Ferdinand

If I have this correctly, that process may have some problems. I am not sure the fill-in fields will be preserved, and you may have to do it in a picture editor. But I hope I am wrong. Let us know if it works.

negotiated LOL.

Yes but they help you by delaying anything at all going to the Council until the payment is in their sticky fingers. How thoughtful.

It depends if it is eg damp leaching through, or a physical impression of the blocks. If there is no insulation in the wall I would dry line with about 50mm+ of celotex in it and skim. And use that as a lever for a new kitchen in the other bit ?.

thanks for that. Unfortunately the Online process vandalises the filled-in form in several ways when you download it so you cannot use that for a PP application ... for example it leaves off the box where you sign. It is intended to only be useable as a draft record. And so on. They are being well naughty.

This change is only the last 6-8 months or so, so you may have dodged it.

????????? Loving it...

Disagreeing with @Moonshine. No! That is the wrong way round ... the law says that development is to be approved unless there is a material reason in planning terms not to do it. The basic principle is in Para 11 of the NPPF: 11. Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Elucidated thusly: For decision-taking this means: c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date7 , granting permission unless: i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed6 ; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. In law it is for the Council to justify a refusal, and show that it cannot be justified in planning terms. (Though they sometimes don't act like that). I am not really convinced much of it is to do with managing risk, unless that is for the Council rather than the community. I think that much of it is to do with a culture that seeks reassurance in procedural tick boxes and archived reports, rather than a willingness to exercise professional judgement. One problem is that there is little downside in a Planning Officer imposing costs of £££ on the applicant, to create xyz extra report, whether or not it is justified or necessary. There is (to me, anyway) a noticeable difference when dealing with 'wise owl' type 5x year old planning officers, and those who are still in short trousers and wet behind the ears. One of the things some lack is the impact on the applicant of what seem to them to be minor decisions. Two years ago I applied for a Change of Use, which involved about £4k expenditure and a hundred hours of my time, and months of consultation with planning. The planning officer applied - of his own accord - a time limit of 3 years on the change of use on the last morning, after no consultation whatsoever with me, got it signed off, and issued the decision notice (ie too late to change it). I was not even asked about my business plan, which required a 10 year CoU to justify the 100k which was to be spent on the unit. He just said "should be enough". He had previously seen an outline of our BP. The economic development people knew about it, but they were not asked either. We had to spend weeks renegotiating a complex lease. And the bloody unit had been empty for a decade anyway, which we were bringing back into use. Much criticism of Councils is fully justified. On top of that we have a number of professional lobbies on the "more checks" side who have a vested interest in protecting their income streams, or powerful single issue lobbying groups who want to use the planning system as a weapon to protect their pet cause, whilst it is supposed to be a way of balancing interests around a development. (*) Some of these groups have serious institutionalised conflicts of interest. A good example of this is the Bats Protection people, who make their money from selling training courses to batmen, and are also a key adviser to English Heritage on Bat Conservation Trust in planning policy .. which creates the demand for the thing that makes them money. This is an abuse imo. Single issue lobby groups unfortunately do not give a toss about anything except their single issue. Will explore that another time. In some cases yes. In some cases no. I tend to use it because I get fed up of typing umpteen polysyllabic words. F (*) Witness Village Greens or Buildings of Community Value.

However, remember that such reports will contain valid dates and the LPA may ask for another one if expired or there has been time since for eg bats to arrive. The ones I have seen are validity of 2 years, and I have never seen an LPA use that as a reason. You could manage that risk by eg negotiating a 25% fee for an "update" when you order the initial exercise. Ferdinand

I would leave the satellite dish until you have a roofer for something, then go "while you are up there..". If not, you want a crawler or a thing that turns your ladder into one. Probably £100-180 and £30-40 respectively. Or hire one for not too much for a day. F

It seems that if you download a blank form from the Planning Portal, you can (in theory) print it out blank for handwriting, or fill it out and print it, but you cannot save a completed form. https://1app.planningportal.co.uk/YourLPA/DownloadOfflineForms Ferdinand

There is also this, which I need an agent to explain to me. It seems to involve crippling part of their current process. Closing a loophole? [Update: Aha, for some reasons emailed applications are not in the process. At some point they will start refusing them point blank. https://www.planningportal.co.uk/applications Please note: From 10 September 2018, there will be a service charge for submitting online planning applications that attract a planning fee. These online applications fees are to be paid to the Planning Portal by using the payment options that are presented to you as part of the application process and before the application is submitted to the local authority. Find out more.] [Further update: This is actually quite naughty; they are attempting to coral you into the revenue earning process by making it more difficult to submit a form created online into your LA Directly. https://www.planningportal.co.uk/faqs/faq/260/will_i_still_be_able_to_printexport_1app_applications Draft applications On 6 December 2018, we reinstated the ability to print and export draft PDF planning applications. This feature had previously been removed with the launch of our payment service in September 2018. You can now download and print draft application forms from 1App. The forms still hold all of the information relevant to your application; however, we have made some key changes to the draft forms, which render them invalid for submission to local authorities. These changes include: A full page ‘DRAFT’ watermark Removal of the local authority’s logo Removal of the declaration box Removal of the agent’s details] (I have attached one of their defaced draft Application forms). (The security appears to be every bit as good as other PDF documents known to the forum, though actual forms are produced on the fly) Ferdinand PP-00000000-DRAFT.pdf

It appears to apply to Agents at present, and I think to Householders who submit their own PP through the portal. At least in my neck of the woods I can still apply to the Local Authority in writing on a paper form but the process of creating a form at the Portal, printing it out, and submitting by post or hand is being deliberately impeded. Is there not a rule that Planning Depts can only charge the cost of their service (which is probably not completely recovered at present), and privatising it may be a way round that? The pitch to an LPA is it saves them processing the 25% of PPs that fail validation because the payment is wrong, and so boosts efficiency. The pitch to agents is in the FAQ: https://ecab.planningportal.co.uk/Uploads/PPQ_LPA_Guidance_and_FAQs.pdf The way payments are being simplfied is that nothing will be passed through to the LPA until the payment has been processed :-). Not clear whether that is adding value. For Agents there also seem to be some complications in that single payments will cover multiple Apps when paying back to you, and you get a list by CSV format email. @Mr Punter, to explain the extra to your customers ... ie you, you read this out to yourself in the bathroom mirror: I would say they are positioning themselves to be able to take over the service from LPAs using a cost saving / more efficient service at no cost to you argument should such a thing become law. There are about 400k Planning Applications per year in the UK for residential, so that is about £10m of potential revenue, and perhaps as much again for non-residential. Presumably Building Regs are potentially about the same. The £20 flat fee looks questionable to me, as that is up to 20%. IMO that needs a complaint to Trading Standards, or from a consumer client of an agent to their MP. It is a pretty strategy; the person who ultimately gets bent over only finds out after the fact. Ferdinand

Tricky isn't it. The first question is what level of accuracy is required for your site. In general I reckon the larger the plot and the more rural the location then the lower the accuracy. The other extreme would be a tight urban plot where a 1m error could adversely affect a neighbor or create a manifest aberration to an establish building line along a street. That is a good comment. But also remember the difference between a sizing error, and a positioning error. Positioning is wrong place; sizing is too large - and your situation will have different sensitivities to each. And also between error and "error", the latter being slightly deliberate because you might want an unofficial 6" more in the width of your garage. If the 2 sides of your house have convenient measurement "errors" in different directions, then they will be rightly giving you an old-fashioned look. It can be got away with, but you would be playing blind man's buff. My dad had one where somebody had had an Approved Design that was bigger than suitable for the plot, because they had an argument with the chap the other side and tried to move it by stealth so the foundations were 18" away not 3 feet. He made them move them by threatening to get Planning onto it, and it ended up 18" narrower. The cockup was probably because they had not done their homework when buying the plot, but a lot of people building things would have tried to bully their way through it or create facts on the ground. Had it reached eaves height the Council would not have enforced as being "inexpedient". If the change had been say 10ft to 8ft away, there would have been no objection. Ferdinand

That looks really good.

Blue stripes ?

Looks good. That insulation on the garage could be by Le Petit Bateau.

I think we want a comment from one of our resident architects on this ... afaics the terminology is at cross purposes. eg Some people are talking about S106 contributions ie agreement with the council, whilst the op is saying this is a Unilateral Declaration, which is a Commitment signed as a Deed rather than negotiated. These two are treated differently in significant ways. I had a Unilateral on the piece of family land we sold, and I think the developer who bought it missed that, because they had to go back for a completely new PP rather than the normal ‘renegotiate the S106’ approach when they wanted to save some money on the Planning Gain. I have no idea of the interactions between two unilaterals on two planning apps on the same piece of land, though if I had one Unilateral in place that I had paid the contribution as well as the fee, I would go for a S106 on the second and try and rely on the dosh that had been paid, arguing that the second contribution should only be paid if the previous one had been recovered, or similar terms on a Unilateral Mk 2. I would try and make the second contribution payable only when the first one had been returned for whatever reason. I would expect to pay a second (possibly reduced) fee, since some of the work by the Council would have already been done. However, it is a complex situation. is @the_r_sole in the house? Ferdinand

Gravel board moulds with that finish probably exist too, and could be made up by your local fence place at a tenner each, perhaps with holes for bolts. It would redefine the meaning of "industrial style concrete finish". But I am not sure I would want a wall surface of gravel boards, just from a "what if one fell off" point of view. F

Can anyone advise me what this mini beam is that we have discovered in my cottage end wall? We are patching rendering and have found 2 small beams in the gable wall of my 1850s cottage. It is original. The one on the LHS is completely rotten, but I am not aware it has caused any structural failure or that anything has moved. I am not sure what it is for. It cannot be part of a roof truss as the horizontal is not all the way across - unless there is a type of semi-truss which relies on the joing from the beam to the wall to provide the strength in tension. It is to support any orthogonal joist as the other side of that wall at that point is a bedroom not a roof. It almost looks like a mini wall plate for the table wall. The wall is only half brick. As I cannot see any real issues, I am inclin d simply to tprake it out and full with bricks and mortar. Ant comments would be most welcome. As an indicator of how mini this house is, I think the top platform on @Mr Punter‘S scaffold tower is at about 3.7m. Ferdinand

It means you talk too much. ?

Well, it is a solution. Or feed her and you anti-diarrhoea-etics whenever down there, so you get pellets like a guinea pig in your composting loo. I would suggest a loo at the top of the stairs. Ferdinand

On the PP issue, a couple more things. - These days houses on corners can easily get described as having TWO Principal Elevation, on the basis that both face the road and the public have to look at them. You can then get the restrictions on both sides. Sorry. - On the boundary, no map will tell you exactly where the boundary is due to thickness of lines etc, unless it is a special Determined boundary with professional surveys and things, with agreement from both sides. Since yours is with a road that will not he in place. - The General Boundaries Rule https://www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk/2018/02/22/the-general-boundaries-rule-land-registry-plans/ states this. the precise boundaries is determined by what is written in your deeds, and ‘boundary features’ on the ground (in your case the old hedge and the edge of the road), and then they ie a Surveyor if it is critical to know the exact place, make a judgement. ferdinand

There should be apps available, though both IPhone and Android can record incoming calls. Or use something like Skype on your PC, and record that. F

Record the call?