Planning permission and boundaries & ground level

[Carrerahill]

Hi All,

 

Simple question; but a bit drawn out, regarding my planning permission and the setting out and heights of said proposal onto my site.

 

As an engineer I work with CAD on a daily basis, everything is mm perfect, everything very precise - now come to my site and the location for my new garage - this seems to be a little bit, rough shall we say.

 

I know from my drawings that the garage sits 800mm in and parallel from one boundary and 400mm going up to 1200mm on the rear elevation (site is not square and it made sense to align the garage with the side elevation boundary).

 

So I go out and start to work out the physical location and bang in pegs and what not so I can see where I need to dig out and dig services trenches.

 

Now the boundaries of my site are set out in traditional estate wrought iron fence which have been there forever, so I am going to use these, as my physical marker of boundaries. 

 

Now the question is this, if I measure 800mm out from the side fence, check it is square to said fence then measure 400mm in from the back fence and bang a peg in I now have the completed outside corner of the garage location, I can then measure 5000mm across and at that point 1200mm out from the back fence, by ensuring the 5000mm line is square to the side fence I now have the opposite corner of the back wall - the rest is the case of staying square to the side fence and marking out the site.

 

That all sounds fairly easy and with some careful measuring and squaring off it will be fine - however, old fences are not perfectly straight and things do undulate a little, with care and attention I can allow for this and I will be fine.

 

But really what I want to know is how much out could something be and planning would not care, and secondly, planning don't actually come and look do they? How would they ever know if I, through genuine error, ended up 40 or 50mm off course?

 

The next part of this question is regarding ground level, from the front of the garage to the rear of my garage the ground slopes down to the rear about 450mm. My plans show the soffit at 2.4m, if the site was flat then all elevations could easily enough be built to have a ground to soffit height at 2.4m however I cannot do this, I am going to have to have the back end of the garage about 2.8m from ground level to soffit, I may be able to re-grade the access to the front of the garage a bit to lower it, maybe go down 100mm and put the slab in level at the front bringing it down a bit at the back but what is deemed as "ground level". 

 

I don't want to build this thing as I said above, only to find that planning say I am too high at the back.

 

Thanks

 

 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by Carrerahill

[jack]

What measurements, if any, are actually shown on your planning drawings?

[Carrerahill]

3 minutes ago, jack said:

What measurements, if any, are actually shown on your planning drawings?

The location plan simply shows the garage sitting on the site on the scaled block plan.

 

On the proposed elevations plan it just shows the 4 elevations with a dimension showing the length, width, ground to soffit (or is that slab to soffit?) and ground/slab to apex - picture of the actual planning application elevations drawing attached.

 

[Ferdinand]

What is on the other side of your boundary, and what is your relationship with whoever is there?

 

Planning will come and look if someone complains, and usually they would be complaining if they feel they are impacted in a way which is different to your permission and unacceptable to them. Though some may complain just to keep pressure on you. If this does not happen you are more likely to avoid complaints.

 

However, Planning will should only be interested in the Approved Plans, and will should refuse to get involved in any arguments about boundaries etc. However, if your plan shows your build x distance from something they know about (eg something in your plan), and it is actually y distance on the ground, then all bets are potentially off. Planning do not always stay out of things they should stay out of, and vice versa.

 

If you have an aged wrought iron fence, then you are lucky to have a good boundary feature. I think you need to be sure that the various boundary features on the other side are actually where you think they are on your ground survey, so you have multiple datums and can defend your decisions.

 

Ground levels can be adjusted within reason, especially if they are not explicit on your approved plan.

 

That sounds ambiguous, because it *can* be ambiguous.

 

Ferdinand

Edited May 18, 2017 by Ferdinand

[Carrerahill]

10 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

What is on the other side of your boundary, and what is your relationship with whoever is there?

 

Planning will come and look if someone complains, and usually they would be complaining if they feel they are impacted in a way which is different to your permission and unacceptable to them. Though some may complain just to keep pressure on you. If this does not happen you are more likely to avoid complaints.

 

However, Planning will should only be interested in the Approved Plans, and will should refuse to get involved in any arguments about boundaries etc. However, if your plan shows your build x distance from something they know about (eg something in your plan), and it is actually y distance on the ground, then all bets are potentially off. Planning do not always stay out of things they should stay out of, and vice versa.

 

If you have an aged wrought iron fence, then you are lucky to have a good boundary feature. I think you need to be sure that the various boundary features on the other side are actually where you think they are on your ground survey, so you have multiple datums and can defend your decisions.

