what happened to all those three storey houses we used to approve for
use on flood planes with the sacraficial ground floors....are they just
quietly doing there jobs or what ?...you don't hear much about them .....

I often wonder why nobody builds houses on stilts these days.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
what happened to all those three storey houses we used to approve for use
on flood planes with the sacraficial ground floors....are they just
quietly doing there jobs or what ?...you don't hear much about them .....

Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote

I often wonder why nobody builds houses on stilts these days.

Are they even allowed to ?

One of the ones on Grand Designs on the Thames bank
was designed to float. Not cheap to do it that way tho.

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
what happened to all those three storey houses we used to approve for use
on flood planes with the sacraficial ground floors....are they just
quietly doing there jobs or what ?...you don't hear much about them .....

On 01/03/2020 19:00, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
what happened to all those three storey houses we used to approve for
use on flood planes with the sacraficial ground floors....are they just
quietly doing there jobs or what ?...you don't hear much about them .....

I always thought the Canadians had the right idea: ground floor is
concrete with built-in drains, just used for utility rooms, workshops,
gyms, showers, garages, etc.

On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 08:42:34 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile asshole's troll****

08:42??? LOL What an asshole!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On 01/03/2020 20:27, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I often wonder why nobody builds houses on stilts these days.
Brian

While it makes sense from a flood point of view, it does rather cause a
problem with the level access requirements of Part M.

SteveW

On Sunday, 1 March 2020 23:05:27 UTC, Steve Walker wrote:
On 01/03/2020 20:27, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I often wonder why nobody builds houses on stilts these days.
Brian

While it makes sense from a flood point of view, it does rather cause a
problem with the level access requirements of Part M.

SteveW

Would it not be sensible to corrugate the land before building on it, so there are low lying areas for roads & high ridges for houses?
And then if necessary do as newshound describes.
It's part M that's causing the problem, and a lack of requirement to sort the land levels before building.
Another possibility is to build medium rise, only the bottom floor is then vulnerable, the rest aren't.


NT

On 01/03/2020 23:05, Steve Walker wrote:
On 01/03/2020 20:27, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I often wonder why nobody builds houses on stilts these days.
Â* Brian

While it makes sense from a flood point of view, it does rather cause a
problem with the level access requirements of Part M.

Ramps, or simply say that disabled people should not visit or live there.

Having built a house, and landscaped a garden, moving earth around is
not that big a deal

you could make a huge lake and use the spoil to build berms and pop the
houses on top.



SteveW




--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

NO, but I see no reason why we do not put them on stilts. There have been
some blocks of flats with car parking underneath, which have escaped
floating though the foundations of these have gone down a very long way.
Yes the floating house has a life expectancy issue.
They wanted to build houses on a floating raft near Kingston Upon Thames on
a wetland, but were refused due to it being a much needed wetland for
wildlife and a feeding ground for bats. The area was actually owned by
Thames Water.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote

I often wonder why nobody builds houses on stilts these days.

Are they even allowed to ?

One of the ones on Grand Designs on the Thames bank
was designed to float. Not cheap to do it that way tho.

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
what happened to all those three storey houses we used to approve for
use on flood planes with the sacraficial ground floors....are they just
quietly doing there jobs or what ?...you don't hear much about them
.....

Well not knowing what that is without looking it up..
However it is done in other countries.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 01/03/2020 20:27, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I often wonder why nobody builds houses on stilts these days.
Brian

While it makes sense from a flood point of view, it does rather cause a
problem with the level access requirements of Part M.

SteveW

I think I'd be able to cope with houses on stilts. Its very silly at the
moment since if we are talking wheelchairs, many new builds are inaccessible
still, due to insufficient turn space inside.
There is a scandal about homes for disabled people, whereby builders have to
provide x percentage, and then advertise them for six months. What tends to
happen is one is fitted out but the advertising is very low key, very few
are taken so the builder say we have x left over can we fit them out as
normal flats.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 1 March 2020 23:05:27 UTC, Steve Walker wrote:
On 01/03/2020 20:27, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I often wonder why nobody builds houses on stilts these days.
Brian

While it makes sense from a flood point of view, it does rather cause a
problem with the level access requirements of Part M.

SteveW

Would it not be sensible to corrugate the land before building on it, so
there are low lying areas for roads & high ridges for houses?
And then if necessary do as newshound describes.
It's part M that's causing the problem, and a lack of requirement to sort
the land levels before building.
Another possibility is to build medium rise, only the bottom floor is then
vulnerable, the rest aren't.


NT

They would probably wash away however. Floods are not benign, they often
contain debris and are fast running.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 01/03/2020 23:05, Steve Walker wrote:
On 01/03/2020 20:27, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I often wonder why nobody builds houses on stilts these days.
Brian

While it makes sense from a flood point of view, it does rather cause a
problem with the level access requirements of Part M.

Ramps, or simply say that disabled people should not visit or live there.

Having built a house, and landscaped a garden, moving earth around is not
that big a deal

you could make a huge lake and use the spoil to build berms and pop the
houses on top.



SteveW




--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

On Sunday, 1 March 2020 19:00:51 UTC, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
what happened to all those three storey houses we used to approve for
use on flood planes with the sacraficial ground floors....are they just
quietly doing there jobs or what ?...you don't hear much about them .....

There's plenty on the Severn flood plain. Not with stilts but an above ground basement.

On Sunday, 1 March 2020 21:51:41 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 01/03/2020 19:00, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
what happened to all those three storey houses we used to approve for
use on flood planes with the sacraficial ground floors....are they just
quietly doing there jobs or what ?...you don't hear much about them .....

I always thought the Canadians had the right idea: ground floor is
concrete with built-in drains, just used for utility rooms, workshops,
gyms, showers, garages, etc.

Where do you put your car if it floods?

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 1 March 2020 21:51:41 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 01/03/2020 19:00, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
what happened to all those three storey houses we used to approve for
use on flood planes with the sacraficial ground floors....are they just
quietly doing there jobs or what ?...you don't hear much about them
.....

I always thought the Canadians had the right idea: ground floor is
concrete with built-in drains, just used for utility rooms, workshops,
gyms, showers, garages, etc.

Where do you put your car if it floods?

On higher ground until the water goes down.

On 01/03/2020 23:05, Steve Walker wrote:
On 01/03/2020 20:27, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I often wonder why nobody builds houses on stilts these days.
Â* Brian

While it makes sense from a flood point of view, it does rather cause a
problem with the level access requirements of Part M.

SteveW


yes but sacraficial ground stories came before the access requierments
and can't quite remember as I have been retired 10 years, but if you
have no accomodation on the ground floor you don't need level access...?

On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 19:44:40 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Where do you put your car if it floods?

On higher ground until the water goes down.

What does it take to make you shut your senile big gob, senile Rodent? A
baseball bat across it?

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

In Holland, they have built houses on reclaimed 'land' that is just an
inland lake whose level can rise and fall. The houses all sit on
floating pontoons so they are just like 2-story versions of canal
barges, but fully connected to mains utilities.

Andrew


On 02/03/2020 08:08, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I think I'd be able to cope with houses on stilts. Its very silly at the
moment since if we are talking wheelchairs, many new builds are inaccessible
still, due to insufficient turn space inside.
There is a scandal about homes for disabled people, whereby builders have to
provide x percentage, and then advertise them for six months. What tends to
happen is one is fitted out but the advertising is very low key, very few
are taken so the builder say we have x left over can we fit them out as
normal flats.
Brian

On 02/03/2020 10:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 03:03:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 01/03/2020 23:05, Steve Walker wrote:
On 01/03/2020 20:27, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I often wonder why nobody builds houses on stilts these days.
Â* Brian

While it makes sense from a flood point of view, it does rather cause a
problem with the level access requirements of Part M.

Ramps, or simply say that disabled people should not visit or live
there.

The problem with a statement like this, is that is gives the impression
the **** writing it has never considered that someone can become
"disabled" in the blink of an eye.

So they move somewhere more suitable. What's the issue ?.

Why should every new house have to have those silly ramps at the
front entrance when the vast majority of properties will never be
occupied by someone in a wheelchair ?.

Scrap part M, and replace it with a small levy on every new build,
along the lines of S106, and allow LA's to hand out grants for
alterations to those properties where an occupant suddenly needs
it, without any conditions like "More than 16K savings etc". Base
it on need only. Let the LA impose a charge on the property if
necessary so that on death or relocation the money can be
recovered by the LA.

If an owner occupier suddenly becomes bed-ridden then even a
new build complying with Part M is no use.


I'm sure that's not the case here though.

On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 10:46:16 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

In Holland, they have built houses on reclaimed 'land' that is just an
inland lake whose level can rise and fall. The houses all sit on
floating pontoons so they are just like 2-story versions of canal
barges, but fully connected to mains utilities.

snip

I thought there was a fully floating 'house' on the Thames that looked
like a house (rather than a houseboat) and could float up and down on
some pile / tracks.

https://www.dezeen.com/2016/01/20/ba...-architecture/

I think they had to ballast the thing up to compensate for the
furniture (grand piano) but that might be a small inconvenience
opposed to bailing out the ground floor (or worse).

Cheers, T i m

On 02/03/2020 10:55, Andrew wrote:
On 02/03/2020 10:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 03:03:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 01/03/2020 23:05, Steve Walker wrote:
On 01/03/2020 20:27, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I often wonder why nobody builds houses on stilts these days.
Â*Â* Brian

While it makes sense from a flood point of view, it does rather cause a
problem with the level access requirements of Part M.

Ramps, or simply say that disabled people should not visit or live
there.

The problem with a statement like this, is that is gives the impression
the **** writing it has never considered that someone can become
"disabled" in the blink of an eye.

So they move somewhere more suitable. What's the issue ?.

Why should every new house have to have those silly ramps at the
front entrance when the vast majority of properties will never be
occupied by someone in a wheelchair ?.

Scrap part M, and replace it with a small levy on every new build,
along the lines of S106, and allow LA's to hand out grants for
alterations to those properties where an occupant suddenly needs
it, without any conditions like "More than 16K savings etc". Base
it on need only. Let the LA impose a charge on the property if
necessary so that on death or relocation the money can be
recovered by the LA.

If an owner occupier suddenly becomes bed-ridden then even a
new build complying with Part M is no use.


I'm all for flexibility if it saves money but am unclear how that would
work for disabled people who need to rent somewhere to live.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Sunday, 1 March 2020 19:00:51 UTC, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
what happened to all those three storey houses we used to approve for
use on flood planes with the sacraficial ground floors....are they just
quietly doing there jobs or what ?...you don't hear much about them .....

I think they still have them it's just now they are called affordable homes.
Which always seem to be on the ground floor of new developments.

T i m wrote:

I thought there was a fully floating 'house' on the Thames that looked
like a house (rather than a houseboat) and could float up and down on
some pile / tracks.

https://www.dezeen.com/2016/01/20/ba...-architecture/

I think they had to ballast the thing up to compensate for the
furniture (grand piano) but that might be a small inconvenience
opposed to bailing out the ground floor (or worse).

It featured in Grand Designs

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/grand-designs/on-demand/57386-002
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/grand-designs/on-demand/49841-010

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
@ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

On Sun, 1 Mar 2020 20:27:44 -0000, "Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\)"
wrote:

I often wonder why nobody builds houses on stilts these days.
Brian

Or with a watertight hull.
Go on your holliers without leaving home.
--

Mike

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 02/03/2020 10:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 03:03:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 01/03/2020 23:05, Steve Walker wrote:
On 01/03/2020 20:27, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I often wonder why nobody builds houses on stilts these days.
Â* Brian

While it makes sense from a flood point of view, it does rather cause a
problem with the level access requirements of Part M.

