Ferdinand

I have been trying to get rid of the name on mine since 2013, and it keeps reappearing out of databases like a bad penny... So get it right. It is like calling a dog "Kartoffel mit Spiegelei". Something you can live to regret ?. My previous house, which only had a name not a number, always crashed the local Wickes' computer without fail. No idea why. It had been called that since at least 1670. F

One thought - will you need Planning Permission, or a variation? Here's a place that do Occupation-based weathervanes, including hundreds of professions: https://www.weathervanes.co.uk/category/weathervanes/occupations/ Cost is £150-£500. Heating engineer: Bricklayer Shaun the Sheep (I think they have photoshop ?) Ferdinand

On a different note, could you consider a locally made one designed for *you*, rather than a generic cockerel ? Should not be horribly expensive compared to a house. I would love to have the chance to do one of those eventually somewhere, but at present I just have inherited gryphons. Personally I would be tempted by something like a bicyclist or a local artisan, or even Duncan Campbell on his lake. But make it worthy of the work and time you have spent building the house; you deserve that fillip. Ferdinand

Marvellous idea. Here is one way of doing it. Here is another one using a cupola: To me the first one does not look Cumbria-proof. Ferdinand

An extra layer of some sort of tilebacker board 10mm thick at both ends? Could you glue it on with a strong waterproof adhesive eg https://www.diy.com/departments/evo-stik-serious-stuff-solvent-free-grab-adhesive-0-29l/212376_BQ.prd Ferdinand

I do no think I would play it that way. I would ask them for a definition, or perhaps even proof that their definition is valid, or maybe just proceed with "light" plant. It is not for you to play Blind Mans Buff; it is for them to set legal conditions. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that planning conditions should only be imposed where they are ‘necessary, 'relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects’. (https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Planning_condition) If it is not all of these, then it fails and is unenforceable. If you have given us all the relevant information, it sounds as though "heavy plant" means 'something that will not fit comfortably down the narrow access roads, but will cause a significant disruption because it is in the tourist season'. That sentence would be the pertinent defining language for heavy plant, unless it is defined elsewhere and referenced. If there is no disruption, then you may well be OK. If you can meet that condition another way, eg by having a 'light plant' size digger, or taking it in before breakfast, but not working until your allowed hours, then you *should* also be OK. What would their basis be for enforcement unless there had been disruption of the narrow roads? However, it is a matter of judgement ? . Ferdinand

Phone up and tell them about it, and where the path is, to be off the record, or use the comment form anonymously, or email in to be on the record. F

Bet that lot came from Thanet. Quite some badgers who can nearly tip over a mini-tractor.

Analogue are Coax Cables as used with analogue TV signals. Ie at most recent pre-2007. F

I have been clearing out the garage this w/e, including my spare electric, telecomms and computer cables. Does anyone have a good rule of thumb? Things that have gone or not gone: About a dozen multi 4 or 6 way short extensions leads ... keep if not ancient. 12v lighting transformer and kit dad used above his drawing board decades ago .. keep. Centronics printer cables .. all gone except one. Mice .. everything pre-USB gone. Analogue TV aerial cable .. all gone. RS232 / 423 cable .. keep one. 5 pin DIN audio cable ... gone. 41612 Euro Cables ... can't decide; they cost a fortune back when. etc. Does anyone have a system that works? Ditto mobile phones? (Just found what I think is a car-charging lead for a Nokia communicator. Gone.) Ferdinand

What is the cost of a badger proof cage for an ASHP? Less than the difference? F

I would like to go, and Thursday would fit. Ferdinand

That is ... sharp.

It is actually a compliment to the well-preserved appearance of the protagonist ?.

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