• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Oops! The Silly Mistakes Thread

hunck said:

London apartment block that deviates from plans must be torn down, says council​

Buildings rarely look as good as the airbrushed architects’ visualisations produced to persuade planners to grant permission. Extra sharp highlights, implausibly blue skies and deeper colours are all part of the dark arts of the computer-generated rendering.

But the gulf between what was proposed for an apartment complex rising 23 storeys above the Thames in south-east London and what was actually built has finally proved too much.

After counting 26 major deviations from the original planning permission that it granted, the Royal Borough of Greenwich has taken the extraordinary move – “unprecedented”, it said – of ordering the developers of the Mast Quay II development to pull it down. It means tenants in 204 flats now face the prospect of finding somewhere else to live.


The artists impression v The reality
View attachment 70012
Click to expand...
It was be simpler (and more humane) to just plant the trees and add the curtains than to ask tenants in 204 flats to move elsewhere. Unless that red protuberance in the middle makes someone too fidgety—that would be worth tearing the whole thing down.
 
hunck said:

London apartment block that deviates from plans must be torn down, says council​

Buildings rarely look as good as the airbrushed architects’ visualisations produced to persuade planners to grant permission. Extra sharp highlights, implausibly blue skies and deeper colours are all part of the dark arts of the computer-generated rendering.

But the gulf between what was proposed for an apartment complex rising 23 storeys above the Thames in south-east London and what was actually built has finally proved too much.

After counting 26 major deviations from the original planning permission that it granted, the Royal Borough of Greenwich has taken the extraordinary move – “unprecedented”, it said – of ordering the developers of the Mast Quay II development to pull it down. It means tenants in 204 flats now face the prospect of finding somewhere else to live.


The artists impression v The reality
View attachment 70012
Click to expand...
When I worked in the building trade, a building inspector would visit at various stages of the job to make sure things were being done correctly- foundations/drainage/floors/walls/roof etc.
If they hadn't been, you could not proceed until they had been put right.
Why did this not happen here?
 
Floyd1 said:
When I worked in the building trade, a building inspector would visit at various stages of the job to make sure things were being done correctly- foundations/drainage/floors/walls/roof etc.
If they hadn't been, you could not proceed until they had been put right.
Why did this not happen here?
Click to expand...
Probably because of
1695887872280.png
within
1695887894451.png
!
 
Last edited:
Floyd1 said:
When I worked in the building trade, a building inspector would visit at various stages of the job to make sure things were being done correctly- foundations/drainage/floors/walls/roof etc.
If they hadn't been, you could not proceed until they had been put right.
Why did this not happen here?
Click to expand...
Good point - I have no idea.
 
hunck said:
Good point - I have no idea.
Click to expand...
From some of the buildings that go up around here, I have to envisage planning committees as a bit like pantomimes.

'Now, you will stick to the agreed permission and regulations, won't you? You won't deviate at all, will you? Tell me if you see him deviating from the agreed planning, boys and girls!'
Deathly hush.
'Oh look what you've gone and done now! That's completely different! Oh well, it's there now, I suppose we'll just have to work around it.'
 
catseye said:
From some of the buildings that go up around here, I have to envisage planning committees as a bit like pantomimes.

'Now, you will stick to the agreed permission and regulations, won't you? You won't deviate at all, will you? Tell me if you see him deviating from the agreed planning, boys and girls!'
Deathly hush.
'Oh look what you've gone and done now! That's completely different! Oh well, it's there now, I suppose we'll just have to work around it.'
Click to expand...
Local authorities it seems don't have the resources or will to take any but the most extreme to court.

We are in an AONB. We cannot extend beyond 50% of the original property size. Because the original house was a pig's toilet or something this gives us little scope. Greenhouses within 10 metres count towards the extension limit so by putting them where no one can see them I can't extend our conservatory. The planning dept (and the appeal) said in effect "no one can see it except one neighbour who doesn't object but you can't have it".

You can now apparently buy insurance to cover you if you have to take down a building that you've put up without planning permission.

However further down the road a "treehouse" (Large wooden building) is visible from the road and has neighbours who objected. It was built without permission which was granted subsequently. Also a "Forest Kindergarden" which was chucked off National Trust land for not following their conditions has been running without permission for two or three years in nearby woodland. It is now on its second application, the first one chucked out because of parking and being near a bridleway (School run parents parking, yelling kids and skittish horses, great idea, what could possibly go wrong?) This doubtless will keep going until permission is granted after which they will probably do what they like.
 
Tunn11 said:
Local authorities it seems don't have the resources or will to take any but the most extreme to court.

We are in an AONB. We cannot extend beyond 50% of the original property size. Because the original house was a pig's toilet or something this gives us little scope. Greenhouses within 10 metres count towards the extension limit so by putting them where no one can see them I can't extend our conservatory. The planning dept (and the appeal) said in effect "no one can see it except one neighbour who doesn't object but you can't have it".

You can now apparently buy insurance to cover you if you have to take down a building that you've put up without planning permission.

