We've been taking it in turns to have a crisis.
Clare went first, around the time of our meeting with our estate agent. Which inspired two evenings of focused discussions, culminating in a brilliant development of our original idea that, in an ideal world (which let's face it, is exactly what we're trying to create), should have the authorities begging us to accept their permission.
I don't want to tell you too much right now.
In fact, I may have already said too much.
After a couple of days and a meeting with our architect, it was my turn. Which inspired two evenings of focused screen watching (Part Troll by Bill Bailey and Part Uruk-Hai by JRR Tolkien and Peter Jackson), separated by days of listlessness, despondency, negativity, a slight cold and some tractor yoga.
It's a female-male thing.
I think I'm getting over it now, just in time for our next and probably most important meeting. With our solicitor. Which is tomorrow.
Showing posts with label waiting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label waiting. Show all posts
Tuesday, 4 December 2007
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
Let the games begin
Tired of waiting for a letter, we went to see Planning this morning.
I didn't understand everything the woman told us, but she said it wasn't good news. Among the reasons given (as I understood them) were:
o the previous Planning Permission for a three-bedroom home has expired and we are no longer in a constructible zone (I'm still trying to see the logic here)
o someone has declared all "tourist villages" involving yurts will be refused
o the mayor does not approve (news to me)
o the department of agriculture does not approve
o the water people do not approve
Me: Really? The water people?
She: Yes.
Me: That's strange - they told me they would approve.
She: (PAUSE) You could always apply for permission to build a house.
I felt the meeting could have gone better. Not unexpected, this "Non". Just not worth waiting five months for. With a light lunch still stewing inside, I went to see the water people. It went something like this:
Me: Why didn't you approve?
He: But I did approve - look. (SHOWS PROOF. REACHES FOR PHONE. INTO PHONE) Where did you get the impression I didn't approve?
She: (ON PHONE) Who said you didn't approve?
He: (INTO PHONE) The English man. He's with me now.
She: (ON PHONE) The department of agriculture doesn't approve. Because they will cut down too many trees.
Which leaves me bemused in several ways. Here are two of them: why did she tell me the water people did not approve, when they did; and where did the department of agriculture get the idea from that we would cut down a load of trees?
If they bothered to ask, they would have found out we'll cut down a couple of saplings for each yurt (and there will be only three yurts in year one) which will be amply made up for with a 13-tree orchard, half an acre of ash and willow coppice, 20 blue spruce and a verdant hedge.
On top of this, we're giving 10% of our profits to reforestation schemes globally in an effort to ensure continuity of life on this planet (to get slightly politico-spiritual for a second).
Other questions pop into my head with regularity. Like: If she chose to be flexible (or even double-jointed) with the truth concerning the water people... What did the mayor really say?
I'm going to ask him tomorrow.
I didn't understand everything the woman told us, but she said it wasn't good news. Among the reasons given (as I understood them) were:
o the previous Planning Permission for a three-bedroom home has expired and we are no longer in a constructible zone (I'm still trying to see the logic here)
o someone has declared all "tourist villages" involving yurts will be refused
o the mayor does not approve (news to me)
o the department of agriculture does not approve
o the water people do not approve
Me: Really? The water people?
She: Yes.
Me: That's strange - they told me they would approve.
She: (PAUSE) You could always apply for permission to build a house.
I felt the meeting could have gone better. Not unexpected, this "Non". Just not worth waiting five months for. With a light lunch still stewing inside, I went to see the water people. It went something like this:
Me: Why didn't you approve?
He: But I did approve - look. (SHOWS PROOF. REACHES FOR PHONE. INTO PHONE) Where did you get the impression I didn't approve?
She: (ON PHONE) Who said you didn't approve?
He: (INTO PHONE) The English man. He's with me now.
She: (ON PHONE) The department of agriculture doesn't approve. Because they will cut down too many trees.
Which leaves me bemused in several ways. Here are two of them: why did she tell me the water people did not approve, when they did; and where did the department of agriculture get the idea from that we would cut down a load of trees?
If they bothered to ask, they would have found out we'll cut down a couple of saplings for each yurt (and there will be only three yurts in year one) which will be amply made up for with a 13-tree orchard, half an acre of ash and willow coppice, 20 blue spruce and a verdant hedge.
On top of this, we're giving 10% of our profits to reforestation schemes globally in an effort to ensure continuity of life on this planet (to get slightly politico-spiritual for a second).
Other questions pop into my head with regularity. Like: If she chose to be flexible (or even double-jointed) with the truth concerning the water people... What did the mayor really say?
I'm going to ask him tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)