Grand Designs On Now Ch4
Discussion
I normally like the stuff on Grand Designs but this build did nothing for me at all. I find the shape of it awkward, and lacking in focus. Folly is the best word to describe it, but without the personality that is usually associated with such buildings.
The footage certainly made it seem much more remote than shown in the subsequent photos!
The footage certainly made it seem much more remote than shown in the subsequent photos!
found this ...
Lotty. Personally I don't like the house - but that is irrelevant for our purposes - it could the an architectural masterpiece but the fact is it looms over us invading our privacy and blocking our sunlight - and on the north side of a hill that matters a great deal. From the Bridge (AKA the "viewing gallery"!) he can see right into our house and over look most of our property.
The programme gave a false impression regarding the balconies - the only one he has to delete from the scheme is the top floor one at the front - though we fully expect him to put it on anyway - and given the state of the council they will probably do nothing about it (but we will!).
Bob - yes we did know about the planning permission when we moved in- but the whole point is that it was planning permission for a house at the very least 2 metres lower than it is - i.e the whole house was supposed to be at a much lower level - the documentation accompanying the application specifically stated that ALL the windows on the side that faces our house would be "below the level of the adjoining house - which would have actually meant that in theory we would have barely been able to see it over the fence. in actual fact - not only do the plans and the design statement for that permission not match - but the various drawings don't agree with each other either. You might ask why we didnt spot all this at the time - to which I would answer - is it reasonable that you should have to check when you buy a house not only if there is planning permission, but also if the council did their job properly when they granted that permission?? - I think the legal term would be that we had a reasonable assumption of competence in the council. Alas woefully mistaken
NeighbourOnHill
View Public Profile
Visit NeighbourOnHill's homepage!
Find More Posts by NeighbourOnHill
Yesterday, 01:05 #395
NeighbourOnHill
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 17 Yes - we did prohibit them from showing our house - however that is no defence as they did in fact show our house.
We also prohibited them from giving details that would enable the identification of either our location or identity - they did so. Given some of the more oafish comments floating about on the forums - suggesting physical violence or arson directed toward us and our property for example - my wife is extremely upset as you might imagine. I expect a public apology from both channel 4 and grand designs, together with a not inconsiderable level of compensation for the stress they have put us through - over and above in the hell we have gone through in the least three years as a result of what has taken place.
Lotty. Personally I don't like the house - but that is irrelevant for our purposes - it could the an architectural masterpiece but the fact is it looms over us invading our privacy and blocking our sunlight - and on the north side of a hill that matters a great deal. From the Bridge (AKA the "viewing gallery"!) he can see right into our house and over look most of our property.
The programme gave a false impression regarding the balconies - the only one he has to delete from the scheme is the top floor one at the front - though we fully expect him to put it on anyway - and given the state of the council they will probably do nothing about it (but we will!).
Bob - yes we did know about the planning permission when we moved in- but the whole point is that it was planning permission for a house at the very least 2 metres lower than it is - i.e the whole house was supposed to be at a much lower level - the documentation accompanying the application specifically stated that ALL the windows on the side that faces our house would be "below the level of the adjoining house - which would have actually meant that in theory we would have barely been able to see it over the fence. in actual fact - not only do the plans and the design statement for that permission not match - but the various drawings don't agree with each other either. You might ask why we didnt spot all this at the time - to which I would answer - is it reasonable that you should have to check when you buy a house not only if there is planning permission, but also if the council did their job properly when they granted that permission?? - I think the legal term would be that we had a reasonable assumption of competence in the council. Alas woefully mistaken
NeighbourOnHill
View Public Profile
Visit NeighbourOnHill's homepage!
Find More Posts by NeighbourOnHill
Yesterday, 01:05 #395
NeighbourOnHill
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 17 Yes - we did prohibit them from showing our house - however that is no defence as they did in fact show our house.
We also prohibited them from giving details that would enable the identification of either our location or identity - they did so. Given some of the more oafish comments floating about on the forums - suggesting physical violence or arson directed toward us and our property for example - my wife is extremely upset as you might imagine. I expect a public apology from both channel 4 and grand designs, together with a not inconsiderable level of compensation for the stress they have put us through - over and above in the hell we have gone through in the least three years as a result of what has taken place.
Tonight's episode looks interesting:
"Kevin McCloud follows the progress of Brighton couple Daren Howarth and Adi Nortje, who want to build an earth-sheltered home from recycled materials, based on ideas pioneered in New Mexico in the 1970s. However, land prices and planning laws have forced the pair out of England and into Brittany. To keep costs down, Daren and Adi enlist the help of unskilled volunteers to work on the home, in exchange for teaching them the construction techniques"
Mud, hippies and The French.
My money's on an unmitigated disaster.
"Kevin McCloud follows the progress of Brighton couple Daren Howarth and Adi Nortje, who want to build an earth-sheltered home from recycled materials, based on ideas pioneered in New Mexico in the 1970s. However, land prices and planning laws have forced the pair out of England and into Brittany. To keep costs down, Daren and Adi enlist the help of unskilled volunteers to work on the home, in exchange for teaching them the construction techniques"
Mud, hippies and The French.
My money's on an unmitigated disaster.
haven't they done that before? the mexican insipration being earthship?
http://www.lowcarbon.co.uk/earthship-brighton
http://www.lowcarbon.co.uk/earthship-brighton
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff