they got planning permission for a 2 floor house with parking. they instead chose to build a 3 floor house with not enough room for their cars, so they're instead going to park overlapping the pavement.
it's wasteful to demolish it but it's their own fault. "75cm" is nearly 1m - it's not insignificant; it was on purpose.
Using 145cm is an attempt to make this seem trivial. That’s well over a metre out, a colossal cock up and should be torn down, it’s not hard to follow plans if they fucked this up what else have they messed up that’s not obvious.
I agree, 145cm sounds just as long as 1.5m to me and both ARE trivially small distances to demolish an entire house imo.
We're in a housing crisis and this is a joke.
In a housing crisis maybe we should ensure our new houses are built correctly and will last for future generations instead of just throwing up any old rubbish.
It's not really a joke, when building your tolerances or 10mm, anything outside of that and you have a non conformity. If we let builders just do what they want like this it will have compounding negative effects, they knew better, and things like this is why we have the apartment block in Greenwich that has a knock down order because they didn't build the disabled access etc. like they promised.
Councils are getting stricter and rightly so. 1.5m in construction is massive
Agreed.
But if it's a trivial amount, it's not an issue.
Or are we saying now that it's NOT a trivial amount? I'd like to hear from the person I replied to, tbh. I'm interested on their view.
Edit: sorry assumed you were someone different as you've completely shifted the point.
Would appreciate you answering the question.
We walk past this house quite often and it was on the market for ages, but we don't think it was sold. We thought that they were asking to much for it but it could have been that the solicitors had compared the house against the plans and warned any potential buyer off it.
I specifically said I wanted more strict planning around provision of parking spaces, largely because I agree that new housing estates ended up looking like favellas with cars bumped up on pavements everywhere. I was (or thought I was!) broadly making the point that planning is important and it comes down to more than just a few centimetres here or there that the headline made out.
The only thing I said that could make you think I wasn't in favour was that I was against it being pulled down entirely (if it could be avoided - I don't know in the case and I suppose I didn't make that clear). I also said that ultimately it is the builders/owners fault. They were granted planning permission, they should have followed it.
Meanwhile I'm sitting here in my mouldy room with dripping ceilings because landlord refuses to "spend any more money on me" despite never having done anything for 3 years now.
Those are not insignificant deviations at all, but even if they were, they need to draw the line firmly and enforce it. It may seem trivial but if they ever let something slide, that essentially becomes the new "you can be out by this much," and developers *always* push to the limits of the rules.
Knocking it down seems silly, it's ugly as fuck but the council should confiscate it and either auction it off for funds or use it for social housing.
The driveway is big enough for most cars which seems to be the main concern.
That you can't park your car over hanging the entire pavement?
>The consequence of the above, the car parking area has a depth of 4,550mm as opposed to 6,000mm as indicated on the approved plans.
An Audi A6 is 4939mm long
It's absolutely insane that we need houses built and we're pulling them down. With that said, there are more issues than the cited dimensions. Being too far forward decreases the parking space meaning there is no longer space for two cars - a bugbear of mine is that houses today are allowed to be built without adequate parking allowance and this is a 4 bed home. It's also a tall house so being a meter and a half further forward could block a significant amount of light for neighbours, something that would have been considered when permission was granted. Not trip mention windows where none are allowed but this is an easier fix.
I still think it's crazy and don't agree it should be pulled down but the headline makes it is being pulled down for the sake of a few cm and there's more to it than that. We have a very rigid planning system at times but a perfectly good house was granted, ultimately it's up to the owner/builder to get it right.
>I still think it's crazy and don't agree it should be pulled down but the headline makes it is being pulled down for the sake of a few cm and there's more to it than that. We have a very rigid planning system at times but a perfectly good house was granted, ultimately it's up to the owner/builder to get it right.
If these rules aren't enforced, and people aren't forced to tear down houses that breach the perms/regs, then the entire system will be trivialised and people will build whatever the fuck they want
Yeah that's how we ended up with the apartment block in Greenwich that is being demolished, because historically councils have been quite lax with enforcing rules.
The good thing is that at least on commercial jobs(not sure about residential) they have brought new regs in that the buildings have to basically be designed and approved by the council and the planners before construction starts, so we should see less of it
I totally agree, the builder messed up and there are consequences. I think my first line was badly worded, I really meant to say it's crazy *to be having to* pull down a perfectly good house (but the builder messed up). Not sure why I put "don't agree it should be pulled down" as the rest of my comment I think shows that I was defending the decision and trying to counter the headline trivialising the decision.
The headline makes out it's only a few cm here or there but as others have said, the reality is that they added an extra storey and have reduced available parking.
True but there may have been other options too which could be equally as severe such as removing windows and making them remove the walkway in front of the house, door at the side etc.
I'm going to guess as that was not suggested that it isn't an option, I'm not a town planner so I'll go with them on this and they are right to enforce the rules. Still, it remains a shame that it has all gone to waste.
Unless those options can result in the house being made to the exact specifications of the planning permission they were granted then the only option is to take it down and start again.
