• Forums Software Updates

    The forums will be undergoing updates this weekend: Saturday 7th - Sunday 8th June 2025.
    Little to no downtime is expected.

Oops! The Silly Mistakes Thread

pearl_harbor_michael_clark_german_planes-768x1228.jpg


https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0CHG8SZSC/wwwviolentkicom

maximus otter
It's a perfectly good cover painting.
...What?


:chuckle:
 
:rofl:
An author friend of mine always insists ...
"If you want your book to be taken seriously then work with serious people - editors, proof readers, cover artists, and so on."
So either the author is an idiot for not checking, or the artist is an idiot ... end of. Could be both, I suppose.
 
This is more of a personal silly mistake. I sat down to read my book Island of the Colourblind by Oliver Sacks. The first page had reviews of books by China Mieville. The next page had a small biography of China Mieville.
Then came the title page. Railsea by China Mieville.
Somehow the publisher had managed to put an entirely different book inside the cover, instead of the Oliver Sacks book. At least China Mieville is a decent author too.
 

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.
Aidan Smith, cabinet member for regeneration, described it as a “mutant development that is a blight on the landscape”. He said: “If a scheme matching what has been built at Mast Quay Phase II was submitted for planning permission today, it would be refused, and we cannot let what has been delivered at Mast Quay Phase II go unchallenged.”

Comer Homes Group, which acts as landlord as well as developer, describes the buildings on its website as a “luxury development of two- and three-bedroom riverside apartments. A magnificent crafted living space with panoramic views of the River Thames and vistas of the capital.”

But the deviations noted by the council included a missing glazed curtain wall that was supposed to give the appearance of a sail, smaller balconies and windows, no roof gardens or children’s play areas and “non-accessible ‘accessible’ apartments that have steps to the balconies so that wheelchair users cannot use their outdoor space”.

There was supposed to be an underground car park, but that wasn’t built, the council said, and instead surface car parking occupied land that had been earmarked for gardens.

On Tuesday, the council said in a statement that its “extensive investigation over the last year has concluded that the completed Mast Quay Phase II built-to-rent development has been built without planning permission and is therefore unlawful because it is so substantially different to the scheme that was originally permitted by the planning permission given in 2012.

The artists impression v The reality
1695843148023.png
 

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
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.
 

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
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?
 
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?
Probably because of
1695887872280.png
within
1695887894451.png
!
 
Last edited:
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?
Good point - I have no idea.
 
Good point - I have no idea.
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.'
 
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.'
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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:
penny-farthing-crash.jpg
 
But because the porch it currently has was built BEFORE the building was listed, apparently it can't be changed.
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.
 
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.
£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:
 
£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:
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
Yup, it's not as if you can admire it in operation. :nods:
 
Back
Top