How accurate do we need to follow planning outlines?

[dan_cup]

So the back story is that planning has been submitted and approved on a rear and side extension on 1930s semi.

 

wording from recommendation report;

 

This application seeks permission to erect a wrap-around side and rear extension to create an extended kitchen/diner, utility room, WC and store. The existing garage to the side and utility room to the rear would be demolished to accommodate the extension. To the rear the proposal would measure 3.2m in depth to align with the rear of the adjoining property's extension. The width would measure approximately 9.5m along the rear elevation, with the width of the side extension measuring 2.2m (narrower than the existing garage)

 

The drawings state that;

 'extension to follow line of adjacent building' where the neighbours have already built a rear extension.

 

Ive measured this out and my neighbours extension is 3.3m.

 

My question is

a) do I have to obey one or the other?

b) can I therefore employ some wiggle room to accommodate an internal width of 3.1m in the kitchen (to fit 3 x 600 unit and 2 x 650 corner units) plus the external block work? 

so by my reckoning that would be 3450mm.

 

Who would be the people to spot this and say no, that extends too far?

 

trying to plot the kitchen dimensions and thus the best layout before anything is built seems a bit of guess work.

 

Thanks in advance.

[nod]

No planner is going to come down with a tape measure These things usually come to light when a neighbor complains Your pretty safe to do as they have told you 

 Follow your neighbors line 

[DevilDamo]

The external dimension of your extension can match the external dimension of your neighbours’ extension. If you want more, submit a Section 73/Variation of Condition application.

[Alan Ambrose]

Yeah, it’s an interesting question. How accurate do you have to match the plans? To +-mm? No that would be silly. To +- cm? Also mostly silly - complain to a brickie that he’s out by a cm? I don’t think so. To +- 10cm then? Seems reasonable. Same question also applies to ground levels, ridge heights etc - although ‘flat ground’ (depending on the size of the area) could I think vary by 20-30cm, and still be ‘flat’. These are my guesses anyway.

[Conor]

1 hour ago, Alan Ambrose said:

Yeah, it’s an interesting question. How accurate do you have to match the plans? To +-mm? No that would be silly. To +- cm? Also mostly silly - complain to a brickie that he’s out by a cm? I don’t think so. To +- 10cm then? Seems reasonable. Same question also applies to ground levels, ridge heights etc - although ‘flat ground’ (depending on the size of the area) could I think vary by 20-30cm, and still be ‘flat’. These are my guesses anyway.

That's what my architect said when I phoned him in a panic that our house was 150mm too high. His view is that anything within the dimensions of a concrete block were acceptable. I still dropped the ridge beam by 100mm tho!

[dan_cup]

Thank you everyone, that is some comfort reading that. Ive always been a bit literal so to speak.  First time taking on such a project and not up to speed with the accuracies of things!

 

I do like the idea of +/- 100mm however 😀

[Redoctober]

11 hours ago, nod said:

These things usually come to light when a neighbor complains Your pretty safe to do as they have told you 

 Follow your neighbors line 

 

Exactly this - a friend, local to us currently building had a very similar issue these past few months. The neighbour complained that he believed the standalone garage ridge height was higher than it should have been given the plans. Planning came out and were satisfied it wasn't BUT found the garage footprint was actually 1 metre further to the Left / Right than it should have been.

 

There was a genuine possibiilty that the garage had to be taken down and "shifted" back a metre - Thankfully, for them, the matter was resolved by a further "amendment" to the plans and a much reduced cost - it caused 3 months of delays mind

 

So, as @Nod says, you should be OK providing your neighbour is either on board or unaware! 

[dan_cup]

51 minutes ago, Redoctober said:

 

Exactly this - a friend, local to us currently building had a very similar issue these past few months. The neighbour complained that he believed the standalone garage ridge height was higher than it should have been given the plans. Planning came out and were satisfied it wasn't BUT found the garage footprint was actually 1 metre further to the Left / Right than it should have been.

 

There was a genuine possibiilty that the garage had to be taken down and "shifted" back a metre - Thankfully, for them, the matter was resolved by a further "amendment" to the plans and a much reduced cost - it caused 3 months of delays mind

 

So, as @Nod says, you should be OK providing your neighbour is either on board or unaware! 

 

Yea might be worth just actually asking them if they'd be ok with it.  need to discuss party wall with them anyway.  still undecided how close we can go to their extension. looks like they have built back from the centre line by about 75-100mm

 

[Pocster]

Accuracy ; what’s that ?

I walked my build perimeter out - said “ that’ll do “ - “ near enough “ .

I then added 0.5m width to the build . I then went 0.5m higher than the plans .

Enforcement officer was called by neighbors regarding height . As officer knew nothing about the build I told him I had added ufh and the insulation had increased the build height .

Problem solved .

Tape measures stretch in the heat as does my stride .

[Nick Thomas]

5 hours ago, Alan Ambrose said:

Yeah, it’s an interesting question. How accurate do you have to match the plans? To +-mm? No that would be silly. To +- cm? Also mostly silly - complain to a brickie that he’s out by a cm? I don’t think so. To +- 10cm then? Seems reasonable. Same question also applies to ground levels, ridge heights etc - although ‘flat ground’ (depending on the size of the area) could I think vary by 20-30cm, and still be ‘flat’. These are my guesses anyway.

 

Something I was wondering the other day - when you contract someone to do work, does / should that contract include a schedule of acceptable tolerances? 

[DevilDamo]

21 minutes ago, Nick Thomas said:

should that contract include a schedule of acceptable tolerances?

The works should be built in accordance with the approved drawings. There are no standard or allowable tolerances. If the client discuss and agrees such tolerances with the contractor, then that is down to them.

[Pocster]

17 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

The works should be built in accordance with the approved drawings. There are no standard or allowable tolerances. If the client discuss and agrees such tolerances with the contractor, then that is down to them.

My planning at the time did allow a build footprint to have upto a 1m tolerance - assuming of course you stayed on your land !

[DevilDamo]

1 hour ago, Pocster said:

My planning at the time did allow a build footprint to have upto a 1m tolerance - assuming of course you stayed on your land !

Well that’s a first and not advice I’d give anybody.

[Pocster]

11 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

Well that’s a first and not advice I’d give anybody.

Yeah ; it wasn’t advice - just the way I roll 😊👍

[Pocster]

1 hour ago, Pocster said:

My planning at the time did allow a build footprint to have upto a 1m tolerance - assuming of course you stayed on your land !

Actually perhaps I imagined it as a planning rule . Anyway my build footprint moved and grew and no one checked .

[Alan Ambrose]

>>> our house was 150mm too high

 

Yeah, that's also interesting - measuring from GL? Officially, I think that can be the highest GL near to the building. But what happens when you scrape the topsoil off - the obvious GL vanishes. And ... actual GL from to some datum isn't specified on my planning docs - or on any I've seen.

 

As I'm pushed on levels for drainage, my SEs suggested pushing up the obvious GL (and therefore FFL) by 0.4m. Who knows?

[MAB]

One of my neighbours checked the footprint of his new rear kitchen extension AFTER the foundations had been excavated and filled with concrete and found the rear depth/projection was 0.5 metre more than the approved plans.

As expected Building Control were not concerned (ie. only interested in Regs) and local Planning Dept said to go ahead as long as he consulted adjacent neighbours about it and confirmed that they did not object to the extra 0.5m....which luckily they were fine about it...much to builders relief! The kitchen design did have to be slightly re-jigged though to use the extra space!

Edited September 4 by MAB

[David001]

When we were buying our current house we discovered that the owners had not signed off building work which they had done in 2012.  Our solicitor required the owners to get the work signed off for our peace of mind and so that the documentation will be complete whenever we come to sell.  So the owners had to go on their knees in penitence to the county council.  The planning department said they would need to inspect the work.  They came and found that the work that was done not only infringed the terms of the planning permission which was given but it also infringed terms which had been introduced after the owners had applied for the planning permission!  So the owners then had the choice of either quickly getting contractors in to modify the work that was done to bring the building up to the planning officer's requirements, or lose us, their buyers, and probably other potential buyers also.  They chose to get the modifications done.  And went through hell!   For example, one of the completely unexpected things they were required to do was fit a fire-extinguishing sprinkler system throughout the whole house, which meant taking up all the carpets on the first floor and making holes in the ceilings above the first floor so that the pipes could be laid to sprinkler points above each floor.  They also had to prepare a huge space inside what was a well-shelved lean-to for a huge tank in which to store the standby water-supply for the sprinklers.  So, the moral is: keep completely to the planning permission that has been given, or reach a new written agreement with the council.

[mr rusty]

Every drawing I have submitted for the few (fairly small beer) planning applications I have put in has had "all dimensions are +/- 100mm" marked on. Never been queried.

[Conor]

4 hours ago, Alan Ambrose said:

>>> our house was 150mm too high

 

Yeah, that's also interesting - measuring from GL? Officially, I think that can be the highest GL near to the building. But what happens when you scrape the topsoil off - the obvious GL vanishes. And ... actual GL from to some datum isn't specified on my planning docs - or on any I've seen.

 

As I'm pushed on levels for drainage, my SEs suggested pushing up the obvious GL (and therefore FFL) by 0.4m. Who knows?

Was in comparison to the levels we set in the planning drawings (AOD/MSL). The GPS unit we used for setting out wasn't calibrated properly and I failed to survey one of the original bench marks so didn't notice the issue until I got the laser out and measured from one of the original survey benchmarks and noticed the extra 150mm. XY we're out by 300mm as well. Too late now to worry. 

Edited September 4 by Conor

[G and J]

Ok just in case it's of interest......we met with our architects last week to finalise detail as we move into BRegs and Discharge of conditions. Long story, but we have added block skin to back render on ground floor and it's our preference that the upper storey cladding overhangs the ground floor render........question was "can we effectively extend the cladding into the airspace beyond our planning footprint" - we were talking 31mm on each elevation.

 

Now caveat to our situation is that we are on a narrow site  (1m from a "very intetested" neighbour), but our architects view (local, working relationship with LPA) was that pre covid, he may have seen one enforcement action a year, he currently has 8 on the go, with a number of those needing to go back into planning.......his advice was "do we want the added hassle?"

[DevilDamo]

It’s standard practice for the cladding to oversail the masonry line anyway as it’ll provide a drip.

[G and J]

It also looks the part!

[torre]

59 minutes ago, G and J said:

upper storey cladding

 

59 minutes ago, G and J said:

1m from a "very intetested" neighbour

On the building regs side, if your build, especially mentioning cladding, is encroaching closer than a meter to the boundary don't be surprised if you need to prove it's non-combustible, prevents spread of fire

[G and J]

11 minutes ago, torre said:

 

On the building regs side, if your build, especially mentioning cladding, is encroaching closer than a meter to the boundary don't be surprised if you need to prove it's non-combustible, prevents spread of fire

👍