Jim Alexander wrote:

did I miss that? The house was on a gap site in a residential area, it
repected the building line and didn't overdevelop the site, there appeared
to be unexceptional buildings either side, and woods behind. What grounds
would there be for refusal?

You are thinking of the wrong house.... this was the woodsmans cottage
that was built in the middle of protected woodland - nothing round it
for miles it seemed:

http://www.channel4.com/4homes/ontv/...woodman-2.html


--
Cheers,

John.

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

The message
from "." contains these words:

It's a 70s council terrace - nothing to write home about. It's the
cost/benefit that gets me - this place cost 28k five years ago and has
proved to be adequate for bringing up two kids and so on. For twenty
times the price you don't get anything approaching twenty times the
utility.

I suppose it's all relative, and you'll never know how wrong you are.

Oh, I've lived in all sorts of houses, from Victorian two-up/two-downs
with soggy soil under the floor to five bedroom detatched jobs with a
couple of acres of nice gardens. This place suits me just fine.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Steve Firth wrote:
Chips wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

Zoinks wrote:
[snip]

I find it irritating that Kev. constantly uses the programme as a
soapbox to rant about the planning regulations (something that he
says should be abolished).

"Greenbelt ? Nah, f*ck it, put a house up anyway."

The house built in the lake the other week was a perfect example.
When they'd finished the only place left in that area with a view of
unsploit countryside was the house they'd thrown up. How it got
planning permission is a complete mystery.



He has a valid point. The planning process made damn sure that the
house would look like a pile of crap, and it did. I've been through
the same with my own home and have just about given up. If I want to
rip the guts out of the house and build everything to current
building regs I will get permission. The end result will be a hideous
series of boxes and a construction unsympathetic to the architecture
of the village and this house in particular.


Zoinks is on about the house in the lake here, what are you on about ?


The same house.

It was a right old mess, really ugly.


Yes, it was like that because the planners insisted that was what it had
to look like. The fact that the planners seemed to think 1940s council
house was the epitome of style had rather cramped the design.


Your opinion. Mine is that it should never have been built. The planners
were simply informing the developers of the law surrounding how it
should be built if it were to go ahead.

It's true that he shouldn't soapbox his own views on TV though. If he
was ranting about liberalizing some other aspect of the law (drugs,
incest) every week you'd sure complain - well maybe not, I don't know.


Utter ********. If ****e planning restrictions are making the buildings
of Britain ugly then it needs to be mentioned.


If it were true, then perhaps.

The village was built entirely without planning restrictions and as a
consequence it is human scaled, very attractive and brings in people
from miles around just to ogle at the massed prettiness.


Then how would you feel if someone pulled down half of it and stuck up
a WalMart.


Surprised, I think as the owner I have the right to stop them.


WalMart buys huge tracts of land all over the place, as does Tesco et
al. on the off-chance that they will develop them in the future. The
only thing stopping them doing what they want every time is the planning
machinery. Mostly with giants like this it ends up in court, well out of
the remit of the planning system.

Get rid of planning and that's *exactly* what will happen.


Utter **** again, the planners permit the monstrosities to be built nad
have condoned the siting of these in stupdi places (such as at motorway
junctions). Locally to me, the city planners have permitted a giant
hotel and a satellite dish farm to be built in an AONB (now a national
park). This decision was against the wishes of every single local
resident. The decision was IMO corrupt because the deal was that the
developers could do what they liked *if* they provided the land for the
council's pet project a pointless vanity building that is supposed to be
a "high tech learning centre" but which has ended up as an eyesore.


It's trying to balance the wants of the few against the needs of the
many isn't it ? Democracy is the least worst system of government.
It is the developers who propose the schemes, the planners are generally
trying to limit the damage and maximize the good for the public.

Government can, and often does, intervene to push some very bad things
through against the will of locals. Don't like the current government ?
Many would agree.

Most of the posts wrt bad neighbours on this NG would be much worse if
they could just do whatever the hell they wanted.


