Oz07

I've read up other topics on here and am wondering about this access for fire service. Plot has full pp. Access is just over 2750 mainly around 2900 on average but this does depend on conifers being trimmed. The regs as I read them allow for this width for a reduced distance. It is an 80m run but will have a turning head at the bottom. Can't remember if I read max distance from appliance to nearest hydrant? According to pp the surfacing needs to stay as is ('nt), near non existent apart from some overgrown concrete and tarmac towards the top steep end. Im sure they would be ok with some extra hardcore. I suspect as suggested on other threads will be a case of getting in touch with bc or fire service prior to purchase and getting confirmation of suitability to insure myself.

I dont see any reason that the dpcs need to be at the same level in each leaf. Basically what you originally proposed sounds fine but im no BCO or technician. Just run it by them. Its only an issue because you've got render iff it was all brick you could keep the dpc level or put 2 in, one above splash course at 150mm above ground and one level with dpc internally

Whats wrong with bacon 🥓?

No gce's👍

Did anyone understand any of this 🤯

Would look cool of window board flush with wall no overhang as the picture. Also can you not mitre that bead to return it up the 20mm or whatever it is. Won't finish well otherwise

900 centres on trusses interesting. If it has design implications is it not worth reverting to 600 cc or does cost work out a lot better on 900?

https://youtu.be/tzYlIh8jSFs

You can get internal connectors now I've used them before. Perfect for this scenario where its too hard to get a flex on the outside of the pipe.

Why is Ratcliffe on Soar earmarked for demolition. Surely its better to mothball until our capacity is better

I suppose the insurance is the current live planning, not that I want that. The council has confirmed a material start so that is in the bag. Also it sounds like govt are going to start making councils be more accommodating on these green/grey belt sites. Haven't they already introduced mandatory targets again. If they mess about too much conditions might favour an application for more than 1 house!

No i meant like a solid timber threshold like hardwood etc just to bridge the gap. Not sure how you'd fix it at the cill end some bracket id imagine?

Think you'd be best going for a solid timber threshold inside to bridge the pir if going that route. I wouldn't be confident with ply, thin slc then lvt ontop of pir.

For me I still think ill do the pre app. I think its a scandalous fee for the service. However if i get a positive response and then they go on to actually refuse the application surely that would be outrageous. I feel like I would feel more confident with a positive response from the planners rather than a consultant.

Whats your floor finish inside? Youve got a 210mm wide bit of pir before door how will you cover?

Why has the free go principle been removed?

The solicitor is to benefit the mortgage company and satisfy their requirements not for your benefit.

Not allowing ammendments during planning seems crazy. Do they just refuse and make you re submit?

They've been missing the determination deadline for years here. All they get you to do is agree to an extension of time or say that you can appeal. You don't have much choice.

When did ecology pull out i thought they had a good rep here

Id be hoping for a sec73 material change so hopefully no consultation needed. Ive had a similar problem you had previously when i bought something with outline pp and only access was approved. You can come unstuck with outline pp. This has had a pretty thorough application approved and started with conditions discharged. So id be pretty confident this should only really involve the planners. Can you imagine them risking an appeal with costs awarded based on a refusal following advice from, for example highways, when they already have essentially the same proposal approved and started.

If the new application was substantially different I'd agree. As it's basically just changing the appearance of it i can't imagine any credible concerns from consultees

Yes but already has an approval for similar dwelling. Cant see any consultee being able to stop it

I'm thinking a consultant will be cheaper than the pre app. And if the pre app response os not binding on council what is the advantage? Only things i can think are positively engaging with them bodes well and hopefully they'd run the scheme by a manager or experienced planner before responding?!

This is what im worried about. The existing planning is commenced and confirmed by council due to garage footings being started. I dont want to build the house as planned though. I really need a good indication off planning on whether they'd accept before buying. It is in greenbelt but i think classed as brownfield due to previous use