Alan Ambrose

The uni-props look good but I see the company that sells them is mucking around trying to keep the prices secret now.

>>> is not on the OS 25000:1 map Ah, that's an interesting criterion, thanks for that. I think the equivalent in England for a single dwelling is here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/general-binding-rules-small-sewage-discharge-to-a-surface-water

That's interesting about withdrawing liability before commencement as it should then allow S73 minor changes to be processed before assuming liability.

Yes, once planning permission has been granted, the building can, of course, be built as approved. The council should take into account overlooking etc in their decision, but they should have also given you an opportunity to comment on the application. There's generally an ad in the local paper, an notice posted on the site and letters to neighbours inviting their comments.

Can I ask - are these generally single glazed or can you get double or triple? We have a bit of our design that is onto something that is glazed like a conservatory, so one side of the doors will get quite hot or cold depending on the weather.

Maybe an egg blown up in the microwave or some kind of Japanese Kawaii thing? I have heard of applications for a van during building being turned down. Maybe that was some special circumstances.

>>> lower brick section with no plinth i’m not sure what you mean here - bricks are planned already up to ground level or 150mm above, and you want more courses?

You should be able to ask your LPA CIL people to verify that site clearance won't cause you any CIL problems. *Ensure you have your plans exactly as you want them* - you might find it difficult or impossible to change them in future without jeopardising your self-build CIL exemption.

I don't know what corrosion protection you're planning, but maybe 'rivnuts' e.g. https://www.accu.co.uk/knurled-flat-rivet-nuts/69619-HRKN-M6-16-A2 Use a homemade or bought in setting tool.

Yes, they're very badly designed and made. I've never been sure whether that style is actually mandated for the water main entry to your premises. If you think you might need to use it in a hurry sometime in the future, and you're reasonably sure what it stops, then sure. If not for your for you mains entry, I would replace with a ball valve though, they're much better. e.g. https://www.screwfix.com/p/pegler-ball-valve-blue-15mm/11085 For the mains, I usually put a ball valve immediately downstream of the stopcock and use that in preference to the old-style stopcock. Or an MDPE Plasson fitting if it comes in as MDPE pipe.

If your LPA portal has a good search mechanism - maybe run a search on successful S73s and see who is a consultant and gets good results? Then you've got someone local, with a few LPA contacts and a reputation

Another thought - you could put in the S73 on the current application and the new full application at the same time. That way, you don't lose the same time that you would lose if you did them sequentially. Depending on your LPA, the time for S73 + appeal (say 2 + 4 months ) might be about the same as the full application anyway.

Or (c) go with wood for that one unit?

Just that really. Anyone know?

OK maybe time for a planning consultant then? You've certainly got the budget for it now. Do you have any other options other than (a) forget the changes, (b) challenge the LPA's S73 judgement, (c) pay the CIL? I vote for taking your best shot at (b) - i.e. you or your architect talk your way up the chain of command or use a consultant to make the application / talk with the LPA. Just one other thought - there has been at least one other case on BH where the architect has pushed for another full application without apparently realising the CIL implications. Does your architect understand the implications of another full application?

Thanks, I didn't know they had one, would have saved me some work... Maybe you've found the problem already. There are two or three debugging strategies for spreadsheets (a) look through the input data and spot anything wrong or missing (maybe compare yours with a known working example), and/or (b) track back the calculation from the cell that's giving you problems to find the missing data (likely) or bad formula (less likely). There's a 'view dependencies' facility in Excel to help with that. Another method is to take a known working example and then replace with your own data bit by bit - keeping a good eye on the results to spot something going wrong the minute you enter that piece of data. Relax and try to be Zen! (i.e. don't let your annoyance/frustration stop you from spotting the problem), try to be intuitive and assume it's going to take you and hour or two to find the problem. Or, use a 'consultant' to do the initial set-up for you.

You are the best judge of your lifestyle and likely use, so it's tricky to make recommendations. I'll throw these out: + have the kids TV in the kitchen area where you can keep an eye on and interact with them while you're cooking and put the grown-up's TV on the end wall in the reception? + does a lowering screen and projector instead of a TV help any? + replace the sofa in the kitchen with a couple of arm chairs, one can be used for reading/looking aimlessly out of the window? Could one of those swivel so someone can sit and chat to the cook? + try something other than 90/45 degrees for the sofa / dining table position? + do you really need 3 sofas? Which one will get used the least? + spend a few hours using masking tape to tape out the dimensions on a big floor somewhere to make it easier to feel/visualise?

