AliG Posted January 11, 2023 Share Posted January 11, 2023 Shockingly badly written article by people who don't know the difference between a building warrant and planning permission. The people claim that they thought they were OK building what they did as they had a warrant. It sounds like the warrant was not for the same building they got planning permission for. I can't tell if they really didn't know this was a problem or not. https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/midlothian-couple-could-forced-demolish-25950076 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProDave Posted January 11, 2023 Share Posted January 11, 2023 It perhaps shows the disjointed system? If you apply for a building warrant, do building control actually check with the planners that what you have drawn for the building warrant matches what you have planning permission for? I read it as the planners told him what alterations he needed to make for it to meet planning policy and instead of doing that he fought it but missed various deadlines. I would never dream of applying for a building warrant for something different to what the planning permissions says, but then most of us understand the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelvin Posted January 11, 2023 Share Posted January 11, 2023 Based on a (expletive deleted) up on our planning and warrant application by our architect that I literally just found out about 10 mins ago I can tell you building control don’t look at what planning has approved…grrrr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveasteading Posted January 11, 2023 Share Posted January 11, 2023 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Kelvin said: building control don’t look at what planning has approved Not bc's concern, even though they tend to be in adjacent offices to the planners. Very different people who couldn't do each others' jobs. The article says they had an Architect. Could be some interesting discussions going on with them. Edited January 11, 2023 by saveasteading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted January 11, 2023 Share Posted January 11, 2023 Even less of a concern for an Approved Inspector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliG Posted January 11, 2023 Author Share Posted January 11, 2023 I found the planning application. The dormer window shown in the picture in the article was not in the planning application. https://planning-applications.midlothian.gov.uk/OnlinePlanning/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P2A98TKVKNQ00 Actually the whole roof bears little relation to the planning drawings. However, in fairness, I cannot see it making a big difference and cannot see why they didn't get retrospective permission, although the house is stupidly out of proportion with the neighbouring houses, but that hasn't really changed with the alterations. Maybe they were enough to just push it over the edge as it does make the roof even larger and more imposing. I find it hard to believe that they did not know what they were doing. The comments on the article read like people think they should sue the council for making a mistake. However, this is due to the article quoting the owner saying the council made a mistake. No mistake was made that I can see. Planning and building control are separate and they had an architect who would have been well aware of this. The cladding and window shapes also are very different to the approval. The materials had to be approved and the cladding was supposed to be natural oak. Ahh, it all becomes clear. The house looks a lot more like the house they applied to build in 2017 which was refused due to being too "bulky" and poor design. https://planning-applications.midlothian.gov.uk/OnlinePlanning/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OT0ULEKVJ9900 Shame the papers couldn't do half an hour of research. Refused plans 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveasteading Posted January 11, 2023 Share Posted January 11, 2023 Good work AliG. It is a common theme 'my house I will do as I please'.' Nobody will make me take it down..' and maybe they won't. In plan it looks like a supermarket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterW Posted January 11, 2023 Share Posted January 11, 2023 Looks like a doctors surgery !!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProDave Posted January 11, 2023 Share Posted January 11, 2023 So they were refused the original plan, got permission for a different design, then built the original refused one. I would certainly NOT risk an awful lot of money playing that silly game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliG Posted January 11, 2023 Author Share Posted January 11, 2023 I just looked again, the plans show "soft landscaping" there is literally none on the Google view. My house is large, but the houses in the area are large. Most houses in this area are 3-400sq metres and I am around 900. The house here covers a ground area of 700sq metres according to the planning report (this includes the overhangs at the front). This makes it more than 10x larger than the surrounding houses. You can see 5 houses across its width behind and it is more than twice their depth. Despite being "single storey" due to its size it is at least as tall. I don't know how it got permission. It looks ridiculous. Taking rough measurements from the site plan. The house should be 620 sq metres (I excluded the front overhangs) and the site around 1650sq metres. However, I thought the house looked bigger than this percentage of the area when I eyeballed it. I took some measurements from Google Maps and the house appears to be roughly 4m deeper than shown on the plans. It is nearer the rear boundary and considerably nearer the road. I get closer to 760sq metres than the 620 shown on the plans. The house is approx 24m deep, compared to 19.5m shown on the plans and referenced in the planning report (full depth including the overhangs). I am sure Google Map measurements are not fully accurate, but the width measurement is correct comparing the map and plans. Note the position of the house relative to next door versus the plans. The rear is level with next door's garage and the front much further forward than shown on the plans- From reading the story, the council just seems to want them to adjust the roof shape. I bet they haven't even realised how much deeper the house is than approved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twice round the block Posted January 11, 2023 Share Posted January 11, 2023 I can't believe someone didn't query this when the ground works went in. Two departments working on parallel universes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProDave Posted January 11, 2023 Share Posted January 11, 2023 1 hour ago, AliG said: The house here covers a ground area of 700sq metres according to the planning report (this includes the overhangs at the front). This makes it more than 10x larger than the surrounding houses. You can see 5 houses across its width behind and it is more than twice their depth. Despite being "single storey" due to its size it is at least as tall. I don't know how it got permission. It looks ridiculous. I am not sure why you would want to build such a large house there, on a main road? A better use would have been for 5 smaller houses matching the plot widths of the houses it backs onto? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eandg Posted January 11, 2023 Share Posted January 11, 2023 2 hours ago, AliG said: I just looked again, the plans show "soft landscaping" there is literally none on the Google view. My house is large, but the houses in the area are large. Most houses in this area are 3-400sq metres and I am around 900. The house here covers a ground area of 700sq metres according to the planning report (this includes the overhangs at the front). This makes it more than 10x larger than the surrounding houses. You can see 5 houses across its width behind and it is more than twice their depth. Despite being "single storey" due to its size it is at least as tall. I don't know how it got permission. It looks ridiculous. Taking rough measurements from the site plan. The house should be 620 sq metres (I excluded the front overhangs) and the site around 1650sq metres. However, I thought the house looked bigger than this percentage of the area when I eyeballed it. I took some measurements from Google Maps and the house appears to be roughly 4m deeper than shown on the plans. It is nearer the rear boundary and considerably nearer the road. I get closer to 760sq metres than the 620 shown on the plans. The house is approx 24m deep, compared to 19.5m shown on the plans and referenced in the planning report (full depth including the overhangs). I am sure Google Map measurements are not fully accurate, but the width measurement is correct comparing the map and plans. Note the position of the house relative to next door versus the plans. The rear is level with next door's garage and the front much further forward than shown on the plans- From reading the story, the council just seems to want them to adjust the roof shape. I bet they haven't even realised how much deeper the house is than approved. They are clearly tasteless morons but looks like they delivered it at £833/m2 so can't be that daft! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveasteading Posted January 11, 2023 Share Posted January 11, 2023 2 hours ago, AliG said: Google Map measurements are not fully accurate I am constantly dubious then surprised how accurate they are. 46 minutes ago, twice round the block said: Two departments working on parallel universes I have once seen a planner on site. Measuring is not their thing anyway. I twice in 300 projects, was questioned on the matter. Once was an erroneous gut feeling from a nature officer. Another was a neighbours' complaint which stopped the job for 6 weeks. Fortunately we were able to demonstrate / convince them. So only someone pointing these discrepancies out is likely to get it attended to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveasteading Posted January 11, 2023 Share Posted January 11, 2023 5 minutes ago, eandg said: £833/m2 I don't think so Some other game going on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack Posted January 12, 2023 Share Posted January 12, 2023 14 hours ago, saveasteading said: I don't think so Some other game going on. Pretty clear from the background digging @AliG did that they knew a lot more than they were letting on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveasteading Posted January 12, 2023 Share Posted January 12, 2023 14 hours ago, saveasteading said: Some other game going on. Of course it's simple. Scottish warrant fee is based on the construction cost estimate. Low cost, low fee. Surprising this wasn't picked up, because guide costs are published. Maybe just looked a lot of cash. And if now built bigger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blooda Posted January 12, 2023 Share Posted January 12, 2023 I read this in the Daily Fail yesterday an even more confusing read. Couple face having to tear down their dream £600,000 mansion | Daily Mail Online A bit of googling finds this article from 2020 - none of which was in the Daily Mail [or other places] Planning breach Gorebridge house could be demolished | Edinburgh News (scotsman.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliG Posted January 12, 2023 Author Share Posted January 12, 2023 Well found @Blooda The Scotsman story seems a lot more accurate. Amazing how people can get a friendly journalist to spin a story the way they’d like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveasteading Posted January 12, 2023 Share Posted January 12, 2023 1 minute ago, AliG said: a friendly journalist Not many of them are proper professionals these days, esp in local papers and even more so online stuff. Easy to hand over a ready made story. The Mail one has been filched from the other articles I think. In the Scotsman the council appear to be robust. Planning enforcement is usually half a person these days, and they are reluctant. But the councillors will likely insist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMagic Posted January 12, 2023 Share Posted January 12, 2023 The quote in the Daily Fail kinda gives it away tho.. 'In 2019 I was issued with a building warrant and a letter to confirm I could proceed with the construction. My builders built the house according to this warrant plan with a few changes made along the way for which we submitted retrospective planning.' I agree with all the sentiment above - a) looks like the local doctors/community hall b) its awful c) it's huge d) not a scrap of nature in sight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelvin Posted January 12, 2023 Share Posted January 12, 2023 It’s really clear in the documentation you get what you need to do if you are going to make any changes. We made some non-material variations to ours after gaining planning approval, spoke to the planning officer who said they were fine, submitted the changes and paid the £200 fee. It seems to me they reckoned they could get away with building what they originally wanted and once built the council would accept a retrospective planning amendment. It’s right and proper this was refused. I’m surprised such a large monstrosity ever got approval in the first place. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack Posted January 12, 2023 Share Posted January 12, 2023 5 hours ago, Kelvin said: ... and once built the council would accept a retrospective planning amendment. It’s right and proper this was refused. It beggars belief they would spend this amount of money on something that failed planning when it was smaller, based on the expectation that they'd get retrospective planning permission. Either they were badly misled by someone, or they chanced their arm, the council got involved (off their own bat or via a complaint), and now they're going to have to pay. 5 hours ago, Kelvin said: I’m surprised such a large monstrosity ever got approval in the first place. Ditto. It's genuinely unbelievable that even the original version could have been allowed, and they've built something a lot larger. As for tarmaccing literally the entire front and back gardens... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catrionag Posted January 13, 2023 Share Posted January 13, 2023 I've driven past this a few times now - I thought it was a new public building of some sort! Somehow it's more hideous and out of place in-person. Having dealt with Midlothian's planning & building control department for the past year or so I'm completely unsurprised that they wouldn't have picked up on this. They are seriously understaffed - haven't had a BCO out even once since we broke ground. Genuinely curious if they'll actually be forced to tear this thing down or if they'll manage to solve it with a few banknotes in the pocket of the right person. 1 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