So our rear neighbour has a large but odd shaped garden… last Christmas (23rd Dec) he submitted a plan to knock down bios house and build 3 houses… Obviously a bit of issue with timing as it was XMAS…

Loads of the plans were just wrong… and contradicted the planning application letter… but the plans were drawn up to make it difficult to see this.  Weirdly the architects also wrote that they had “rescaled” his original application from 4 houses to 3 before even putting in an application…

Eventually the planning was refused due to a 300yr old oak tree … and putting traffic lights in on a residential road to let them access….

Now come holiday’s there is a new application….

Still lots of deliberate errors (the tree has magically moved on the plan) and contradictions but now most of the measurements all say “approximately”…. its knock down 1 house/dormer and build 2x 4 bed houses…

On our side most of the bungalows (4/6) have rear extensions…. but all have been limited to a ridge height of 5m65… however the new builds are 8m35….

The last plans the house at the bottom (of an 18m garden) was less than a meter from the boundary fence… when the floor plans were rotated to the actual they basically put in a door that would open and touch the fence…

There are lots of unsubstantiated claims… that this passes the light test… which it might just if they deliberately ignore the extensions… and that the height is sympathetic to surrounding dwellings etc.

They for some reason used an old plan without extensions for the current and then a new plan with some partial extensions for the new plan, then they drew a section at the longest point but then the section line on the plan is in the wrong place…

The biggest upshot of this is the house will be SSE from us… at no point in the day will the garden get direct light (based on 21st March) .. according to the sun incl and azimuth .. not to mentioned we will have what would be a huge 8m35 (+chimney) towering over the garden…

The fire dept has issued a pass for it… which is strange since drives over 45m need to provide access yet the drive is too narrow and 90m….

The main question:

How do I respond when the plan is plainly incorrect and doesn’t match the application letter and contains the word approximate numerous times…  I have the local guidance and core strategy etc. that this clearly breaks … I have no idea what the fire service reviewed but I suspect from reading it was only the construction material.. etc.

When I compare this to the extension applications that were made either side it’s clearly lacking in quality and accuracy..BUT MIANLY IT’S MISLEADING. and I didn’t even think to object to either of the neighbours… (or the 100 new 3/4 bed homes at the end of the road)

Copy out what you just wrote and email it to the planners.

I’d phone and talk to the planning officer dealign with it. I did this once and not only was he very helpful in explaining how to object he even suggested things I could use for an objection that I hadn’t even considered. The application was eventually refused 🙂

Indeed, but formulate it into a series of points with comments alongside.  That way it reads better and allows you to make every point one that needs to be considered/addressed.

I’d phone and talk

This, definitely. It will obviously vary from authority to authority how receptive your officers are, but if you also have a conversation with the individual councillors from your ward, that may help get the message across.

The fact it was rejected first time around means that the officers should be all over it this time, and already familiar with some of the sensitivities.

The fire dept has issued a pass for it… which is strange since drives over 45m need to provide access yet the drive is too narrow and 90m….

Find out who handles this for the fire authority and drop them a line as well.

Yep, bullet points and explanations after speaking with planners. (I’d write it then send almost immediately after speaking with them).

My parents had similar.  local councillor found that although they had seen the plans. The builders were working to iteration H which, apparently, doesn’t have to be available for viewing.  So no objections to A but H had moved the buildings, raised the heights, and added 1 more house but no objections to A so all OK.

If the proposed houses are fitted with residential sprinklers then the fire & rescue can approve the scheme with active fire suppression as a compensatory feature for the extended access drive.

Bristol planning officer couldn’t understand the drawings of our ex-neighbours plans.

The elevations roof lines didn’t match up and their opening bathroom window faced directly into my daughters bedroom, which was 2.2m away. They just didn’t get it! We objected so did all of our other neighbours, it was passed for planning. They did all of the ground work and decided to sell up and emigrate. But we had moved by then.

Good luck.

My neighbour has tried calling, emails and yesterday she went and sat there for 2 hours before being told they were not going to discuss and we should submit our written objections.  (She had more time his week but she’s competent.. )

My parents had similar.  local councillor found that although they had seen the plans. The builders were working to iteration H which, apparently, doesn’t have to be available for viewing.  So no objections to A but H had moved the buildings, raised the heights, and added 1 more house but no objections to A so all OK.

This is what worries me… as well as…

The elevations roof lines didn’t match up and their opening bathroom window faced directly into my daughters bedroom, which was 2.2m away. They just didn’t get it! We objected so did all of our other neighbours, it was passed for planning. They did all of the ground work and decided to sell up and emigrate. But we had moved by then.

The application says “the dwelling is positioned” (to prevent overlooking) and it appears so (even though its almost touching the fence) but then when you print out everything and put it together and blow it up you notice a tiny little North Arrow showing the house is actually rotated so East is at the top…. then non of the scales match the “approximately”….

