Has anybody had their build measured on completion?

[DragsterDriver]

Seems like I woke up with a daft question- has anybody ever had their build size measured by planning on completion? 
 

 

[Ronan 1]

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 ?

[joe90]

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 ?

[nod]

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 

[Ronan 1]

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

[nod]

[Mr Punter]

I have had some measured by OS mapping.

[Dave Jones]

the pencil line on a 1 in 100 drawing is a good 100mm on the ground. 

 

 

[ToughButterCup]

20 minutes ago, Mr Punter said:

I have had some measured by OS mapping.

 

 

Ours too: lovely bloke....

[DragsterDriver]

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  

[James Newport]

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. 

[Pocster]

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 .

[Marvin]

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.

[Pocster]

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 ?

[Pocster]

@Marvin oh and the build !

[saveasteading]

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.

 

 

 

[Haylingbilly]

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.

[DragsterDriver]

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”

[DragsterDriver]

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. 

[Pocster]

41 minutes ago, DragsterDriver said:

“I have 12 inches, but I don’t like to use it as a rule”

Only small measurements then ?

[Haylingbilly]

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. 

[Temp]

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

[Temp]

https://www.pallantchambers.co.uk/blog_post/july-2021-cil-payment-exemption-is-not-available-for-self-build-houses-granted-retrospective-planning-permission/

 

6^th 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), 6^th 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

[DragsterDriver]

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/

 

6^th 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), 6^th 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!

[oldkettle]

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/

 

6^th 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), 6^th 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.