Atticus
-
Posts
746 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Atticus
-
Keef, you're missing the point as far as I am concerned. I'm happy to engage with opinions I find disagreeable, sweeping them under the carpet would serve little other than ignorance.
-
Jeez, if ever there was an example of pot, kettle, black ...
-
Believe me, Anna would not have backed you up had you been supporting Man Utd.
-
What? You'd be the first to get defensive if he or anyone had a go at the mighty reds. All getting a bit holier then thou this.
-
I think Anna just loves his anti Man U rhetoric. Arsenal will definitely bottle it.
-
He's moved on since his Bullseye days.
-
Oh, that's a relief!
-
Who? me and H?
-
Hugenot, the forum's very own Ronnie Regan. I doubt he's banned thoughn,just busy working on a think tank, with the brief of silencing the annoyance of that awful bore aka the poor. For me, the most entertaining poster of all.
-
There is only one 'the one show' circa chiles and bleakers.
-
5th Beatle?
-
Could a moderator please get in touch. I've got a problem with my account.
Atticus replied to Scribe's topic in The Lounge
Big Bad Wolf this could be your record expulsion -
perhaps if Archdale then appeal the *second* application they have put in, then a different planning inspectorate will examine their case and the chances are they will interpret it the correct (eh hem) way...? just a guess like ;)
-
Southwark council have said that the reason Landells got approval and Archdale didn't is because sometime during 2010(?), Southwark's interpretation of the rules changed "55 Landells Road, was made under a former and different interpretation of the General Permitted Development Order 2008"
-
exactly - which is why i started this thread as it's helpful for everyone to get together and compare notes .... either Southwark will have to 'reconsider their refusals' *or* they're going to have to enforce certain households to pull down the work already carried out (!) which is ridiculous especially if landells et al stays???!!
-
equally a precedent (more recent) has been set by the refusal... let's see what they say edit to say: one development is currently being investigated by Southwark planning, which is the same as Landells (shown in the above link) another we know of has stopped work and there are a number out there (in East Dul) who have completed work with no CoL from Southwark planning at all....
-
Southwark Planning Department are getting back to us as to why this was approved and not the others (one has since appealed and been refused). I'll post what their reponse is - should hear back within a couple of weeks? This approval was approved *prior* to the appeal which was refused... so something's changed since then in terms of policy
-
Why are people continually buying into this wind-up?
-
absolutely - all the risks were explained but i decided to go ahead with it plus - i've just seen *another* application (in East Dulwich) that was approved that's exactly the same under CoL (PD)... so it's clearly highly unpredictable as to whether you get approval or not. i cna't see how architect's can second guess inconsistencies at the Southwark Planning department
-
i dont know the dimensions - sorry i should check - it's whatever heights needed in addition to the height already there from the sloping roof - can't be that much higher - hope that makes sense.... pm me and i can refer you to my application on southwark planning website which may answer some of your questions? if the applications were before 2008 then i think they're ok? it's post that that's the problem i think?
-
Scribe, old bean, fancy hunting a wolf on my behalf?
-
Yup and we are now going down that route. The irony is that I was told the new legislation was meant to make things simpler all round If we need legal advice to work out the new legislation it's clearly failed at the first hurdle...
-
Disagree BR, it wasn't a cracking game, in fact I thought it was rubbish, yet two fantastic goals will make it go down in history as a classic. As for MAN City, no bottle, too negative. You are not ready to challenge.
-
hello i just applied for a loft conversion and a little bit over the outrigger for a bathroom. only about 9 foot into the outrigger. The top of the outrigger would have to be built up by about a meter i guess? sorry for lack of lingo - perhaps simon can help with the right language? i dont' really understand the class a/b stuff - sorry Edit to say: we would use whatever materials it'd take. I'm not sure that was the issue
-
Scribe, I was being sarcastic.