|
Grand Designs: building a shed in Peckham
Anyone see "Grand Designs" last night? Chap built a flat-roof house on
a narrow site in Peckham. He basically banged up a metal frame and clad it in some "phenolic plywood" or something, with sliding glass sky-lights. * I missed the beginning. They built a house which appeared to block out the light to the side windows of the adjacent property. In a case like this is it OK so long as the neighbour does not complain to the planning dept when plans are announced? * The flat roof had a plywood base. How long would this last? I used to have problems with the plywood on my old flat roof garage. * Peckham has a dodgy reputation. Wonder if there were any break-ins during the build. They never tell you stuff like this! Bruce |
|
|
wrote in message
oups.com... Anyone see "Grand Designs" last night? Chap built a flat-roof house on a narrow site in Peckham. He basically banged up a metal frame and clad it in some "phenolic plywood" or something, with sliding glass sky-lights. * I missed the beginning. They built a house which appeared to block out the light to the side windows of the adjacent property. In a case like this is it OK so long as the neighbour does not complain to the planning dept when plans are announced? * The flat roof had a plywood base. How long would this last? I used to have problems with the plywood on my old flat roof garage. * Peckham has a dodgy reputation. Wonder if there were any break-ins during the build. They never tell you stuff like this! Bruce Not in this program but another property development program, guy buys burned out shell at auction and proceeds to renovate it..... part way through it showed that his boiler and generator were stolen. |
I've looked on the C4 web site.
The house next door is quite a handsome house. It has ground floor and 1st floor side windows. Total cost was =A3170k + =A340k for the land...and he made the glass roof himself on the cheap. And got free/cheap labour from his mates. The building costs seem very high for the end result. Bruce |
Yes, that was a good program. "So you wanna be a Property Developer".
Somebody fly-tipped in the blokes back yard as well. Bruce |
In message , John
Rumm writes wrote: Anyone see "Grand Designs" last night? Chap built a flat-roof house on a narrow site in Peckham. He basically banged up a metal frame and clad it in some "phenolic plywood" or something, with sliding glass sky-lights. snip Not to my personal taste, but a very impressive achievement and result all the same. I loved the sliding glass roof. -- Chris French, Leeds |
wrote:
Anyone see "Grand Designs" last night? Chap built a flat-roof house on a narrow site in Peckham. He basically banged up a metal frame and clad it in some "phenolic plywood" or something, with sliding glass sky-lights. The spa bath hidden under the bed seemed an interesting idea, until you start to think about the practicalities. We have one from the same supplier and, whilst it is great, the amount of steam (water vapour for pedants) it gives off is enormous. This is acceptable in a bathroom, but their whole open plan bedroom, complete with its acres of glass, would be awash. Chris -- Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh. |
wrote in message
oups.com... Yes, that was a good program. "So you wanna be a Property Developer". Somebody fly-tipped in the blokes back yard as well. Bruce yeah, that was it..... he didn't have such a good time. |
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Reminds me of a recent flight back from Los Angeles... "Ladies and Gentlemen, we will shortly be landing at Heathrow. Passengers on the lefthand side of the plane should find they have a good view of the River Thames, London Bridge, Tower Bridge," and he went on to list several more attractions I don't recall. "I'm sorry, but passengers on the right hand side of the plane can only see Peckham." It caused quite a giggle at the end of a long flight. On a flight from Brisbane to Sydney we were over the sea flying past Sydney. The announcement went Passangers on the right hand side of the plane will have a panaramic view of Sydney harbour. Passangers of the left hand side will have a view of passangers of the right hand side! Guy -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Guy Dawson @ SMTP - // ICBM - 6.15.16W 57.12.23N 986M 4.45.4 4.45.4 4.45.4 The Reality Check's in the Post! 4.45.4 4.45.4 |
"David Hearn" wrote in message ... Anyone see "Grand Designs" last night? Chap built a flat-roof house on a narrow site in Peckham. He basically banged up a metal frame and clad it in some "phenolic plywood" or something, with sliding glass sky-lights. * I missed the beginning. They built a house which appeared to block out the light to the side windows of the adjacent property. In a case like this is it OK so long as the neighbour does not complain to the planning dept when plans are announced? I think he was restricted to a single storey as it was out of keeping with the rest of the housing there, and because it would have affected the light of the neighbouring houses. He also had to hide it from the road front. In the end, it looked sort of similar to the garage of the house on the right - I guess that was partly by plan of the planners. Anyone else notice the "For Sale" board at the house on the left mid-way through? Yep. If I had been that house I would have bid enough to get the land at auction so as to extend the garden and stop some idiot squeezing his erection against my toilet window. |
