Drawings and errors

[Nic]

2 hours ago, IanR said:

 

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.

So 

 

it shows a dotted line of outside of house then a dotted line labelled ridge line of neighbouring house  then the draw of the planned house with another label saying proposed ridge line of new property. 
to me it is clearly trying to demonstrate the difference it will be 

 

to answer the other question, need to accurately measure the neighbours house, ((which I assumed had been done by the architects))

but I reckon the ‘error is about 400mm taller than shown on the drawing !! 
 

Build not started 

[Nic]

38 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

 

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 

Thanks as always … don’t get me started on Trump 🤦🏻‍♂️

[IanR]

4 hours ago, Nic said:

then a dotted line labelled ridge line of neighbouring house  then the draw of the planned house with another label saying proposed ridge line of new property. 
to me it is clearly trying to demonstrate the difference it will be 

 

That's what I suspected. For me the relative height to the neighbouring house is more important to the planning permission than a height above ground level.

Since you haven't started the build yet, I'd bring this up with the Planning Officer unless you are happy with the risk. It would be too much of a risk for me. Hopefully the LPA just acknowledge the error and allow you to continue but they may request a material amendment which they may refuse.

Can you still build what you want with a 400mm lower ridge? That would be your fall back if they refused the correct ridge height relationship to the neighbour.

 

Assuming the Architect was responsible for the survey and not working off a 3rd party survey, paid for by you, then it's their mistake to be corrected at their cost. Had you occurred a loss due to the mistake that's when the Architects PII would come in, but I assume at the moment you've not incurred any losses. If you continue with the build with knowledge of the error and then incur a loss due to the LPA asking for changes, you can no longer rely on the Architect's PII.

Edited January 7 by IanR

[Nic]

4 hours ago, IanR said:

 

That's what I suspected. For me the relative height to the neighbouring house is more important to the planning permission than a height above ground level.

Since you haven't started the build yet, I'd bring this up with the Planning Officer unless you are happy with the risk. It would be too much of a risk for me. Hopefully the LPA just acknowledge the error and allow you to continue but they may request a material amendment which they may refuse.

Can you still build what you want with a 400mm lower ridge? That would be your fall back if they refused the correct ridge height relationship to the neighbour.

 

Assuming the Architect was responsible for the survey and not working off a 3rd party survey, paid for by you, then it's their mistake to be corrected at their cost. Had you occurred a loss due to the mistake that's when the Architects PII would come in, but I assume at the moment you've not incurred any losses. If you continue with the build with knowledge of the error and then incur a loss due to the LPA asking for changes, you can no longer rely on the Architect's PII.

 

if I build 400mm lower it will be a bungalow not a 1.5 story ( as hip roof) as it is . 
going to confirm the height first . Then go back to the architect’s 

thanks again 

might end up with a basement and that a whole other problem 😁

[BigBub]

I actually remember reading about a case similar to this not too long ago. I have managed to find an article which covered it:

 

https://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/planning/318-planning-features/47278-incorrect-plans-a-strict-approach

 

The application was granted on the condition that the development complied with the plans. As the article mentions, the plans showed the development property as having a lower ridge height than the neighbouring properties. But, if it were built to the approved dimensions, the development property would be higher than both, in one case substantially. In the judge's view the plans showing the relationship to the neighbouring properties were not simply illustrative; they were a material part of the planning decision. The plans should have been capable of implementation and they were not. As a result, the whole permission was not capable of being implemented.

[BigBub]

On 06/01/2024 at 19:22, ToughButterCup said:

 

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 

 

Actually, the 4-year rule has recently been removed from legislation. Now all unlawful developments, including householder related developments, have to go unnoticed for 10 years to then be exempt from enforcement action.

 

[Nic]

18 minutes ago, BigBub said:

I actually remember reading about a case similar to this not too long ago. I have managed to find an article which covered it:

 

https://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/planning/318-planning-features/47278-incorrect-plans-a-strict-approach

 

The application was granted on the condition that the development complied with the plans. As the article mentions, the plans showed the development property as having a lower ridge height than the neighbouring properties. But, if it were built to the approved dimensions, the development property would be higher than both, in one case substantially. In the judge's view the plans showing the relationship to the neighbouring properties were not simply illustrative; they were a material part of the planning decision. The plans should have been capable of implementation and they were not. As a result, the whole permission was not capable of being implemented.

yup that makes it perfectly clear … if you are showing relationships to nearby roof heights then get them right ! 
 

 

Edited January 11 by Nic

[MpdF]

Good morning. Following on from this thread, I have a similar issue here in Ringwood. There is a discrepancy with a sectional drawing. The ground level of the existing building and curtilage is incorrect on the drawing, although the surrounding house eaves and ridges are correct. However, on the approval - (decision notice) the sectional drawings are not included. There is only elevational and plan drawings with no ridge heights or FFL. Nor is there any conditions that mention ridge or FFL.

The decision notice states - 

 

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed at the end of this decision notice.
(Reason - For the avoidance of doubt.)

 

 

So my question is, If I was to make adjustments in height to FFL/Ridge, how would this be viewed by enforcement if there are only elevation and plan drawings listed at the end of a decision notice?

 

[Alan Ambrose]

Err, I'm not sure I understand. How can the elevations not implicitly indicate the ridge height? How was the ground level marked so it was incorrect - from a datum level maybe?

 

What kind of adjustments could you make to the ridge wthout affecting the elevations? Are you thinking of bumping the whole house up?

 

I guess as the sectional drawing wasn't mentioned in the decision notice, it is largely irrelevant to the planners.

Edited October 20 by Alan Ambrose