Oversized building construction

[Atomic12C]

Do any of you legal eagles have knowledge on planning law regarding how accurate a new property should be built regarding dimensions submitted to the planning application ?

For example, if a new house is stated on the planning application to be 5m high, ....when construction takes place, does this house HAVE TO BE no more than 5m high, or are there 'reasonable tolerances' under planning law?
eg. could the new house be built to 5.5m high with 'reasonable' excuses given for why it 'had to be like that' ?

[catso]

Will they actually measure it?

I ask because my house is a barn conversion which had already been 'converted' into a small dwelling when we bought it but we built a large extension (about +300%) into where there was an existing attached barn. The planning stated that it was to be 'no higher than the existing building height' but no-one ever measured the original height and obviously couldn't now if they wanted to.

Obviously in the case of a stated height then things maybe different? but I doubt they would actually measure it unless it was obviously well over, however you would be taking a chance by going over and I suppose it also depends on the 'sensitivity' in the area and/or the 'anality' of the inspector so they could well enforce it?

Also measured from where? In my case the land at the rear, and particularly one end of the house is significantly higher due to the slope it's built on...

Obviously not a 'legal' reply, rather my experience/thoughts.

[Antony Moxey]

Why do you think they couldn't measure the height of your building now if they wanted to? Modern surveying equipment and techniques make it very easy to measure building heights very accurately without the need to to ever step foot on your property.

[pavarotti1980]

Antony Moxey said:

Why do you think they couldn't measure the height of your building now if they wanted to? Modern surveying equipment and techniques make it very easy to measure building heights very accurately without the need to to ever step foot on your property.

I think the issue he raised (no pun) was they weould be unable to measure the height of a building that has been incorporated into the new building as the previous building would not be the original dimensions any longer

[Antony Moxey]

pavarotti1980 said:

Antony Moxey said:

Why do you think they couldn't measure the height of your building now if they wanted to? Modern surveying equipment and techniques make it very easy to measure building heights very accurately without the need to to ever step foot on your property.

I think the issue he raised (no pun) was they weould be unable to measure the height of a building that has been incorporated into the new building as the previous building would not be the original dimensions any longer

Fair enough, good point. However I'd imagine it's more the norm for an architect to commission a full measured internal and external survey of the building to be extended, especially if it's a major extension involving a lot of structural change to the original building.

[pavarotti1980]

Antony Moxey said:

Fair enough, good point. However I'd imagine it's more the norm for an architect to commission a full measured internal and external survey of the building to be extended, especially if it's a major extension involving a lot of structural change to the original building.

Im sure it would be but useless if council jobsworth just turns up with a clip board and a ruler

[Equus]

There are tolerances, but whether the 'as built' dimensions are acceptable or not would ultimately be a matter for the judgement of the courts.

In the first instance, you should report any concern to the Local Planning Authority, who have an obligation to act upon it and investigate.

If they believe there has been a breach of the planning permission, they will take enforcement action, but the first step would simply be to tell the owner that they have to submit an application to regularise the consent.

Depending on whether the deviation is considered to be 'material' or not (ie. whether it might have made a difference to whether the application had been approved, or not) this would take the form of a 'Section 96A non-material amendment', a 'Section 73 Minor Material Amendment' or, for major deviations from the approved plans, a full new Planning application might be required.

As a rule of thumb, most LPA's wouldn't bat an eyelid over dimensions +/-100mm from those shown on Plans. Beyond that, it would depend on the circumstances.

[Antony Moxey]

pavarotti1980 said:

Antony Moxey said:

Fair enough, good point. However I'd imagine it's more the norm for an architect to commission a full measured internal and external survey of the building to be extended, especially if it's a major extension involving a lot of structural change to the original building.

Im sure it would be but useless if council jobsworth just turns up with a clip board and a ruler

Hehe, council jobsworth would send a team of surveyors out so he didn't have to deal face to face with the property owner.

[Equus]

Antony Moxey said:

However I'd imagine it's more the norm for an architect to commission a full measured internal and external survey of the building to be extended, especially if it's a major extension involving a lot of structural change to the original building.

Yes, it is normal for the Planning Authority to require 'existing' and 'proposed' drawings of any building to be altered, as part of the Planning application.

Of course, proving the accuracy of the 'before' drawings after the work has been done could be problematical.

[catso]

Antony Moxey said:

Why do you think they couldn't measure the height of your building now if they wanted to? Modern surveying equipment and techniques make it very easy to measure building heights very accurately without the need to to ever step foot on your property.

They could quite easily measure it as it is, but they couldn't now and didn't then measure what was previously there (asbestos sheet roof on a steel frame) because it was demolished (all but one wall) before the new part was built. It stands on the same ground.

[Atomic12C]

Equus said:

There are tolerances, but whether the 'as built' dimensions are acceptable or not would ultimately be a matter for the judgement of the courts.

In the first instance, you should report any concern to the Local Planning Authority, who have an obligation to act upon it and investigate.

If they believe there has been a breach of the planning permission, they will take enforcement action, but the first step would simply be to tell the owner that they have to submit an application to regularise the consent.

Depending on whether the deviation is considered to be 'material' or not (ie. whether it might have made a difference to whether the application had been approved, or not) this would take the form of a 'Section 96A non-material amendment', a 'Section 73 Minor Material Amendment' or, for major deviations from the approved plans, a full new Planning application might be required.

Thanks for the reply.

To describe the situation a little better.
There is a new property to be built not too far from mine that although is in a dip in the land, the roof line is likely to be visible.
The planning app made mention of the roof heights and we had no objection to that - as it would likely not impact us to any noticeable effect to our property or the existing rural landscape.

