Drawings and errors

[Nic]

So hypothetically

plans go in and are approved and you build your new home to exactly the size of the drawings are that have been approved. However the scale the neighbours house is slightly out ( on the drawings ) so in fact your building now looks a bit taller than shown on the plans in comparison to its neighbours, what’s the deal ? 
is this an issue that is likely to be pick up? 

obviously architect has draw the height of the neighbours house incorrectly but you have built the new house to the size of the drawing that was approved 

 

hypothetically what do we think planning would do, would they know, as after planning  it’s all building regulations isn’t it ? Obviously they could make you take it all down what else might happen 

[FuerteStu]

If your drawings include measurements and they were approved, I don't think they can disagree with you building it to drawing. 

 

It was after all, approved. 

[nod]

The scale of the original submission in comparison to your neighbors is often incorrect As long as the dimensions of what’s built are the same as the drawings Your fine 

 

Our neighbor pointed out that the house is much further back than the planning permission drawing 

But there is a measurement from the curb to the West corner of the house 

Which set out from

He stated that the drawing shows the two houses inline 

[IanR]

I reckon that could be serious. In an urban area Relative height to neighbouring properties is more important than measured ridge height.

Not sure what the LPA could do, but I suspect they could void the planning. But, they'd only do so if it's materially different and if they would have rejected the application had it been drawn correctly.

Check the Architect's PI insurance.

Edited January 5 by IanR

[DevilDamo]

Are there physical stated dimensions between the existing and proposed dwellings? If not and there are only dimensions for the new dwelling and it is those that have been built to, then fine and no issue.

[saveasteading]

34 minutes ago, IanR said:

Check the Architect's PI insurance.

An Architect, capital A, should have the skill to establish the size of the neighbouring property, even approximately.

They should also have the knowledge that it is important to give accurate representation of the relevant surroundings...otherwise why even show it?

Anything else is deceiving the planners, whether intentionally or not.

 

In real life, it isn't likely to be pulled down but would require a re-submission at the very least, modification of the height as likely.

 

So if this theoretical building was being constructed right now, it might be best to pause and discuss it.

If it hadn't been started then get new permission  by discussion with planners and accurate drawings.

And get the Architect to resolve it all free of charge.

[joe90]

When I was fighting fir my planning permission the LPA quoted next door as being “X” meters high (dormer bungalow) after extensive works and I questioned it, my builder and I went around with a very long piece of wood (when they were out)and we estimated it was 1200 m (4ft) higher than their plans with the LPA, however I was not fussed and they dropped that argument (and I won anyway 🖕). Frankly I would crack on if they passed your plans.

[ETC]

1 hour ago, IanR said:

I reckon that could be serious. In an urban area Relative height to neighbouring properties is more important than measured ridge height.

Not sure what the LPA could do, but I suspect they could void the planning. But, they'd only do so if it's materially different and if they would have rejected the application had it been drawn correctly.

Check the Architect's PI insurance.

Rubbish. If the height of a neighbouring house was critical to obtaining planning permission it would have been set out as a condition not merely relying on an elevation which may or may not be correct.

 

Lol @ PII - what good will checking the PII do?

[ETC]

49 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

An Architect, capital A, should have the skill to establish the size of the neighbouring property, even approximately.

They should also have the knowledge that it is important to give accurate representation of the relevant surroundings...otherwise why even show it?

Anything else is deceiving the planners, whether intentionally or not.

 

In real life, it isn't likely to be pulled down but would require a re-submission at the very least, modification of the height as likely.

 

So if this theoretical building was being constructed right now, it might be best to pause and discuss it.

If it hadn't been started then get new permission  by discussion with planners and accurate drawings.

And get the Architect to resolve it all free of charge.

Scaremongering.

[IanR]

2 minutes ago, ETC said:

 it would have been set out as a condition 

 

It will be set as a condition. Ie. Built in line with submitted drawings, no's xxx, xxx

 

No need for a separate condition.

[ETC]

47 minutes ago, IanR said:

 

It will be set as a condition. Ie. Built in line with submitted drawings, no's xxx, xxx

 

No need for a separate condition.

Unless the elevation is dimensioned it won’t be enforceable and a separate condition stating a height requirement will be required.

[IanR]

1 hour ago, ETC said:

Unless the elevation is dimensioned it won’t be enforceable and a separate condition stating a height requirement will be required.

 

As neither of us know what's in the drawings or written in the Design & Access statement, we can only surmise, hence me using "could", "not sure", "I suspect".

 

What I don't get is:

 

2 hours ago, ETC said:

Rubbish.

 

2 hours ago, ETC said:

Lol 

 

2 hours ago, ETC said:

Scaremongering.

 

It's rude/arrogant and unnecessarily stifles contribution.

 

You'll give architects a bad name.

[ETC]

24 minutes ago, IanR said:

 

As neither of us know what's in the drawings or written in the Design & Access statement, we can only surmise, hence me using "could", "not sure", "I suspect".

 

What I don't get is:

 

 

 

 

It's rude/arrogant and unnecessarily stifles contribution.

 

You'll give architects a bad name.

I think you need to read the post (properly) and all the replies - if the OP has a drawing where the next door elevation is drawn slightly smaller than in reality AND has fully dimensioned his proposal AND there is no condition attached to the approval referring to having to tie in with the height of the neighbouring property then the OP shouldn’t be concerned - it has been built in accordance with the approval. Context drawings are there for one reason - context and unless they are required to establish critical dimensions are for illustrative purposes only.

 

And I have no idea what checking an architects PII will accomplish.