 

Ground levels can be adjusted within reason, especially if they are not explicit on your approved plan.

 

That sounds ambiguous, because it *can* be ambiguous.

 

Ferdinand

On the side elevation boundary it is a path (which I actually own into the middle of) and to the back it is my neighbours garden, the neighbours know about the garage and have seen plans and only stipulated that they wanted the hedgerow left alone, which is fine I don't need to touch it and want it to remain anyway.

 

 

 

 

[ProDave]

If the boundary is not a perfect straight line, then set the garage so it's 800mm from the boundary at it's closest point. Then if it ever comes to "tape measures at dawn" then no part of your garage will be closer to the boundary than agreed and there will be no cause for complaint.

 

you can only set the levels at the front as the plans and the rest take care of themselves. Strictly speaking if the site slopes, then this should have been shown on the elevation drawings. Use any excavated soil to level as much as possible te ground immediately around the garage to make it as level as possible.

 

P.S why did you need planning for a single garage? If it had been 1 metre from the boundary it might well have been permitted development?

[Carrerahill]

42 minutes ago, ProDave said:

If the boundary is not a perfect straight line, then set the garage so it's 800mm from the boundary at it's closest point. Then if it ever comes to "tape measures at dawn" then no part of your garage will be closer to the boundary than agreed and there will be no cause for complaint.

 

you can only set the levels at the front as the plans and the rest take care of themselves. Strictly speaking if the site slopes, then this should have been shown on the elevation drawings. Use any excavated soil to level as much as possible te ground immediately around the garage to make it as level as possible.

 

P.S why did you need planning for a single garage? If it had been 1 metre from the boundary it might well have been permitted development?

I spoke to planning last year and explained where I wanted to build the garage and asked did I need permission, he came back and said yes because the path constitutes a road - I was going to argue this it's not a road, it's a 1500mm wide path and I own half of it but I didn't want to get my relationship with them off to a bad start.

 

Also the garage sits beyond the front elevation of my house albeit about 10m away to the left where you can't actually see it from the road, it was only a small corner of it that came forward of the house but I would have ended up wasting a 1900mm strip down the side of my garage so I was not keen to lose that. I had to put in planning for the extension anyway so I drew up the plans, gave them to the architect who re-jigged them a little and submitted them as part of the application thus costing me no more anyway.

 

Another argument I made was that if you look at the house and draw a line along the front of it to where it ends fronting a road, then drew a line perpendicular to  first line down to the road, that according to PD is a permitted build area as it doesn't front a road. But he said no because the path was a road, so the line had to extend right along the front of the house.

 

Anyway, application is in now anyway, so fingers crossed.

 

I think what is being said above is the case, be careful, lay it all out and just build it without being stupid on any of the dims to prove I have done my best to adhere to the plans.

  

 

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by Carrerahill

[PeterW]

39 minutes ago, Carrerahill said:

I spoke to planning last year and explained where I wanted to build the garage and asked did I need permission, he came back and said yes because the path constitutes a road - I was going to argue this it's not a road, it's a 1500mm wide path and I own half of it but I didn't want to get my relationship with them off to a bad start.

 

Private road or one with public access...??

 

Council have no right of access to private property so even if you did build it closer unless they took enforcement action they cannot access your land to prove it...

[Carrerahill]

1 minute ago, PeterW said:

 

Private road or one with public access...??

 

Council have no right of access to private property so even if you did build it closer unless they took enforcement action they cannot access your land to prove it...

 

The path has public access, there was talk of closing it off before I bought the property and taking the land but as it's been a right of way for x number of years it must now be left.

 

I think you have all confirmed what I was thinking, this is not an exact science, as long as the building I build is more or less what I said it would be and where I said it would be we are all going to be happy.

 

Unless I go and build a 2 storey garage or something, planning are never going to care really. It makes me wonder how many structures exist out there with planning consent that were not actually built 100% as planned and no one will ever notice. 

 

I have no intention whatsoever to try and flout the rules here but I was concerned as a first time builder that I would build my garage, kit it all out for some jobsworth to come and tell me it was 300mm to tall at the back and 43mm too far to the left or something outrageous.

[Jeremy Harris]

3 minutes ago, PeterW said:

 

Private road or one with public access...??

 

Council have no right of access to private property so even if you did build it closer unless they took enforcement action they cannot access your land to prove it...

 

If the private road provides access to a property, then the council have an "implied right of access" under common law.  This is the law that allows the postman, utilities, delivery drivers etc to access your land without committing trespass.  Council officers have the same rights of access, unless the owner(s) of the property specifically deny them those rights.