Ramps, or simply say that disabled people should not visit or live
there.

The problem with a statement like this, is that is gives the impression
the **** writing it has never considered that someone can become
"disabled" in the blink of an eye.
The problem with a statement like this, is that is gives the impression
the **** writing it has never considered ambulances, stretchers and
estate agents


I'm sure that's not the case here though.



--
€œIdeas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

- John K Galbraith

On 02/03/2020 10:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 08:08:23 +0000, Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\) wrote:

There is a scandal about homes for disabled people, whereby builders
have to provide x percentage, and then advertise them for six months.
What tends to happen is one is fitted out but the advertising is very
low key,
very few are taken so the builder say we have x left over can we fit
them out as normal flats.

They're not even that subtle. When SWMBO and I looked at new builds (TL;DR
is they really are ****, aren't they) at least 3 of the 10 sites we
visited had pea-shingle car parks it was impossible to cross in a
wheelchair.

All that summer did was confirm that a 1440sq. ft. bungalow in 5,000sq.
ft. land is like a unicorn. Especially with it's level access (I built)
front and rear.

Precisely. All the 'social legislation' is complete ****e.

Every single disabled person I know who needs a wheelchair has spent
tens of thousands modifying their house so they can actually use them
despite them being built to the latest regs, simply because there is no
one size fits all disability.

Instead of requiring all builds to be to a given standard it would
actually be far more useful if there was a hypothecated tax on new
builds that went to a fund to be handed out to the disabled to adapt
their residence of choice.



--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 02/03/2020 11:04, Robin wrote:
On 02/03/2020 10:55, Andrew wrote:
On 02/03/2020 10:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 03:03:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 01/03/2020 23:05, Steve Walker wrote:
On 01/03/2020 20:27, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I often wonder why nobody builds houses on stilts these days.
Â*Â* Brian

While it makes sense from a flood point of view, it does rather
cause a
problem with the level access requirements of Part M.

Ramps, or simply say that disabled people should not visit or live
there.

The problem with a statement like this, is that is gives the impression
the **** writing it has never considered that someone can become
"disabled" in the blink of an eye.

So they move somewhere more suitable. What's the issue ?.

Why should every new house have to have those silly ramps at the
front entrance when the vast majority of properties will never be
occupied by someone in a wheelchair ?.

Scrap part M, and replace it with a small levy on every new build,
along the lines of S106, and allow LA's to hand out grants for
alterations to those properties where an occupant suddenly needs
it, without any conditions like "More than 16K savings etc". Base
it on need only. Let the LA impose a charge on the property if
necessary so that on death or relocation the money can be
recovered by the LA.

If an owner occupier suddenly becomes bed-ridden then even a
new build complying with Part M is no use.


I'm all for flexibility if it saves money but am unclear how that would
work for disabled people who need to rent somewhere to live.



Just round the corner from me is a specially built housing
authority house for a woman who became bedridden after a
medical accident when giving birth.

She lived entirely on the ground floor and there were
hoists in the wetroom. Her hubby and 3 kids lived up and
downstairs.

When they moved to Wales, the local authority allowed a
roly-poly female, with a conviction for benefit fraud, and
also a known local shoplifter, have the tenancy, togther with
her toy-boy partner and equally roly-poly son.

There is a 19 reg motability car parked outside and toyboy
uses it regularly, but no-one ever sees her. We all wonder
how she managed to wangle this.

On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 12:18:41 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

snip


Our previous neighbour had a static caravan in Bewdley that had to be
fitted with some sort of cantilever to allow it to float *when* it
flooded.

As long as you can allow for all the vans (on say a park) to float
whilst maintaining their positions sufficiently to avoid contact with
each other and against any debris that may be swept towards them, it
sounds like a good plan.

