Contrary to some listings, tonight's Grand Designs (just started, C4) is
the coppice-worker's house again.


Its the 'revisited' one this time though.

And as he mentioned he's got planning permission for some extra rooms
perhaps there's be a new series called "Grand Designs - The Bits We Added
Later" next year.


Not much new footage was added really was there. The house did look great
though after some time had passed. Nice garden as well!

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:28:04 +0100, Owain wrote:

Séan Connolly wrote:
Contrary to some listings, tonight's Grand Designs (just started, C4) is
the coppice-worker's house again.
Its the 'revisited' one this time though.

Yes, but he's now got a flock of sheep, a woman, and a son.

IMO, the original series had portrayed him as a guy who was completely in
tune with his environment, someone who eschewed the frills and frippery of
domesticated life.

I had watched, somehow expecting to see the place not too much altered from
when it was finished - i.e. he was still living there on his own and would
have provided only the bare minimum to make the life he was living when it
was last shown that little bit more comfortable.

He's been domesticated, and the house now says far more about his partner
than it does about him.....

--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

"S?an Connolly" mrcATseanDASHconnollyDOTcoDOTuk wrote:
Contrary to some listings, tonight's Grand Designs (just started, C4) is
the coppice-worker's house again.


Its the 'revisited' one this time though.

Which turned out to be 90% repeat and very little genuine revisit.

--
Chris Green

In article ,
writes:
"S?an Connolly" mrcATseanDASHconnollyDOTcoDOTuk wrote:
Contrary to some listings, tonight's Grand Designs (just started, C4) is
the coppice-worker's house again.

Its the 'revisited' one this time though.

Which turned out to be 90% repeat and very little genuine revisit.

The revisited ones always are like that.
--
SAm.

wrote in message ...
"S?an Connolly" mrcATseanDASHconnollyDOTcoDOTuk wrote:
Contrary to some listings, tonight's Grand Designs (just started, C4)
is
the coppice-worker's house again.


Its the 'revisited' one this time though.

Which turned out to be 90% repeat and very little genuine revisit.

--
Chris Green

That may be the case, but it was still very enjoyable viewing..

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:28:04 +0100, Owain
wrote:


And as he mentioned he's got planning permission for some extra rooms

At which point Kevin should have asked for an outline of what is
proposed - rooms at the side(s), at the back? Could ruin the look of
the place if they're not careful.

"Peter Johnson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:28:04 +0100, Owain
wrote:


And as he mentioned he's got planning permission for some extra rooms

At which point Kevin should have asked for an outline of what is
proposed - rooms at the side(s), at the back? Could ruin the look of
the place if they're not careful.

It will ruin the kerb appeal that is certain.

Paul Andrews wrote:

That may be the case, but it was still very enjoyable viewing..

Yup, I would go along with that...!

One of the best projects they followed IMHO - it showed a man who got
exactly what he sought, and it was something that would have been almost
impossible for him to have got in any other way.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Huge wrote:

One of the best projects they followed IMHO - it showed a man who got
exactly what he sought, and it was something that would have been almost
impossible for him to have got in any other way.

Absolutely. And it was a super house, to boot.

Is it still the case that the planning consent was only for his
lifetime - after that it has to come down?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

"Chris J Dixon" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:

One of the best projects they followed IMHO - it showed a man who got
exactly what he sought, and it was something that would have been almost
impossible for him to have got in any other way.

Absolutely. And it was a super house, to boot.

Is it still the case that the planning consent was only for his
lifetime - after that it has to come down?

Ben Law is not the average man. He is not a loner in a wood whose only
available income was the wood itself. He is heavily into permaculture and
has written a book on it and one on this house - he went to Albania for
Oxfam teaching the locals. Go Amazon and search on Ben Law. Also do a
Google search and more comes up. He had access to knowledgeable people on
planning, design, craft skills, etc.

That is not disparaging to Ben, and he is a light and gives hope to all.
Alas the draconian planning system stands in the way of advancement for
all. - and his house was advanced being fully off the grid with all
mod-cons.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 07:08:29 GMT, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Huge wrote:

One of the best projects they followed IMHO - it showed a man who got
exactly what he sought, and it was something that would have been almost
impossible for him to have got in any other way.

Absolutely. And it was a super house, to boot.

Is it still the case that the planning consent was only for his
lifetime - after that it has to come down?

Chris

I would doubt that it will ever be demolished, as they stated, it is
an architectural wonder, and, at worst will end up in a folk museum.

The simple fact that it has been extended with little problem means
the planners love it and that's everything.

"EricP" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 07:08:29 GMT, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Huge wrote:

One of the best projects they followed IMHO - it showed a man who got
exactly what he sought, and it was something that would have been
almost
impossible for him to have got in any other way.

Absolutely. And it was a super house, to boot.

Is it still the case that the planning consent was only for his
lifetime - after that it has to come down?

Chris

I would doubt that it will ever be demolished, as they stated, it is
an architectural wonder, and, at worst will end up in a folk museum.

The simple fact that it has been extended with little problem means
the planners love it and that's everything.

He has nothing concrete to say it will remain.

I would doubt that it will ever be demolished, as they stated, it is
an architectural wonder, and, at worst will end up in a folk museum.
The simple fact that it has been extended with little problem means
the planners love it and that's everything.

Has anyone got a link so I can see what all the fuss is about ?

TIA :-)

--
Please add the word "newsgroup" in the subject line of personal emails
**** My email address includes "ngspamtrap" and " ****

"Colin Wilson" wrote in message
t...
I would doubt that it will ever be demolished, as they stated, it is
an architectural wonder, and, at worst will end up in a folk museum.
The simple fact that it has been extended with little problem means
the planners love it and that's everything.

Has anyone got a link so I can see what all the fuss is about ?

http://www.channel4.co.uk

Also do a Google on Ben Law.

Huge wrote:

Is it still the case that the planning consent was only for his
lifetime - after that it has to come down?


It wasn't mentioned in the update, although left in the repeated bit.

He seemed prepared to grind away at the planners for as many years as
was required to get it built in the first place, so I am sure if he
carries on he can get the restrictions lifted in time. One thing most
bureaucrats can't handle is dogged persistence!

(having a dependant son could also now make a difference)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:

Is it still the case that the planning consent was only for his
lifetime - after that it has to come down?


It wasn't mentioned in the update, although left in the repeated bit.

He seemed prepared to grind away at the planners for as many years as
was required to get it built in the first place, so I am sure if he
carries on he can get the restrictions lifted in time. One thing most
bureaucrats can't handle is dogged persistence!

They can. They have a system that favours them and second, they just ignore
it.

In article ,
Colin Wilson wrote:
I would doubt that it will ever be demolished, as they stated, it is
an architectural wonder, and, at worst will end up in a folk museum.
The simple fact that it has been extended with little problem means
the planners love it and that's everything.

Has anyone got a link so I can see what all the fuss is about ?

The four words in the subject of this thread gets it at the top of the list
using Google.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"EricP" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 07:08:29 GMT, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Huge wrote:

One of the best projects they followed IMHO - it showed a man who got
exactly what he sought, and it was something that would have been almost
impossible for him to have got in any other way.

Absolutely. And it was a super house, to boot.

Is it still the case that the planning consent was only for his
lifetime - after that it has to come down?

Chris

I would doubt that it will ever be demolished, as they stated, it is
an architectural wonder, and, at worst will end up in a folk museum.

The simple fact that it has been extended with little problem means
the planners love it and that's everything.


It migth be taken down and transported to Singleton Open-Air
Museum - where many 'rescued' buildings are reconstructed.
[Don't know how _they'll_ relocate the mud walls - but
they'll think of something]
Given the builders age and mine: I'll not see it at Singleton; but
perhaps my grandkid's might.

--

Brian