 

As an example, after my debacle with our site being broken into by a council employee, trying to gather evidence that the house was complete enough for council tax to be levied, I issued a notice to the council, backed up with signs around the site, removing the implied right of access for all staff employed by, or contracted by, the council.

[Carrerahill]

6 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

 

As an example, after my debacle with our site being broken into by a council employee, trying to gather evidence that the house was complete enough for council tax to be levied, I issued a notice to the council, backed up with signs around the site, removing the implied right of access for all staff employed by, or contracted by, the council.

Seriously? Some little twerp from the council BROKE into your new build to prove council tax could be levied? That is unreal!

 

I'd have had him in court for that!

 

Anyway, I digress.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by Carrerahill

[Jeremy Harris]

44 minutes ago, Carrerahill said:

Seriously? Some little twerp from the council BROKE into your new build to prove council tax could be levied? That is unreal!

 

I'd have had him in court for that!

 

Anyway, I digress.

 

 

 

 

Seriously.  It was a woman, who climbed over the security fence and over piles of building material to peer through the windows.  She wasn't wearing any PPE, and in my view wasn't sensibly dressed to even enter an open building site, let alone break in after hours.  She was caught on the site security camera, but I didn't actually look at the recording until after I received the phone call from the council saying that I was going to be charged council tax.

 

The problem went away when I pointed out that there was no water or sewage systems connected and that the house was therefore not a rateable hereditament under the Rating Act.  I also made a formal complaint to the council regarding their breach of site safety, and entering the site without authorisation.  They half agreed about the safety thing, but pointed out that they had an implied right of access under common law, in order to carry out their statutory obligations.  At that point I withdrew their implied right of access by formal notice, and informed them that I  would let them know when the property was a rateable hereditament.  I then deliberately withheld getting a potable water supply connected until just before completion, so stopped them getting around a years worth of council tax out of me, purely because their attitude pissed me off.

 

FWIW, our council actually employs people to drive around, looking for part-completed new builds, so that they can levy council tax on them.

Edited May 18, 2017 by JSHarris

[Carrerahill]

7 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

 

 

Seriously.  It was a woman, who climbed over the security fence and over piles of building material to peer through the windows.  She wasn't wearing any PPE, and in my view wasn't sensibly dressed to even enter an open building site, let alone break in after hours.  She was caught on the site security camera, but I didn't actually look at the recording until after I received the phone call from the council saying that I was going to be charged council tax.

 

The problem went away when I pointed out that there was no water or sewage systems connected and that the house was therefore not a rateable hereditament under the Rating Act.  I also made a formal complaint to the council regarding their breach of site safety, and entering the site without authorisation.  They half agreed about the safety thing, but pointed out that they had an implied right of access under common law, in order to carry out their statutory obligations.  At that point I withdrew their implied right of access by formal notice, and informed them that I  would let them know when the property was a rateable hereditament.  I then deliberately withheld getting a potable water supply connected until just before completion, so stopped them getting around a years worth of council tax out of me, purely because their attitude pissed me off.

 

FWIW, our council actually employs people to drive around, looking for part-completed new builds, so that they can levy council tax on them.

Well done!

 

This reminds me of the time a friend had an issue with the DNO. When he moved into his smallholding there was a 250litre immersion heater in the loft, this had 12Kw of plate heaters in it connected to a Horstmann radio teleswitch meter. He informed the utility provider of the readings on move in date and all was well. Soon after moving in he ripped it all out and fitted tanks and pipework for a solid fuel appliance in the kitchen, he had the DNO fit a new meter getting rid of the Horstmann, he told his supplier and that was that... or so he thought. Bills kept on coming in for estimated readings for the Horstmann, which was quite a lot, which he refused to pay and even invited them to come and look at his shiny new board with a single meter.

 

This didn't happen and eventually they said they were going to come and fit a prepay if he didn't pay his bill (he was still sending money for his normal meter amount). As you can no doubt imagine this went on and on, however they were messing with the wrong man here - they were dealing with a seriously expert amateur lawyer with the legal back up of a friend of ours a judge!

 

The DNO were now threatening to get a court order to break in and do these changes, so he went to the sheriff court and took out an interdict against anyone who wanted to get a court order to enter his premises, not only did the sheriff agree, but insisted this was done due to the nature of my friends business. 

 

The DNO now could not get in and could not disconnect his power because he and 1 other property were fed off a single pole transformer and to split them would mean digging up his road - they were stuffed.