The floor height of most static vans are about the depth of a pontoon
in any case so it shouldn't affect much if they were pushed into a
'Duck' like thing and the front sealed up. ;-)

I'm guessing many d-i-y houseboats are formed that way. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 02/03/2020 13:46, Andrew wrote:
On 02/03/2020 11:04, Robin wrote:
On 02/03/2020 10:55, Andrew wrote:
On 02/03/2020 10:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 03:03:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 01/03/2020 23:05, Steve Walker wrote:
On 01/03/2020 20:27, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I often wonder why nobody builds houses on stilts these days.
Â*Â* Brian

While it makes sense from a flood point of view, it does rather
cause a
problem with the level access requirements of Part M.

Ramps, or simply say that disabled people should not visit or live
there.

The problem with a statement like this, is that is gives the impression
the **** writing it has never considered that someone can become
"disabled" in the blink of an eye.

So they move somewhere more suitable. What's the issue ?.

Why should every new house have to have those silly ramps at the
front entrance when the vast majority of properties will never be
occupied by someone in a wheelchair ?.

Scrap part M, and replace it with a small levy on every new build,
along the lines of S106, and allow LA's to hand out grants for
alterations to those properties where an occupant suddenly needs
it, without any conditions like "More than 16K savings etc". Base
it on need only. Let the LA impose a charge on the property if
necessary so that on death or relocation the money can be
recovered by the LA.

If an owner occupier suddenly becomes bed-ridden then even a
new build complying with Part M is no use.


I'm all for flexibility if it saves money but am unclear how that
would work for disabled people who need to rent somewhere to live.



Just round the corner from me is a specially built housing
authority house for a woman who became bedridden after a
medical accident when giving birth.

She lived entirely on the ground floor and there were
hoists in the wetroom. Her hubby and 3 kids lived up and
downstairs.

When they moved to Wales, the local authority allowed a
roly-poly female, with a conviction for benefit fraud, and
also a known local shoplifter, have the tenancy, togther with
her toy-boy partner and equally roly-poly son.

There is a 19 reg motability car parked outside and toyboy
uses it regularly, but no-one ever sees her. We all wonder
how she managed to wangle this.


like every other scum bag you see .....

On 02/03/2020 13:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/03/2020 10:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 08:08:23 +0000, Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\) wrote:

There is a scandal about homes for disabled people, whereby builders
have to provide xÂ* percentage, and then advertise them for six months.
What tends to happen is one isÂ* fitted out but the advertising is very
low key,
very few are taken so the builder say we have xÂ* left over can we fit
them out as normal flats.

They're not even that subtle. When SWMBO and I looked at new builds
(TL;DR
is they really are ****, aren't they) at least 3 of the 10 sites we
visited had pea-shingle car parks it was impossible to cross in a
wheelchair.

All that summer did was confirm that a 1440sq. ft. bungalow in 5,000sq.
ft. land is like a unicorn. Especially with it's level access (I built)
front and rear.

Precisely. All the 'social legislation' is complete ****e.

Every single disabled person I know who needs a wheelchair has spent
tens of thousands modifying their house so they can actually use them
despite them being built to the latest regs, simply because there is no
one size fits all disability.

Instead of requiring all builds to be to a given standard it would
actually be far more useful if there was a hypothecated tax on new
builds that went to a fund to be handed out to the disabled to adapt
their residence of choice.



Over ten years ago the Scottish regs required a cupboard on the ground
floor of a new build house to allow installation of a future bathroom if
needed....what did almost everybody do after I was out the door and
given the certificate of completion ?...yes ...take it away to make a
bigger living room....**** them if they need to adapt when they become
disabled.....In fact when they were trying to sell a few years later and
some surveyor picked up that there had been an alteration I charged them
£250 to go out and confirm it had been removed and required them, if
they wanted to sell to reinstate the cupboard.....revenge is best served
cold I found...tee hee

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 01/03/2020 20:27, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I often wonder why nobody builds houses on stilts these days.
Brian

While it makes sense from a flood point of view, it does rather cause a
problem with the level access requirements of Part M.

Floating ones as in that Grand Designs?