"John Rumm" wrote in message ... wrote: Anyone see "Grand Designs" last night? Chap built a flat-roof house on a narrow site in Peckham. He basically banged up a metal frame and clad it in some "phenolic plywood" or something, with sliding glass sky-lights. He uses a steel frame, a concrete fire board, something like 50mm to 100mm of PIR foam, and then the plywood over the top. It was 50mm which I can't see meeting part L. As indeed I can't see how half the structure got through most parts of the regs. I assume the BCO had to be lenient as it was on TV. Bet he'd rather have condemned the whole thing. |
Mike wrote:
Yep. If I had been that house I would have bid enough to get the land at auction so as to extend the garden and stop some idiot squeezing his erection against my toilet window. How do you know it was not the same idiot selling the bit of land adjacent to his toilet window in the first place, since it was a chance to get an extra 40K for not much, and "who cares since I am flogging the house anyway!" ;-) -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Chris J Dixon wrote:
steam (water vapour for pedants) it gives off is enormous. This is acceptable in a bathroom, but their whole open plan bedroom, complete with its acres of glass, would be awash. Perhaps that is the idea to save needing curtains ;-) -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
|
What I meant was that for 170k building costs I would have expected a
more substantial building. Maybe even some brickwork... Bruce |
|
|
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes: wrote: What I meant was that for 170k building costs I would have expected a more substantial building. Maybe even some brickwork... Bruce Why? that building was substantial enough. I was very impressed with the way he did it. That steel would stand more earthquakes than bricks ever would, and the ply cladding was fine by me. Essentialy it was a timber frame type building with the timber replaced by steel. I had no particular problem with the construction. I just thought it didn't work, as a finished house: it was, well, a posh kids' den, nothing more. -- SAm. all sweeping generalisations are false |
John Rumm wrote:
How do you know it was not the same idiot selling the bit of land adjacent to his toilet window in the first place, since it was a chance to get an extra 40K for not much, and "who cares since I am flogging the house anyway!" ;-) And the timing of the sales are crucial to minimise CGT. Chris -- Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh. |
"John Rumm" wrote in message ... Mike wrote: Yep. If I had been that house I would have bid enough to get the land at auction so as to extend the garden and stop some idiot squeezing his erection against my toilet window. How do you know it was not the same idiot selling the bit of land adjacent to his toilet window in the first place, since it was a chance to get an extra 40K for not much, and "who cares since I am flogging the house anyway!" ;-) I think I would sell the house first retaining the land, then sell the land later. The house was seriously devalued by that monstrosity. |
"Paul \( Skiing8 \)" wrote in message ...
wrote in message oups.com... Yes, that was a good program. "So you wanna be a Property Developer". Somebody fly-tipped in the blokes back yard as well. Bruce yeah, that was it..... he didn't have such a good time. I had all my kitchen appliances ripped out during my last project. They flooded the place too when the washing machine came out. Everything was carried out of the front door and, of course, nobody saw anything.... |
Sam Nelson wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher writes: wrote: What I meant was that for 170k building costs I would have expected a more substantial building. Maybe even some brickwork... Bruce Why? that building was substantial enough. I was very impressed with the way he did it. That steel would stand more earthquakes than bricks ever would, and the ply cladding was fine by me. Essentialy it was a timber frame type building with the timber replaced by steel. I had no particular problem with the construction. I just thought it didn't work, as a finished house: it was, well, a posh kids' den, nothing more. Thts what most houses are. |
Mike wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message How do you know it was not the same idiot selling the bit of land adjacent to his toilet window in the first place, since it was a chance to get an extra 40K for not much, and "who cares since I am flogging the house anyway!" ;-) I think I would sell the house first retaining the land, then sell the land later. The house was seriously devalued by that monstrosity. IIRC doing it that way, the land gets full CGT, as it is no longer part of your main dwelling. Chris -- Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh. |
|
"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message ... Mike wrote: "John Rumm" wrote in message How do you know it was not the same idiot selling the bit of land adjacent to his toilet window in the first place, since it was a chance to get an extra 40K for not much, and "who cares since I am flogging the house anyway!" ;-) I think I would sell the house first retaining the land, then sell the land later. The house was seriously devalued by that monstrosity. IIRC doing it that way, the land gets full CGT, as it is no longer part of your main dwelling. True. But as the land went at auction for only £40k, and you would have owned it for many years, and provided you were married and had it in joint names, you should be able to mimimize the tax due. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter