Gimp

The only other thing some guy was telling me about once was where you lease the land out and company build on the land. They own the build, rent it out, etc you get the ground rent, plus I think a small lump sum up front giving the company permission to build on the land. Possibly it is more for commercial land but maybe it might also be done for residential as well, but of course even if I could find someone interested in such an arrangement I'm not sure if I would want to bother with this type of arrangement or just hold onto the land. Apparently guy I was speaking to reckoned you can do quite well out of it though but might be bother I don't want.

And your advice is good too ProDave so thank you! She seems to be a keeper which is good news for me but yes you never do know. In any case I am thinking of renting abroad before buying so we can get together quickly and that way I can also hold onto this piece of land a bit longer and see how things pan out. With a 5 year period on it, its not going to run out tomorrow its really a case of not committing myself to the build as then I could really drop myself in way over what I can reasonably be committed to at any one time. So Land Hold, Build On Hold.

This is perhaps one of the best suggestions so far, I think you are right bassanclan, it would help knowing if it is worth any more than I paid a year ago with FFP, I will do this.

That's quite refreshing to hear in my situation Trw, hopefully that will be the case but as Jeremy says above it kind of depends on how its viewed in terms of the proposed build I guess.

Thanks Jeremy for the input I appreciate it I think you're right, there is the stress of building the house to consider and it is not a completely conventional house so its likely to not be an east straight forward task, at least not one that can be completed and off my hands quickly. Added to that is the point you make of the uplift in value being usually more form the land than the house. My concern is if the build cost ends up a lot then this could wreck my plans with my girl and this isn't a risk I want to be risking.

So after several months of drawing up plans & submitting them to planning I was recently astounded to learn that I've managed to get Full Planning Permission Approved on my plot first time! As some of you may vaguely recall (I haven't been on here for a few months as busy with it all) I had doubts that I would get it through first time and was probably in for settling down on the long haul of re-submissions, appeals and eventually perhaps getting it through that way. The submission was sent to Committee with Planning Officer recommendation, another pleasant surprise for me since I am used to having a hard slog of it all at most stuff I do in life. My thoughts were that although that seemed a reasonably promising sign the likelihood may be that it gets shot down in Committee. I choose not to attend to not bring any undue attention to my plans and like not being to forward in approaching the neighbours I think this was probably the best policy for me. Anyway, here I am several months later and a very happy boy Except one thing, I'm not sure if I will any longer have the time, dedication and resources on my to actually build the proposed build. Essentially, my personal life has taken a turn for the better it seems and I have met a girl and the likelihood is to suit us both (should all things continue as they are) I will be moving abroad to live with her, since she cannot easily come to the UK, not in the short term at least and I don't wish to be apart from her for a long period of time. This then leaves me with a dilemma of what to do with the plot of land I have in Wales. I bought it quite cheap with OPP and I think it was a good buy as it has many plus points, now I could sell it I assume that perhaps I could get more if it has FPP. The buyer would of course be restricted to the FPP proposed design unless they reapplied for FFP with their own choice of design. I'm assuming that by getting FPP it shows what is possible to build there (the proposal is a reasonable sized build). The money from the sale would come in useful for starting abroad with girl so should make things easier there. Alternatively, I could hold onto the plot, it has a five year time limit on the permission, before having to renew the permission. I think it is likely to be possible to renew without too much trouble seeing as it went through quite decently this time around. I don't see why anything might occur that would make planners think differently next time. During this time, at least 2-3 years I could not see myself developing the site unless my financial fortunes changed as I would not be able to put money into making a life abroad and develop plot in Wales at the same time. While I would be willing to sacrifice the plot as my life with girl comes first it also seems a shame as its a good plot with much potential, particularly now that it has FPP. So I was wondering if anyone on here has any other ideas of what I could do in my situation? If I don't put reasonable amount of labour into the build myself I think money wise I may not make a lot, who knows may even suffer a small loss. I can't do this now its looking as I won't be anywhere near Wales, lol. I may of course never be near Wales or even if I am not in a position to put in the time, effort & money required. So what should I do? Sell, Hold, or is there a third option? Some sort of equity release on the land or way for site to be developed without me having to stump up a large amount of time, money, effort but still keep an interest in the property?

