Ferdinand

One is very firmly avoiding enquiring as to whether this curiously and suspiciously unspecified Coronation was Lillibet or George...

Yes, but from the floor not the tower (for clarity). If you after more height, then I would look at a 2m extension for the lifter, which costs very little extra https://www.manomano.co.uk/plastering-tools/set-xxl-drywall-lift-sheetrock-lifter-panel-hoist-6ft-extension-809585 I am not sure what the precise issue is here .. is it that the pb lifter is 18 inches too short,or that you want to put it .. or the pb ... on the tower? F

If you could that would be great as currently struggling visualising what you mean. Let's frame this @recoveringacademic style: Problem Statement: How do I prevent anyone parking on a turning area shared between 2 houses, and minimise any conflict when that happens? Solution principles: You need to 1 - Design out grey areas, so that there is nothing to argue about. For example, make it so that the shared area is either "clear" or "clearly blocked"; do not make it big enough for "nearly 2 cars", so that people will think they can fit in and leave turning space. 2 - Make it such that blocking the turning area is not trivial, and it is very very clear that things are gummed up. Houston, we have a problem! not Houston, do we have a problem? 3 - Design it to encourage reasonable behaviour from typical people. 4 - Design it such that enforcement in extremis is straightforward and as clear as possible (which follows from no 1 and 2). Case Study Let me try and clarify what I mean by a walkthough exploring a "Y" shared driveway. Apologies if I am teaching you to suck eggs. 1 - We all agree that separate entrances and parking for each house are the best. You are constrained here in a way that stops you doing that. 2 - So we are now in a game of trying to use the physical design / layout to meet the constraints whilst also attempting to minimise the possibility of conflict ... though we can never guarantee that that won't happen, because human beings are bloody-minded sometimes, and sometimes circumstances force us to walk the limits (eg child cannot buy house, and partner moves in so we suddenly have an extra car). 3 - My first port of call would be to see whether I can shift that requirement to exit the site in a forward gear ie onsite turning space). I do not know if that is possible by careful compliance with local planning policy if (for example) it is an unclassified road, or if a wide verge can be used for turning. That would need someone experienced who really knows the policy to comment on. For example, our local policy says: I believe that that last statement leaves scope for not having turning facilities inside a 'small development'. I think. But I would need to prove that it was justifiable in the context. (I think that that is an outworking of research which went into the Manual for Streets (1990s edition) showing that previously the risks of accidents assumed to exist with driveways directly onto roads with higher-than-minimal traffic had been overestimated, so guidance was liberalised (and link or distributor-roads with no houses on in estates became less rigidly imposed.) What does yours actually say? It is perhaps not the sort of thing you will be told without asking. 4 - Moving on to actual design. It is really about the way to design a shared area such that conflict is designed out as far as possible eg by discouraging people from parking on it. 5. Worked example: Consider a Y entrance into a pair of houses A and B where the stem of the Y is common, and the branches are exclusive, and you turn by partially reversing into the other branch. a) If you make the stem 5m wide, someone will feel free to park on it because 2.5m will be left, which is enough to drive down. Technically, they could argue that because a second car can fit past the parked car, the parking does not form a substantive obstruction of the Right of Way -> so design it such that it damnw ell would be a substantive obstruction. So if you make it 3m wide, someone will probably not park on it, because it is blatantly obvious that it will be a blockage, as only a pushbike to a motorbike could get past. A bloody-minded sod might park on it, but most people would not, and a it is clear-cut enough that a normal policeman or PCSO would make them move. Doesn't solve the problem, but does tend to make it rarer if you are forced to have a shared area. So make the shared entrance as narrow as is consistent with domestic uses. That is a combination of physical design and human psychology. (You may run up against Fire Engines requiring 3.7m if any part of either house is more than 45m from the roadway - so make it all within the distance). b) Each half also requires to be able to reverse into the other house's branch of the Y by about 3m to turn around, so need a right of way over that for turning purposes, and for the other householder not to park on it. If the driveway gate is set 3m back from the split in the drive on each side (or a big white line put on the drive, or a change of surface, or similar), then there is physically not room to park nearly all cars there without obstructing access from the other branch of the Y. Again, a bloody-minded sod could park there, but most people (hopefully) would not. A Right of Way in the deeds would make that enforceable, or if you really wanted to be clear give A the freehold of the first 3.5m of B's drive from the split in the Y, and vice-versa, and corresponding Rights of Way to allow access. 6 That is the sort of scheme I was thinking about. Needs thought, but corresponding setups should be designable. It will not guarantee reasonable behaviour, but it will incentivise it to some extent. You need to be a little ingenious. Ferdinand (will add diagram when I have sketched)

Yes, but... I think assessment of checks and balances in Planning Policy is not a core expertise for your average zoologist / naturalist / TV presenter. ?. I think in this case it sounds justified as they had a recommendation to approve from the PO. F

The above is correct, think about your loft purpose. .. is it storage or habitable. The assessed floor area depends on a height which will exclude some of your slope. That applies to eg minimum bedroom sizes in my world, but will also apply in some ways to Yours. F

Yep. Thanks. The reference relates to the Chris Packham ‘destroy those nets’ thread. This is the previous 2017 application for the site, to the current one that has the hedge netted that was complained about by CP. The newer one ... which is 40 not 62 houses and 25 affordable - was recommended for approval by the Planning Officer. My reading is that Packham has backed the wrong horse on this one, perhaps at the behest of objectors who know they are most likely on to a loser at Appeal. Suspect Packham is suffering from reaching outside his own core expertise - zoologist - and interfering in a professional planning process without understanding how it balances competing interests. A bit populist. F

You can also apply to vary a condition, so if there is anything they are wedded to you could leave that aspect in place. You could suggest a modified condition if that was tactically better. Good luck.

Cheers. They say they should be there from 2005.

I think this is a genuine grey area. Here is the opinion of a Local Authority Lawyer, arguing that PP overrides PD, therefore it can't be demolished under PD once a PP is in place with Pre-Commencement Conditions: https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17875%3Ademolition-under-permitted-development-rights-or-planning-permission&catid=63%3Aplanning-articles&Itemid=31 But I have seen it argued (summarised) that Pre Commencement Conditions cannot apply because they do not exist until development has commenced on the PP. Here is a *load* of stuff from Martin Goodall about the different sorts pre-commencement Planing Conditions and how they have changed: https://planninglawblog.blogspot.com/search?q=pre+commencement+conditions I am not sure what to suggest here, other than to remember where the main focus is - building your house. You can easily end up like Mr Data: F

I am trying to get the documents for this Planning App in North Lincs: https://apps.northlincs.gov.uk/application/pa-2017-917 I do not seem to be able to find them. Am I missing something? Cheers Ferdinand

I had not realised that netting of trees and hedges prior to development had made the news. Grimsby Telehgraph: https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/winterton-hedgerow-netting-planning-refused-2645014 Chris Packham telling us how hateful it all is: Now reached the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47627749 At a time when there is a lot of moaning about houses not being built quickly enough on receipt of PP, I would say that someone needs to decide on their priorities... Ferdinand

Yes, but not for each house. On ours we had to comtrinute to a local playground, which is fine if not a killer amount. If a little bit of linguistic or administrative self-abuse keeps the box tickers and the nimbies happy, then perhaps let them have their fun. If they are not allowed to relabel your plans, then they may find something that actually makes you do something. F

Can you build a landscaped backdrop berm against which to shoot errant pheasants safely? That would use up some soil. Not being a shooter I am not sure of the details except that it must be done safely and within your own land or with permission from the landowner. F

How is that different from a private outside amenity area which everyone has always had in their requirements anyway afaik? Do you have to provide a bouncy castle and a sandpit ?? F

