AbDabs

I would absolutely love this lido to be rebuilt but I do feel sorry for the local residents. The demolition and excavation works required to remove the existing, severely damaged, structure will be awful (hundreds of lorries to remove the fill material before demolition starts), plus the construction itself will cause months of misery. Sadly, the demolition/construction is unlikely to leave many of the remaining trees untouched (I'm sure the roots will have grown into the damaged structure). The suggested construction cost doesn't seem anywhere near enough considering the proposals. (Sounds like an architect's 'budget' to me).

buddug Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James says "however it may be helpful not to focus > on the role of building control department quite > so much" and that to do so is "veering off topic"! > Building control inspectors were not lied to about > fire escapes, alarms. They made more than 40 site > visits to the development for God's sake. > Councillors should not be protecting the council > at the expense of the safety and well-being of > Southwark residents. And the only reason we don't > know the full facts is because the council is not > telling us them. I've had to put in a freedom of > information request to prise the truth out of > them. A lack of fire exits/routes can be spotted in one visit but fire stopping is a very different thing. 40 visits would only witness a small percentage, and when the inspectors do their rounds workers will know to turn their hands to 'finishing' any exposed details that need stopping. Most fire stopping can't be seen in the finished product. I suspect the problem only came to light when the floor,wall,ceiling finishes have been removed to repair other defects. I would lay the blame solely with the contractor.

If it is on every part of the top of external walls then I'd doubt it was the roof - that would be more likely if it was localised (i.e. front or back). It sounds like condensation. It's been an unusually damp winter; opening the windows is a good idea if you can keep them open but if it's a wet day you may simply replace warm damp air with cold damp air. The best thing is to turn the heating up and keep the windows open a little bit to let heated damp air escape - you want a draught which moves the air around. The other thing to check is that you have enough insulation in the loft, otherwise the warm damp air rises, hits a cold ceiling and then condenses. Worth checking that rodents (e.g. squirrels) haven't been stealing your insulation for nesting. Keeping the doors shut on bathrooms and kitchens helps to contain the worst of the damp air away from the rest of the house.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If > you think you should have more holiday then take > it up with your employer - the govt (rightly or > wrongly and that's a different conversation) isn't > going to be interested. The fact that the > legislation is specific demonstrates that. > > If you look at the OP's link to the petition it relates to the statutory entitlement not a particular individual/employment situation. Mick Mac - the reason I refer to the 5.6 weeks is that the 28 days is calculated from the entitlement to 5.6 weeks within the legislation. This stems from the original 1 week in 13 from the Working time regulations which has since been enhanced

I think there has been some confusion here. The OP isn't talking about private negotiations. This relates to the statutory entitlement which is 5.6 weeks per year which equals 28 days based on a five day week. Bank holidays are included. The legislation expressly sets out that there shall be no proportional increase in the number of days paid holiday for those working 6 days. I suspect that when the legislation was written it was assumed that the majority of 6th day working was overtime ie that you can choose to simply not work the 6th without penalty, thereby only needing 'holiday' on 5 days to provide a whole week off. What the OP is asking is that if the 6th day is part of the standard week, then the 5.6 weeks entitlement should include the extra day.

This is the list of addresses that should have got notification of the appeal. Did anyone on this list get the letter? If not, it is rather disturbing.

First mate, the developers (and I think their predecessors) have made a variety of planning applications. Cynics (including myself) would suspect that this is so they can mix and match the bits they find most economically advantageous together (and try and avoid any social housing requirements). They currently have permission to do a large amount of work extending the shop and the existing floors above (although whether they become residential or offices only time will tell). I expect they are hoping to get the remainder of permission (for the additional floor) in time for when they want to do the work. But, as it stands, they have plenty to get on with, hence the demolition works.

I've always understood it was accepted practice to put the good side to your neighbour, and I'm pretty sure it is a requirement if your neighbour is the public highway. If you have the sort of fence where the panels are on one side of the post, then by putting the good side towards your neighbour you get a couple of inches of extra garden

Lack of money or inability to read English?

Just seen a notice on the lamppost outside Iceland. Checked on the Southwark site and it's application Number 15/AP/1186. They want to slap another floor on top for penthouse flats. Oddly, after all the bleating that there's no need for office space, the existing floors will be offices. Going up another level seems like over development to me. p.s it does say M&S Food Hall rather than Simply food. If it's proper shopping rather than ready-made won't that just mean more cars?

Loz did a great job answering - thanks. That's what I presumed, that you can claim for the interest on the mortgages for the let properties only, i.e. a re-mortgage on the existing house wouldn't comply. I don't have any buy to let properties so I couldn't speak with certainty.

Sorry Jeremy, misinterpreted your post. And yes, the extra loading of an additional floor wouldn't be a simple multiple of the original for a variety of reasons (bedrooms less the kitchens), although that may also depend on the new roof structure.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well people build a third storey over the rear > addition all the time, as part of a loft > conversion. So common sense should dictate that > building a second storey over the rear addition is > OK. > > But common sense does not always prevail.... Er, not sure that's common sense. When you add a third storey to an existing two storey you are increasing the load on the footings by 50%. When you add a second storey to a single storey building then you are increasing the load by 100%. So it depends on the factor of safety used in the load bearing of the original footings.

If you are not selling any part of your existing home you are not actually 'releasing equity'. You are simply using your house as collateral to raise a loan, which is by way of a mortgage. So there is no tax to pay. The tax only comes about when you earn some money, either by renting your new house, or by capital gain when you sell it. The tax problem you may want to investigate is whether you will be able to set any of the rental income against the mortgage interest, if the mortgage is on another property.

It seems that Foxtons knows that the best way to speed up the sale of a house is to make it reassuringly expensive. There is a house on Melbourne grove that was listed with another agent in January 14 at ?900K (reduced from an earlier price of ?960K), then in Oct 14 at ?925. Now with Foxtons at ......?1.1M. The photos make it plain that nothing has changed internally or externally. It's a three bed house.

Just found this. Southwark website says animal waste and litter should go in the household waste bin - so there you go, in the green bins. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/10070/recycling/1365/a_to_z_of_waste_and_recycling/2

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agreed poo should never be added to compost, but > still unsure on point about bins. I would never put animal poo into home composting but the brown bin composting uses a different process which, I understood, destroyed the dangerous pathogens.

I don't have a dog but any fox poo in the garden goes in the garden/food waste bin. It's biodegradable matter so it should be fine.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > simonethebeaver - you're of course absolutely > right that IMO pizza is a carb filled meal with > few health benefits. .... But a shish and chips does? Especially when you're off your face? Bad pizzas are carb laden junk food. Well made pizzas are perfectly good meals, so hurrah for Franco Manca.

Luciam, you should be able to take down the curtains yourself (it would be silly money to get someone else to do it for you), then simply take them to the dry cleaners. As long as the mould hasn't been allowed to eat away at the fabric for too long, then they should come clean. I simply wipe along the windows every morning - cheaper than a dehumidifier - but I really like the idea of a Karcher window vac.

I can't actually see how the Council's new policy would be unlawful as the council has powers to implement parking restrictions (which includes double yellow lines, and could include a CPZ!). It wouldn't be removing anyone's 'right' as no right is actually given by the Traffic management act; it is simply that certain classes of persons or circumstances are exempted from the restrictions, which is a very different thing. No householder 'owns' the parking space in front of their house, it is just that parking is not allowed across the drop kerb so as to allow legal access to property ('legal' access is provided by the installation of a drop kerb). The statute includes the pragmatic exclusion from restrictions to the occupiers* visitors as such visitors obviously wouldn't be blocking the access (because you can get them to move immediately). But, they can only park there if there are no other restrictions, such as double yellows. When someone buys the property, they buy it as it is with whatever parking restrictions there are. But yes, the CPZ - when this was threatened some time back we were shown plans which included double yellow lines across all drop kerbs, including existing ones. This is why I was so much against it. *The use of the reference to an 'occupier' is, I presume, simply to exclude a landlord thinking he can allow his visitors to block a tenants legal rights of access onto their rented property.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I guess we'll need a secret masonic type indicator > to show which dropped kerbs are available for > others to use .But it would have to work on > parking wardens so that they didn't inadvertently > issue tickets . > No need to worry about that - parking wardens need to park up, get out their ticket book etc, all of which takes time. Throughout the day various people use my drop kerb space to deliver goods, drop off children, elderly relatives, make a phone call on their mobile etc. As long as they are doing just that, not parking up and leaving the vehicle, then I have no reason to mind and nor will a parking warden have a chance to write a ticket. The purpose of a drop kerb should simply be to stop anyone blocking vehicle access (so visitors can park as I can get them to move immediately) but it shouldn't be a permanently empty space. Putting double yellows across it is utter madness.

I would have thought that the only reason why a homebuyers report might be thought acceptable for a flat is just the practical reality of not being able to carry out a full structural - if you can't get access to all the other flats and the loft space, back garden etc, the surveyor/engineer can't describe it as a 'full' structural. I'd always have a full structural for a house, even if brand new (perhaps more so). The cost is a very small percentage of what it might cost if you've bought a dud. A homebuyers report doesn't really tell you anything more than what you can see for yourself (assuming you've owned a home before and have a basic understanding of general maintenance)- now that does seem a waste of money.

Mmm, now I went to a school where the majority of parents of my fellow students had been born and lived their entire lives within a twenty mile radius of the school. I suspect that was far more limiting than the fact that we were all much the same colour. You will never find an institution that holds a perfect mix and fashion/lifestyle changes can be just as significant as any cultural differences so whatever you experience in youth may be of no help in later life.

Check the prices actually paid on Zoopla. If you're asking more than the highest price ever paid (?1,166,500) in your street then you may have to have patience. If you're asking much less for the same size/condition then talk to another agent.