DragsterDriver Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 Seems like I woke up with a daft question- has anybody ever had their build size measured by planning on completion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronan 1 Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 Not that I've ever heard of, the bucket of the digger "slipping" whilst digging foundations is fairly common ? I even had my architect talk to my wife after we got the planning last week to recommend a little miscalculation when setting out to make the utility room a bit wider.... I said no as the bloody thing is over 3500 sq ft as is, it is tempting though but as I'll be driving the digger I'll get my way * probably ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe90 Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 I would imagine they would only come out to measure it if a neighbour wanted to “drop you in it”. They have not got enough staff to do their day job let alone checking on completion. My house is about 100mm higher than planned (cock up with roof measurements) but as it’s a hip roof they would find it difficult to measure it anyway ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nod Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 BC won’t care and you will only here from planners if there is a complaint from one of the neighbors It’s Usually height issues when planners get involved Though there is a group of homes 20 miles from me Million plus each That the local council have ordered to be demolished As they have been built slightly to big An average of 50% to big ? Someone put a link on here a couple of weeks back 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronan 1 Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 (edited) 1 minute ago, nod said: As they have been built slightly to big An average of 50% to big ? Must have been a very bad digger driver on that job ? Edited July 17, 2021 by Ronan 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nod Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Punter Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 I have had some measured by OS mapping. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Jones Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 the pencil line on a 1 in 100 drawing is a good 100mm on the ground. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToughButterCup Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 20 minutes ago, Mr Punter said: I have had some measured by OS mapping. Ours too: lovely bloke.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragsterDriver Posted July 17, 2021 Author Share Posted July 17, 2021 14 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said: Ours too: lovely bloke.... That’s really interesting! As a youngster I worked on jobs where the digger driver got his lines wrong ? it occurred to me I’ve never heard of a new build being checked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Newport Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 We had a visit from a planning officer following a complaint (couldn't tell us the details) from a neighbour (wouldn't tell us who). The planning officer took some photos of one side of the house , which happened to be completely shrouded in plastic wrapped scaffolding, but turned down the chance to photograph the other side of the house because they already had those photos. I wonder where those came from... Nothing came of it. I guess they compared the photos to the plans and that was it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocster Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 Hope not . Mine has grown a bit and as many are aware I can’t measure accurately for shit . Part of the problem of being a well endowed man I guess . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 20 minutes ago, pocster said: Hope not . Mine has grown a bit and as many are aware I can’t measure accurately for shit . Part of the problem of being a well endowed man I guess . ? If you use the same scale rule on your build surely the result would actually be a smaller property. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocster Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 5 minutes ago, Marvin said: ? If you use the same scale rule on your build surely the result would actually be a smaller property. Nah mate ! It’s (expletive deleted)ing massive ! . Longer and wider ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocster Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 @Marvin oh and the build ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveasteading Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 I've done 350 buildings and had one measured, that I know of. I don't know why they measured it....probably somebody complained it was too big. It was to the mm. However I think they sometimes just have a look, and if there is no obvious discrepancy that is the end of it. Have asked a planner what tolerance they allow. On a brick house there is no excuse for being more than 1/2 brick out either end, so 1 brick. Strangely nobody goes half brick shorter. Of course they are busy and not looking for trouble....unless upset for other reasons. If there was an issue it would be negotiated, and the bottom line is whether it would have got PP at the larger size. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haylingbilly Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 I had planning enforcement out re our skylights as a neighbour complained - we had to do a non material amendment, though initially they said we had to do a section 73 application - which would have had a CIL implication. In days of old I think there was much more flexibility, but now if you have to apply for retrospective permission you will have to pay CIL, for the whole building footprint. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragsterDriver Posted July 17, 2021 Author Share Posted July 17, 2021 3 hours ago, pocster said: Nah mate ! It’s (expletive deleted)ing massive ! . Longer and wider ? “I have 12 inches, but I don’t like to use it as a rule” 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragsterDriver Posted July 17, 2021 Author Share Posted July 17, 2021 29 minutes ago, Andy brown said: I had planning enforcement out re our skylights as a neighbour complained - we had to do a non material amendment, though initially they said we had to do a section 73 application - which would have had a CIL implication. In days of old I think there was much more flexibility, but now if you have to apply for retrospective permission you will have to pay CIL, for the whole building footprint. that’s interesting! I'm now wondering another daft question- can I do the cil paperwork and start groundwork with a section 73 submitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocster Posted July 17, 2021 Share Posted July 17, 2021 41 minutes ago, DragsterDriver said: “I have 12 inches, but I don’t like to use it as a rule” Only small measurements then ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haylingbilly Posted July 26, 2021 Share Posted July 26, 2021 On 17/07/2021 at 23:00, DragsterDriver said: that’s interesting! I'm now wondering another daft question- can I do the cil paperwork and start groundwork with a section 73 submitted. If they grant it retrospectively you will be up for the full CIL liability! Depends how on the ball they are and what the amendments are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temp Posted July 26, 2021 Share Posted July 26, 2021 (edited) On 17/07/2021 at 21:00, DragsterDriver said: that’s interesting! I'm now wondering another daft question- can I do the cil paperwork and start groundwork with a section 73 submitted. A section 73 results in a new planning permission being granted. You should not do any work on site until its been granted and you have applied for and received the CIL exemption, issued commencement notification etc. If work has already started and the exemption claimed under a previous planning grant then you should apply to amend the existing PP under section 96a (I think) instead of section 73. https://www.planninglawblog.com/self-build-series-part-1/ Edited July 26, 2021 by Temp 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temp Posted July 26, 2021 Share Posted July 26, 2021 (edited) https://www.pallantchambers.co.uk/blog_post/july-2021-cil-payment-exemption-is-not-available-for-self-build-houses-granted-retrospective-planning-permission/ 6th July 2021 HIGH COURT DECIDES THAT CIL PAYMENT EXEMPTION IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR SELF -BUILD HOUSES GRANTED RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING PERMISSION UNDER SECTION 73A OF THE TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – Gardiner v Hertsemere Borough Council [2021] EWHC 1875 (Admin), 6th July 2021. Snip The case raises a real problem for self- build developers in that if there is need to apply for retrospective permission during the course of a development, e.g. to regularise some unintended departure from the plans during the course of construction, then CIL exemptions will not apply.... Edited July 26, 2021 by Temp 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragsterDriver Posted July 27, 2021 Author Share Posted July 27, 2021 20 hours ago, Temp said: https://www.pallantchambers.co.uk/blog_post/july-2021-cil-payment-exemption-is-not-available-for-self-build-houses-granted-retrospective-planning-permission/ 6th July 2021 HIGH COURT DECIDES THAT CIL PAYMENT EXEMPTION IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR SELF -BUILD HOUSES GRANTED RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING PERMISSION UNDER SECTION 73A OF THE TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – Gardiner v Hertsemere Borough Council [2021] EWHC 1875 (Admin), 6th July 2021. Snip The case raises a real problem for self- build developers in that if there is need to apply for retrospective permission during the course of a development, e.g. to regularise some unintended departure from the plans during the course of construction, then CIL exemptions will not apply.... blimey! that’s madness! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldkettle Posted July 31, 2021 Share Posted July 31, 2021 On 26/07/2021 at 23:59, Temp said: https://www.pallantchambers.co.uk/blog_post/july-2021-cil-payment-exemption-is-not-available-for-self-build-houses-granted-retrospective-planning-permission/ 6th July 2021 HIGH COURT DECIDES THAT CIL PAYMENT EXEMPTION IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR SELF -BUILD HOUSES GRANTED RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING PERMISSION UNDER SECTION 73A OF THE TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – Gardiner v Hertsemere Borough Council [2021] EWHC 1875 (Admin), 6th July 2021. Snip The case raises a real problem for self- build developers in that if there is need to apply for retrospective permission during the course of a development, e.g. to regularise some unintended departure from the plans during the course of construction, then CIL exemptions will not apply.... This decision is a prime example of what "unjust" means. I do hope that the only reason the council were able to catch the owner is this "unauthorised work" claim. I.e. should the owner applied for the new planning before demolishing too much of the old building they would have been OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now