flanagaj

Incredibly frustrating and local councils should face higher compensation costs for going against the planning officer and then losing at appeal. It might then remove the politics that should not feature.

So our application has been spec'd with a Graf One2Clean. On reflection, I would like to potentially switch this to a Tricel Novo, for the simple reason that the required excavation depth is considerably less than the Graf. The Tricel does look like a quality offering as well, and I like the fact that you can house the compressor inside the lid of the tank. I suppose that I would potentially have to have the calculations redone and the nitrate offset credits might need to be recalculated? Has anyone change their tank from the one spec'd in their planning application?

Given the NIMBY neighbours seem quite determined, I suspect they will turn up on the night to voice their objections. As we are the applicant, I assume we don't have to register to speak beforehand and just turn up?

You have made an excellent point. I was just discussing this with my wife. The planning officer is recommending our application for approval and none of the consultees made any objections either. Yes, the NIMBY neighbours raised objections to the two storey aspect and for some strange reason, the AONB woodland that sits a field away behind the house. The planning officer listed these in her report, but given she has done that, we still felt we had to try and justify our application to the committee. It's bonkers that we are even having to attend, but we are simply going to use your statement. Will the committee ask questions to my wife and I why we have gone a bungalow to a two-storey ... I am hoping that they too will be thinking "why have we got an application in front of us, that has been approved by the planning officer" and it will be a very quick "approved" decision.

So you think that we should simply state that given the planning officer has approved the application without objection then I trust the committee will too?

Thanks. I have removed that a reworded "some concerns" sounds more subtle and less alarmist.

That would be music to my ears if that happens.

Ok, maybe that is why he is not too interested in coming along. Frustratingly, we are the last one on the list for the night. I suppose that could be a good thing. Most definitely!

Thanks. Yes. That will be our conclusion as well.

I switched to buying Festool some years back and I wish I had done it sooner. Yes, they are expensive, but they are quality tools.

I was proposing something along the lines of the below. Chair, Councillors, Thank you for allowing me to speak. We are here today to ask for your support for our planning application to build the home we’ve dreamed of for over 20 years. This application is a revision to an already approved scheme. The planning officer has reviewed it thoroughly and recommends approval, confirming that it complies fully with relevant policies including EM1, EM4, and EM10 of the Local Plan. Much of the opposition to our application centres on the fact that it is a two-storey dwelling, and that the site is within the North Wessex Downs AONB. However, it's important to emphasize—this is not a new principle of development. A home has already been approved here. The only significant change is in design. While this revised proposal is two-storey, the ridge height is identical to the previously approved single-storey home, as the design has been set into the ground. The overall visual impact is actually reduced, due to a smaller footprint and a garage now relocated away from the road frontage. As the planning officer’s report confirms, the site sits in a linear row of mixed one- and two-storey properties. There is no prevailing single-storey character along White Lane. To suggest that a two-storey form is inherently out of character is not consistent with what is already built and clearly visible in the street scene. The objections also refer to the AONB and nearby woodland. But again, as the officer concludes, this proposal does not cause harm to the landscape character. Conditions are in place to ensure landscaping, biodiversity protection, and tree preservation. And it’s important to note: this is a replacement for already developed land—formerly occupied by cattery buildings—which have now been removed. We also appreciate the concerns about future development. That’s why we welcome the officer’s recommendation to restrict permitted development rights—ensuring the scale of development remains exactly what’s approved here today. In summary, this is a modest, well-considered home that respects its surroundings, complies with policy, and builds on an already granted permission. We ask the committee to support the professional recommendation and allow us to finally realise our long-held dream to build our own home. Thank you.

To summarise. The planning officer's report is available and she approves the application and has not raised any objections to the scheme. We are going to take the planning consultant who works for the architectural practice with us to the planning committee meeting, just in case we are thrown any curve balls.. We are going to focus on the personal side regarding this being a dream self-build of for us and that we have waited over 2 decades for such an opportunity. And that our aim is to create an energy efficient and high standard home that we don't intend leaving. Our redesign has been mindful of the neighbours and the location and we have shrunk the footprint of the previous proposal by 60m2, moved the gable end 9m away from the neighbours boundary. All of which creates an atheistically pleasing dwelling of a high standard that will benefit the lane and is also much less imposing than the previously granted permission,

Yes. We are definitely attending and we will speak. We are going to draft some key points with regards to the locals objections. It's difficult though, when one of those who objected to the house not being hidden by the hedging, resides in a bloody huge house that overlooks the area 200 metres down the lane.

This is very promising given the planning officer has approved the application and hasn't requested any amendments. I could be worrying over nothing, but it's the fact that the committee can still refuse based on the look of the property or that it's now a two storey property and not a bungalow, or that you can see upstairs windows from the lane as you walk along it and it's not hidden by the hedging .... All of the above would have been taken into account by the planning officer, but the committee still have the annoying power to say now. 94% leaves me feeling much more optimistic about things though.

I'm becoming really paranoid now about the committee meeting a week tomorrow. Given the ***** neighbour used to run a local cattery business and another of the neighbours is a magistrate, we have concluded it's one big stitch up. The committee can refuse it on such vague terms that it's far too easy for them to do it on the basis of appeasing someone they know.

Neither the revised planning application or the previously granted application specified any FFL measurement. All very strange, as don't the planners want to know that?

Here is the topo survey that was done, lots of elevation points, but I cannot see the datum point which the ridge height / FFL is based off.

Sorry. That wasn't my post.

The ridge height in the previously granted PP on our site and our revised planning application both have a ridge height of 6.4m, but not a single drawing states what the 6.4m height is taken from. Is it taken as 6.4m from the road frontage, eg where your driveway starts from the highway?

Where did I say I recorded the time for 300mm to drain? The image I posted above has three pieces of tape and arrows. I filled up to the top arrow and waited for it to reach the second arrow (75mm drop) then I started my stopwatch and recorded until it reached the second piece of tape (150mm) then stopped my stopwatch.

That's not quite true, as it dictates what m2 your leach field needs to be. Having wildly varying values does make it tricky calculating it.

That's the part that was missing from a lot of the 'How to ..." articles. I assume you have to perform the fill and test at the same time each day, otherwise, you will get different readings. So how long do you leave between the overnight fill and the test (in hours) as that too will influence the results. It all seems rather hit and miss. A core sample sent away for analysis would be a far better option.

Ruling out the chalk hole as that was still draining far too quickly even today after 5 fills, the soil / flint hole readings are as follows. These are as follows. 2nd May 1800hrs - Filled hole and let drain overnight 3rd May 2 tests 1530 hrs : 13 minutes 1800 hrs : 19 minutes 4th May 2 tests 1200 hrs : 23m 35s 1529 hrs : 30m 48s As you can see. The readings differ wildly and it's left me somewhat confused. I am going to go up tomorrow and do another 3 readings of the hole. The hole now appears to have a layer of silt at the bottom. This is going to skew the readings as by it's very nature a silted hole will not be as porous. Should the silt layer be removed before each test?

Sorry for my confusion on terminology. We are installing a Graf package treatment plant. I have read that document so am fully aware of the rules. My question simply to do with a fast percolation reading.

I did fill the holes with water and let them drain away. I am going back this morning to repeat the tests. The very dry spell has not helped matters though. We are using a Graf tank which is the primary treatment not secondary. I thought the drainage field was the secondary treatment?