I doubt it.


Then we shall agree to differ.

Why shouldn't current development follow suit?


Because you'd have millions of idiots building fortresses all over the
place and enclosing as much possible volume at the lowest possible
cost, eating up every square inch of landmass. The lowest common
denominator would make your life hell. Imagine for one second that
your moron next-door neightbour wanted to build an extension that had
a window looking right into your bedroom, and on and on and on it goes...


I own enough land that it would not be a problem.


Really ? I'm so envious, like most people I'm afraid that I live in a
house in a street in a town. I have neighbours, nice neighbours, but
some people aren't so lucky.

Why are we forced (for example) to fit doorways that are different in
proportion to the original for any new build. Why are we forbidden to
develop the building using the same techniques and materials used to
build it originally?


The problem with the image of planning is that only people who mess up
on their applications (for whatever reason) rant on and on about it.


Errm no, you will find it is also people who have spent considerable
effort on creating a plan that is sympathetic to the character of the
building and been told that they can build what they like provided they
compeletely redesign the work to match the prejudices of the planner.

For example:

snipped droning about applications

The first port of call should be the planning department. It's very
simple, you start with the premise of building something that complies -
that includes building regulations. If you are of a mind to bully the
system then you will almost certainly fail. All of the planners I have
met have to deal with screamy selfish idiots on a daily basis and they
do so with great profesional courtesy - prejudices don't come into it,
it's the law. If you get arrested for driving too fast you don't claim
that it's the prejudice of the police officer.

The law is not set out by the planners, it's set by the Government.


Oh look, it's no one's fault that planning law is a mess. The planners
are only "following orders" and the Government are shiny clean saviours
of the people.


It is someone's fault - the voters. You vote them in (Councillors and
politicians), they make and administer the law. If you have a problem
with democracy, I'm afraid that no amount of discourse will resolve it.
Although I'm sure you know who is on your planning committee, not many
people do.

The decisions are not made by the planners, they're made by the
Councillors at the planning committee.


Who are advised by the planners and who tend in the main to slavishly
follow the advice given.


Councillors seem to have pretty strong opinions, as far as I'm aware.
Your community voted for your Councillors. Why not stand yourself - I'm
sure that with your strongly held views someone would vote for you.

Planners are generally trying to help you get the application through
- the only power they have is to advise.


Something that I note that you didn't respond to. Your problem is
clearly with the system itself, not the planners.



And why do politicians, most of whom have council-house tastes, get
to dictate to others how they can live the minute detail of their lives?


Council house tastes ! What does that mean ! Sorry, can't hear you
through the window of your 4x4 (c:

IMO "planning" results in more eyesores than the development that was
occuring before "planning" was thought of.


Really ? Planning started just after the Second World War to help deal
with the development chaos that ensued. Without it you'd sure be a lot
worse off, under the control of every insane developer with an eye for
a profit (and that's all of them).


So why do they get to do as they like under the current system which is
biased towards favouring nasty build quality? You appear to have missed
the fact that the developers have bribed, coerced, corrupted, funded,
donated and loaned their way into getting the rule book written to
favour them.


Developers are crafty, I agree. They go out of their way to develop
schemes that comply to regulations - they do this by hiring planning
consultants that know what those regulations are. They also offer
sweeteners such as community spaces, areas of 'buffering' etc etc. Is
this perfect ? Probably not, but it's a whole lot better than
unregulated development.

And 'nasty build quality' is your opinion, of course - but as you imply,
it's the system, that regulates it, not the "planners' prejudices".

Every development is a matter of public record, the planning
applications are always available for you to see (most of them are
online), if you want to object then it is your civil *right* to do so.
If you want to start a fight with a development then feel free. We're
doing that where I live right now over a housing development that we
don't want to happen.

And with startling nonsense like Part P, the rest of us are even
excluded from undertaking work that we are eminently qualified to do.


