Grand Designs On Now Ch4
Discussion
It would have been interesting to see a view of the house from the property of the neighbour who complained. I was trying to make out where it might be from some of the panoramic shots and was struggling to see where they might be situated such that an extra 3-4 feet on the height of the house would have a material impact on their own property.
It shows how idiotic the whole process is when the council effectively decided to change its mind just to avoid the risk of having to incur the costs associated with judicial review proceedings. It seems that if you want to scupper a neighbour's building project, all you need to do is bandy around the threat of JR!
I was a bit mystified that the planning officer at the outset was saying that the house was too tall but they might let it through if he opaqued the windows and removed the balcony. It just smacks of being seen to do SOMETHING to penalise the guy and offer a sop to the neighbour rather than having anything to do with enforcing the rules. The compromise seemed to have no relation to the alleged breach and complaint....
It shows how idiotic the whole process is when the council effectively decided to change its mind just to avoid the risk of having to incur the costs associated with judicial review proceedings. It seems that if you want to scupper a neighbour's building project, all you need to do is bandy around the threat of JR!
I was a bit mystified that the planning officer at the outset was saying that the house was too tall but they might let it through if he opaqued the windows and removed the balcony. It just smacks of being seen to do SOMETHING to penalise the guy and offer a sop to the neighbour rather than having anything to do with enforcing the rules. The compromise seemed to have no relation to the alleged breach and complaint....
Beyond Rational said:
Poor guy...unless you can afford to lose though, he really should have played the planner's game from day one, a few hundred quid would have taken away 18 months of stress, a dislike of the house and a falling out with the nieghbours, who may have over reacted but from what we saw, was impossible to tell.
Yet another misguided sensationalistic episode of grand designs IMO.So the guy build a house that doesn't conform to the plans that were approved? and the planners kick off?
What a surprise, makes good telly but I'm bored of the programme featuring fools building their dream houses extremely badly.
The french windows on the main elevation without balconies was a point in fact
IF a Ph'er had posted on here that somebody was building a house next to their house.
It was massive without the proper planning permission You lot would be going mental calling for it to be knocked down.
I don't get it, he is a 'victim' of not having the proper planning from a few years before. So its not as if he didn't know.
Love the house but just silly the way he went about it.
It was massive without the proper planning permission You lot would be going mental calling for it to be knocked down.
I don't get it, he is a 'victim' of not having the proper planning from a few years before. So its not as if he didn't know.
Love the house but just silly the way he went about it.
Why didn't he just build to the planning permission?
And then when he was told the building was too high and breached planning permission why didn't he just get a load of replacement steel columns made 3 ft shorter, hire a set of hydraulic jacks and lower the house complete as it sat on a steel "chassis" in any case.
It would have cost a lot less than all the upset, the time taken in appeals the lawyers fees and the bridging loan.
Then once finished I would have laid waste to the neighbours garden using every foul and sneaky trick available, herbicide in ice cubes over the fence etc.......Unreliable, ie constantly on and off, high intensity security lights, inconsiderantly aimed can be a right pain. As can bonfires when the wind is in the wrong direction.
Cheers,
Tony
And then when he was told the building was too high and breached planning permission why didn't he just get a load of replacement steel columns made 3 ft shorter, hire a set of hydraulic jacks and lower the house complete as it sat on a steel "chassis" in any case.
It would have cost a lot less than all the upset, the time taken in appeals the lawyers fees and the bridging loan.
Then once finished I would have laid waste to the neighbours garden using every foul and sneaky trick available, herbicide in ice cubes over the fence etc.......Unreliable, ie constantly on and off, high intensity security lights, inconsiderantly aimed can be a right pain. As can bonfires when the wind is in the wrong direction.
Cheers,
Tony
Lurking Lawyer said:
It would have been interesting to see a view of the house from the property of the neighbour who complained. I was trying to make out where it might be from some of the panoramic shots and was struggling to see where they might be situated such that an extra 3-4 feet on the height of the house would have a material impact on their own property.
It shows how idiotic the whole process is when the council effectively decided to change its mind just to avoid the risk of having to incur the costs associated with judicial review proceedings. It seems that if you want to scupper a neighbour's building project, all you need to do is bandy around the threat of JR!
I was a bit mystified that the planning officer at the outset was saying that the house was too tall but they might let it through if he opaqued the windows and removed the balcony. It just smacks of being seen to do SOMETHING to penalise the guy and offer a sop to the neighbour rather than having anything to do with enforcing the rules. The compromise seemed to have no relation to the alleged breach and complaint....
I'd think that was to do with privacy, in addition to the overall height issue, if his house was 3 foot (or two metres...why didn't they say which!) higher overall, then it could be assumed the windows and balconies were as well and therefore seriously overlooking next door. I don't think Grand Designs put across the full extent of the issue(s), which is a shame, five minutes of more technical content entwined intothe show would be huge bonus, they could quite easily focus on one subject a week now that they have dropped the show that followed the last two series.It shows how idiotic the whole process is when the council effectively decided to change its mind just to avoid the risk of having to incur the costs associated with judicial review proceedings. It seems that if you want to scupper a neighbour's building project, all you need to do is bandy around the threat of JR!
I was a bit mystified that the planning officer at the outset was saying that the house was too tall but they might let it through if he opaqued the windows and removed the balcony. It just smacks of being seen to do SOMETHING to penalise the guy and offer a sop to the neighbour rather than having anything to do with enforcing the rules. The compromise seemed to have no relation to the alleged breach and complaint....
Beyond Rational said:
I don't think Grand Designs put across the full extent of the issue(s), which is a shame, five minutes of more technical content entwined intothe show would be huge bonus, they could quite easily focus on one subject a week now that they have dropped the show that followed the last two series.
Grand designs never do though. I dont think they have ever focused on a well designed/run project.They simply focus on individuals (who without decent professional guidance) embark on over enthusiastic projects. They then take footage when said individuals try to build/project manage (I hate the term project manage with a passion) with no understanding of the issues involved.
The chap today thought he could bend planning drawings to the hilt...and then bleated on about discharging conditions....which he subsequently flouted, and of course the developer was left with the audience feeling sorry for him...when in fact we (as the viewers) should have been applauding the council in question for their diligence for stopping this muppet building something that fundementaly didnt have planning consent.
TV for the masses.
GD would do better to focus on the correct proceedure as opposed to ignoring muppets who do the whole thing wrong.
Lurking Lawyer said:
It shows how idiotic the whole process is when the council effectively decided to change its mind just to avoid the risk of having to incur the costs associated with judicial review proceedings. It seems that if you want to scupper a neighbour's building project, all you need to do is bandy around the threat of JR!
Mental that they unanimously approved it then some s
tty letter comes through so...not approved actually anymore even though it is...but if you just wait, oh, best part of a year we might have another vote like the one we had in the first place!Unbelievable
No sign of the planning officer who gave him the verbal OK but then ran and hid when it all blew up. So many people are cowards.
And to have to wait 18 months for a 10-minute meeting - pathetic, but what do you expect from a Council? I wondered how many of them voted 'yes' because they didn't want to look bad on TV...
And to have to wait 18 months for a 10-minute meeting - pathetic, but what do you expect from a Council? I wondered how many of them voted 'yes' because they didn't want to look bad on TV...
FourWheelDrift said:
Pesty said:
robinhood21 said:
Mind, if I remember right, this chap fell foul of planning with his shopfront in Muswell Hill.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3715118.stmthat shop is still there
He got his planning permission
Swilly said:
FourWheelDrift said:
Pesty said:
robinhood21 said:
Mind, if I remember right, this chap fell foul of planning with his shopfront in Muswell Hill.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3715118.stmthat shop is still there
He got his planning permission
Pesty said:
IF a Ph'er had posted on here that somebody was building a house next to their house.
It was massive without the proper planning permission You lot would be going mental calling for it to be knocked down.
I don't get it, he is a 'victim' of not having the proper planning from a few years before. So its not as if he didn't know.
Love the house but just silly the way he went about it.
He went about it in a classical eccentric British manner.... and got caught out by classical eccentric and archaic planning lawsIt was massive without the proper planning permission You lot would be going mental calling for it to be knocked down.
I don't get it, he is a 'victim' of not having the proper planning from a few years before. So its not as if he didn't know.
Love the house but just silly the way he went about it.
ewenm said:
mouk786 said:
is no one going to mention was a knob the presenter is?
i wonder what kind of a dive he lives in.
I don't think McCloud is that bad and I suspect he lives in a very nice place.i wonder what kind of a dive he lives in.
t mix.Does look like a nice place.
scotal said:
Swilly said:
FourWheelDrift said:
Pesty said:
robinhood21 said:
Mind, if I remember right, this chap fell foul of planning with his shopfront in Muswell Hill.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3715118.stmthat shop is still there
He got his planning permission
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff