LondonMix

Unfortunately, .3 miles is about 480m so probably a bit far unless one of them buldges as has already been said. There might be other local options though that while further away might have wider catchments for any number of reasons (3 form entry etc) so it might be worth looking at few others. Good luck.

Yes, like builders talking loudly and playing music early in the morning... But seriously, any home improvement you do will be noisy and disruptive. This isn't unique to loft conversions (which have existed for decades) or side returns. Unless you are saying homes should never have worked carried out on them, the point you are trying to make isn't really valid.

I totally agree with that. I should have said a slim chance. However, if a front dormers are very common on the street, it could be argued that doing one can't be considered "not in keeping".

Yes, lowering the floor is an option so you can always create the space you need and while its more expensive, within the general costs of doing a loft conversion, its not that significant an extra cost-- just very messy according to a friend who had to do the same. Planning really don't like front dormers but if there are already a few on your street you may have a chance though it will really depend on the officer you get.

Agree with that. L-shaped extensions aren't always bad news either. It really depends so I wasn't trying to tar anyone who wants one as inconsiderate. Ground floor extensions (not properly executed) are the most likely source of loss of light. However, I do think planning are pretty quick to insist people scale down their plans. Also, material loss of light is a legal issue, not a planning one. Based on Right to Light you can sue for damages even if the planning authorities granted you planning permission. Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not all lofts are high enough to convert into a > useable room, so building over the back is a good > way of adding an extra bedroom. Although saying > that, if the neighbours object then you have to > make a judgement on whether you consider your > extra space to be more important than the wishes > of the neighbours. > > I have no sympathy for someone who just builds the > biggest extension they can to raise the value of > the house, but I can understand people trying to > create the space they need for their family within > their budget. The people saying "if you don't have > enough space buy a bigger house" obviously haven't > looked at property prices recently.

Exactly. New shops increase footfall which can actually benefit existing businesses.

I'm not saying they are all well designed or all even appropriate. However, similarly, they aren't all rubbish either. Like everything in life, the devil is in the detail. L-shaped loft conversions have a greater impact than standard dormers.

Also, it is entirely possible to design both a loft conversion and a side return extension that doesn't have a material impact on light. There are actual guidelines on how to do this. Orientation makes a material difference as do a number of other factors.

That's lovely. I can't recommend anyone but I do wish you the best of luck!

Because people are at work presumably. Do you think this would change if there was a tax break on travel costs?

So you think the hotel should have kept the position open for her in anticipation of her wanting it? For unskilled work, a British applicant should be at an advantage because of the language / communication skills they have in English. I?m not sure that employers are specifically discriminating against low / unskilled British workers.

So if you were able to get a tax deduction for your rail travel you would sell your car? If not, I can't see any justification for this. Sure, at various points of life, a car might be more convenient but I don't think that in the case of travel into London, people are very price sensitive. While costs have gone up dramatically over the last 5 years, I dare say I don't see that people have abondoned public transport for other modes of commuting into work. Part of this is because there is no choice-- most offices in central London have no parking so driving in (for office workers) isn't even an option. I'd be very skeptical about any claims that a tax refund would significantly nudge more people on to public transport, particularly for their commutes.

Agree with that. British people think certain jobs (particularly low and unskilled) are beneath them. There is absolutely nothing preventing a British worker getting an unskilled job vis-a-vis a foreigner. Skilled jobs is a different matter but the truth is that requires an overhall of the system rather than coercing employers to hire sub-par candidates based on public pressure.

Do you currently think that public transport is underused and that if it were more affordable there would be less drivers? I'd be surprised if that were the case and therefore I can't see the justification for trying to nudge people on to a heavily used service. Without the need to incentivise public transport per se, there is absolutely no justification for making it a universal tax break. david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Gosh - it's been what, a month, since you last > mentioned the good old money tree? > > Firstly, I'd suggest that the nudge theory that is > used on cycle scheme tax breaks can be equally as > valid on public transport. If it got people out of > cars then the wider benefits are clear. Also, > cycle scheme tax breaks are universal and not > means tested so I don't see why this would be > different. I've already shown that it could just > as likely pay for a miniumu-wage cleaner's bus > fare as it does a stockbroker's Surrey commute. > Universality also has the benefit of investing > everyone using the service with a stake in > ensuring it runs well. > > Secondly, on the issue of funding, it is no > different to any other spending decision. Is this > important or worthy enough to divert funding from > elsewhere. I'd say yes. I'd also happily see an > increase in road tax, petrol or other "eco-tax" to > fund it. > > Thirdly, I'm suggesting it as a political vote > winner by helping those suffering from excessive > fare rises yet again. See today's BBC report. > > I will ask again though. If not this, then what? > No one else has suggested any method for helping > tackle the cost of rail fare increases.