You obviously know that Part P has precisely nothing to do with
planning, you're raising this as an example of regulations that you
don't like. Many may agree.


You are aware aren't you that modern houses perform less well than older
houses for energy efficiency? Isn't that a startling indictment of
planning law? All of the changes are forcing the development of poor
quality, inefficient housing.


It may be if it's true. I think I'd have to read up on that.

Look at Prescott's attempts to lay waste to communities in order to
build cheap "system" houses.


And look at Tesco and ADSA's wish to build cheap "system" supermarkets.
Which would you prefer on your doorstep ?


The supermarket, it has a lower chav count.


And a higher traffic count. And it's likely to be open 24/7. Mind you,
it would be handy for fueling that 4x4 (c:

All that said, there's just too many of us, that's the real problem.
And as the density increases we all just hope that no major sh*te gets
built next-door.



I agree, the density of a lot of you is increasing.

Admit it you work for the council don't you?

I don't work for the council. I couldn't handle dealing with members of
the public screaming at me every day for not getting their selfish petty
desires fulfilled.


Chips.

"Chips" wrote in message
...



The first port of call should be the planning department. It's very
simple, you start with the premise of building something that complies -
that includes building regulations. If you are of a mind to bully the
system then you will almost certainly fail. All of the planners I have met
have to deal with screamy selfish idiots on a daily basis and they do so
with great profesional courtesy

I've only had to deal with planners twice and have found them extremely
courteous and helpful. One went out of his way to advise me and direct me to
the appropriate body because he'd moved on and wasn't doing that job any
more. His successor was equally helpful, he has telephoned, e-mailed and
written about our matter.

- prejudices don't come into it,
it's the law. If you get arrested for driving too fast you don't claim
that it's the prejudice of the police officer.

Oh - many would :-)

....



Councillors seem to have pretty strong opinions, as far as I'm aware.
Your community voted for your Councillors. Why not stand yourself - I'm
sure that with your strongly held views someone would vote for you.

Yes. And then he'd be in the firing line :-)

Mary

"Mary Fisher" typed


- prejudices don't come into it,
it's the law. If you get arrested for driving too fast you don't claim
that it's the prejudice of the police officer.

Oh - many would :-)

Or maybe complain the speed camera is there to extract cash from 'the
poor, beleaguered, innocent, law-abiding motorist'...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

"Helen Deborah Vecht" wrote in message
...
"Mary Fisher" typed


- prejudices don't come into it,
it's the law. If you get arrested for driving too fast you don't claim
that it's the prejudice of the police officer.

Oh - many would :-)

Or maybe complain the speed camera is there to extract cash from 'the
poor, beleaguered, innocent, law-abiding motorist'...

Indeed.

The flaw in that plea is that the innocent don't pay.

Sits back and waits for long, indignant thread :-)

Mary

Steve Firth wrote:
Fitz wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Stuart wrote:
It looked not bad inside but outside I thought the house was just plain 'orrible
Inside it was the same as every otehr project they have done. Acres of
beige, and why does every house they show need to be built with an upper
floor that doesn't reach as far as the wall?

They? Who is they?

The program producers. The people who show identical, dull, houses each
week.

The interior was specified by the owners and we've
never seen anything they have done before... The Grand Designs
production team havn't 'done' any projects before

I didn't say they had. You appear to have remarkably low reading skills.

Hmmm. Yup - that's one possibility. The other possibility is that you
are a cock who likes winding people up. Which is fair enough I
supppose if that's what does it for you.

is remarkably unsurprising as to be almost not worth commenting on.

Which bit of "**** off knobhead" are you going to find difficult to
understand?

Why did I bother replying to a troll. I should have known better....
note to self. From now on don't reply to known trolls.

--
Steve F

Fitz wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:

Fitz wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:

Stuart wrote:

It looked not bad inside but outside I thought the house was just plain 'orrible

Inside it was the same as every otehr project they have done. Acres of
beige, and why does every house they show need to be built with an upper
floor that doesn't reach as far as the wall?

