garrymartin

Great news. Glad you got it sorted.

The below is a good article that covers the mechanisms to effect change and the likely timescales. It also directly references reverting the changes implemented to the NPPF in December 2023. https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/whats-labours-plan-for-planning-what-we-know-and-what-the-new-government-could-consider/#:~:text=We expect the NPPF changes,six months to a year.

And don't get me started on Affordable Housing contributions. My LPA want £12,797 from me in Affordable Housing contributions despite the fact I'm proposing a *single* self-build development! They are using the vague wording of the NPPF and the PPG because they are a 'Designated Rural Area' to set a requirement that should be a *threshold* of "5 units or less" to actually set the requirement effectively at "1 or more" as 1 is *less* than 5! Now there should be an evidence base and local justifications to support any lower threshold but there are none and even the financial viability report does not mention self-build, only "developer profit margins" concerning viability, and there are no developer profit margins in self-build! I tried to challenge it through my appeal but the Inspector declined to comment due to it not being necessary until the Technical Details Consent stage, so I've gone full FOI request on the LPA today! 😉 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/evidence_base_and_local_circumst?nocache=incoming-2696710#outgoing-1686147

There are some notable of examples of where Local Authorities have got this *so* right though, so there are models for success (although that doesn't necessarily direct address the competence question...) https://www.mikhailriches.com/project/goldsmith-street/ Of course, there are issues related to Right to Buy that will inevitably mean not all will remain as social housing, so that's potentially another area that needs some sort of reform.

There's also the New Homes Bonus. My LA picked up a £620,123 bonus for the last year. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-homes-bonus-final-allocations-2023-to-2024

Given my personal circumstances, I'm very much looking forward to that one!

It's not so important that they are A or B (but they should really be B), only that both ends follow the same standard. If you've wired one end as 568A and the other as 568B then I think (been a while and this is from memory) that you'd get PoE but data pins would be reversed and would not work. Of course, you'd have to plug the cables into the wrong ports on a tester too, but that's my best guess at this point.

What sort of tester are you using Mark? Are you using the correct "port" in the connector for the standard you have wired to? What connection standard are you using (568A,568B) and is it matched to all the other cabling in use?

Depends on the blocks. Generally lighter than the concrete equivalent in size. There's a growing number of UK houses being built using Porotherm blocks which are very similar https://www.wienerberger.co.uk/tips-and-advice/blockwork/what-is-porotherm-and-why-should-you-use-it.html

Never work on the basis of trust. If they're reluctant to give you an estimate, how can you possibly budget or plan? Set expectations for them if need be. Research what a reasonable m2 rate for the type of bricks/blocks you are using and the design and conditions they'll be working in and use that as your benchmark if they won't commit to a number they come up with. Get it in writing. If they're not prepared to do that, move on. Do you think a professional employer would continue to pay them a wage if their performance did not meet expectations? It sounds like you may be a little inexperienced in some areas and that might leave you exposed if you are project managing this yourself. Can I suggest you at least get hold of the following two books to arm yourself with some knowledge and expectations when discussing tasks with sub-contractors? https://www.amazon.co.uk/Housebuilders-Bible-15-Mark-Brinkley/dp/1916016839/ https://www.amazon.co.uk/Chudley-Greenos-Building-Construction-Handbook/dp/1032492880/

No idea. To be honest though, I thought it was recognised that EPC was flawed. At least before the changes this week, the government was consulting on a new Home Energy Model...