 

Eventually the fools at the utility worked it all out and it went away but it is scary how inept the council or local utility etc. is.

[jack]

9 minutes ago, Carrerahill said:

Eventually the fools at the utility worked it all out 

 

They usually do, but you just hope they haven't done any permanent damage (to the situation, your bank balance, or your sanity) by that stage.

[PeterW]

1 hour ago, JSHarris said:

 

If the private road provides access to a property, then the council have an "implied right of access" under common law.  This is the law that allows the postman, utilities, delivery drivers etc to access your land without committing trespass.  Council officers have the same rights of access, unless the owner(s) of the property specifically deny them those rights.

 

As an example, after my debacle with our site being broken into by a council employee, trying to gather evidence that the house was complete enough for council tax to be levied, I issued a notice to the council, backed up with signs around the site, removing the implied right of access for all staff employed by, or contracted by, the council.

 

Ah yes apologies you are correct...! I was treating it as a private path on a property from the description. 

[Stones]

3 hours ago, PeterW said:

 

Private road or one with public access...??

 

Council have no right of access to private property so even if you did build it closer unless they took enforcement action they cannot access your land to prove it...

 

They can:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/part/VII/crossheading/rights-of-entry-for-enforcement-purposes

 

and in Scotland:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/8/part/VI/crossheading/rights-of-entry-for-enforcement-purposes

 

Any person duly authorised in writing by a local planning authority may at any reasonable hour enter any land—

(a)to ascertain whether there is or has been any breach of planning control on the land or any other land;

(b)to determine whether any of the powers conferred on a local planning authority by this Part should be exercised in relation to the land or any other land;

(c)to determine how any such power should be exercised in relation to the land or any other land;

(d)to ascertain whether there has been compliance with any requirement imposed as a result of any such power having been exercised in relation to the land or any other land,

if there are reasonable grounds for entering for the purpose in question

Edited May 18, 2017 by Stones
Add link

[PeterW]

I think it's the first bit that is key there @Stones - duly authorised in writing. I'm not sure if they can just rock up with a tape measure for a wander but I could be wrong ..! Welcome to the minefield of planning legislation ... 

[Stones]

@PeterW In my last employ, I had to have various such authorisations in writing, and they were all printed on my warrant card. In my current employ, the same applies, printed on my ID and in my contract.

 

 

[PeterW]

2 minutes ago, Stones said:

@PeterW In my last employ, I had to have various such authorisations in writing, and they were all printed on my warrant card. In my current employ, the same applies, printed on my ID and in my contract.

 

 

 

Doh ..!! Never considered that ..! 

[Ferdinand]

1 hour ago, PeterW said:

I think it's the first bit that is key there @Stones - duly authorised in writing. I'm not sure if they can just rock up with a tape measure for a wander but I could be wrong ..! Welcome to the minefield of planning legislation ... 

 

It depends on who and what.

 

Eg if they want to visit a rented property to enforce or enter under certain laws notice has to be served on the LL so that they can attend. Quite often things fail because they have cocked up the tick boxes. It is rather like LLs often have Court Claims fail because they have got a form of wording wrong.

 

In any case they may get away with eg a laser measure in such circs, at least to get the enforcement visit authorised.

 

There is a Code Of Practice here, which says 48 hours should be normal, but it is not binding.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/powers-of-entry-code-of-practice

 

There was a vapourware review under the Coalition which removed a small number of powers of entry. Apparently a Commercial or a Private Landlord can no longer enter premises in order to recover fraudulently obtained goods under a 1737 Act for example.

 

(Add: being slightly too cynical. It seems the review reduced the number of Powers of Entry in Legislation from 1337 to 912, which excludes all the assumed ones eg where the RSPCA have been piggybacking on police powers of entry for decades).

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/powers-of-entry

 

F

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by Ferdinand

[Ferdinand]

Just to help @PeterW sleep easy tonight, here is the list of 786 Powers of Entry from Primary Legislation:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/98389/primary-powers-entry.csv/preview

 

and here is the list of 554 Powers of Entry from Secondary Legislation:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/98391/secondary-powers-entry.csv/preview

 

This is old data (2011) but the best I can find.

 

Peter will be delighted to know that the Outer Space Act 1986 allows them to inspect any of his neighbours who are from another planet:

 

Quote

s5 power of inspection of licenced premises (licensing of the SoS compliance with the international obligations with respect to the launching and operation of space objects and the carrying on of other activities in outer space.

 

F

[PeterW]