You need to check actual policy, at national and local level. The biggest distance is likely to be habitable room window facing habitable room window, and is about privacy and overlooking. It may alter eg if there is a 2m brick wall in between. Or if you offer obscure glazing, or a dog leg angle, or other things you come up with eg a brick wall. This depends on the status of the new Local Plan, as to how much weight it gets. If your Planning App is in before it is in force, then it should be done mainly on saved policies from the existing. But it will help to nod to the new ones. I started my largish planning application to get the permission in before the proposed local plan took us out of the housing allocations. We got it through Ok on appeal after a political refusal, but the Council are so supremely competent that 6 years later the new lot have just entirely restarted the process after kicking out the old lot, who had previously inherited the same exercise from the lot who just got back in albeit they are now independents not Lib Dem’s. If there are problems with it in law or practicality, write up an email with talking points and chapter and verse and give it to your local paper after a phone call. They love that kind of story. Our Local Plan made The front page at least twice that I know of. Ferdinand

I think it should be possible to arrange it geometrically such that Party A cannot park in the turning area head without completely blocking access for Party B to their drive eg if you make A reverse onto the bit outside B’s entrance in order to turn and vice-versa. If you really wanted to you could set it up a little like Tyneside Flats where A owns the bit outside B’s entrance where they reverse to turn, and vice-versa, and B only has a right of way over it. The trick is to make the bit when A turns impossible for B to park on and similarly the other way. One way to do that is to set the gates vpback sufficiently far on a common Y entrance to be too short to park, whilst making the road too narrow for a side-park to leave room to turn. I have one possible scheme but uploads are currently dead. Ferdinand

i think this is always not ideal, but works best if the rules are very clear, and the physical layout is such that breaking them is as diddicult as possible. That is nebulous, but I get things from it like making sure that the turning area is separate from the parking areas, and that there is not room for 1 car to squeeze in to it whilst there still being anything like room for a turnaround. So that violations are obvious. Can you do anything like provide a dual purpose lawn/turn for both properties separately? F

Cheers. So that is just a need to login, then .. or are a certain qty of posts required?

i think you perhaps just need to be logged in, though I was not aware that that was one of the Members Only areas. F

You could do a two-area one using trad gravel with tarmac. This is mine done about 5 years ago, where I replaced the existing traditional suburban front garden lawn and beds with 2-3 car parking, Aimed for 3, in practice a comfortable 2. The existing concrete drive stayed in situ. It was done with proper ground fabric etc, and it is about 50-50sqm of gravel. The edgings are cement, and I think the whole thing was about 3k all in in 2013. As you can see, it is still Pretty much weed free, and te maintenance is 1 raking a year, or perhaps 2. Oh .. car is for sale if anyone wants a 2009 1.4 Corsa auto with 50k. Ferdinand

You could get something like that built out of SIPS for less than that. eg https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Insulated-Garden-Studio-Office-Room-Pod-DIY-Self-Build-Kit-Bespoke-SIPs-Panels-/222302350517 F

This is the provision I was talking about. It appears in EW you have 3 years to sell your previous property to reclaim 2nd home Stamp Duty. https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/everything-you-need-to-know-about-stamp-duty#stamp-duty-on-second-homes Has that changed in Scotland? F

The 3% extra stamp duty does not apply to properties costing under £40k as one threshold, but that is to do with the price of the second property not liability for the second property tax. I think the solicitor is correct. I recall the overlap period being reduced, though I thought it was 18 months not 16. Others may add more. Ferdinand

I thought the principle was that ownership of a shared property was treated the same as if it was a whole smaller property ie normal rules and thresholds apply. Is the 3k the supplementary stamp duty of 3% on second properties? Ferdinand

There are records of around 30 builds in the blog area. Worth a look. I am not sure how many truly "alternative" build methods have been used by members though there may be some. I can't recall hobbit houses, or earth sheltered, or cob houses occurring too often. I think the weight of emphasis here is more on building houses to a good specification, whilst simplifying away some of the more gimmicky or specialist interventions. And I think that you may have more meat for your research in this kind of area ... eg do we really need grey water recycling, GSHP and complicated control systems? That is, straws in the wind for the practical consequences of high spec fabric first. Though there are exceptions - eg @Ed Davies is off grid in an A-frame house. IMO the valuable insights to be gained here are perhaps as much about practical things that can be rolled out more widely, rather than revolutions that will upend all the apple carts. Suspect that we are 5-15 years in advance of the norm, not 25-35. Ferdinand