red devil

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Depending on the cubic footage of your proposed > extension, relative to the existing house, and > assuming no previous extensions were undertaken > post 1949 (about) it may fall under 'permitted > development'. Under PD, cubic footage is irrelevant for ground floor extensions, PD uses distance parameters, not volumetric. Here are the main things you can and can't do under PD... - No more than half the area of land around the "original house"* would be covered by additions or other buildings. - No extension forward of the principal elevation or side elevation fronting a highway. - No extension to be higher than the highest part of the roof. - Single-storey rear extension must not extend beyond the rear wall of the original house* by more than three metres if an attached house or by four metres if a detached house. - In addition, outside Article 2(3) designated land* and Sites of Special Scientific Interest the limit is increased to 6m if an attached house and 8m if a detached house until 30 May 2019. - These increased limits (between 3m and 6m and between 4m and 8m respectively) are subject to the prior notification of the proposal to the Local Planning Authority and the implementation of a neighbour consultation scheme. If objections are received, the proposal might not be allowed. (I think this means that you don't have to inform the LPA if your extension falls within the original limits of 3m and 4m respectively, i.e. a neighbour consultation scheme isn't required, but worth double checking with the LPA first) - Maximum height of a single-storey rear extension of four metres. - Extensions of more than one storey must not extend beyond the rear wall of the original house* by more than three metres. - Maximum eaves height of an extension within two metres of the boundary of three metres. - Maximum eaves and ridge height of extension no higher than existing house. - Side extensions to be single storey with maximum height of four metres and width no more than half that of the original house. - Two-storey extensions no closer than seven metres to rear boundary. - Roof pitch of extensions higher than one storey to match existing house. - Materials to be similar in appearance to the existing house. - No verandas, balconies or raised platforms. - Upper-floor, side-facing windows to be obscure-glazed; any opening to be 1.7m above the floor. - On designated land* no permitted development for rear extensions of more than one storey. - On designated land no cladding of the exterior. - On designated land no side extensions.

The BBC were asking which manager has been the worse, the evidence against Ian Dowie was pretty damning...

Foxes aka Leicester City...

Moyes took us from Champions to 7th in the blink of an eye. At least with BFS there was an end product despite the dogshit football. He got you promoted at the first attempt and then kept you in the PL. Yes it's nice to be entertained, but sometimes you have to walk before you can run. I have no problem with WH fans complaining about the dogshit football in his 3rd season, that was the time to sack him, kick on with a new manager, but the owners saw otherwise. What I can't understand is this refusal to accept BFS achieved some very important things for the club, especially as it was a crucial time with the move to the OS looming. You certainly can't say that about Moyes, he left us with Fellaini FFS :)...

Indeed it was Meds...

Art imitating life, The Fox(es) extend their lead. Week 27 points... Week 27 table...

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why don't you just admit you,re wrong eh? How's > your boring manager going got you up to 5th you > sure you want to risk a change careful what you > wish for eh blah, blah, blah. All of us Hammers on > here called it right because it was obvious, > whilst you lot patronised us with a load of > cliches. That post of mine you've quoted is clearly a tongue in cheek reference to you continually banging on with your ''careful what you wish for'' schtick. It's a shame you can't throw it back in the context it was originally said. Here's a reminder of what I wrote on the subject a couple of months ago... When WH fans were calling for BFS to be sacked this time 3 years ago, I said BFS was the type the manager any club would want if they were in a relegation scrap. I said WH should keep him and then keep him for another season just to get a bit of stability at the club and established in the league, i.e. take a pragmatic approach for a couple of years as you'd just been promoted. If they then wanted to sack him and get a new, more attack minded manager, fine, go for it, the new manager will have 2 years to bed a new team in, before the move to the OS. WH fans at the time were saying that they would rather the club were relegated playing attractive football, and I said that there are plenty of clubs who have been relegated from the PL and have never been promoted back, which was a big risk with the move to the OS in mind. That's when I said ''careful what you wish for''. So, as we don't live in a parallel universe where BFS was sacked and WH relegated, we'll never know what might have happened. But what we do know is that keeping BFS at the time wasn't a mistake, so no words being eaten here... It's West Ham fans on here that won't admit they were wrong when they called for BFS to be sacked when you were flirting with relegation. You didn't call it right. Those of us who said he should stay at the time were proved right. Without BFS getting you promoted at the first attempt, and keeping you in the PL, there would be no Bilic, there would be no Payet. Do you seriously think either of them would've rocked up at the Boleyn if you were languishing in the Championship? Only 1 in 5 clubs relegated from the PL bounce back up. There are plenty of clubs, with just as big a stature and history as WH, who can't get out. That's what WH fans had to be ''careful what they wished for'', nothing to do with Bilic et al...

What Meds said, I even proposed sacking BFS a year before he actually went. Quids is the EDF's very own Pol Pot with his historical revisionism...

Well spotted unc, definitely not indigenous, I reckon there's a bit of Irish about him, 2nd or 3rd generation...sound familiar?

Today feels like ''Spring has sprung...''

A fry-up washed down with Irn Bru (Lucozade acceptable alternative), followed by lots of rigorous sex to counter all the E numbers...