Yeah its a bit of a problem when the planners see the appropriate build one way and the developers another which I gather is often the case. The planners tend to be more conservative in the amount/scale that can be built and the developers often left wanting more. While some restraint needs to be exercised on some developers that are too excessive in making a quick buck and jamming in the builds I tend to get the impression that planners might be a little out of sync with present day economics, if they end up suggesting a too modest build then its just not worthwhile for the developer to make it feasible. I'm guessing you might have would the developer up in your case Jeremy, lol He probably thought you would come back with something near what he wanted then he would build it instead. I've no problem with adjusting a little where reasonable/possible but if its a planner who just wants to restrict you to building what they would like to see then its no good in my view. While the built environment needs to be safeguarded from monstrosities I also get the impression the that planners tend to have a rather meek view of everything being very unnoticeable, architecturally devoid and pedestrian looking.

I think your right Ferdinand, people can get very worked up/funny about development. Fortunately for me there are no trees on site. So I am blessed in this respect

I think your no doubt a lot more people skilled than I am HMP . The planner I spoke to who I believe is handling my case did at least seem down to earth and reasonable enough, not too stuffy and someone you could talk to. However, I'm not the kind of guy that can wangle favours from people with a slick tongue. With the neighbours I really prefer not to talk. I think I'm likely to do more damage to my chances than be at all beneficial. Odds are I would probably end up unintentionally winding them up, drawing attention to the situation and raising concern over my plans where otherwise they may not be bothered. I've spoken to the old chap one side when he happened to notice me on site, he seemed friendly enough but seemed to reserve any opinion other than on site history do I felt it best not to press (think he's a tenant at any rate). The guys the other side looked fairly old as well, didn't look the approachable type though. They didn't look the intellectual type and as such wouldn't bother objecting unless you approached and got into a conversation with them that didn't go well. The impression I got is that they might have a gut reaction to any sort of an approach and immediately be seen as a enemy/raise hostility. I generally see myself as usually quite decent at analysing the social environment around me even if I not that good in it. The impression I got of the area is that it seemed better to take it slow and steady as the folk around there seemed to be a bit guarded at first and being real full on in their face could be very counter-productive. You might well pull it off better but I am likely to make a mess of it, worsening my chances rather than assisting them, lol. My thoughts are that an application from a fairly anonymous individual here for me is likely be better than from someone they have met. If its from an anonymous somebody who they have not met they may be cautious about sticking there two peneth worth in an creating hostility/enemy of a potential future next door neighbour they do not know. If its someone they have met then they know who they are and if did not take to well are likely to follow through in viewing the application the same way. To be honest I really don't see what all this clap trap of jogging around and petitioning neighbours should have to do with building a building anyway, its a complete oddity to my mind like a kind of curious convention that should have a decade or more ago. Even on the planning application its got about whether you've approached your neighbours, who are they, view, etc (what if they viewed it bad its not going to help matters in which case better not to approach at all). I think the only time you should be really called upon to approach neighbours is if there is an obvious aspect that will affect their property/house. Other all this running around seems a lot of silliness that really shouldn't be brought into it. After all I'm trying to build a build on my land, not become personality of the year, if it doesn't affect them then its really none of there business. I guess I'll have to wait and see on this if this is the right approach but I'm thinking the less fuss I make the less fuss they will make.

My site is in Wales also but not in an official area of AONB, it is not in a National Park either. However, it is in an area I'm sure could be described as one of beauty. I think when speaking to planning I recall the planning officer make reference to AOBN or similar area of beauty, not that its a real ugly proposal I've got planned or at least everyone I've shown it too doesn't think so, lol. I would not be surprised though if AOBN or similar gets brought as a reason for refusal in an arbitrary way as PeterW suggests they tend to act. So appeal might be the best way for me to go if there are a lot of issues brought up to avoid a long saga. I don't mind making small amendaments and those that seem logically justified but if its just a brick wall mentality I end up with appeal my be the best route I'm thinking. Did you try to amend to what the Planner suggested in your application or was it just an 'agree to disagree' situation?

Yeah, that is the impression I get from speaking to planning that the planning officer will move to a decision on a basis of points that may have substantial evidence brought forward to the contrary, but will have been either disregarded, not recognized or not even looked at. Like you I get the impression that they are in part if not mostly like this because they don't have the time on their hands to go into all the in's and out's & context of each application. Hence probably why the Design & Access statement got scrapped as they just didn't have the time for it in the end. The impression I got was that they seemed to have the stance of what they say is the official stance on your application, end off. I'm still hopeful but thought it wise to inquire about what I may do further up the road in case my doubts ring true. Many thanks for the insight.

