http://www.permitteddevelopment.org/Appeal-Decisions.php

This is complete nonsense, but given that a medical Consultant is more highly qualified than a Doctor its a mistake that can be easily understood!

The title ‘Architect‘ is protected under Law (The Architects Act 1997) and can ONLY be used by a person on the Architects Registration Board Register who has demonstrated not only that they have the proper qualifications, but are competent and also carry Professional Indemnity Insurance.

ANYONE can call themselves an ‘architectural consultant’ or an ‘architectural designer’ any other sort of self-important sounding name.This does not make them an Architect; this does not mean that they have any suitable qualifications; this does not mean that they can design what you need; this does not mean that they understand planning legislation; this does not mean that they understand construction law; this does not mean that they understand contract law; the list goes on….

Anyone calling themselves an Architect who isn’t can be, and often are, prosecuted under the Law. This is carried out by the statutory regulatory body The Architects Registration Board.

Anyone suggesting that as an ‘architectural consultant’ etc that they are “more qualified than an Architect” is not only wrong but they are deliberately trying to mislead you – ask yourself why…

Checking out people’s claims is simple – log on to the Architects Registration Board website and check the Register by clicking here.

If they’re not on it, then they are NOT an Architect.

The money raised is sent direct to one of the charities we support, British Red Cross, Cancer Research UK, Shelter or NSPCC – or any other charity that the client wishes to nominate. Cheques are collected at the end of the Free Consultation made out to the charity concerned.

The High Court today ruled that communities secretary Eric Pickles’ decision to scrap regional spatial strategies (RSSs) was unlawful.

The judgement is the culmination of a case brought in August by housebuilder Cala Homes, which applied for a judicial review into Pickles’ decision.

In May, Pickles wrote to the leaders of local planning authorities informing them of the coalition Government’s intention to abolish RSSs, and telling them that they could disregard with immediate effect the housing targets laid out in regional plans.

But Cala Homes argued that the communities secretary acted outside his powers by removing a fundamental part of the planning system and claimed that Pickles breached his obligations under European Union law by failing to assess the environmental effects of withdrawing regional strategies and failing to put transitional arrangements in place.

Its challenge to the Government centred on a proposal to build 2,000 homes in Winchester that was rejected in June and would have gone to appeal. But no appeal can take place, Cala Homes argued, while there is an absence of planning policy in the form of the South East regional plan.

In court today, Justice Sales ruled that Pickles was not entitled to revoke regional strategies under existing planning law. He said: “Parliament has given no clear or sufficient indication that that principal [that each region should have a regional strategy] may be set aside by virtue of a contrary policy judgement.”

He added: “The revocation of the South-East Plan is likely to have an immediate impact upon determination of planning applications…I consider that the secretary of state acted unlawfully by purporting to revoke the [RSS].”

Ian Ginbey, head of planning at Macfarlanes LLP, which acted for Cala Homes, said: “The High Court has recognised that the secretary of state’s unilateral revocation of regional strategies was unlawful and premature.

“[Pickles’] decision left a policy vacuum, caused confusion throughout the industry and directly resulted in proposals for tens of thousands of new homes being abandoned. Those housing proposals will now need to be revisited prior to the passage of any primary legislation.”

And a statement from the Home Builders Federation (HBF) said: “Today’s High Court decision is a wake-up call for the Government to put in place clear transitional arrangements for the move from the old planning system towards its proposed localism-based system.

“The revocation of the RSSs, just weeks after the election, left a massive hole in the planning process and considerable confusion among everyone involved in the delivery of housing.”

But Simon Randall, a consultant at law firm Winckworth Sherwood, said: “The court ruling will no doubt be a huge embarrassment to the Government but is unlikely to change anything in the long term.

“The Government is bringing forward its Localism Bill later this month and the decision will be rectified by way of a provision in this bill. Cala Homes has won a short reprieve, but RSSs will no longer play a role in determining local planning matters.”

Local government minister Bob Neill said: “This judgement changes very little. Later this month we will be introducing the Localism Bill, which will sweep away the controversial regional spatial strategies. Top-down targets do not build homes.

“The Government remains firmly resolved to scrap this layer of confusing red tape. Instead, we will work with local communities to build more homes. This was a commitment made in the coalition agreement and we intend to deliver on it.”

A Full Planning Application has been submitted to East Hants District Council for the construction of two new Contemporary homes for one of our private clients.

The site in Four Marks, Hampshire, is surrounded by protected trees whose Root Protection Zones cover almost the entire site. Use of a piled foundation system with suspended ground floor slabs lifted out of the ground will prevent damage to the roots and will ensure that ground water is still able to get to the roots.

The use of additional insulation, tight air-leakage limits, whole house ventilation with heat recovery, air source heat pumps and wood burning stoves with LED lighting throughout will mean that the energy usage of these buildings is kept to a minimum.  Locally sourced sweet chestnut cladding and rainwater harvesting utilising the space below the ground floor slabs add to the environmental credentials of these houses. As the sweet chestnut weathers and silvers naturally the sculptural houses will blend further into their woodland setting.

Adjacent to the A31, acoustic screening and a heavy masonry structure will limit noise from one side of the site while the north of the site will benefit positively from the passing sound of the occasional train along the adjacent Watercress Line, a volunteer and enthusiast run local steam train line.

[image align=”center” title=”View the Project” link=”http://www.bwparchitects.com/2011/01/31/transformation-of-chalet-house-reigate/” width=”550″ height=”275″]http://www.bwparchitects.com/wp-content/upLoads/2011/07/rear.jpg[/image]

An application for detailed Planning Permission for the extension and remodelling of a 1960s home in Reigate has been submitted today.

The scheme consists of the replacement of the existing flat roof garage extension and porch with a new two storey front, side and rear extension providing an additional two bedrooms, additional reception, new study and utility room and a replanned family bathroom and master bedroom suite.

Externally, the mix of plastic cladding, facing bricks and stone cladding has been replaced with a modern clean render over new external insulation. the heavy dull concrete roof tiles have been replaced with new natural slate which is also added as a feature to the new projecting front extension to tie the whole of the project together.

Also – the 4.67pts available for ‘Lifetime Homes Compliance’ is utter madness! Designing homes that people can live in until they are carried out of the suitably wide enough front door in their wicker casket is utter nonsense and frankly unsustainable design.

When first entering the housing market people need smaller affordable houses with minimal bedroom and living space. As they get older and start raising families they need larger houses with more space. As they get older still the vast majority of people want to downsize – you don’t need as many bedrooms as the children leave home, you don’t want the maintenance and bills that come with a larger house and garden.

Where on earth was the common sense when someone decided that is was ‘sustainable’ to require houses to be built with lots of pointless features that will, in reality for the huge majority, never be used – wider stairs for stairlifts in a family home, knock-out panels in floors for hoists.

Honestly, both the ‘Secured by Design’ and ‘Lifetime Homes’ bring the whole CSH approach into disrepute and should be dropped immediately.

I’ve posted these views on the ‘Building’ magazine forum on the Code for Sustainable Homes – let’s see if anyone can explain it in a way that makes any sense at all…..