[IanR]

10 minutes ago, ETC said:

I think you need to read the post (properly) and all the replies

? OP's not made any further replies, and doesn't mention what dimensions are on the drawing, or what conditions. As I said "surmising". No idea why you wish to create an argument out of attempts to give the OP some feedback. Not wishing to trash the thread any further, so will bid you good night.

[Gus Potter]

Hi all..

 

It's always best to play off a straight bat.

 

Often for the price a Client is willing to pay it is just not possible to show enough of all the detail on drawings or do the survey time.

 

I get around this by including photgraphs on my planning drawings. 

 

Now I know that this is not the traditional approach but it stops a lot of folk getting in a bit of a " ...."

 

 

 

 

[saveasteading]

4 hours ago, ETC said:

Scaremongering.

I wouldn't scaremonger.

We don't know the situation which is stated as theoretical.

If it is likely to be permitted , then be honest with the planners. 

Why has the neighbouring house been shown too small?  Deliberately or in error? 

 

 

[saveasteading]

 

I wouldn't scaremonger.

 

In fact, for anyone inclined to ignore the risk I can advise that I had a job stopped for 3 months due to an error on one drawing that was part of the approved package.

A different architect, engaged only for planning, but the risk fell to us.

10 (approved) drawings showed one thing, and one differed and nobody had noticed.

So £1/2M spent and the job stopped because neighbours saw their chance to stop it.

 

We had to reapply for  planning, have on site neighbours' meetings and all sorts. and then  it went to committee (where it was approved unanimously).

 

for these 3 months the job stood  still, in the weather, with no work allowed.

 

It isn't trivial and it isn't scaremongering.

[saveasteading]

17 hours ago, ETC said:

Unless the elevation is dimensioned it won’t be enforceable

Yes, it can, if grossly out.

There will be a large amount of leeway for the approximation of scaling but, for example,  a 5m eave on the neighbouring house that is drawn as as 6m would be seen as misleading.

[ETC]

Context drawings should and are purely illustrative and as I said before are not enforceable unless used as a means to indicate a critical relationship between buildings. The OP didn’t state that this was the case - hence not critical.

 

Where an application is approved the presumption is that the approving authority have completed due diligence on the submitted application documents and that any misinterpretation of submitted documents is a risk the approving authority and not the applicant takes.

 

The thing to remember is that an application will be assessed in relation to relevant policy and on its own individual merits. While showing context can be important - in a terrace or to illustrate impact a proposal will have on the environment - unless the relationships between buildings is critical contextual drawings should be taken by the assessing authority as illustrative only and assessed as such.

 

Just to illustrate my point of view that the assessing authority should carry due diligence before issuing an approval I offer the following.

 

An assessing and enforcing authority had a case recently where an applicant was asked to submit an additional set of documents to be approved. The documents were submitted but had been amended to include an additional element of the proposed development.

 

While the assessing officer had completed a complete review of the proposal and had carried out due diligence the documents that were issued were approved with the additional element of the proposed development. The assessing authority have since discovered this and have reluctantly decided that there is very little that it can do. 

[saveasteading]

54 minutes ago, ETC said:

as I said before are not enforceable

I clearly should have had your advice for the example I gave, as you'd have seen off the planners.

Of course we used all possible arguments in the first instance, including the absence of dimensions.

The day the planner walked on site 'for a word' is vivid in my memory 10 years later.  I showed the approved drawings that coincided with what was under construction. They simply wouldn't have it.

There's more to the reason that the neighbours were so against it, but I can't go there.

But the only genuine argument was one un-dimensioned drawing.
Perhaps we were always going to get it permitted but 3 months delay is a serious cost as well as worry.

 

We've both said our bits based on different experience and now the OP can make a  hypothetical decision for that hypothetical building.

[Mr Punter]

If there are buildings near the proposed scheme and the relative height of them and the proposal may be contentious it is worth getting them included in a Total Station survey.  The cost is fairly low and they are invaluable for designing in context, as well as setting out, daylighting, Party Wall matters, landscaping, flood risk, drainage and 3d visualisations.  Many architects will ask for this before they begin their design in earnest.

[Nic]

17 hours ago, IanR said:

? OP's not made any further replies, and doesn't mention what dimensions are on the drawing, or what conditions. As I said "surmising". No idea why you wish to create an argument out of attempts to give the OP some feedback. Not wishing to trash the thread any further, so will bid you good night.

There are no actual measurements on the drawing. Just dotted line to indicate the neighbours building and the obvious scale of the plan. 

[IanR]

3 minutes ago, Nic said:

There are no actual measurements on the drawing. Just dotted line to indicate the neighbours building and the obvious scale of the plan. 

 

Is that a dotted line for the outline of the neighbours building?

 

Or a dotted leader line from the roof of the neighbours building towards your new roof line? ie. is the intention of the drawing to show your ridge similar to the neighbours.

 

If the former, you'll likely to be OK, unless the scale of the neighbours is substantially different from reality.

[MortarThePoint]

23 hours ago, Nic said:

so in fact your building now looks a bit taller than shown on the plans in comparison to its neighbours

 

How much are we talking about? <300mm?

 

What about eave heights, or are they not relevant?

Edited January 6 by MortarThePoint

[ToughButterCup]

On 05/01/2024 at 18:22, Nic said:

 ...

your building now looks a bit taller than shown on the plans in comparison to its neighbours

...

 

Make yourself a calendar 1460 days long. (+1)

 

Put it on the wall.

 

Every morning, cross one more day off

 

On the 1462nd, take your partner out for a slap up meal. The 4 year rule wins again.

 

In the meantime worry about whether Donald Trump will be re-elected. Or about the price of fish.

 

Cross this bridge when the letter arrives. We'll still be here to help. 

 

Happy New Year. Ian