Hmmm, yes in principle caught by 'designed-in CIL jeopardy problem #1', But I think moving windows (as long as they don't impact overlooking) should be a valid section 73. You can always submit a minor changes and appeal if you don't have anything to do for the rest of your life.... >>> part of the original approval was any changes would need a new application Possible to paste up here the text of that part of the decision notice? An informal chat possible with LPA about what is and isn't possible under S73 in your case? This jeopardy problem is becoming a ridiculous catch for self-builders and needs a political intervention IMHO. In hindsight for everyone else .... it suggests getting all the design and other changes in and completely approved before commencing under CIL.

I think the problem is that, unlike wood which can be custom machined in short runs, the aluminium profile that the window manufacturers use is bought in bulk and is only produced economically in long runs. It's literally extruded out of a die and the die manufacture and testing and whatnot is quite capital intensive. Interestingly, PHPP lists the possible aluminium profiles for passivhaus use, not just made-up windows. So realistically, I think the options are to either (a) find the closest thing off-the-shelf or (b) maybe see if someone will make you a custom design but using their standard profile.

My experience of the county court is that it is, like planning, a bit of a flaky enterprise and depends a lot on the individual judge. So, don't read a single data point as gospel. The judges are, apparently district judges (i.e. junior) (rather than lay magistrates) and therefore qualified as either solicitors or barristers. But a single person makes the judgement and they might not have any practical skills or relevant experience or know how to read a drawing. But...these are low monetary value cases, often with unrepresented members of the public or maybe one side represented by a solicitor, often done and dusted in 1/2h to an hour or two. They're most unlikely to go to appeal, so not much oversight. I think there's a lot of scope for the judge's personal opinion rather than a strict reading of contract or consumer law. Also, don't underestimate the impact of the 'final notice' or 'letter before action' and the initial court papers with shortish timescales for reply. Those concentrate the recipients attention and they therefore force the recipient to decide (a) do we want to contest and (b) do we want to invest the time, energy and money required to contest. I think that 50-75% of recipients will fold or negotiate a mutually agreeable solution at that point. Tick the box for mediation to demonstrate how wonderfully reasonable you are and how much you are trying not to waste the judge's time. And that's then another hassle for the recipient and another few hoops for them to jump through. Meanwhile you want to get your job done. Give the supplier one last opportunity to address the problem for free or cheap, then order from another supplier and start the court process with the original. Unusually for UK red tape, the process is about as painless as it can be. You can file your case in 10 minutes if you've done it before, 25 if you haven't. It'll take a while to conclude, 6 to 9 months, if it goes the whole distance - but it often doesn't need to.

Wow that's super odd - ours has been pretty much silent at all times except for the slight sound of water moving in the pipes. Now I think about it, even that seems odd. +1 to some actual diagnosis steps. Switch the Loxone box off for a minute, or disconnect the connection to the actuators and see whether most of the rapid stuff stops.

Thanks @OwenF. It's for a potential basement, hence 6m. I imagine excavations for the actual basement will be to say 3-4m. Goodness I still find geo a strange art - a module on soil mechanics in my engineering degree 40 years ago obviously didn't provide much enlightenment . To be clear, the SE asked for the list above, the £5K quote was for "track-mounted percussive window sampling rig, dynamic probe tools and equipment". I'm not sure why the geo quote ignored some of the requirements. I have asked them to explain and also to talk to the SE directly. Frantically reading Craig and also Atkinson but it's still black art heuristics to me, give me a clean CFD problem any day

Ah thanks.

>>> Looks like they’re gonna get away with it No, they don't have to. The OP should at least (a) send them a firm 'final demand' kind of letter with a two week window for reply, (b) then file a simple county court case. If it can be reduced to a simple 'money claim' e.g. just claim a refund - then it can all be done online in 10 minutes. I don't recall that the OP mentioned a £ figure, but I guess it is in the £5K range? That generally means no legal costs ever awarded unless someone is being a complete idiot. A lot of suppliers will fold once they figure (a) they want to use a solicitor, (b) they will have to travel to the claimant's local county court, (c) they're risking their own legal costs. Of course, the direct cost of discarding a panel is only a fraction (30%?) of the customer invoice amount, so it's not such a big deal to write it off.

Call me cynical, but the original developers outwitted the planners by building first a big extension and then had it approved for split off to separate dwelling. I’m sure they made out handsomely. The PD restriction was possibly an LPA emotional response to being outsmarted. It’s not supposed to work like that, of course. If you buy that logic however, then the LPA will fight to stop a further extension to avoid any more embarrassment. i wonder whether you have time to submit a pre-app for an extension? From an architectural viewpoint, your potential extension actually seems very sensible as otherwise the back of ‘your’ house is a bit ‘shaded’. Hard to tell how much as I can’t see an indication of compass orientation on the drawings.