Exactly. Germany has a great model of what DaveR describes and one of the lowest youth unemployment rates in Europe.

100% agree with all of that BB Bellenden Belle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leade > rship/oct07/vol65/num02/The-Perils-and-Promises-of > -Praise.aspx > > There's an interesting theory posed by > psychologist Carol Dweck about praise. To sum it > up - it is better to praise the effort a child > makes than the end result. If an educator praises > a child when they have correctly finished > something the child is less likely to tackle a > harder task for fear of losing that praise if they > struggle with it. > > I think the problem with the original article > posted is that it suggests praise can devalue the > activity - be it reading, eating vegetables,etc - > I don't believe this to be true. But I do believe > praise can put unnecessary emphasis on achieving, > rather than doing.

M&S are actually appealing the decision so that battle isn't over yet. They have requested a forming hearing which has been granted though the date is still to be set.

Of course, I always forget about the money tree...

Exactly! What you are saying WoD makes no sense. It seems to rest on the idea that the economy only has a fixed amount of jobs and that we should horde them for the British. That's simply not true. The heart of the economy is people providing each other with goods and services. There is no upper limit to how many jobs can be created or can exist. The problem with youth unemployment is that the unemployed don't have to skills to provide goods or services wanted by other people. The solution is training as well as stimulating business investment. The idea that the way for the country to prosper is by insulating it from global competition (for goods, employment etc) is so wrong-footed its hard for me to understand how anyone could advocate this as a way forward.

Madness

The cyclescheme is designed to incentivise people towards new behaviour that the government deem beneficial for society-- getting people to exercise reduces NHS costs as it improves health, cycling to work reduces road congestion etc. Giving people a refund for using public transport when most people already use it doesn't make any sense as public policy. I agree with quids that providing this as a universal benefit is regressive taxation and deeply unfair. If offered at all, it certainly should be means-tested. However, people seem to somehow think that tax refunds are free money. What's the point in reducing goverment revenue in this way, when we already know that we have a budget deficit that prevents us from paying our current level of expenditure without borrowing debt? We'd just end up having to raise taxes elsewhere or cutting services.

Good they are staying local even if its not on the main high street anymore. However, its a shame that valuable services like a locksmith can't afford high street rents. The high street will end up just shops and restaurants which I love but you also need DIY stores, a locksmith, shoe repairs, dry cleaners etc. They may not be as exciting as a new restaurant but certainly more necessary.

That's not really true. Of the many people that I know who have bought homes in London, almost all would only look for a place that doesn't require any work. Most people hate doing work and most don't have the extra cash to do anything significant to a place right after buying it with prices what they are. Some buyers are looking to put their own stamp on a place (my partner and I are like that), and like most people looking to put a stamp on a place, prefer places that need work anyway that are cheaper so you aren't paying a premium for a house with a new kitchen that you plan to rip out.

If your house hasn't been updated in a long while (10 years plus) but isn't a wreck, I've found that's when work adds the most value. Doing a light cosmetic update to kitchens, bathrooms, flooring and a lick of paint can add a lot of value of done fairly neutrally and taking into account what current buyers for a property your size are looking for. If the place is a wreck (not saying yours is!) it will only ever appeal to someone looking for a project and is likely to be gutted and so anything you do around the edges is likely wasted money. Structural work done cheaply is off putting so if you can't do something properly its best to sell your house as is. Unless your kitchen already needs replacing, you will probably at best break even on doing a side return extension. Loft conversions do add money, but if you could convert your loft, you probably wouldn't need to move for more space.

The Patch have taken over the Mag-- work has started but they aren't doing a big song and dance about it for some reason.