1 hour ago, Russell griffiths said:

Did you see that bloke unload those trees, 

i wanted to climb in the telly and karate chop him in the throat. 

Omg! Yes. Made me cringe

On 05/10/2021 at 15:14, Russell griffiths said:

Did you see that bloke unload those trees, 

i wanted to climb in the telly and karate chop him in the throat. 

I’m watching this episode from between my fingers. Absolute jokers.

Last weeks one was just an example of the ludicrous planning system we have.

 

A valley in Cumbria with the ruins of some old mill.  They got PP to conserve and add a building to it, but then the building was declared beyond hope by the heritage guy, so they knocked it all down, built the new building and then rebuild something a bit similar to the derelect stone work around it to look as though they had kept the old ruins.

 

Am I the only one that thinks it would have been better just to build a completely new building and face it in the old stone, once it was apparent the old building was completely beyond saving?

8 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Last weeks one was just an example of the ludicrous planning system we have.

 

A valley in Cumbria with the ruins of some old mill.  They got PP to conserve and add a building to it, but then the building was declared beyond hope by the heritage guy, so they knocked it all down, built the new building and then rebuild something a bit similar to the derelect stone work around it to look as though they had kept the old ruins.

 

Am I the only one that thinks it would have been better just to build a completely new building and face it in the old stone, once it was apparent the old building was completely beyond saving?

One of many mysteries.

 

every week the missus wants to know how they get planning, and I can only put it down to big money hiring good consultants.

2 hours ago, ProDave said:

Last weeks one was just an example of the ludicrous planning system we have.

 

A valley in Cumbria with the ruins of some old mill.  They got PP to conserve and add a building to it, but then the building was declared beyond hope by the heritage guy, so they knocked it all down, built the new building and then rebuild something a bit similar to the derelect stone work around it to look as though they had kept the old ruins.

 

Am I the only one that thinks it would have been better just to build a completely new building and face it in the old stone, once it was apparent the old building was completely beyond saving?

Would they have had to reapply for planning permission once the old mill was knocked down?  Would there have been a risk of them being refused?  Or was it a case of once they'd started down a particular path, they were blind to any other direction?

It turned out well though, and again fair play to them as they put the effort in.

2 hours ago, Roys said:

It turned out well though, and again fair play to them as they put the effort in.

 

Yes I agree, but not sure about all that lead flashing on top of the stones. Could they have dealt with it differently?

One of the better ones in the end but the process was, as above, a bit suspect. Makes good telly though. It wasn't as remote as it seemed. The cameral picked up someone's house nearby. A relative I think. Planners are under such pressure to achieve targets that every little (or big) one helps.

Do the producers of theses programs make the home owners look really stupid, or are they really stupid??

who orders a lorry load of concrete and doesn’t notice an old weak bridge in the way that the lorry won’t get over. 

Really are they that thick. 

1 hour ago, Russell griffiths said:

Do the producers of theses programs make the home owners look really stupid, or are they really stupid??

who orders a lorry load of concrete and doesn’t notice an old weak bridge in the way that the lorry won’t get over. 

Really are they that thick. 

A friend of mine was doing an "eco" build in the early days of GD. The producers were very keen until they saw how organised he was. He got the impression they were only interested in something with the potential to go wrong. Drama and jepordy and being able to call people idiots makes better TV apparently. 

1 hour ago, Ralph said:

A friend of mine was doing an "eco" build in the early days of GD. The producers were very keen until they saw how organised he was. He got the impression they were only interested in something with the potential to go wrong. Drama and jepordy and being able to call people idiots makes better TV apparently. 

 

I knew a freelance sound engineer who worked on the original Sarah Beeny shows.

 

He said that if you don't eff it up they will find a way to edit the footage to make it look like you did. Participants have zero editorial control and a the end of the day these are entertainment shows so entertainment will be delivered. 

Would it get a mortgage with all that spray in foam?

 

Liked the stonework, but the leadwork is the worst I have ever seen, I guess they did it, hope it does not get windy there and that the birds stay away.

 

When they had to demolish it, I think they should have drawn new plans up,  I was not taken by it.

I liked the concept of the building with the new partially roofless shell. It gave a nice sense of what had been there previous. 
 

I’m not sure it quite landed for me, but I like the bold idea.

Felt quite familiar, we are on the site of an old mill and less than 10miles away.

Just turned this weeks on now- the homeowner seems ‘interesting’.

Yes, different programme to usual. Not a house to my taste and a lot of money and pain for the outcome.  But as long as he's happy...

 

I thought I was going to love it when I saw the plans. HIs economising changed it somewhat and not for the better in my opinion.

Apparently he was from east london...

Well that last one was a bit crap, what was the point of the cantilever?  Looked like he spent £300,000 on trying to make it float when two columns could have probably saved him £150,000. 

As kevin said it looked like a bungalow just up in the air. 

 

Yes - to have some interesting impact I think he needs it to actually flood under the building! 

22 hours ago, Adam2 said:

Yes - to have some interesting impact I think he needs it to actually flood under the building! 

Totally agree. Why have a cantilever without a purpose? 

On 11/10/2021 at 09:11, Russell griffiths said:

Really are they that thick. 

Unfair.

If they are thick , then so am I.  I once estimated and won a project for some heavy civil engineering. Our PM politely asked me how I planned to get the lorries under the low railway bridge on the access track.

Fortunately,  smaller lorries and a bit of road scraping resolved it. 

I had been on a site visit.

 

And then there was not thinking of the power cables over a new office block in a power station!

 

Assuming these people are not in the industry, the weight of a concrete lorry might never occur.

 

I need to catch up on these new GDs. Advice on the most interesting programmes please?

 

 

On 15/10/2021 at 08:33, Russell griffiths said:

Well that last one was a bit crap, what was the point of the cantilever?  Looked like he spent £300,000 on trying to make it float when two columns could have probably saved him £150,000. 

As kevin said it looked like a bungalow just up in the air. 

 

I think his cost savings cut the ‘pizazz’ out of it- ultimately a folly and waste. 

Yes this was a lesson in how to waste money on a completely unecessary design feature (the cantilever) when a couple of pillars would achieve the same thing so much easier and cheaper.

 

But I felt sorry for the bloke, start a project expecting another house sale to fund it, then find that house does not sell and the only way to shift it is drop the price drastically.  A bit close to home that one.

 

And i also saw a broken, bitter and twisted lonely man putting on a brave face with the situation he found himself.

57 minutes ago, ProDave said:

And i also saw a broken, bitter and twisted lonely man putting on a brave face with the situation he found himself.

I’m ok . But thanks for the mention