applications take precedence'. Speak to the Planning department and ask them, if it's not already on their website.

So, to make sure I understand: you're proposing demolition of one half of a semi-detached bungalow to provide the access, then building a new 2-storey dwelling behind?

It depends whether you have a 3D CAD model they can use; as above, if one is available, it's actually a pretty quick and simple process, these days - certainly no more than a £few hundred. If you have to do the background work to support it, it'd be a bit more - a high 3-figure or very low 4-figure sum.

It wouldn't have been. You have misunderstood if you think that was the case: it would have been offered up and built into the S106 agreement in due course, had you accepted that offer. As I said, I've been involved in these sorts of negotiations many times. If it's village halls we're talking about, then this is one of mine, agreed on exactly the basis you outlined (along with a MUGA; and the village hall in this case was net Zero Carbon): The fact that CIL has not completely replaced S106 is its big failing, of course - we're routinely seeing both a CIL payment and a separate S106 on many, if not most, major developments.

Be careful of this one... it's why I'd been careful to qualify my comments above by saying that you need full end bearing, The stud cluster specified by the Engineer is what's necessary to transmit the load from the RSJ to the foundations. The bottom flange of the RSJ has to cover the entire stud cluster (and if it doesn't, it's normal for the SE to specify a steel 'spreader plate' that sits under the flange of the RSJ, on top of the stud cluster to its full width), in order to do so. You can fit extra studs to 'bracket' the RSJ, if you like, but obviously they won't be actually carrying any of its load, so you'll still need the full complement of studs as specified by the SE for that stud cluster, as well. Obviously, this arrangement locates the end of the beam side to side, but does nothing to restrain it longitudinally... but as above, it shouldn't need to.

Oh, and: If you understood the Planning system a bit better, you'd appreciate that (surprisingly for many people), this is perfectly legitimate negotiation on 'planning gain'. It is embedded in, and supported by, Planning law (specifically, Section 106 of the T&CPA). I've done the same on many occasions. CIL was intended to make the process more transparent and equitable, but hasn't been entirely successful.

Possibly because of members reluctance to employ the necessary Planning Consultant to prod the Planners with a sharpened stick? One regrettable tendency that I have noticed is for Planners to run rings around people they have mentally flagged as 'amateurs'. They think a lot more carefully when they know that they're dealing with a Chartered Planner at the other side of the table. Like any other public servants, they become lazy and slapdash when there's nobody there to keep them on their toes. But more likely, as I said: The example we've just covered with @AnonymousBosch is a fair demonstration of that: dig a bit deeper, with sufficient understanding of Planning law and process, and it frequently makes perfect sense (...well, within the arcane limits of the Planning system, anyway).

Yep, that's why I suggested to confirm with your SE. As @Mr Punter says, it is more normal for the floor to restrain the walls; it would have been conceivable (albeit unlikely) that the RSJ might have been designed to contribute to this, or to form part of a sway frame that contributed to racking resistance (in which case there'd have been a steel post instead of cripple studs and a rigid connection between the two at the top of the post), but in that event your SE would have clearly known about it. If the SE don't care, then you're safe to assume that the beam is simply supported and serving no restraining function, in which case it can simply sit there (provided, as I said, that it's aligned correctly and has full end bearing).

Well, if the SE hasn't specified any restraint, then provided it's aligned correctly and with enough bearing, it doesn't need anything. It will happily just sit there... steel beams are not noted for their ability to float away if they're not bolted down.

Ask your structural engineer, but you don't necessarily need anything. Once the RSJ is under load, it won't be going walkies...

I don't want to piss on your chips, but does the plot have any sort of Outline Planning consent on it? .... because that image is screaming 'Backland Development - RUN AWAY!!!' at me.

Actually, that very statement demonstrates a lack of understanding (and logic) in itself. Just because you managed to gain a consent doesn't imply you have an understanding of the system. It just means you didn't fall foul of anything that specifically required you to understand it properly. No, it's a testament to the fact that it has to make complex decisions, on complex issues, in a way that can be underpinned by some sort of legislative and policy-based consistency. It largely evolved to the place we are at today because of a (justifiable) public concern over inconsistency, back in the days when more power was placed in the hands of individual Planners. I can fondly remember the days when a planning application for a large housing estate consisted of a set of drawings and an application form, not several file storage boxes full of specialist reports... but the public and politicians decided that wasn't 'accountable' enough for them.

Perhaps because they share your own lack of understanding? Whether you like it or not, the Planning system has evolved to a level of complexity that can make it look arcane, even to professionals, at times. There are a lot of self-taught amateur 'experts' who think they know a lot more than they really do - often based on very limited practical experience. Even the professionals don't know everything, and are continually gaining new knowledge, but clearly, doing it day in, day out, for decades, alongside a team of people who are sharing their experiences with you, will lead to a much broader understanding than a few hours research on the internet... especially when that research leads you to 'experts' confidently proclaiming that: ?

Without reading through the full case documentation, the bit that's leaping out at me there is the Inspector's words: When you submit an appeal, it's up to each side to make their arguments in the appeal statement. Unsurprisingly, if you don't give the Inspector the information s/he needs to assess, s/he won't assess them! The other bit that's jumping out is the words: In other words, the LPA is saying: "we acknowlege that we f***ed up the previous decision 'cos we'd misinterpreted the NPPF, and we didn't want to compound the error". ... Which is fair enough, and perfectly consistent with the principle quoted by @Johnnyt's brief, that decision takers should have regard to consistency, and to give reasons for any departure. Fortunately for you (if the earlier decision related to your application), they can't easily take your approval away from you, once granted.

No, They are based on Planning law. Perhaps you might wish to read the article that @AnonymousBosch has kindly linked above. Certainly, the system is not perfect and there are good and bad Planners even within the same Authorities. If you have experienced genuine inconsistency, then it's because of poor Planning and the LPA needs to be taken to task over it. Had you employed a Planning Consultant, I am absolutely certain they would have done so - as I have said, this is really basic stuff. As I have also said, however, a problem that we encounter with monotonous regularity is that laypersons think they are encountering inconsistency because they don't properly appreciate the material differences that have led to differing decisions. I'm not saying that this is always the case - frequently the LPA also gets it 'wrong', either because they aren't familiar with their own Authority's previous decisions, or because they attach different weight to a material consideration (which isn't necessarily 'wrong', since no two sites or proposals are absolutely identical) - but it's certainly more often the case than not.

Yes, it's a fair summary. Particularly note the closing paragraph (but for the purposes of this forum, substitute the word 'applicants' for 'developers'). "For developers, the decisions highlight the need to be aware of relevant earlier decisions when applying for permission. Where a different decision is being sought this time round, adequate evidence must be provided to enable a decision-maker to depart from their previous decision and be able to back this up with reasons." Conversely, of course, where you're wanting them to take the same decision, you need to draw the earlier decisions to their attention and provide arguments as to why you believe they are materially similar. As I said earlier:

I reviewed a number of posts that were close to the top of the listing on the 'Planning' forum, which is a topic of interest for me. There were some topics where I thought I could add helpful information and/or correct glaringly obvious misconceptions that might be of benefit for the future reference of members searching in response to similar problems. Do you have a problem with that?

Yes, absolutely. I am registered as a private individual. Would you rather that incorrect statements and advice are left unchallenged, for the sake of your ego?

There is plenty, starting with the case quoted by Johnnyt's Barrister. If you Google that, you'll come up with plenty of others, up to and including approvals that have been quashed (which is an extremely rare event, in Planning terms) because precedent and principles of consistency had not been taken into account.

I am a professional