Thanks for that, but I would lve to know how come he got away with building something different to what is on that Bannon drawing above in your post?
For example, The window of the extension in the drawing above - the only perforation in that wall, which is the front wall of the house and facing the road / closest to the road - is square and the exact same size and proportions as the other three upstairs windows.
Was was built is a tall narrow window, at least 3 times tall as it is wide, totally out of keeping with the rest of the streetscape.
Also, from the drawing, you would think there is a pitched roof on the front extension, to match all the other houses in the area. Instead all that is visible from the road is a box, like two shipping containers, one on top of the other, painted up. From the photos and from the tv programme, no pitched roof is visible on that front extension, it just looks like a flat roofed box joined on to the house like a carbuncle. Even from the most sympathetic angle the tv company could photo it from ( sideways on, and from behind a few branches ), it still looks pathetic and hideous. No wonder everyone hates it. Let us hope it does not set a precedent for other FRONT extensions in housing estates.
Actually, I didn't see this view on the programme.
I quite like that and can see the planners argument now.
That's the kind of view I remember - no sloping roof visible there, it just looks like a large box tacked onto the side of the house.
It slopes back to the main roof
Do you have a link /photo ? Because all anyone else can see is a box.
From the front elevation it looks worse than in the photo above, because you do not see the brick on the side of the extension then, or even the front door.
And should not the window have matched the planning drawings, instead of being completely different shape?
It's not a court of law Francis. 😁
The porch comes out from the main wall at 90 degrees,(blue line) but the roofline doesn't seem to, (red line) indicating a slope.
Secondly, if you drop a line from the front point of the wall (green) and the back(yellow)
they are different lengths, indicating a slope.
As I say, there may be distortion but that is how it looks to me. If the line was straight it would be parallel to the porch line.
Re: Window, as stated by industry pro's here, changes like that can be made and retentions sought. Works much better for me as a rectangle.
The relationship was broken, apparently...
...
Then we see how pleased the couple are with Dermot and their new house.
Not everything is a Soap Opera
That in fairness, is ugly.
If they got planning for that, I would be amazed.
They did.
Planning comments are posted above and from that angle I agree with them.
I think when planting and newness wears off that is not as bad as it first looked and I have to say the laths are growing on me bigtime.
I would bet the green and the yellow are equal distance, because that is how perspective works.
https://www.johnlovett.com/perspective-drawing
In any case, it is different to the drawing submitted for planning permission, which someone else posted yesterday evening.
So Dermot Bannon did not comply with planning permission for the front extension? I suppose he can apply for retention planning permission, says you.
The TV company was quite clever to wait until frost /snow to photo it, so it blends in to the ground and wall in the foreground more. And do not forget, from the front, you do not see the red-brick on the side of the extension, or the front door. See the initial bit of video on Room to Improve showing the outside. Vile as other poster on this thread called it.
I loved the idea of the bike shed/storage at the front with the hidden door.
Very impressed with the builder.
The TV company was quite clever to wait until snow to photo it, so it blends in to the ground and wall in the foreground more.
Jaysus Francis, that is just bizarre.
What a fabulous conspiracy theorist you are, 😁😁
Almost as bizarre as thinking the front wall of the extension is sloping.
The pitched roof of the extension is stepped back and a parapet gutter hides the roof from the ground.
Here you are;
Edit;
Just looked again, it seems you think it's the roof that's sloping, still bizarre!
Not a conspiracy theorist. Just noting that you are looking at a photo taken by the TV company in the best possible conditions (snow/frost) from the best possible angle. So you think the front extension is OK.
About a dozen other posters on this thread before you, who saw the footage on the TV on Sunday night, took time out to saty that front extension is "Vile", that if they were a neighbour they would be "bulling" at how it turned out etc.
The photo shows the roof and window are a lot different to what Bannon submitted planning permission for, so do you think Bannon will have to apply for retention planning permission yet again? What if he is refused, like some people are?
Click on that link above, this is what the front extension should have looked like. Note the very different window shape and roof shape?
Brannon has a direct line to 'de powers that be', so it will not be an issue.
There's a shot that hints at the roof detail. Not flat, but not identical to the original plans.
The plans show the 'Box' going up the gutter, not 5 rows of tiles higher. I'll say nothing about the window difference.
And you implied they took it to fool people. Bizarre.
I couldn't care less what 'other posters say' I make my own mind up and am not led by others.
We have been told by industry professional that 'retention' is commonly used when changes are needed in an ongoing build. If Bannon did this then he did nothing wrong.
What the hell does it matter to me or even you if he applies for retention or not? If somebody objects, let them.
I would say that's a bigger issue than the window, it makes the front of the house look completely different.
It looks like the plan had a gutter in line with, and matching the original house, and it would have looked worse if the parapet was built on the side only to avoid the overhang at the boundary. I don't understand why that parapet has to be so high.
Agree. If you compare the photo / drawing in post number 2929 and 2930 above, you will see that what was built is considerably uglier and different to what planning permission was granted for. The white rectangle (above the wood) is much much larger / higher.
The window is also considerably different. Why did he change that compared to what planning was granted for?
Why do you care that what was built isnt the same as the planning permission? Will you go on this crusade on every single house in the country thats in the same boat?
They didn't show the last 7 weeks of the build. The body language initially as they toured the house seemed very bad. That's when I first posted. When they appeared more friendly I put an update on my post.
A day later you come in and make a snarky comment as usual about the first half of my post completely ignoring my addition where I admitted it was better.
I'm not engaging with you any more. Go look for your argument fix somewhere else.
Totally disagree to the comment on spending too much money, if you have the money and the house is in a perfect location then why not. You get the house u want. Everyone has different budgets and value systems.
Two possible spinoff shows for the producers to consider:
1. RTI - the detail
2. RTI - Francie and Francis go at it
Curious why they only ended up with a b3 ber rating.
Number 2 has been ongoing for weeks at this stage, painful s***e, my god they’ve a lot of time put into repeating the same rubbish to each other
I reckon it's it's the same person.
Ya I think the same, it’s hardly possible that 2 people would have that much time on their hands or that little else going on in their lives, if you heard teenagers at that rubbish you’d give them a kick up the a**e
thats the part that i dont understand. 600K+ and its only b3 . surely upping that as high as posible would have made financial sense. they dont seem short of money . another 30k maybe could have got a2 .
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/761dc761e98b4e4a2ae41c6abf8a928b.svg)