Do owners look like their dogs? This celeb was spotted in Dulwich Park yesterday walking their CockerPoo (looking) puppy, can you guess who it is? Cheeky face, wet nose and curly hair...didn't get close enough for the dog breath test

Week 27 fixtures... Saturday 5th March 2016 Tottenham v Arsenal Chelsea v Stoke Everton v West Ham Man City v Aston Villa Newcastle v Bournemouth Southampton v Sunderland Swansea v Norwich Watford v Leicester Sunday 6th March 2016 Crystal Palace v Liverpool West Brom v Man Utd

Predict Addict still haven't updated Week 26 fixtures i.e. they are still showing Liverpool and City as playing PL games on Sunday when in fact they were postponed due their involvement in the Capital One Cup. However, the overall table looks like it is up to date, so here it is... Week 26 table...

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, some issues will be resolved by building > control on the spot both with structure and > drainage- that was my personal experience. > Someone doing the amount of work detailed in the > OP's post should have full engineer drawings > before starting and those should be submitted > (though not necessarily approved) before starting. > Yes, for minor work, full plans aren't necessary > but I wasn't speaking in the abstract. The OP > detailed what was being done. Neither was I dealing in the abstract. The works described are very basic and common, with a competent builder/architet/project manager etc, a Building Notice would suffice...

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Red devil-- believe it or not I've been through > this process on both sides and am aware of all of > that. My point was that if you are concerned > about work being done safely, ensuring building > control is involved is more important than the > partywall survey. Often times people think that's > the role of the party wall surveyor and its not. My point is that a neighbour can't ensure Building Control are involved at the Party Wall stage. A polite request, yes, but to ensure, nope...

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Speak to your neighbours and ensure they have > submitted their plans to building control for > approval- this is how you can ensure the plans / > engineering are safe not through a party wall > agreement. Building control will also carry out > regular inspections of the work to ensure its of > the right quality and conforms with the plans. That's making a big assumption that the neighbour will submit detailed plans to Building Control for approval before works commence. They don't have to as there are two ways to obtain Bulding Regs approval... One way, called Full Plans, is to submit detailed drawings and specifications (design and structural), with the aim to get approval before works commence. However, approval might carry certain conditions that have to be addressed, for instance it may be impossible to ascertain the existing drainage layout until works begin...sometimes a solution can only be worked out on site, or something unforeseen crops up, and things have to change accordingly. But this is easily remedied as the Building Control Inspector will carry out periodic inspections at critical stages, e.g. foundations, drainage, walls up to dpc level, and so on. The Inspector is effectively signing-off the works in stages, and at the end they will issue you with a final Completion Certificate. The other way is by what is known as a Building Notice. The builder only has to inform the Council that works are due to commence no less than 48 hours before the start date. This is quite common if the works are not complicated, and I would say that simple extensions of this nature are not deemed complicated. It is also a common route to take as it means the property owner doesn't go to the expense of employing someone to do detailed drawings and specifications, instead they can give the builder a basic set of drawings, perhaps those submitted for planning, and everything is then left to the builder to liaise with Building Control. As before, the Inspector will make periodic checks to see that what is being built meets with current Regs. They will still want to see Structural Drawings/Calculations for steel beams and columns etc. But for a simple lintel over a door opening it can easily be ok'd on site by the Inspector. Southwark produce a ''Guide To Extending Your Home'', which explains this and much more, useful for the layperson. For a Party Wall Award, the Surveyor will require detailed information/drawings, but this is not tied into Building Control approval in any way...

Soyamocha, your neighbour is responsible for submitting a Party Wall Notice(s) before any works commence, in order to get a Party Wall Award agreed by all parties. When you receive the Notice they will nominate a joint surveyor to carry out the Award. You can decide whether or not you wish to use their moninated surveyor, or you can get your own independent surveyor. Either case, your neighbour is responsible for the costs of whichever surveyor you use, so don't spend any money on a surveyor just yet... ETA typo

Under PD you can extend out from any rear wall (you might have more than one if you have an outrigger) by 3m. For a few years there has been a relaxation of up to 6m, but this is subject to 'consultation' with neighbouring properties (this relaxation ends soon, so maybe your neighbours are trying to rush this through?) Under PD you can build up to 3m in height within 2m of any boundary, beyond 2m and you can build up to 4m. With a flat roof construction, this height is to the top of the flat roof, and doesn't include a parapet upstand, which can be higher, say another 300mm. With a mono pitch roof construction it's to the highest point of the sloping roof. Under PD your neighbours would be perfectly within their rights to build on the boundary line up to 3m + the parapet upstand if they went for a flat roof construction. It often makes sense to do this so internally it feels less like an extension with one continuous flat ceiling height. In a side return extension scenario, this obviously could greatly impact on light levels for a neighbouring property if it also has a side return. However, as has been noted, Right to Light falls outwith PD rights and Planning Law, it comes under Civil Law. You would have to take out a private injunction and then go to the expense of proving that your loss of light exceeds what is considered reasonable. This can be a very time consuming and costly exercise. If your neighbours are going down the route of a normal Planning Permission application, then they will have to propose a mono pitch (lean-to roof) sloping down to the boundary, with a height of around 2.3m on the boundary line in order to stand any chance of getting approval. By doing this there would be little issue with loss of light too...

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...and they will certainly need building works > agreement from the council planning department > before 'permitted development' can be accepted. Do you mean Building Regs approval?

Have you got your OS seat yet ????? A friend has, he's well chuffed as it's on the half way line opposite the Director's Box...

Marcus Fooking Rashford :)...

That's twice you've made me laugh :)... Pronounced laff ;-)

Eee by gum :)...

Don't forget your selections for the midweek games...