Jump to content

Full Plans Approval - can the Inspector overrule?


Tony K

Recommended Posts

Hi all

After obtaining planning permission for my SB, I then got full plans approval under the building regulations. I used a partnership authority arrangement, where your plans are checked by the officers of a local Council other than your own, but the actual site inspections are undertaken by your own local authority building inspectors. 

 

My full plans application was approved under the building regulations by the checking authority. I have now started digging the footings, and my neighbour, who will not listen to reason under any circumstances, has complained to the local building control officer about an element of the project. 

 

Everything is, and will be, in accordance with the approved plans. To my amazement, the local building inspector tells me that he is minded to agree with the complaint, and find that this particular element of the SB is not compliant with the building regulations. I have contacted the checking authority who have reiterated that there is no issue whatsoever with this aspect of my design, and that it was considered fully against the regs when they approved it. 

 

Leaving aside the simple fact that he is wrong, can the local building inspector overrule the fact that the project has full plans approval already? I believe his role is simply to check that the work is carried out as shown on the plans, not to revisit the decision to grant approval, but I cannot find a regulation or law to that effect. 

 

Has anyone experienced such a thing before? I've put the local inspector in touch with the checking authority who are happy to speak to him, but it is stressful. 

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Tony K said:

Hi all

After obtaining planning permission for my SB, I then got full plans approval under the building regulations. I used a partnership authority arrangement, where your plans are checked by the officers of a local Council other than your own, but the actual site inspections are undertaken by your own local authority building inspectors. 

 

My full plans application was approved under the building regulations by the checking authority. I have now started digging the footings, and my neighbour, who will not listen to reason under any circumstances, has complained to the local building control officer about an element of the project. 

 

Everything is, and will be, in accordance with the approved plans. To my amazement, the local building inspector tells me that he is minded to agree with the complaint, and find that this particular element of the SB is not compliant with the building regulations. I have contacted the checking authority who have reiterated that there is no issue whatsoever with this aspect of my design, and that it was considered fully against the regs when they approved it. 

 

Leaving aside the simple fact that he is wrong, can the local building inspector overrule the fact that the project has full plans approval already? I believe his role is simply to check that the work is carried out as shown on the plans, not to revisit the decision to grant approval, but I cannot find a regulation or law to that effect. 

 

Has anyone experienced such a thing before? I've put the local inspector in touch with the checking authority who are happy to speak to him, but it is stressful. 

 

Thanks!

 

More eyes on a project will mean more bits are picked up ime - you will find all kinds of caveats to signing off building regs drawings, usually just that anything on site has to meet the regs no matter what's approved on a drawing! 

You'll just have to wait to see what the outcome of their discussion is - usually with regs on domestic it's a pretty straight forward "it complies" or "it doesn't comply" - what you have to do is get a written confirmation of what regulation it is that they are saying is not being met then you can work out a solution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, the_r_sole said:

...

what you have to do is get a written confirmation of what regulation it is that they are saying is not being met then you can work out a solution

 

On the way to that ideal, if the meeting is in person,  be seen to take notes about the inspector's requests. In our case,  inspectors have, between site meeting and their own and office,  tended to forget what they've asked for. 

Notably, the only female inspector to visit remembered what she had said and followed up each point at every meeting or phone call or WhasUp video call.  Now, at each meeting or interaction, I send a very brief email summarising the meeting and ask for confirmation of the main points.

 

Jus' sayin' .....

Edited by ToughButterCup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What specifically is the problem raised by BC and your neighbour? Knowing this will probably yield more specific replies.

 

I think that the job of BC isn't simply to confirm the building is built according to the drawings, but that it is built according to Building Regulations. Sometimes these things can differ on site.

 

For example, if it's to do with footings, the real world will overrule the drawings. My drawings were approved for 1m deep footings. Unfortunately at one part of the house at one meter the ground was wet, soggy, mushy clay, so much deeper foundations were required. I also had to increase the overall size of some pad foundation trenches due to ground conditions. At some parts I was allowed to go to 800mm instead of 1m by BC because the ground was rock solid. That's fair play.

 

But as per what both @the_r_sole and @ToughButterCup have said try to get the details in writing together with what is being requested to satisfy the requirements. That way you can either go back to them with some alternative evidence, or do what's needed. I had this instance with joist hangers. BC asked me to go back over mine so they were full face nailed. I showed him the nailing pattern given by the maunfacturer for wrap over installation, explaining I'd simply followed this and was this okay - yes he said and job done.

 

HTH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks all. No sooner had I posted than the local building inspector turned up unannounced, said he had spoken to the fire officer and to the checking authority, and was now happy for me to proceed as planned! I've also had the neighbour over to clear the air, which was nice. And it's sunny here today too. 

 

For those who are interested, the dispute was over the interpretation of part B4 of the regs, and whether it was safe for me to build a house to the edge of my plot, with a door facing onto the boundary. The regs say that any wall with an opening (doors, windows) greater than 1m2 must be one metre back from the boundary to prevent fire spread risk.

 

It is a difficult thing to envisage, but our neighborhood is very olde wordle and higgledy piggledy, with access via a series of footpaths only. The checking authority were happy that the footpath outside my plot was sufficiently wide that there was no risk of fire spreading from my house to my nearest neighbours (who by the way, have recently built an extension with doors and windows facing the same path!). The local inspector originally less pleased, and minded to say I could not build to the boundary and have a door. 

 

This is to do with the difference between the legal boundary and the nominal boundary for building regs purposes. Your actual legal boundary is not necessarily the boundary for the purposes of making a fire break. If the land between you and your nearest neighbour is never likely to be built on (so a road, river, access or whatever) then it is legitimate for your building regs inspector to feel that there is a fire break there already and you don't need to provide one by stepping your building line back.

 

Here endeth both the lecture and the stress!

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Tony K said:

 

This is to do with the difference between the legal boundary and the nominal boundary for building regs purposes. Your actual legal boundary is not necessarily the boundary for the purposes of making a fire break. If the land between you and your nearest neighbour is never likely to be built on (so a road, river, access or whatever) then it is legitimate for your building regs inspector to feel that there is a fire break there already and you don't need to provide one by stepping your building line back.

 

 

yup. the notional boundary is usually measured to the centre of roads/rivers etc - got me out of many a jam that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, the_r_sole said:

yup. the notional boundary is usually measured to the centre of roads/rivers etc - got me out of many a jam that!

 

That's it, yep. 

The nominal / notional / nocturnal / whatever it is boundary was, in this instance, the far side of the footpath from me, so it can be stretched even further than the centre line depending on circumstances. 

 

The really important thing of course is that it is, in fact, fire safe. The building inspector apparently had a quick chat with the fire safety officer about my set up, and both were happy, so that might be of use to someone on this board in a similar position. I had prepared a fall back position whereby I proposed a fire door, but happily I didn't get to test run that argument. 

 

Finally, my original post posed the question: Can the inspector overrule the plans checking authority once they have approved a set of plans? Well, the building inspector himself told me today that legally he wouldn't have a leg to stand on once the plans had been approved (which is how it should be, otherwise why have the full plans procedure?), though whether he would have issued final sign off when push came to shove is another matter perhaps. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

If plans are approved with contravention then so long as you build exactly as per approved drawings then a completion certificate can not be withheld on this issue. However plans approved with an omission in information or detail gives no such assurances when inspected. For example if the drawings do not mention nails should be used to fix the rafters to the ceiling joists, the inspector would obviously be correct to insisting adequate fixings are provided, before they would approve the work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...