Jump to content
  • Sign up now

    Registration is quick and easy 

The Lunacy of Planning Law (Rant)


nman1
 Share

Recommended Posts

Now that the dustmen no longer have to pick up our (tin) bins from our back gardens, just "wheel" a bin up to the dust cart, the planners, in their wisdom, have determined that all site plans should show in detail, where the householder should wheel his bin to on the road side. No physical marks will be on site, it is purely to say it can be done.

We have just been asked to move our "bin pick up point" approximately 3`0" because it will then fall on public land.

Not only does this involve me doing extra (unnecessary in my view) work, it adds costs to the client and delays the determination of the application.


FFS get some common bloody sense and stop acting like fecking little Hiltlers.


Sorry for rant (and MKCenturian) but, bloody hell is this not a poathetic waste of PUBLIC servants time and mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there are steps, do you have to plan in a 'Stenna' Chairlift?


What about reversing, don't you have to define a turning circle to manouvre the bin round so you can push it back?


Again, what about the condition of the surface? It may be unsuitable for standard bin wheels. Need to sort it Neil! And, in full technicolour and 3-D to boot!


:cheers:


:twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll have a rant about Building regulations... demands that a percentage of light fittings in the home should be incapable of holding a conventional (bayonet cap) bulb. So some bright spark came up with three-pronged bulb that you can't buy anywhere on the high street and have to order off the internet and the cheapest I've found so far is £9 each! I need 4 of these bulbs as my house is apparently too well lit and they've all decided to plunge me into darkness. Bugger me if I'm spending £40+ on bulbs (don't forget to add the delivery charge!) when I can replace the fittings for a few quid.


/rant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The laws have changed slightly Joe from what they were. Because manufacturers now make energy efficient light bulbs to fit normal bayonet fittings the law now says that a ceratin percentage of the fittings must be able to accept an energy efficient bulb. Which means in effect NORMAL fittings. :shock: :shock:


I`d spend the money on getting an electrican to change your fittings. Easy enough to do.


Bloody ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'll tell you the best one, i had to remove 1 coarse of bricks cos my roof would be to high!!! 4 flippin inches that no-one would notice! problem with that was the inner blocks then had to be altered cos they were higher than the outter course which meant that my top floor ceiling height and room size had to be altered.


just cos one row of bricks!


oh and cos i was doing a 3 bed house i had to provide 2 parking spots, but i had a concrete area that could park 4 so i HAD to dig up two and create a garden area!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The laws have changed slightly Joe from what they were. Because manufacturers now make energy efficient light bulbs to fit normal bayonet fittings the law now says that a ceratin percentage of the fittings must be able to accept an energy efficient bulb. Which means in effect NORMAL fittings. :shock: :shock:


I`d spend the money on getting an electrican to change your fittings. Easy enough to do.


Bloody ridiculous.

But the developers who built my house interpreted this to mean that they wouldn't use normal bayonet fittings - the sensible thing to do. My house is only two years old... two prong bayonet energy efficient lightbulbs have been used for much longer than that... insanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'll tell you the best one, i had to remove 1 coarse of bricks cos my roof would be to high!!! 4 flippin inches that no-one would notice! problem with that was the inner blocks then had to be altered cos they were higher than the outter course which meant that my top floor ceiling height and room size had to be altered.


just cos one row of bricks!


oh and cos i was doing a 3 bed house i had to provide 2 parking spots, but i had a concrete area that could park 4 so i HAD to dig up two and create a garden area!

 

A brick course Bex is 3inches so even less. I wonder if this would have happened on the Girkin in London. Would they have told Sir Norman Foster to lower it by 3inches.


Joe the laws changed on Oct 1st this year.


The whole Planning/ building regs laws have gone totally mad and so bloody un-realistic.


We took a glass roof off of a conservatory and replaced it with a slate roof but because we opened up the living room into the conservatory by removing the french doors we were told we had to much glazed area for the size of the room. :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conservatories must be separated from the room they adjoin, take out the doors and you add it to the room and the glazed area comes in - bone-headed but true.

Personally I find the glazing limits a royal pain in the backside (nman1 - it sounds like we are in similar boats, though as you said you're building a model I'm guessing you're an architect versus me being a draughtsman) every now and then it jumps up to bite me in the arse.


That said, though, I've only ever encountered the wheelie-bin area madness with building control (thankfully we are partnered with a brilliant inspector who checks all of our drawings - he's great... reasonable, helpful and thoroughly friendly) - not planning.


Anyway - no rest for the wicked - back to work. A bit of effort now and I'll have this drawing out the door before bedtime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of wheelie bins,


I live in a flat and we have a huge car park (holds about 8 cars) and the council won't take my bins from the back of the driveway to the front, we have to put em next to the gate. The only problem with this is the bins then block the only exit out of the driveway. I called the council and asked why they wouldn't come up the driveway anymore and got the "ealf and safety" bollocks responce so I asked them to Email me a copy of the risk assesment that had been done to come to the conclusion that it was too dangerous to walk up my driveway. Needless to say it never came and they now collect my bins from the back of my driveway!! :D


Who says a snotty phone call never works.............. 8-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The planners rejected my application three times because the windows were too high and too large. They referred to the neighbours saying they wanted them to match them. After the third rejection I rang and told them that they were identical in size and at the same height in the roof as the neighbours. They then accpeted them.


We had further problems and ended up getting a planning consultant in to fight our case. We got what we wanted in the end but what a lot of wasted time and money.


I lost my temper with one of our planners. One of the conditions of the planning consent was that we provide samples of any new roofing materials. So as to be compliant I took a sample tile and a half in which were to be used around the new dorma windows. The planner rang me to tell me that they would not accept them because they were larger than the original tiles. I told her to stop being an idiot and that it was standard construction practice to use tile and a half. She threatened to hang up on me if I didn't calm down. So then I told her to go and find out about standard roof construction and then let me know if it was ok. Sure enough she later wrote and said they were acceptable.


They also insisted we put in a new internal wall and fire door to our existing hall. We complied but once we got the building certificate we ripped it out. More wasted time and money. At least now they have learnt that people remove door closers, cut them or prop the door open. So now they have dropped that particular piece of planning legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My brother's business were extending office space by building on top of existing. A new toilet was also added to the first floor office space. Planners stated that the design of the toilet had to meet the dimensions for disabled access (wheelchair users).

The only access to the first floor is by stairs. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They also insisted we put in a new internal wall and fire door to our existing hall. We complied but once we got the building certificate we ripped it out. More wasted time and money. At least now they have learnt that people remove door closers, cut them or prop the door open. So now they have dropped that particular piece of planning legislation.

Removing required work after certification is pretty common, however you might want to check your home and contents insurance terms. It is my understanding that many policies are invalidated if you have work done that doesn't conform to building regulations.


I'm not aware of anything in planning that requires closers on doors, however it is very common in building regulations when certain works are done. The requirement hasn't been dropped. In the case of loft conversions and some work with windows close to a boundary closers are definitely still needed. The worst time for that was when many authorities insisted on period doors being removed and replaced with modern fire doors. Thankfully there are now options that avoid that (and indeed provides a safer design) but self closers still feature.



MM - while I completely understand requiring disabled access toilets in the workplace (I don't necessarily agree, just understand) requiring a wheelchair accessible toilet in a non-accessible part of a building is utter nonsense. It should have been an ambulant disabled cubicle (grab rails and slightly wider than a standard one).



Truly some planners and building control officers can be an absolute nightmare. I'm blessed with a few good ones in this area, though there are one or two planners that never fail to raise a groan when I see they are the case officer for a job I've drawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bigshot, I`m an architectural technician, I didn`t do my five years full time at college etc. so I can`t call myselfe an architect. I do however design all types of buildings and draw them up for building regs purposes.


As you know design (architecture) is subjective and who the hell gives planners the right to raise personal objections to a design undertaken by a qualified proffesional with a born artistic trait. I certainly get on better with the building control officers, most of them around here have common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gives them the right?

The same thing that gives their bosses the right to demand taxes... the implied threat of violence and force.

Ignore them and they will come with police, remove you from your home and pull down whatever they object to.


I know you didn't quite mean that though... so the answer is more along the lines of they have no right... just an interfering nature and the pig headed certainty that they know better than anyone else what looks good and appropriate.


I lost my remaining shred of respect for the planning process when it approved the destruction of listed, historic parkland and important urban green belt in order to move ahead with plans to build a complete eyesore of a floodlit, huge, soccer-centre. Loads of suitable brownfield around but they decided that.

Any future decision to refuse plans based upon street scene, appearance, history, environment or amenity is nothing short of hypocrisy.


I will say that there's a lone good-one in one of my local departments, shame about her bosses and colleagues though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removing required work after certification is pretty common, however you might want to check your home and contents insurance terms. It is my understanding that many policies are invalidated if you have work done that doesn't conform to building regulations.


Yeah I was aware of that. Happy to take the chance. I have to live in it not them. So I would rather live in a home that I am happy to live in than conform to their requirements. Yes I know the increased fire risk. But the hall was like that before we had the loft converted the only difference now is the risk of being trapped on the top floor. There is however an alternative escape route onto a flat roof and then a flat roofed garage which you could jump down onto. I wanted to turn the flat roof into a roof terrace but they wouldn't allow me to do that either.


I'm not aware of anything in planning that requires closers on doors, however it is very common in building regulations when certain works are done. The requirement hasn't been dropped.


Yes I was on about conversions that make a house 3 storey. Yes it has been dropped. All doors onto the staircase just have to be fire resistant. Wanted to keep out existing period doors which ment 6 layers of paint to fire proof them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes... 3 stories is too tall to reasonably use "jump out of the window" as a viable plan so protected routes do come into play there.

As I hinted at earlier there's no need to have fire doors or self closers provided you have other plans. Many of our clients opt for for smoke detectors in habitable rooms and a heat detector in the kitchen which then allows escape down the stairs before a fire takes hold. The only requirement then is that the doors should be in good condition and well fitted in the frame.


Again though, there are some circumstances where self closing doors are a requirement... while it is not applied with the same scattergun approach it once was there's still a need sometimes. There was a short and unpleasant period where any additional habitable rooms at 2nd floor level or above meant fire doors throughout. Many period doors were lost then.


I agree completely with the principle that the person living in the home shouldn't have to bend to building control, but the insurance issue is a bit of a gamble. It sounds like you've got a good escape plan, but refusal to pay out on insurance claims would be a bummer.



As for the roof terrace - planners are notoriously iffy about that kind of thing. It's all to do with overlooking neighbouring gardens. I believe they are much more easy going about things like that in parts of London, but elsewhere you'd have a hard time getting that passed in any kind of built up area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You getting a hard time from the planners again Neil? :roll:


Unfortunatley we both know how things differ from place to place, we certainly don't insist on seeing "bin access" on applications up here.


My solution?


Come to Scotland - the water is colder, the grass is greener and the roads are better! :D


http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home ... bled=false


:mrgreen:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.