--
*Why do they put Braille on the drive-through bank machines?

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

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
On 02/03/2020 13:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/03/2020 10:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 08:08:23 +0000, Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\) wrote:

There is a scandal about homes for disabled people, whereby builders
have to provide x percentage, and then advertise them for six months.
What tends to happen is one is fitted out but the advertising is very
low key,
very few are taken so the builder say we have x left over can we fit
them out as normal flats.

They're not even that subtle. When SWMBO and I looked at new builds
(TL;DR
is they really are ****, aren't they) at least 3 of the 10 sites we
visited had pea-shingle car parks it was impossible to cross in a
wheelchair.

All that summer did was confirm that a 1440sq. ft. bungalow in 5,000sq.
ft. land is like a unicorn. Especially with it's level access (I built)
front and rear.

Precisely. All the 'social legislation' is complete ****e.

Every single disabled person I know who needs a wheelchair has spent tens
of thousands modifying their house so they can actually use them despite
them being built to the latest regs, simply because there is no one size
fits all disability.

Instead of requiring all builds to be to a given standard it would
actually be far more useful if there was a hypothecated tax on new builds
that went to a fund to be handed out to the disabled to adapt their
residence of choice.



Over ten years ago the Scottish regs required a cupboard on the ground
floor of a new build house to allow installation of a future bathroom if
needed....what did almost everybody do after I was out the door and given
the certificate of completion ?...yes ...take it away to make a bigger
living room....**** them if they need to adapt when they become
disabled.....In fact when they were trying to sell a few years later and
some surveyor picked up that there had been an alteration I charged them
£250 to go out and confirm it had been removed and required them, if they
wanted to sell to reinstate the cupboard.....revenge is best served cold I
found...tee hee

And thats why you will be left to die when you catch the coronavirus.

On 02/03/2020 18:39, Rod Speed wrote:


"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
On 02/03/2020 13:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/03/2020 10:41, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 08:08:23 +0000, Brian Gaff \(Sofa 2\) wrote:

There is a scandal about homes for disabled people, whereby builders
have to provide xÂ* percentage, and then advertise them for six months.
What tends to happen is one isÂ* fitted out but the advertising is very
low key,
very few are taken so the builder say we have xÂ* left over can we fit
them out as normal flats.

They're not even that subtle. When SWMBO and I looked at new builds
(TL;DR
is they really are ****, aren't they) at least 3 of the 10 sites we
visited had pea-shingle car parks it was impossible to cross in a
wheelchair.

All that summer did was confirm that a 1440sq. ft. bungalow in 5,000sq.
ft. land is like a unicorn. Especially with it's level access (I built)
front and rear.

Precisely. All the 'social legislation' is complete ****e.

Every single disabled person I know who needs a wheelchair has spent
tens of thousands modifying their house so they can actually use them
despite them being built to the latest regs, simply because there is
no one size fits all disability.

Instead of requiring all builds to be to a given standard it would
actually be far more useful if there was a hypothecated tax on new
builds that went to a fund to be handed out to the disabled to adapt
their residence of choice.



Over ten years ago the Scottish regs required a cupboard on the ground
floor of a new build house to allow installation of a future bathroom
if needed....what did almost everybody do after I was out the door and
given the certificate of completion ?...yes ...take it away to make a
bigger living room....**** them if they need to adapt when they become
disabled.....In fact when they were trying to sell a few years later
and some surveyor picked up that there had been an alteration I
charged them £250 to go out and confirm it had been removed and
required them, if they wanted to sell to reinstate the
cupboard.....revenge is best served cold I found...tee hee

And thats why you will be left to die when you catch the coronavirus.

no no it will be those that flaunt the law...tee hee

On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 05:39:50 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile troll****

05:39, you piece of senile troll****? LOL

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

On Monday, 2 March 2020 03:03:29 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/03/2020 23:05, Steve Walker wrote:
On 01/03/2020 20:27, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:

I often wonder why nobody builds houses on stilts these days.
Â* Brian

While it makes sense from a flood point of view, it does rather cause a
problem with the level access requirements of Part M.