However further down the road a "treehouse" (Large wooden building) is visible from the road and has neighbours who objected. It was built without permission which was granted subsequently. Also a "Forest Kindergarden" which was chucked off National Trust land for not following their conditions has been running without permission for two or three years in nearby woodland. It is now on its second application, the first one chucked out because of parking and being near a bridleway (School run parents parking, yelling kids and skittish horses, great idea, what could possibly go wrong?) This doubtless will keep going until permission is granted after which they will probably do what they like.
Click to expand...
A neighbour of mine in a listed building (oldest house in the village) has been denied planning permission to knock down a, quite frankly, hideous 1970s porch to build a new one with a room above. Nobody can see the porch, it's at the back of his house. But because the porch it currently has was built BEFORE the building was listed, apparently it can't be changed. Even though he's a builder and could put up something aesthetically more pleasing and in keeping than the ghastly one he has now.
 
escargot said:
On Sunday, out cycling, I stopped to examine a bridge which seemed to have been hit by a passing vehicle. Didn't notice the nettles and managed to drag a foot through them, stinging the front of my ankle. Techy gave me the dock leaf treatment.
The stings seemed extra-painful somehow. The skin was tinging for ages afterwards.

This was nearly an hour before I decided to fall off and bruise my elbow. Healthy outdoor exercise, yeah. :chuckle:
Click to expand...
penny-farthing-crash.jpg
 
catseye said:
But because the porch it currently has was built BEFORE the building was listed, apparently it can't be changed.
Click to expand...
Yep, same as my former home where my father put up a lean-to against the kitchen door in the 60's so he could take his farm boots off in the dry before coming into the house. This then became a Grade II listed lean-to when the cottage was put on a register.
 
Speaking to a fellow dog-walking acquaintance on Sunday who told me that a plumber had charged him £200 for fixing his toilet cistern.
I pointed out that you can buy the part for under £10 from screwfix and that I'd have put it in for him for free.

I also pointed out that you could have bought four new toilets for that price.
 
Floyd1 said:
Speaking to a fellow dog-walking acquaintance on Sunday who told me that a plumber had charged him £200 for fixing his toilet cistern.
I pointed out that you can buy the part for under £10 from screwfix and that I'd have put it in for him for free.

I also pointed out that you could have bought four new toilets for that price.
Click to expand...
£200 for that? :omg:
Scandaloso. :mad:

Hoping not to tempt fate here :chuckle: but I keep cistern spares handy.
Keeping in mind Isaiah 9:7 - there shall be endless peace for the throne. :nods:

You are a good friend to your dog-walking acquaintance. :bthumbup:
 
escargot said:
£200 for that? :omg:
Scandaloso. :mad:

Hoping not to tempt fate here :chuckle: but I keep cistern spares handy.
Keeping in mind Isaiah 9:7 - there shall be endless peace for the throne. :nods:

You are a good friend to your dog-walking acquaintance. :bthumbup:
Click to expand...
Yes and he seems a relatively sane person (although he is from Stockport) so I'm not sure what went through his mind when he paid it.
It is a modern cistern as well- not that an old one would have cost anywhere near as much to repair either.
 
Floyd1 said:
Speaking to a fellow dog-walking acquaintance on Sunday who told me that a plumber had charged him £200 for fixing his toilet cistern.
I pointed out that you can buy the part for under £10 from screwfix and that I'd have put it in for him for free.

I also pointed out that you could have bought four new toilets for that price.
Click to expand...
My mother tells the story of when the house I grew up in was being built, she wanted a particular style of toilet, similar to this -
HygeaSmartBidet2.jpg
- turns out just one of them cost the same amount as the four standard ones that were put in.
 
Tigerhawk said:
My mother tells the story of when the house I grew up in was being built, she wanted a particular style of toilet, similar to this -View attachment 70256 - turns out just one of them cost the same amount as the four standard ones that were put in.
Click to expand...
Yup, it's not as if you can admire it in operation. :nods:
 
Tigerhawk said:
My mother tells the story of when the house I grew up in was being built, she wanted a particular style of toilet, similar to this -View attachment 70256 - turns out just one of them cost the same amount as the four standard ones that were put in.
Click to expand...
Doesn't look very sturdy, Speaking as someone who had a friend who broke a toilet by sitting on it- She was a big girl but not that big- this design would be a bit worrisome.

Yes she had a lacerated posterior, no I don't have photos.
 
Roermond accidentally sends letter to senior citizens about deceased partners

The municipality of Roermond made a mistake in sending letters to a large group of seniors over 75. That letter to a total of 146 seniors wrongly suggested that their partner had died. Some of them angrily contacted the municipality, according to De Limburger.

The municipality spoke of an "annoying mistake" and apologised.

The municipality sends a quarterly letter to 75- and 80-year-olds, as well as widows and widowers. In it, they are informed of the existence of a senior citizen advisor. The letters for this quarter were sent last week.

"The 75-year-olds unfortunately received the letter, which was intended for widows and widowers," the municipal executive said in a letter to the city council.

"We understand that this is very inconvenient for concerned residents," the college writes. "We would therefore like to offer them our sincere apologies. We will do this by sending a new letter, in which we apologise accompanied by a small gift."

https://nos.nl/artikel/2494113-roer...uk-brief-aan-senioren-over-overleden-partners
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top