Full planning required or just prior approval (PD)?
Discussion
Quite the ranty rant. Who stole your favourite pencil?
I can see I’m living rent free in your head and I know the reason. I can make you a better leader for a a small fee. *
The 3 metre height within 2 metres of the boundary is the key rule, given the flat roof so stop being confusing and going back and fore between different heights (and even including 2.5 metres for some reason) You know exactly why I asked the question and based on your logic of the 3d drawings, the eaves of the proposal are very close to 3 metres and will be within 2 metres of the boundary. Simply, the OP can ensure that the eaves height does not exceed 3 metres and that aspect will be compliant.
I can see I’m living rent free in your head and I know the reason. I can make you a better leader for a a small fee. *
The 3 metre height within 2 metres of the boundary is the key rule, given the flat roof so stop being confusing and going back and fore between different heights (and even including 2.5 metres for some reason) You know exactly why I asked the question and based on your logic of the 3d drawings, the eaves of the proposal are very close to 3 metres and will be within 2 metres of the boundary. Simply, the OP can ensure that the eaves height does not exceed 3 metres and that aspect will be compliant.
- touchpaper lit
roscopervis said:
The 3 metre eaves height within 2 metres of the boundary is the key rule, given the flat roof
EFA on the point you're trying to evade... So why did you ask for overall height?
Don't you get even slightly embarrassed, being constantly corrected on basic planning matters by someone whose work you ought to be competent to check?
I'm the generalist, supposedly - Planning is just one minor aspect of my skillset - you're supposed to be the expert.
Edited by Equus on Saturday 30th March 07:41
Because not everyone is as pedantic and narcissistic as you.
As I’ve said, when the answer is given, if it’s close to what would be a key metric, then you can ask the more technical question that some people may get confused with, especially given the parapet roof situation. In this instance, no answer has been given, but you’ve continued to make narcissistic assumptions about my knowledge of the subject. Just like you have on other things with no knowledge of context, situation or just simply not understanding what was written as you were too busy making narcissistic assumptions so you could write trite comebacks.
Why derail another thread with your judgemental, shaming, controlling, blaming, conflict creating and attention seeking behaviour?
As I’ve said, when the answer is given, if it’s close to what would be a key metric, then you can ask the more technical question that some people may get confused with, especially given the parapet roof situation. In this instance, no answer has been given, but you’ve continued to make narcissistic assumptions about my knowledge of the subject. Just like you have on other things with no knowledge of context, situation or just simply not understanding what was written as you were too busy making narcissistic assumptions so you could write trite comebacks.
Why derail another thread with your judgemental, shaming, controlling, blaming, conflict creating and attention seeking behaviour?
roscopervis said:
Because not everyone is as pedantic and narcissistic as you.
A functionary of the UK Planning system accusing someone else of being pedantic?
Priceless!!!
As you well know, it's lack of attention to this sort of detail (pedantry, if you wish) that causes these applications to fail, when faced with the tick-box mindlessness of the system you uphold.
roscopevis said:
Why derail another thread with your judgemental, shaming, controlling, blaming, conflict creating and attention seeking behaviour?
I suggest you review your own history of posts on the thread: my original comment was merely to correct you on the point (which you've later acknowledged) that it is eaves height, not overall height, that will be critical in this instance. If you'd had an ounce of common sense, you'd have simply acknowledged the fact, or said nothing.It's you who then launched into your usual round of obfuscation and misdirection, in an attempt to pretend that you hadn't made an error.
Hub said:
Christ Equus calm down mate, every thread about planning seems to end up with you going off topic raging and picking on people.
What's off-topic about confirming the critical design constraints required for a Prior Approval application on a topic about Prior Approval?When some fool then decides to pretend that black is white rather than simply accepting that they were wrong (again...) when corrected, am I supposed to ignore it?
If Vixen submits a PA application without showing a clear, written dimension to the invert level of the hidden gutter and supporting it with a Planning Statement explaining very clearly how he's applied the criteria, from experience I'd say he'd have a roughly 50:50 chance of the application being rejected because the Planner doesn't know the rules on height measurements correctly: it's one I have to argue with them quite regularly!
That may sound astonishing to anyone who expects Planners to actually understand and correctly apply their own rules without prompting, but I assure you it's the case, these days.
But how dare you challenge me! Seriously, you can think what you like, but I have you sussed.
Narcissism; how many of the below have you partaken in, not only in this thread but others I have witnessed?
Narcissism; how many of the below have you partaken in, not only in this thread but others I have witnessed?
- Citing past ‘mistakes’ made
- Pulling the ‘dumb or crazy’ card
- Questioning memory
- Outright denial of facts
- Playing the good guy
- Shifting blame to avoid accountability
- Projecting your faults onto them
- Pretending to have allies
- Using indignant outrage
- Comparing to others
- Circular conversations that never end, lots of meaningless or irrelevant facts
- Conversation as competition
- Lack of logic or direction to what is being said
- Condescending tone as if talking to a child projection or attributing what they do blaming, shaming, denying or finding excuses alternating their role from victim to hero a confused state after hearing them
- Lacking empathy
jules_s said:
Pretty much every single Architect I’ve ever met has been a narcissist. 
It's part of the training. 
... and a necessary part, at that: a key aspect of the Architect's role is to act as lynchpin in a design team that may include a wide range of expert professional disciplines from Ecologists to Engineers, often with conflicting priorities. It takes a certain level of self-confidence and assertion to be able to do that effectively. Without it, you descend into design-by-committee, and that never works well.
Rosco sees the term 'narcissist' as an insult, but coming from an LPA Planner (and one who has repeatedly demonstrated himself to be decidedly average even by the standards of a peer group of underwhelming competence), I just see it as confirmation that I'm capable of doing my job.
Blimey, last checked on this thread Thursday afternoon. I can see things have 'developed' somewhat since then...
Roscoe - Equus might be projecting some of his frustrations about the planning system on to you, but most people that work in the system on the other side of the fence to the LPA will, unfortunately, have faced numerous experiences of 'less-than-ideal' ability from LPA officers, often with alarming regularity. It seems to be the rarity these days, that an application runs smoothly without having to provide comments back to the LPA to avoid procedural errors alone, nevermind debating the actual planning merits of a scheme.
In the last two weeks alone, I've had one LPA attempt to refuse to even register an application due to an error reading the regulations on their part; and another ask me to change the red line plan on an application because, guess what, they'd misread the plans, combined with a fundamental misunderstanding of the regulations. It's really draining, and increasingly difficult to shake off these types of issues when you, or your clients, suffer the inevitable consequences of such basic issues delaying projects and costing time and money to deal with.
Roscoe - Equus might be projecting some of his frustrations about the planning system on to you, but most people that work in the system on the other side of the fence to the LPA will, unfortunately, have faced numerous experiences of 'less-than-ideal' ability from LPA officers, often with alarming regularity. It seems to be the rarity these days, that an application runs smoothly without having to provide comments back to the LPA to avoid procedural errors alone, nevermind debating the actual planning merits of a scheme.
In the last two weeks alone, I've had one LPA attempt to refuse to even register an application due to an error reading the regulations on their part; and another ask me to change the red line plan on an application because, guess what, they'd misread the plans, combined with a fundamental misunderstanding of the regulations. It's really draining, and increasingly difficult to shake off these types of issues when you, or your clients, suffer the inevitable consequences of such basic issues delaying projects and costing time and money to deal with.
Venom said:
In the last two weeks alone, I've had one LPA attempt to refuse to even register an application due to an error reading the regulations on their part; and another ask me to change the red line plan on an application because, guess what, they'd misread the plans, combined with a fundamental misunderstanding of the regulations. It's really draining, and increasingly difficult to shake off these types of issues when you, or your clients, suffer the inevitable consequences of such basic issues delaying projects and costing time and money to deal with.
One of the (many) things that increasingly frustrates me about the current Planning system is that there is very little comeback against poor performance on the LPA's side.If I make a trivial error like forgetting to put a North Point on a drawing these days, many LPA's will try to charge me an additional administration fee using a highly questionable interpretation of Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003 as their justification for doing so.
Yet they can (and do) make as many mistakes and take as long as they like, often costing my clients £thousands in the process, and there is very little comeback against them. See the Torbay application reference I quoted back on page one.
So, yes, when an LPA DC Planner turns up on here making clearly incorrect statements, it pisses me off a bit.
ON TOPIC: The consequence of this is that unless the information is spoon fed to them in a form that a 3-year-old could understand (and sometimes even when it is...) there's a good chance on this sort of application that the LPA will misinterpret the rules and reject a Prior Approval application when they shouldn't, leaving you with no option but a very time-consuming and costly appeal against their decision.
ked.Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff