flanagaj

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?

Can I ask what the solution was? One option I have read is to slow the permeability by used a layer of compacted builders sand. Keen to understand, as without a DF, our only other option is a septic tank and that is not going to fly.

I was going to speak with a local company that installs the treatment plants, but I suspect they won't be interested as they are not getting the commission.

Here is the method I used. Was all done correctly.

Admittedly it has been very dry, but I dug to holes 1m down and then a 300 * 300mm square. One of the pits was into chalk bedrock and the other was soil and very heavy flint. I saturated both holes last night and then returned this afternoon to carry out a first test as 3pm and then another at 6pm. The results are below Chalk hole : Reading 1 (342 sec) Vp = 2,3 Reading 2 (462 sec) Vp = 3.08 Flint / Soil Reading 1 (780 sec) Vp = 5.2 Reading 2 (1140 sec) Vp = 7.6 So these readings are bad news, but I am struggling to understand how neighbours on both sides have treatment plants and leech fields. Anyone have any advice here. I obviously need to raise the height of the field so that the invert is not near the chalk bedrock. It states that it cannot be < 15 for it to be suitable.

I don't think you can. Given 2 of the letters were basically templated from the main objector it doesn't make sense to go to the committee. Just hoping it's not a ruse and they know a number of the counsellors.

Clever neighbour managed to get 3 other NIMBYS to object, and reach the committee threshold of 4 objections.

The objections were only from locals. Comments such as "It's an eyesore", "it's too close to the road" The later is interesting, as it's the same footprint as the previous grant that they were all ok with 😂 All other consultees had no objections.

Aside from being told "No objection in principle" We haven't had any information from the Case Officer in relation to our planning application. Given that we are off to committee mid May, I am crossing my fingers that it's recommended for approval and that we wouldn't be going to committee if the planners were refusing it? Our relationship with the architects has soured slightly and they seem to have gone completely off the boil, so not sure about attending the committee hearing. The objections from the neighbours were very much personal and not planning policy related, so unsure whether we need to spend money getting a planning consultant to attend. Thoughts?

😂