Ferdinand

Does anyone know any reason to avoid this company? https://www.victorianplumbing.co.uk Just a check. Cheers. Ferdinand

Are secondhand granite worktops useful for those shelves rather than marble? Probably a touch cheaper.

Just to add our experience ... we had a request for an alarm to be fitted in a student house a couple of years ago. Comfort, our agent who manage a lot of properties, recommended wireless sensors as that was their normal usage and had been problem-free. It has been fine and was relatively inexpensive - low hundreds. This was fitted just to the downstairs - mainly as a deterrent and because it was all female that year, and because there are a couple of windows into the kitchen-diner from the front forecourt. At home we are hard-wired, but that was fitted before we arrived. Ferdinand

I think I stand it on rubber horse matting, or perhaps those interlocking hard foam exercise mats, which are in turn on something that makes it easy to slide. Or behind a door. Anything to keep the judder-judder-judder subdued.

Thought you meant feet , and it was a standing area.

The answer ti that one is to have a 1.5 sink where the big one *is* a decent size :-). My 1.5 sink hobbyhorse is that the little sink must be on the opposite side to the drainer, then you can still do messy things without messing the drying potsnpans.

Yes. They were roughly comparable with other trade prices, and for me are the closest o.t.c. Hager stockist. AICO mains smoke alarms with 10yr Li backup batteries were coming in at £27.30+VAT = £32.75 - which is OK but may be beatable by a few %. About 6-7% over Gil-lec - will use if I have some lead time. Do not have the double socket prices to hand. Ferdinand

So that s like a traditional central hallway / reception hall with doors to every room.

Thanks for the further comments. @jack I think a viable scheme for that remaining site would be either a single detached house/bungalow with integral garage or side drive on my side, or a semi-detached pair of small retirement bungalows with a hipped roof probably restricted to over-55s. F

Hager seem to be stocked by Buildbase. That is where my latest selection came from.

So much for wrapping this up quickly. Curiouser and curiouser. It turns out that this proposal (Ashfield V/2017/0562) incorporates into its proposed garden/amenity/parking space two areas of land which were dedicated to parking and amenity for a different dwelling under a previous Planning Application (Ashfield V/2016/0140) by the same Applicant. If the later proposal is approved and built it will remove *all* the amenity space and the only parking space dedicated to one house created under the earlier proposal. The earlier proposal is now around 65% through. No 46 is now occupied, and no 50A is nearly finished. The earlier proposal is excellent. My judgement is that the amenity and parking space for No 50B under 2016/0140 comprise 15-20% of the area included in the later Planning Application 2017/0562. See my notes below and comments at the bottom. Compare. This is Google Streetview of the location: This is the proposed block plan from 2017/0562 - excerpted from the PDF I posted: While this is the Approved Block and Location Plan from 2016/0140, with annotations: The two areas of this Approved Plan highlighted with red circles - garden and parking space - are part of the new garden plot in 2017/0562. The green lines indicate what has been or may be done - a couple of doors and the fence between 48 and 50b now existing in a different place. This latter was caused by the existing door to 48 going into the other house's garden under the approved plan. That all suggests that the Approved scheme was not thought through in enough detail, and perhaps they should have waited and done a single Planning App. But money and time etc. The rub is that reallocating the garden of 50b like that is unacceptable, but overlapping of Planning Applications is allowed and normal as thee can be different development proposals in the same space. If the later PP is granted this issue will not crystallise until it is being built and either 50b has no garden and parking space, or the new semis will have compromised plots and even less parking. By that time it will be built, so it will not be expedient for the Council to enforce, so we will get overdevelopment and a best-in-the-circs solution, which will be a tactical bodge. And the Council will walk away hoping no one notices, because they will genuinely not be able to do anything at that point. How to object? I think this aspect of the objection has to be based on the latter scheme not being achievable as proposed, because the previous scheme will be completed. Although even that may be questionable since there is no requirement on an Applicant to complete a scheme. Really quite naughty, but this type of thing happens all the time if no one notices. He would build both, put the fence half way along, leave 50b with no parking space, sell them all, and zippety-doodah ... Ferdinand

The full PP record is here (and the Decision Notice attached): https://www2.ashfield.gov.uk/cfusion/Planning/plan_history.cfm?reference=V%2F2016%2F0140 @Temp I always have to go and look up the exact meaning of "notwithstanding", as it seems to be a double negative in a single word :-). I can never tell whether it intends to say "whatever the Planning Act says, our statement takes precendence" or "our statement applies unless contradicted by the Planning Act". I still cannot tell. If I have your suggestion here right, Martin Goodall's argument would require an explicit declaration of removal of PD rights from the dwelling house in the condition. My understanding is that this condition should mean "no further changes to the dwellinghouse without a further Planning Application". In the circs of a complex project I think that is reasonable: I would probably have applied more conditions myself around parking provision, occupation of each element of the project only when that parts works were complete etc. This was a branch off my other thread on objecting to a Planning App on a site next to this one. That just got more complicated because *that* later proposal incorporates the amenity land from one of the conversions on *this* earlier proposal (which is being built) into the garden of *that* new application. Ferdinand Ashfield-2017-0140-Decision-Notice.pdf

Perhaps I misunderstood something. I perceived there to be a Dry Hoover with an added kit for use with wet from the Numatic website. F

@JSHarris A dry Henry is likely to be a George without the wet kit. They still advertise models over the EU limit, so perhaps it has as many holes as the incandescent lighting ban. Screwfix sometimes gave Henry type Hoovers on offer in store. Aldi have a 1500w wet dry workshop model for £50, which should be OK. https://www.aldi.co.uk/workzone-wet-and-dry-workshop-vacuum/p/078756159811300 Ferdinand

No need to worry about the four years. Was just confirming my translation from the Chinese.

Can I have quick confirmation. I believe this Planning Condition restricts future Permitted Development (in this case Improvements to the Dwellinghouse). Is that correct? Cheers Ferdinand

I also have an easement I negotiated for pipes and wires needed for the future which I think goes under the corner of the proposed newbuild. Obviously that is not a material planning matter. Enough discussion - I will frame something this afternoon, and post here.

Actually he does seem to be being naughty. The extra bit of side-garden attached to the plot seems to be appearing in a previous Planning app in 2016 as the Approved garden of a flat conversion he did in one of the other properties. Unless some deal or minor amendment is not on the website. Putting it in here leaves the flat with no external space whatsoever. Ooooer. Slight complication. Another chunk of the garden for that previous flat also appears to be in the garden he sold to me! Lordy. However PP does not override land ownership so that bit is mine now .

@MikeSharp01 Yes I think there is enough to be reasonably sure of stopping it. I want the site developed, however, but less intensively. I have decided that my approach will be: 1 - a) Write to the Council pointing out that the PApp should not have been validated, to see if they can un-validate it. (Expecting a refusal to that and a suggestion that I submit an objection). and b) Write to the Applicant asking that it be withdrawn and replaced with something more acceptable, otherwise I will formally object in 7 days time. It is part of a larger site, and we discussed his plans for one detached bungalow on it before I bought mine from him :-). That is what I would like to see. 2 - Formally object with both barrels if it is not withdrawn. Ferdinand

These are the top level Local and National requirements for Validation in my local Council's checklist. It is not as frightening as it looks, as there are a number of items which only apply to eg industrial developments. This is excerpted from the checklist document attached to the previous post. And at least it is (I hope) comprehensive . An Application for Planning Permission – Full Applications (development less than 1000 sq metres or less than 1 hectare and between 1 and 9 residential units) Please note – although only 1 set of documents is required, we reserve the right to request additional copies to aid consultation National Requirements – see glossary for detailed descriptions Application form – completed in full Ownership Certificate/notice – see below for definition of certificates A Site Location Plan- outline the site area in red and any other land owned in blue. To scale 1:250 or 1:12500 Existing and Proposed elevations, floorplans, site sections, finished floor and site levels, proposed layout and roof plans to scale 1:50 or 1:100 with measurements in metric Agricultural Holdings Certificate Relevant fee Where Ownership Certificates B, C or D have been completed, notice(s) must be given and/or published Design and Access Statement – if within designated areas (eg conservation areas, world heritage sites) where there are 1 or more dwellings proposed or the floor area of the proposal is greater than 100m2 Local Requirements– see glossary for detailed descriptions All plans/drawings - must have critical dimensions marked on the plan Additional Plans – may be required Coal Risk Assessment – if the site is within a Coal Mining referral area Environmental Impact Assessment Land Contamination Statement – for all new developments on former petrol filling stations, former landfill sites and former industrial sites Landscape Visual Impact Assessment – for proposals in open countryside or sensitive locations (at the Planning Officers discretion), including areas adjacent to residential properties or close toa Public Right of Way. Site Waste Management Plan – for all new housing developments and all major developments Transport Assessment – required for Residential developments over 80 units Class B1 (Light industrial/Office) with a gross floor area exceeding 2500m2 Class B2 & B8 (General Industrial and Warehousing/Distribution with a gross floor area exceeding 6000m2 Class A1 (Retail) with a gross floor area exceeding 1000m2 Class A2 & A3 (Financial & Professional Services/Restaurants/Cafes) with a gross floor area exceeding 2500m2 Class A4 & A5 Drinking Establishments/Hot Food Takeaways) with a gross area exceeding 600m2 Other types of development with 50 plus vehicle movements in any hour Flood Risk Assessment – for developments within Flood Zones 2 & 3 and for all developments over 1 hectare in Flood Zone 1 Ventilation/Extraction Statement – for all proposals within Use Class A3, A4 and A5 Parking and Access Arrangements – should be marked on the block plan Photographs – may be sufficient for existing elevations with metric measurements clearly marked Arboricultural survey/Arboricultural Implications Study – if trees within a conservation area or covered by a Tree Preservation Order will be affected. Or if mature trees are present within the development site area Heritage Statement – if the site is in a conservation area or a listed building Demolition Statement – for any structure/outbuilding over 50m3 proposed for demolition Structural Survey – required for all barn conversions and major demolition Photographs – to support any application Protected Species Survey/Biodiversity Survey and Report – see the glossary for links to find out whether a survey may be required Renewable Energy and Climate Change – see glossary for detailed information Sequential and Exception Testing – For all new commercial uses outside and on the edge of the designated town centres, and on sites not in accordance with the current Development Plan Ventilation/Extraction Statement – for the use of premises for purposes within use classes A3 – Restaurants and Cafes, A4 – Drinking Establishments and A5 – Hot food takeaways Certificate A – Sole Ownership and no agricultural tenants - This should only be completed if the applicant is the sole owner of the land to which the application relates and there are no agricultural tenants. Certificate B – Shared Ownership (All other owners/agricultural tenants known) - This should be completed if the applicant is not the sole owner, or if there are agricultural tenants, and the applicant knows the names and addresses of all the other owners and/or agricultural tenants. Certificate C – Shared Ownership (Some other owners/agricultural tenants known) - This should be completed if the applicant does not own all of the land to which the application relates and does not know the name and address of all of the owners and/or agricultural tenants. Certificate D – Shared Ownership (None of the other owners/agricultural tenants known) - This should be completed if the applicant does not own all of the land to which the application relates and does not know the names and addresses of any of the owners and/or agricultural tenants.

We have not discussed Planning Authority "Validation Requirements" on ebuild or Buildhub, and it is one step in the Planning process that can delay a PA or trip us up. Validation Requirements are things a Planning Authority requires before they will accept that a Planning Application is fit to be processed, and have recently become more extensive. There are national and local requirements, and they can onerous, and sometimes spurious. Councils may now have a "Validation Requirements" checklist. The one for my own Planning Authority is a bundle of checklists for different types of Application, and is 42 pages long - the answer to Life, the Universe etc. One thing that may be affected is the start of the period for public comments; another is the end date by which the PA is required to have decided on your Planning Application. A couple of decades ago a Planning Application would just be "Registered", and further information requested. Now that we have a target culture in local government, there is a temptation to make sure that the PA has been Validated in detail as that extends the end date and makes the target easier to achieve. I have attached a copy of my own LPA's Validation Checklist for Full Planning Applications as a (slightly misformatted) PDF. Ferdinand ashfield-district-council-2017-validation-list-full-and-major.pdf

I am not sure how that one involves a lost pencil.

I think there is a typo - that 392 is 292 but it is still incredibly tight. Parking is explicitly excluded = 6 spaces at 6x3m min = 108 sqm. Also there are bin and bike stores which will not count, and paths and narrow spaces are unlikely to count, and it is "private amenity space"- which I think excludes front gardens without high fences. A tough ask on a tight site, and it is a material consideration given "significant weight". Interestingly I can find no minimum size defined for "parking space", but they would probably use the same dimensions as a garage. Yep - there is a valdiation requirement on the "Full and Major Applications validation checklist (validation web page, doc itself) which says that "critical dimensions must be shown on block plans". I think critical will mean (when someone thinks about it) "every dimension we think necessary on this occasion to make an informed decision on all applicable aspects of our planning policies". It is a marvellous weasel word Humpty-Dumpty word planning term. I have attached a PDF copy of the Validation Requirements for Full and Major Planning Applications, which is a bit of a stonker of a document, as the original is a docx file. It is a very illuminating document, and one that I have not really engaged with previously. It almost looks like a doc that was not intended to escape, but kudos to Ashfield for putting it on the website - they have a policy now of trying to save staff time by making it wasy for people to make their own assessments. Ferdinand ashfield-district-council-2017-validation-list-full-and-major.pdf

I do not think that even that will trigger the 50% threshold, however our Council have quite significant requirements for amenity space which do seem to be triggered: F

Just a check - is your garage big enough to count as a parking space? Our Council requires a garage to be 3.3m x 6m to do that.