How detailed do drawing need be for Planning?

[Gimp]

So I've about got my drawings all sorted out on CAD and ready to get them all together for the sheet to submit for planning - so Plan, Elevation & Section. Now accuracy wise it should be about as accurate as I can get. I've used the site survey to get the exact position on site and figured out the bulk of the details inside so the build dimensions are as accurate as possible. That just leaves annotations now I'm fine with doing a fair few of these, materials, etc. However, I've noticed from some applications that annotations have been kept to a minimum, almost non-existent on some. So was wondering am I getting too concerned about the level to detail I need for planning and what exactly is the level needed, is it specified anywhere or each to their own?

 

For example, looking at the link to the planning docs Joe90 kindly allowed us to his build the plan & elevation are ok, clear but not at all heavy on the annotation, measurements, etc pretty much hand drawn. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this but just wondered what the way forward is on this one.

 

Link: http://publicaccess.torridge.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NUPZNPQK07X00  

[le-cerveau]

For planning permission, keep it to as little as possible, as anything you put on the plan they will hold you to, but it if is only a drawing then you have that scalability/fudge factor on your side.

 

You can see what my Architect pout in on my blog.  The plans and elevations were had no measurements on apart from GIA, though we did have a topographic survey and superimposed the new house over the old one.  Also the elevations showed the houses on either side for reference.

 

If they as for them then you can supply them but don't offer them.

[Gimp]

1 hour ago, le-cerveau said:

For planning permission, keep it to as little as possible, as anything you put on the plan they will hold you to, but it if is only a drawing then you have that scalability/fudge factor on your side.

 

You can see what my Architect pout in on my blog.  The plans and elevations were had no measurements on apart from GIA, though we did have a topographic survey and superimposed the new house over the old one.  Also the elevations showed the houses on either side for reference.

 

If they as for them then you can supply them but don't offer them.

Thanks le-cerveau, that's a lot of help, I wondered why people where still sending in line drawings by hand, quite nice looking some of them and like you say gives a bit of scope on a 1-100 to not pin yourself down to an absolute specific measurement. I'll be mindful not to go overboard on the annotation then I think, particularly measurements and keep that stuff for my own needs and when it comes to building regs. Now I can see the reason for it I can see why drawings for planning aren't too full on. Thank you very much for helping me understand this area, its a lot clearer what I need to do now 

 

[MikeSharp01]

Key things on the plans are any relative dimensions to adjacent buidlings or heights that are critical. On our planning we needed to show that the ridge was on a line between the two adjacent ridges and that the new gutter level was only 400mm above that of the old building. Also because we could have had a right to light issue we included a sun track / shadow section to show that the new design did not overshadow and we provided the functions of the rooms in our neighbours house for windows we might have ended up overshadowing. 

[le-cerveau]

I had the same a Mike (in my blog part 2) you can see the shading diagrams I did for the neighbours (overshadowing) and the final planning submission with the right to light ones to prove that we weren't overbearing.  Even on those we only showed the differences between the buildings and not the actual building dimensions!

 

[Gimp]

I think you're right just adding in the extra where needed to resolve any obvious issues in your favour seems a good idea to me but other than that keep it brief. I'm guessing since the planners will likely have a heavy workload on it makes sense not to give them any easy bones of contention from thoroughly annotating the drawings, particularly on measurements. 

Edited February 3, 2017 by Gimp