They? Who is they?

The program producers. The people who show identical, dull, houses each
week.


The interior was specified by the owners and we've
never seen anything they have done before... The Grand Designs
production team havn't 'done' any projects before

I didn't say they had. You appear to have remarkably low reading skills.


Hmmm. Yup - that's one possibility. The other possibility is that you
are a cock who likes winding people up. Which is fair enough I
supppose if that's what does it for you.


is remarkably unsurprising as to be almost not worth commenting on.

Which bit of "**** off knobhead" are you going to find difficult to
understand?


Why did I bother replying to a troll. I should have known better....
note to self. From now on don't reply to known trolls.


Yes, he/she is well known, check Google groups and see how many friends
he/she has. But hey, it's freedom of speech, right ? One doesn't have to
be popular to get through this life. Only if one wants friends, a social
life, a partner etc.

Chips.

--
-----------
Chips'll make it better.
-----------

Chips wrote:

One doesn't have to be popular to get through this life.
Only if one wants friends, a social life, a partner etc.

How much do they cost?

Mary Fisher wrote:

The flaw in that plea is that the innocent don't pay.

Sits back and waits for long, indignant thread :-)

Not always the case... after the recent hig profile cockup with the
SPECS system on the embankment issuning over 60,000 erroneous fines, or
that chap on the motorbike who had to spend 9 months fighting a case and
trying to get the police to produce their evidence (which when they
finally did showed he was doing 26 in a 30 mph zone). Anyway the
innocent pay in other ways...

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Was it just me, or did anyone watch last night's project (involving the
conversion of a concrete water tower) whilst thinking that demolition,
preferably using explosives, would have been a better starting point?
They got a futuristic house with a hideous concrete lump in the middle
of it.

What is the obsession with converting the most unsuitable barn, shed,
tank, pig-pen, etc., into accomodation? Has anyone converted a gas
holder yet?

In article .com,
Aidan wrote:
Was it just me, or did anyone watch last night's project (involving the
conversion of a concrete water tower) whilst thinking that demolition,
preferably using explosives, would have been a better starting point?
They got a futuristic house with a hideous concrete lump in the middle
of it.

I rather liked the end result and can't see anything wrong in wanting to
live in an unusual house.

--
*I don't suffer from insanity -- I'm a carrier

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Aidan wrote:
Was it just me, or did anyone watch last night's project (involving the
conversion of a concrete water tower) whilst thinking that demolition,
preferably using explosives, would have been a better starting point?
They got a futuristic house with a hideous concrete lump in the middle
of it.

What is the obsession with converting the most unsuitable barn, shed,
tank, pig-pen, etc., into accomodation? Has anyone converted a gas
holder yet?

Gas holder - brilliant idea! You could raise the roof - literally...

The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

I rather liked the end result and can't see anything wrong in wanting to
live in an unusual house.

I've always wanted a house cut into a steep chalk-slope. Sloping glass
windows onto a slight patio overlooking the Darenth valley, rest of the
house cut into the hillside with access from above via stairs/lift.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Aidan wrote:

What is the obsession with converting the most unsuitable barn, shed,
tank, pig-pen, etc., into accomodation? Has anyone converted a gas
holder yet?

I don't think it was the case here but my understanding is that it is
often possible to get planning permission to convert a disused building
where it would not be possible to get planning permission to knock it
down and build something new. Even on last night's programme I doubt the
planners would have given approval for replacement with a four-storey
building so they would not have had quite the views over the Kent
countryside that they ended up with.

Andrew

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I rather liked the end result and can't see anything wrong in wanting to
live in an unusual house.

Nor me. I think they'd have had a nicer unusual house if they'd removed
the concrete monstrosity first.

I'd missed the start & I'd imagine the reasons were explained then. I'd
imagine it was listed, &/or the PP to demolish & rebuild was more
problematic than PP to convert &/or the costs to demolish and remove
were excessive.

Andrew May wrote:

I don't think it was the case here but my understanding is that it is
often possible to get planning permission to convert a disused building
where it would not be possible to get planning permission to knock it
down and build something new. Even on last night's programme I doubt the
planners would have given approval for replacement with a four-storey
building so they would not have had quite the views over the Kent
countryside that they ended up with.

Sounds quite likely.

I looked on Channel 4's site, but no reasons there.

http://www.channel4.com/4homes/ontv/...A/ashford.html

They said Lutyens designed it, which I think is a slur on the man.
Lutyens designed the estate it served and probably got the tank done by
some civil engineering consultant. They probably stuck it on the
highest ground available to get the most pressure.

On 27 Apr 2006 01:45:56 -0700, Aidan wrote:

Was it just me, or did anyone watch last night's project (involving the
conversion of a concrete water tower) whilst thinking that demolition,
preferably using explosives, would have been a better starting point?
They got a futuristic house with a hideous concrete lump in the middle
of it.

What is the obsession with converting the most unsuitable barn, shed,
tank, pig-pen, etc., into accomodation? Has anyone converted a gas
holder yet?

I ended up getting angrier and angrier through that, I'm afraid. The
structure was after all designed by Lutyens and what was being done to it
seemed butchery. I was particularly miffed when they found remnants of the
roof in the tank. I'm astounded that the structure wasn't listed, more
astounded that the peopel converting it rattled on about respect and care
for the structure then bollocked it up.

FWIW, I put in a bid on a water tower a few decades ago, but didn't want to
pay as much as the architect who got her hands on it.

http://www.arcaid.captureweb.co.uk/f...sp?JobNo=4944-

I think she did about the best conversion on a water tower that I've seen,
and I'm not sure that what we had planned would be as good. OTOH I think
she was mad, paid about £95k for the tower, no land to speak of, then spent
the best part of half a million on the conversion.

In article ,
Guy King wrote:
I've always wanted a house cut into a steep chalk-slope. Sloping glass
windows onto a slight patio overlooking the Darenth valley, rest of the
house cut into the hillside with access from above via stairs/lift.

Ever been to Perthshire and seen the follies scattered along the side of
the Tay near Aberfeldy? They're mainly on the front of hills and as a kid
I thought it would be nice to cut into the hill and make them real houses.

--
*You can't teach an old mouse new clicks *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Guy King wrote:
I've always wanted a house cut into a steep chalk-slope. Sloping glass
windows onto a slight patio overlooking the Darenth valley, rest of the
house cut into the hillside with access from above via stairs/lift.

Ever been to Perthshire and seen the follies scattered along the side of
the Tay near Aberfeldy? They're mainly on the front of hills and as a kid
I thought it would be nice to cut into the hill and make them real houses.

Iceland is full of them.

They're for the elves.

Mary

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Aidan"
saying something like:

Was it just me, or did anyone watch last night's project (involving the
conversion of a concrete water tower) whilst thinking that demolition,
preferably using explosives, would have been a better starting point?
They got a futuristic house with a hideous concrete lump in the middle
of it.

They got an ugly, pretentious piece of **** for their money, imo.

I'd have built up and filled in the base with red brick, with a red
brick extension to the side and covered the tower in black shiplap like
the windmill shown. The only good thing about the design was the use
made of the water tank and the new roof.
--

Dave

"Phil" wrote in message
oups.com...

Aidan wrote:
Was it just me, or did anyone watch last night's project (involving the
conversion of a concrete water tower) whilst thinking that demolition,
preferably using explosives, would have been a better starting point?
They got a futuristic house with a hideous concrete lump in the middle
of it.

What is the obsession with converting the most unsuitable barn, shed,
tank, pig-pen, etc., into accomodation? Has anyone converted a gas
holder yet?

Gas holder - brilliant idea! You could raise the roof - literally...

I know a gasholder that's been converted into a diving practice
area.

tim