EPC is severely flawed and can be "gamed" very easily. See the below for just one example from https://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/UserFiles/File/research papers/EPCs/2020.04.17-EPCs as efficiency targets-v9.pdf

I inadvertently answered your question while you were writing it! See my post above 😉

Agreed, but we don't live in that same world. The number of dwellings required has increased significantly, as has our understanding of the environmental impact of them being built and being used. We need control. Despite my disagreements with the opinions of my Planning Officer and the Inspector, I'm very supportive of the planning system as a whole. The problem is that much of it is still unclear and remains inherently open to interpretation. What is needed, IMHO, is unequivocal tests against policy items that seek to remove interpretation and opinion. Take my favourite paragraph as an example; "Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. This can help to reduce congestion and emissions and improve air quality and public health. However, opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making.” I think the principle of that paragraph is sound - don't build large developments in areas that aren't or cannot be made "sustainable". The problem is that although "Major development" is well-defined as 10 or more dwellings, "Significant development" has no such definition. Can a single dwelling really be classed as significant development? If not, then in language terms, the remainder of that paragraph should not be applicable, but it is routinely used to refuse permission on very small (less than "major") developments. Even "sustainable" - the golden thread that runs throughout the whole of the NPPF *isn't actually defined* within the document itself!

I understand where you are coming from, and the sentiment remains valid, but the facts are somewhat different. The LPA *does* make it clear that approvals won't be given outside of defined development boundaries except in specific circumstances. As the plot is outside of the development boundary, it is classed as being in the "open countryside" despite it being the garden of an existing dwelling. It doesn't meet the specific circumstances where approval might be given. I knew this and the LPA and I agree that this is in conflict with policy. However, they couldn't demonstrate meeting their legal requirements concerning Self-build and their 5-YR (4-Yr now) plans are failing. Hence, the "tilted balance" is applied and although building in the "open countryside" would amount to harm, it has to be balanced against the positive aspects of the proposal. The balance is whether the harms "significantly and demonstrably" outweigh the benefits. I don't feel they do, but then I guess everyone applying for permission and appealing a refusal would think that... 😉

300 new planning officers proposed through charging higher stamp duty rates for second properties and foreign buyers I believe - something like that...

This is an interesting one for me, but also a worry. My own Local Authority in their new Local Plan (currently at Regulation 19 stage) will be pretty much mandating near-Passivhaus levels of building performance. But if that's not mandated at a national level, I fear it will mean the volume housebuilders will concentrate their efforts, at least initially, outside of my Local Authority and when that Local Authority is then well behind on their targets, will effectively hold them to ransom about their *local* requirements for building performance...

I believe 50mm is the minimum separation (not 100% sure) unless the network cable has the same protection characteristics as the mains cables. 300mm is recommended though.

Awesome response Alan - can't disagree with anything; great ideas! On a personal note, following my dismissed appeal, evidence is a key one for me. The Inspector made several observations that were clearly opinions and yet used that to substantiate their decision. They clearly don't know that "demonstrably" in relation to harm is not about opinions but means they actually have to provide evidence to support the observation.

6. Force development companies to start building on their "land banks" or compulsory purchase them and return them to other housebuilders / councils / small developers.

I don't think the intent was sockets at skirting level, but running cables behind the skirting. In order for that to be compliant, I pointed out that they would need electrical sockets of some sort at that same level to create a "safe zone".

There is, but they are distances measured from the floor level so the ceiling height is irrelevant.

The Conservative Government scrapped mandatory local targets and introduced *advisory* local targets. The Labour Government plan to reintroduce mandatory local targets. Planning and Housing related elements start at page 36 in the manifesto at https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Labour-Party-manifesto-2024.pdf

We have 2.7m ceilings in our architect brief. Not only do I think it looks better, it also allows a dropped ceiling from the 2.7m where you either a) want to install something (Fan Coil Unit in the entrance space to bedrooms anyone?) or b) want to differentiate a space (open plan areas, lighting features). Russell is spot on. Also, I wouldn't personally choose to run behind a skirting, but if you do choose to do that, you must "create" the safe zone by installing some sort of electrical socket in line with the skirting void. Having said that, it is likely to look terrible if you do! 😉

CAT6A is not that more expensive, and I'd look to use it for data and HDBaseT/TV locations as a minimum. CAT6 would be fine elsewhere, especially for signalling-type activities in home automation. I put the CAT5 cabling in my existing house 25 years ago and I'm happily running 1Gbit connections over it today. It was the best standard available then, although I certainly didn't *need* that cable performance back then. Had I put something else in that was cheaper though, I doubt it would have lasted 25 years.