It very much sounds to me that there are iterations like one hundredth describes…

and there is some iteration ( and not the intended one) where the planning application matches some plans…

The bit I don’t really get is I’d thought there would be some sort of accountability for architects… a bit like say an accountant deliberately submits false documents… though I guess it’s notable that the architects are from miles away… I guess I just expect some sort of professionalism… ???

Presently I have a summary of bullets (as suggested) but then I have several pages documenting errors in plans (with pictures) and then documenting when this goes against local planning policies and advisories … (from their own documentation)….

If the proposed houses are fitted with residential sprinklers then the fire & rescue can approve the scheme with active fire suppression as a compensatory feature for the extended access drive.

Ah, that makes sense now….

The planning system can seem skewed towards allowing development. But we managed to get an amendment to a proposal rejected by paying close attention to the Local Plan. (Back story https://m.facebook.com/groups/755099904598803?view=permalink&id=1673521586089959) Given the inconsistencies between the plans and application, I would call the Council planning department to discuss in the first instance. You will need to write the objection clearly referencing which Local Plan policies are breached… it makes the Planning Officer’s life easier. so bullet points is a good idea and keep it concise and relevant the things they can object on (location, character/street scene including height). You should also be able to look for things like has an Tree Report been requested and produced.

I don’t know if it varies from area to area, but last time i gave someone drawings etc for planning , I had to print off a satellite map and put the footprint of the structure on it , to scale as best i could. So that was one document where you could see orientation etc of the build all in one picture

Sounds like he’s got a really shit architect and it’s quite a viable scheme if someone had an iota of an idea of what they were doing.

The planning system can seem skewed towards allowing development.

It is – that’s the basis of the system – a presumption in favour – provided a proposal accords with the adopted Development Plan.

As per the comments above, email the planning officer with your objections – explaining the errors in the plans

Sounds like he’s got a really shit architect and it’s quite a viable scheme if someone had an iota of an idea of what they were doing.

The problem is really the shape of the land.  The land is large enough in area but the shape (mainly triangular) is the issue… this is made more complex because of postcodes .. the existing house actually cuts off access between two adopted roads by it’s fence (their corner is where these two roads would join) but they don’t want to use that access or their houses will be worth a lot less…

The shape of the land is basically down to the original developer who built all our houses and then built his own house in the gap between these and the existing path before the council houses behind.

In my experience (which is quite a bit) I’m amazed the planners have registered an application with errors like that in it. I generally find they are incredibly thorough and will reject apps for the slightest thing.  I had one returned because a bit of text was over the drawing instead of below it. At the very least they make sure drawings are to scale and that windows and doors on the eles match the plans etc..approximate dimensions would never be allowed as they are leaving themselves open to builders deliberately missenterpreting approved drawings and building something that turns out to be rather different.

That’s a lot of ellipses.

I guess the question is if this gets passed then is that it?

Our neighbours one side are convinced this can be fought on, I’m rather of the opinion they will move immediately to knock down the existing house and make it a no return situation.  (But I don’t really know)

In my experience (which is quite a bit) I’m amazed the planners have registered an application with errors like that in it. I generally find they are incredibly thorough and will reject apps for the slightest thing.  I had one returned because a bit of text was over the drawing instead of below it.

<span style=”font-size: 0.8rem;”>I don’t really know anything </span>about the<span style=”font-size: 0.8rem;”> process but I was pretty amazed, largely that it was being allowed with such obvious errors.  You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see the section is in the wrong place and this is before you go into any details.  </span>

TBH, I’d have thought they would simply have told them to go back and submit one without errors.

At the very least they make sure drawings are to scale and that windows and doors on the eles match the plans etc..approximate dimensions would never be allowed as they are leaving themselves open to builders deliberately missenterpreting approved drawings and building something that turns out to be rather different.

Again, I’m pretty dumbstruck…. I’d have expected something that can be built as opposed to what is more a “something like this”… they go into a lot of detail over the surfaces for the drive (which I now found out is down to a legal battle with a neighbour who they previously blocked his gate)… marking this part as “shared access”…

They would ask them to correct the errors and resubmit.  If the plans are vague or misleading then the council are opening themselves up for a legal challenge in the future.

At one time you could ring them up and say can I move one of the windows a foot to the right and they’d just say, yep, thats fine.  Now you have to submit paperwork for a non material amendment and some authorities have deemed even that to be more than non material and will require the whole application to be re-submitted!

Well it was all submitted before my vacation….

A bit worrying is they don’t have time to confirm receipt… which makes me wonder how much time they have to actually read them!

If the plans are vague or misleading then the council are opening themselves up for a legal challenge in the future.

This was my thought…. I just can’t get past the fact the plans are so obviously inaccurate and we are being asked to object to “approximate” and incorrect and lack of evidence.

Lack of evidence for example being they claim to have conducted a daylight test but haven’t submitted it… or anything other than stating the development passes the daylight test.  The fact they moved the tree on the plans etc.

I’m really surprised they were even allowed to continue until it’s done properly.

Both neighbours either side have done loft conversions / rear extensions and the plans have been FAR more detailed than this knocking down house and building 2…