Ramps, or simply say that disabled people should not visit or live there.

people become disabled as they get old, lack of wheelchair access is a real & mostly unnecessary problem. But it still beats no houses. Regs could include exception situations. A ramp on a block of flats cuts cost per unit a lot.


Having built a house, and landscaped a garden, moving earth around is
not that big a deal

you could make a huge lake and use the spoil to build berms and pop the
houses on top.

I think PP should not be given to development plans that will obviously flood living areas. There are ways to avoid the problem, and no sensible reason to build houses that way.


NT

On Monday, 2 March 2020 10:15:09 UTC, Peeler wrote:

What does it take to make you shut your senile big gob, senile Rodent? A
baseball bat across it?

maybe the same as what it would take for you to shut yours

On Monday, 2 March 2020 10:55:26 UTC, Andrew wrote:
On 02/03/2020 10:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 03:03:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 01/03/2020 23:05, Steve Walker wrote:
On 01/03/2020 20:27, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I often wonder why nobody builds houses on stilts these days.
Â* Brian

While it makes sense from a flood point of view, it does rather cause a
problem with the level access requirements of Part M.

Ramps, or simply say that disabled people should not visit or live
there.

The problem with a statement like this, is that is gives the impression
the **** writing it has never considered that someone can become
"disabled" in the blink of an eye.

So they move somewhere more suitable. What's the issue ?.

it's quite a problem for old folk that get ill to up sticks & move. Lot easier for younger folk that aren't disabled.


Why should every new house have to have those silly ramps at the
front entrance when the vast majority of properties will never be
occupied by someone in a wheelchair ?.

Scrap part M, and replace it with a small levy on every new build,
along the lines of S106, and allow LA's to hand out grants for
alterations to those properties where an occupant suddenly needs
it, without any conditions like "More than 16K savings etc". Base
it on need only. Let the LA impose a charge on the property if
necessary so that on death or relocation the money can be
recovered by the LA.

If an owner occupier suddenly becomes bed-ridden then even a
new build complying with Part M is no use.

It seems there are several possible solutions. Why not let the developer choose which one? The current requirement is plainly not working on flood plains.


NT

On Monday, 2 March 2020 15:21:35 UTC, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

Over ten years ago the Scottish regs required a cupboard on the ground
floor of a new build house to allow installation of a future bathroom if
needed....what did almost everybody do after I was out the door and
given the certificate of completion ?...yes ...take it away to make a
bigger living room....**** them if they need to adapt when they become
disabled.....

Why is it a problem if they remove the cupboard, knowing they might possibly need to redo it one later day?


In fact when they were trying to sell a few years later and
some surveyor picked up that there had been an alteration I charged them
£250 to go out and confirm it had been removed and required them, if
they wanted to sell to reinstate the cupboard.....revenge is best served
cold I found...tee hee

what's the point of that? Sounds petty & silly on the face of it.


NT

On 02/03/2020 08:08, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I think I'd be able to cope with houses on stilts. Its very silly at the
moment since if we are talking wheelchairs, many new builds are inaccessible
still, due to insufficient turn space inside.
There is a scandal about homes for disabled people, whereby builders have to
provide x percentage, and then advertise them for six months. What tends to
happen is one is fitted out but the advertising is very low key, very few
are taken so the builder say we have x left over can we fit them out as
normal flats.

I'd suggest that we scrap most of the requirements of part M, but
provide adequate funds for providing the adaptations that people need.
No two people with disabilities will have the same need, so why try and
cater for them all with prescriptive rules?

SteveW

On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 11:34:17 -0800 (PST), , an especially
demented, senile idiot, blabbered:


What does it take to make you shut your senile big gob, senile Rodent? A
baseball bat across it?

maybe the same as what it would take for you to shut yours

I don't even talk to you assholes, you blabbering senile idiot! LOL