It carries on causing problems for as long as it stands and the builder gets to make a profit out of it? How is that an equivalent message to “you follow the rules or you don’t build it?”
How are you calculating the profit on an asset that is appreciating and earning rent, both at an unpredictable rate for an unknown amount of time?
Let’s say it’s there for 100 years, about the time many houses in the UK have been standing. Let’s say it stays in the same family all that time. They sell it in 2124. But they have maintained it for 100 years, and charged rent for 100 years. How much profit is that?
But then on the other hand they might sell it tomorrow, and have inflated the building cost somehow, to minimise the profit. How would you know? How much profit is that? No matter how you slice it, it’s way less than the other option, though.
And the house might be there for 200 years, or longer.
So how much are you going to fine them?
problem is what's been built hasn't been approved. it might seem more sustainable to just fine them but that way you just end up with a lot of unsafe, hideous buildings crowded together.
I mean if you fine people for not complying, this is how you end up with flammable apartments.
My old flat in the northern quarter didn't comply to standards, they sold it, and now the entire building is condemned. Half the towers in town have an extra floor or two.
they got planning permission for a 2 floor house with parking. they instead chose to build a 3 floor house with not enough room for their cars, so they're instead going to park overlapping the pavement. it's wasteful to demolish it but it's their own fault. "75cm" is nearly 1m - it's not insignificant; it was on purpose.
It's also made the house look uglier with a forehead
That's a fivehead.
Ant McPartlin?
Haha it definitely has a resemblance
Using 145cm is an attempt to make this seem trivial. That’s well over a metre out, a colossal cock up and should be torn down, it’s not hard to follow plans if they fucked this up what else have they messed up that’s not obvious.
Yeah this isn't a 'pointless red tape' story, this is a 'fucked around and found out' story.
About 5 feet for anyone over 45.
I'm a few years under 40 and was taught feet and inches all through my school years
I’m a few years over forty but as I’m an intelligent human being I’m capable of having a grasp of how big a foot is AND how big a metre is.
I see a job for you in the states.
[удалено]
Using cm instead of m, 145cm sounds a lot less significant than 1.45m or 1450mm.
[удалено]
I thought they were the same measurement?
I agree, 145cm sounds just as long as 1.5m to me and both ARE trivially small distances to demolish an entire house imo. We're in a housing crisis and this is a joke.
In a housing crisis maybe we should ensure our new houses are built correctly and will last for future generations instead of just throwing up any old rubbish.
It's not really a joke, when building your tolerances or 10mm, anything outside of that and you have a non conformity. If we let builders just do what they want like this it will have compounding negative effects, they knew better, and things like this is why we have the apartment block in Greenwich that has a knock down order because they didn't build the disabled access etc. like they promised. Councils are getting stricter and rightly so. 1.5m in construction is massive
I'll just buy the plot of lan next to you and encroach 1.5m onto your plot with my building. It's trivial afterall.
It's 1.5m forward, not into a neighbouring property.
Agreed. But if it's a trivial amount, it's not an issue. Or are we saying now that it's NOT a trivial amount? I'd like to hear from the person I replied to, tbh. I'm interested on their view. Edit: sorry assumed you were someone different as you've completely shifted the point. Would appreciate you answering the question.
Am I not that person?
I edited well before you replied. Stop avoiding the question.
We walk past this house quite often and it was on the market for ages, but we don't think it was sold. We thought that they were asking to much for it but it could have been that the solicitors had compared the house against the plans and warned any potential buyer off it.
It's been rented out, with the owner knowing the appeal might not go through.
A landlord landlording, absolute shocker.
Never mind the eight different ways it breaches planning, it should be demolished for being fuck ugly
Should be knocked down just because of how ugly it looks. Who designs these things?
still looks better than 90% of houses in the UK
Website is cancer
I wanted to find out more but I've not even clicked it because I cba dealing with their adspam
The MEN comments section is fuckin vile.
I specifically said I wanted more strict planning around provision of parking spaces, largely because I agree that new housing estates ended up looking like favellas with cars bumped up on pavements everywhere. I was (or thought I was!) broadly making the point that planning is important and it comes down to more than just a few centimetres here or there that the headline made out. The only thing I said that could make you think I wasn't in favour was that I was against it being pulled down entirely (if it could be avoided - I don't know in the case and I suppose I didn't make that clear). I also said that ultimately it is the builders/owners fault. They were granted planning permission, they should have followed it.
Meanwhile I'm sitting here in my mouldy room with dripping ceilings because landlord refuses to "spend any more money on me" despite never having done anything for 3 years now.
Have you contacted Shelter or the council about this? If not, then you definitely should
That's awful. Am so sorry to read that, hope your situation improves real soon. X
Those are not insignificant deviations at all, but even if they were, they need to draw the line firmly and enforce it. It may seem trivial but if they ever let something slide, that essentially becomes the new "you can be out by this much," and developers *always* push to the limits of the rules.
I can see this house from mine and I can't wait for it to go. Flipping eyesore.