But when tolerances come in to play, and if the builder is willing to ignore the planning app roof height and builds a larger property, I am left thinking how high could they build it?

Do you have a figure for what is a reasonable tolerance in planning law?
(Is it a simple percentage figure or is it a defined length/height?)

[Antony Moxey]

Equus said:

Antony Moxey said:

However I'd imagine it's more the norm for an architect to commission a full measured internal and external survey of the building to be extended, especially if it's a major extension involving a lot of structural change to the original building.

Yes, it is normal for the Planning Authority to require 'existing' and 'proposed' drawings of any building to be altered, as part of the Planning application.

Of course, proving the accuracy of the 'before' drawings after the work has been done could be problematical.

Yes, very true. Assuming of course that the surveyor would be happy to alter his drawings to help out the architect and client. The surveyor will obviously pass on his drawings to the architect, but he'd still keep his originals for his own records and any possible future works that might be carried out.

[Equus]

Antony Moxey said:

Hehe, council jobsworth would send a team of surveyors out so he didn't have to deal face to face with the property owner.

Actually, he wouldn't: the 'Council Jobsworth' would be an Enforcement Officer from the Planning department, and he or she would most certainly come out to deal with the property owner face to face.

It's a bloody tough job - one I wouldn't take for any money - and the people who do it are usually very sensible, reasonable human beings.

Also bear in mind that the 'Council Jobsworth' doesn't go around looking for things to enforce against; they are almost entirely reactive, so if we're using pejorative terms, there has to be a 'Curtain Twitching Busybody' or a 'whining NIMBY' to report the breach to them before they'll get involved in the first place.

Atomic12C said:

Do you have a figure for what is a reasonable tolerance in planning law?
(Is it a simple percentage figure or is it a defined length/height?)

There isn't one. It's a matter for judgement in the individual circumstances, and ultimately will come down to whether the deviation is considered to be 'material' or not.

In your case, to colloquialise, the question would be: would the additional height have had such impact on the neighbour (you) that the Planning Permission should have been refused instead of approved.

Antony Moxey said:

Assuming of course that the surveyor would be happy to alter his drawings to help out the architect and client. The surveyor will obviously pass on his drawings to the architect, but he'd still keep his originals for his own records and any possible future works that might be carried out.

The survey drawings are submitted as part of the Planning application, so if you were going to doctor them, you'd need to do so before the application was submitted.

I won't pretend that it doesn't happen: we (architects) know that Planning Authorities have very limited survey capability themselves. Also, they very seldom, if ever, check the accuracy of 'existing' drawings, unless there's something blatant enough that it stands out to them when they make their site visit, so it's certainly possible to bend the truth a bit, at times. If that's the case, you've missed the boat, I'm afraid: if you suspected that the 'existing' drawings were inaccurate, the time to object would have been before the Planning Permission was granted.

[Antony Moxey]

Atomic12C said:

Thanks for the reply.

To describe the situation a little better.
There is a new property to be built not too far from mine that although is in a dip in the land, the roof line is likely to be visible.
The planning app made mention of the roof heights and we had no objection to that - as it would likely not impact us to any noticeable effect to our property or the existing rural landscape.

But when tolerances come in to play, and if the builder is willing to ignore the planning app roof height and builds a larger property, I am left thinking how high could they build it?

Do you have a figure for what is a reasonable tolerance in planning law?
(Is it a simple percentage figure or is it a defined length/height?)

Tolerances aren't absolute I think. If the council wants to get arsey they will - I'm sure there was a case a number of years ago in Exeter where someone had to lower their roof because it was six inches too high.

[joshcowin]

Why would the contractor build it higher than planned? What would be the advantage?

I am a contractor and we build to whatever the architect draws. Remember that roof timbers/trusses will be ordered off plan therefore they will be to the size drawn. Therefore as long as the footings and walls are to spec which they will be as this would incur further cost to the contractor all should be fine! Footing may have to be deeper due to tree roots or soil condition but this shouldn't affect the height of the building.

[Atomic12C]

joshcowin said:

Why would the contractor build it higher than planned? What would be the advantage?

To expand a little, I live near York and properties are going up all over the place, but this one located not too far from me is in a dip in the land, and as such is more or less out of the way from everything.

It should have little impact if its built as per the planning application plans, which although we were invited to comment, we did not object. Instead we placed a concern over the roof heights due to the fact that IF they were to be built higher OR a later amendment to the plans was submitted that the building would then impact on the surroundings.


As the new build is being done by the guy who entered the planning app, he (and I assume a few of his mates) will be 'in control' of the levels and heights as they build it themselves.
It would not surprise me however if the house is built above its stated height in order that the bedroom windows in the roof are able to see over the rise in the land. But as mentioned if this were to happen then the building would impact the surroundings.

[Escapegoat]

Some councils take things seriously: http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2013/07/30/blu...

[covboy]

catso said:

Also measured from where? In my case the land at the rear, and particularly one end of the house is significantly higher due to the slope it's built on...

.

I would think that most heights for buildings are set from a given Datum level - The reference height from which all other dimensions are taken from - Coluld be either higher or lower from the datum level.

[anonymous-user]

This one was localish to me,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1033687/Bu...
derelict dump for years then done up and was perfectly in keeping with surrounding houses that were full of curtain twitching nimbys, on the bright side they are building 600 houses on the airfield behind it now with a further 2500 planned
Looks like it's still happening though
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howabou...

[Equus]

covboy said:

I would think that most heights for buildings are set from a given Datum level

Not always, surprisingly, but yes on any form of 'serious' residential development this is usually the case these days: the levels will be given relative to Ordnance Datum Newlyn ("ODN").