Moonshine

This, gently chase, understand that they are stretched and act accordingly. Case in point when i had a meeting with a planning officer, i asked what there timescales were to receive a formal response. They said 2 weeks, and if i hadn't heard anything after that time, feel free to call and remind them about it.

I have a meeting with the planning officer on site next week, that i am going to have my architect at as well. I don't know how long after that the planning response will be, but plodding along.

interesting, so if the wording wasn't strongly written to include overhanging structures, not erected on the land could mean that someone could build a massive canter-levered structure over the land as long as it wasn't erected off it?

My interest is it was mentioned in a recent conversation, that it seems a grey area to me (also i am nosey), and i just assumed that the wording "not to erect any building" would include overhanging structures. The area of land is a old part of a bigger house's garden, and the covenant is relatively recent in date and the benefit is a named person, so i presume that it would be the owner (probably changed) of the house the garden once belonged to.

I have been looking at a planning application near me (nothing to do with me), that there is a area of land on the plot subject to a restrictive convenient not to erect any building. The proposed house is laid out with the walls right on the restrictive convenient boundary line, with the eaves of the house protruding 0.5m over the restrictive convenient boundary line for the length of the house (10m+). Would this not be a breach of the restrictive convenient?

Sounds like a peach of a site! are you sure there aren't any big trees nearby?

have you got a stream / river nearby?

I wonder if the council will do any thing about it? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-46380554 It's not like it is a small tree to be missed off / mistaken on a plan

How about making the 'WC' a wet room with shower, but also with a high powered spray to hose down the hounds?

it both ends of the measuring tape were wrong, as whoever took the measurement took it from the inside of the timber, not the actual wall.

to them? hopefully not you!

I hadn't picked up on that i was for your mother, sorry if this comes across bluntly (i don't know anything about her, her age, or health) but maybe there needs be some consideration of layout and access in the future (e.g. if mobility ever became an issue), such as the number of doors, and also drainage considerations for a level access shower. Though from the tone of your post there are some strong opinions to deal with

I hope that is the case for my application!

IANAA.... but with the barn on the left i think something that would really put me off is having to walk through the open plan living to go to the toilet / shower, could you swap the kitchen / bathroom space around, this would also mean that from the kitchen you would have a visual connection to the front of the house enterance.

Thanks, i am waiting on his quote so will be able see if its a proposed small / large bonus arrangement. It is a tricky sloping site for possibly two additional dwellings, with planning being rejected in the past for a single dwelling. The above sounds very very counter intuitive written down, but going for a two house option on the site has some significant merits over the single dwelling scheme which was refused, and is worth exploring further.

You do want metal in there to provide extra strength to the concrete. steel will rust when exposed to air (oxygen) and water, hence having a layer of rust on it when it goes into the concrete (but this is only minor surface rust). However to continue to rust (to a level that would undermine the metal), it need continued exposure to air (oxygen) and water, which it won't get as it is encased in concrete (unless there is a significant problem with the construction).

Thanks for all the replies, and i haven't got the quote which will indicate the % uplift of the bonus, but to be clear it would not be a "no planning, no fee" type arrangement. I was thinking that it would work out something like 90% of the fixed fee if planning wasn't approved, and 110% of the fixed fee is planning was granted (10% differential). I can see the point that going down the bonus arrangement may lead to a more conservative design and not pushing the envelope, but may be dependent on the percentage differential, with the higher the percentage, the more the architect would push for a conformist scheme to gain the permission. its a fair point but what should also be factored in is that for is this is not planning for a house for us, but one that we would ultimately sell, (garden plot) and a large part of our brief is to obtain planning and a design that is attractive to potential buyers. So in effect i am not really too concerned about how it looks, but rather being able to get planning for a house on the site, that looks in keeping with the area, and is attractive to potential buyers. I would want to be engaged in the design but be largely influenced by the architect as that is their skill set (or should be) to design an house that responds to the site and is positively received by planning and buyers. However if it was my 'forever house' i would be all over the design and wouldn't really want to compromise too much.

I have been speaking to a couple of local architects for my project, and saw the last of my long list today. He seemed pretty engaged and on board with what we wanted, all good to be short listed. The interesting thing was he was going to provide our proposal with two fee options (without prompting), one flat fee independent of planning being awarded, and one fee (presume reduced) with a bonus if planning permission is granted. It is an interesting idea, and i didn't think that architects work on this basis. Obviously i need to see what the two fees come out as, and be careful what terms the bonus is paid on (i.e. not paying for PP for a shed) but could be a approach to reduce the financial risk on a potentially controversial site. Has anyone had this arrangement with an architect / service provider before, any possible pitfalls and any examples on the price differential?

O.k, so there is some movement! My pre-app has a officer, and i've had a decent conversation with them on the phone. They have agreed to a site visit and coming back to me with a date (hopefully soonish). I have met with a couple of architects and plan to have appointed one at the time of the meeting, and have them there. Slowly, slowly.

Thanks, there are some in there that i hadn't thought of but may need to consider (or may be not).

Can anyone give any advice on the type of services / surveys i am going to likely need to submit a full planning application? So far my list is, Arboriculturist - tree survey and tree protection plan, with constraints map to give to architect. Land survey - provide detailed levels of the site to input (3D dwg) to architect Structural engineer to design some fairly large retaining walls Architect - design the house, site and produce D&A statement for planning Anything else that i need to be considering / budgeting for?

i think that you need to account for the er how is it applied to 0.17 to get 0.14?

what exactly are you looking for and what are red flags looking at account information?

I was asking the general question about the sort of construction as a below, a kind of hybrid and you can clad it.

Can i also ask while you pose the question, what about an external masonry leaf with inner timber leave?