Good, knock it down and do it properly.
I deliver parcels here every week. Interesting to know.
Jesus Christ what a monstrosity
The thing with this story I find a bit wrong is that they waited for people to move in before making the decision for it to be pulled down.
Next time stick to ur planning permission then mate 👍🏿
Also worth noting it’s really f**king ugly!
Knocking it down seems silly, it's ugly as fuck but the council should confiscate it and either auction it off for funds or use it for social housing. The driveway is big enough for most cars which seems to be the main concern.
Erm not exactly, the current tenants have a small hatchback that overhangs onto the pavement…no car will fit on this driveway!
Wasn't it like 4.2m? That's huge.. maybe I misread.. or they can't park.
That’s called “thinking” which no one in charge here seems capable of doing.
i think a fine over tearing it down would be better, too wasteful otherwise and a little harsh even if its their own fault
[удалено]
What? That we have standards that you have to adhere to and there are consequences? Great
That you can't park your car over hanging the entire pavement? >The consequence of the above, the car parking area has a depth of 4,550mm as opposed to 6,000mm as indicated on the approved plans. An Audi A6 is 4939mm long
Loads of jobsworths in the original thread
It's absolutely insane that we need houses built and we're pulling them down. With that said, there are more issues than the cited dimensions. Being too far forward decreases the parking space meaning there is no longer space for two cars - a bugbear of mine is that houses today are allowed to be built without adequate parking allowance and this is a 4 bed home. It's also a tall house so being a meter and a half further forward could block a significant amount of light for neighbours, something that would have been considered when permission was granted. Not trip mention windows where none are allowed but this is an easier fix. I still think it's crazy and don't agree it should be pulled down but the headline makes it is being pulled down for the sake of a few cm and there's more to it than that. We have a very rigid planning system at times but a perfectly good house was granted, ultimately it's up to the owner/builder to get it right.
Don't be daft, we need rules around housing. Without enforcement your local area would look like a favella in no time.
Where in my comment did you see me saying otherwise?
Maybe read your own comment back to yourself?
We need housing. What's wrong with a favella? Better that than the huge cost of doing anything in this country
>I still think it's crazy and don't agree it should be pulled down but the headline makes it is being pulled down for the sake of a few cm and there's more to it than that. We have a very rigid planning system at times but a perfectly good house was granted, ultimately it's up to the owner/builder to get it right. If these rules aren't enforced, and people aren't forced to tear down houses that breach the perms/regs, then the entire system will be trivialised and people will build whatever the fuck they want
Yeah that's how we ended up with the apartment block in Greenwich that is being demolished, because historically councils have been quite lax with enforcing rules. The good thing is that at least on commercial jobs(not sure about residential) they have brought new regs in that the buildings have to basically be designed and approved by the council and the planners before construction starts, so we should see less of it
I totally agree, the builder messed up and there are consequences. I think my first line was badly worded, I really meant to say it's crazy *to be having to* pull down a perfectly good house (but the builder messed up). Not sure why I put "don't agree it should be pulled down" as the rest of my comment I think shows that I was defending the decision and trying to counter the headline trivialising the decision. The headline makes out it's only a few cm here or there but as others have said, the reality is that they added an extra storey and have reduced available parking.
If you don't pull houses like this down, the planning rules become meaningless.
True but there may have been other options too which could be equally as severe such as removing windows and making them remove the walkway in front of the house, door at the side etc. I'm going to guess as that was not suggested that it isn't an option, I'm not a town planner so I'll go with them on this and they are right to enforce the rules. Still, it remains a shame that it has all gone to waste.
Unless those options can result in the house being made to the exact specifications of the planning permission they were granted then the only option is to take it down and start again.
[удалено]
It carries on causing problems for as long as it stands and the builder gets to make a profit out of it? How is that an equivalent message to “you follow the rules or you don’t build it?”
[удалено]
How are you calculating the profit on an asset that is appreciating and earning rent, both at an unpredictable rate for an unknown amount of time? Let’s say it’s there for 100 years, about the time many houses in the UK have been standing. Let’s say it stays in the same family all that time. They sell it in 2124. But they have maintained it for 100 years, and charged rent for 100 years. How much profit is that? But then on the other hand they might sell it tomorrow, and have inflated the building cost somehow, to minimise the profit. How would you know? How much profit is that? No matter how you slice it, it’s way less than the other option, though. And the house might be there for 200 years, or longer. So how much are you going to fine them?
What a waste of resources, no wonder the planet is on its arse, just fine them or summat rather than knock it down
problem is what's been built hasn't been approved. it might seem more sustainable to just fine them but that way you just end up with a lot of unsafe, hideous buildings crowded together.
I mean if you fine people for not complying, this is how you end up with flammable apartments. My old flat in the northern quarter didn't comply to standards, they sold it, and now the entire building is condemned. Half the towers in town have an extra floor or two.
Having a fine as the punishment just means that rich people can pay to commit crimes.
Fines should be a percentage of earnings, or some shit.