Three years!!! This is all very disturbing to me. Surely it can't be a usual phenomenon. How come they had such issue with your plans joe90, isn't it just a case of winning over the planner whose dealing with your application from the outset?

Thanks for the input guys, I appreciate it I was just wondering if there are any other forms I should submit apart from the standard online application form and and drawn up plans. I never submitted a copy of title deeds, they did not bring this up and I assume they have it all on record online anyway these days. There was also a button for CIL at the bottom of the page but I couldn't quite determine whether or when I should fill this out, it just seemed a bit apart from the rest of the application process. Generally my application is not one that would incur CIL but on part of the notes within CIL it seemed to suggest everyone does one anyway, but was not easy to determine when or really if I should given its odd placement apart on screen from the rest of the application, has anyone else come across this?

Two years! I've heard of it being this long or longer on the TV building shows but never really envisaged how. My Planner asked for a small amendment and it seemed reasonable to do in part so as to help with the process, it only took a few days so not a problem. I would be concerned though if the outlook became that it was something to argue about as it is after all another build among many and at least from my perspective the best that could be made of the site. I was kind of hoping to be getting going on site this summer, lol.

So I've just recently applied for planning submission (first time of doing so), all it tells me on the planning portal is that its 10 days for validation, but very little other than that. Is it just a case of sit it out and wait to hear? I know its eight weeks time limit which gets set back every time there is/when there is an issue. Does anyone know if I get some sort of standardized notification within this period as to what is happening? I've briefly spoken to planning and it does not appear at this stage that any surveys are required, phew but I get the impression they are inundated with work and I'm not likely to hear a great deal from them until near/at the end. Anyone whose been through this process got any inkling of what might pop up if at all anything?

Just been wondering on this one, I'm due to submit for planning soon and I know on at least one side of my site the place is rented out to tenants. In general they are less likely to be fussed as they don't own the place they live in (not that my proposed build is likely to impact much anyway). The Landlord of course owns the place but does not live there so can the Landlord really argue that it affects him/her since its the Tenants that hold the tenancy on the place. Any ideas?

Looking at the price of Catia it seems to run into the thousands: Link: http://www.worldcadaccess.com/blog/2012/05/whats-the-price-of-catia.html I personally use Rhino I find it a bit more easier to construct more complex stuff in than Solidworks which is more geared towards product design. Revit is also good, but I personally think it could do a lot more for the user which it is missing out on. Designing 3D can be real good particularly if there is anything complex in the build. Often I've done stuff thinking 'Ok this will go like that' only to find when putting it in 3D that it doesn't quite work out and it needs to go somewhere a little bit different to what I had in mind or an unaccounted for problem or clash of details is discovered. Can no doubt overcome many real headaches on builds by resolving them on screen in a few minutes rather than in the middle of a build where the tracks have already been laid.

Still it's essentially a food crop so competing on price for feed for cattle and food for ourselves. The US look like they have presently reached the peak for production from corn. If demand for ethanol was to increase like it has for wood burners then cost of using it would rise needless to say of the environmental and social impact on food production and field/forest use. My thoughts at the moment are towards electric fireplace use and offset the cost from two small domestic windturbines. As you stated earlier Jeremy if I insulate well then heat generation needed will hopefully be minimal.

In Wales it rains a lot, particularly where my plot is located. So if you don't happen/can't store enough or run out then its either get more and wait for it to dry or use an alternative. Odds are I would just use an electric fan heater in such as situation since going out and collecting wood in cold, wind or rain kind of defeats the object of keeping warm. Obviously I accept that collecting wood in the rain would be a bad idea but human nature being what it is I'm not sure whether I would be able to keep up enough supply to demand situation. For me I think it would be all a bit labour/time intensive and I'm not willing to pay for a supply as this defeats the objects of getting a free fuel supply which is no doubt the point of it all. I'm also assuming that the cover to the stove doesn't help keep the particles damaging to human health out of the home enough? Since the cover has to be opened to resupply the fire every so often and my not be air tight to these particles at any rate? I've looked at ethanol but some say the problem is that it can't be assumed these are health risk free either: http://www.treehugger.com/gadgets/are-ethanol-stoves-safe-or-green.html i.e if you are burning substances that there is likely to be a bad health/environment spin off. I know that water vapour from e-cigarettes are supposed to be bad for the lungs, possibly causing ammonia in the extreme. Then of course water vapour is not good for the building either. Add onto that any other possible spin off's we might not quite be aware of of burning ethanol. My thoughts at the moment is maybe electric stove/fireplace may be the most sound option, it requires no flue so keeps house integrity, gives of no moisture or harmful chemicals and they can look rather nice these days, but of course maybe more expensive running costs. Other than that gas stove as a second option, cheap running costs but then back to flue so perhaps not gaining as much as hoped as loosing heat there. So when adding the heat loss inefficiency of the gas flue to the cheaper cost of supply, i.e having to heat the home more through gas, are we really back to similar money as to an electric stove installation?

I was considering a wood burning stove for the build I've got planned in Wales, its on a hillside at the back of the village. However there are residential builds not far to either side slightly further up the hill. I know at least one of the nearby houses has a wood burning stove as smelt it while I was there (they kind of stink real bad particularly with damp wood) and the guy had a store of wood outside with a shelter that probably didn't protect the wood enough from the rain. Anyway, I'm not sure I would want to add to the problem and with the wind blowing it back to the neighbours or settling down in the valley it won't make me very popular with the neighbours I'm thinking. There is the advantage that there is a lot of common land that consists of a wooded hillside going up quite some way behind my site, so picking up wood would be free but its questionable if this would be in sufficient size or quantity without a real trek. Then I would have to cut it and while I would have sufficient totally dry storage in my proposed build I can't really see myself as being bothered long term to keep trekking up a hillside looking for wood, then having to keep chucking it in the stove, any clean out, maintenance, replacement, etc. I really don't see it as something I would want to do with the weather you get in Wales to go collecting wood, particularly when its rainy, cold, windy, etc. It might just get a pain in the bum to keep doing, I wouldn't know for sure until in that position but then it would be too late. I certainly wouldn't pay for wood it kind of defeats the object of a WBS for me I think. So I'll probably look at either gas or electric as some of them are quite nice these days.

I think you're right just adding in the extra where needed to resolve any obvious issues in your favour seems a good idea to me but other than that keep it brief. I'm guessing since the planners will likely have a heavy workload on it makes sense not to give them any easy bones of contention from thoroughly annotating the drawings, particularly on measurements.

Thanks le-cerveau, that's a lot of help, I wondered why people where still sending in line drawings by hand, quite nice looking some of them and like you say gives a bit of scope on a 1-100 to not pin yourself down to an absolute specific measurement. I'll be mindful not to go overboard on the annotation then I think, particularly measurements and keep that stuff for my own needs and when it comes to building regs. Now I can see the reason for it I can see why drawings for planning aren't too full on. Thank you very much for helping me understand this area, its a lot clearer what I need to do now

So I've about got my drawings all sorted out on CAD and ready to get them all together for the sheet to submit for planning - so Plan, Elevation & Section. Now accuracy wise it should be about as accurate as I can get. I've used the site survey to get the exact position on site and figured out the bulk of the details inside so the build dimensions are as accurate as possible. That just leaves annotations now I'm fine with doing a fair few of these, materials, etc. However, I've noticed from some applications that annotations have been kept to a minimum, almost non-existent on some. So was wondering am I getting too concerned about the level to detail I need for planning and what exactly is the level needed, is it specified anywhere or each to their own? For example, looking at the link to the planning docs Joe90 kindly allowed us to his build the plan & elevation are ok, clear but not at all heavy on the annotation, measurements, etc pretty much hand drawn. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this but just wondered what the way forward is on this one. Link: http://publicaccess.torridge.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NUPZNPQK07X00

Thanks Peter, the paving idea is worth investigating but I'm a bit pushed for depth. All I can think of at the moment for such a build up is to reduce the insulation down on top of the beam & block (from 100mm to 50mm) and offset this but putting more insulation to the under side which there should be plenty of room for in the ceiling void sticking it to the underside of the beam & block. The floor level of the first floor can't really be changes at this stage or it would throw up a whole host of other little problems as I see it.

Thanks Jamie, that's very handy to know, so a 1/80 would be about a 1.25 degree gradient and a 1/40 about a 2.5 degree gradient. So that would be helpful to me in reducing the gradient to a decent level so I don't have to alter the door level out the veranda too much and be too steep or shallow a slope. I think if I can I will try to avoid the 1/80 then since I am in Wales however the veranda is not a very large area so I can probably get away with a bit I imagine do perhaps anywhere between 2-2.5 degree I'm thinking, many thanks for your help