Should a site specific cross section be included in a standard planning application?

PeachPie

I have just received a further information request in relation to my planning application for a residential house. The council are looking for a site specific cross section which would show the finished floor level as well as the existing and finished ground levels. Also they want this cross section to include the septic tank level.

My question is would it be reasonably to expect that this would have been included in the original application made on our behalf by the architect? The architect wants to charge us additional fees for this work. I suspect that it is not a black and white issue and if people can confirm this I will just go ahead and pay him when the work is done.

I would appreciate guidance on this.

Aard

I would have thought that a section drawing would be included as standard in an application, especially for a new-build.

prewtna

Personally I have never submitted a planning application without at least one Site Section (usually 2). There is nearly always an element of cut / fill that would need to be shown. How would your Agent expect to 'sort out' site levels etc without a section?

This should be standard fare really.

ht9zni1gs28crp

I would imagine any Architect/Technician worth his salt sets his/her levels out from a section to ensure accuracy. This is then relatively easy to add/annotate to include site levels. Bizarre IMHO that they want extra for what is a fundamental part of any design!

PeachPie

Thanks for the responses. A simple cross section was included in the plans submitted with the application. However it just included details on the materials to be used and the following measurements - GL 0000mm (Ground Level, I assume), EL 2240 (First floor level?) and RL 7000mm (Roof Level).

Without saying too much there is a trust issue in my relationship with the architect hence I am seeking what I assume to be independent opinions on the matter.

I have not yet seen the proposed response yet as it has not been scanned by the council and I don't want to blindly pay for something that could/should have been included by default, without at least questioning it in an informed manner.

I would welcome any further opinions, to see if there is a consensus or if people have any other advice.

muffler

I very rarely show a detailed cross section unless there is going to be substantial cut/fill involved in the proposal. The planing authority here would not request this as part of any original applications and probably 70% (thats just my estimate from looking at applications online) of the agents would never include this for a "standard" run of the mill site.

BryanF

muffler wrote: »

I very rarely show a detailed cross section unless there is going to be substantial cut/fill involved in the proposal. The planing authority here would not request this as part of any original applications and probably 70% (thats just my estimate from looking at applications online) of the agents would never include this for a "standard" run of the mill site.

2nd that - however, Op is your site sloping ? are the ridge height of the adjoining properties relevant to your application ?

PeachPie

BryanF wrote: »

2nd that - however, Op is your site sloping ? are the ridge height of the adjoining properties relevant to your application ?

The site is on a sloping field. The proposed house is actually on a mini-plateau near the top of the hill. The relative elevation of the house to the surrounding areas makes me think that this is an important factor in determining whether or not it should reasonably have been included. Is it reasonable?

p.s. thanks for all the opinions. I am at a loss and in the dark, reliant largely on what I am told by the arch.

sydthebeat

Is it required for a standard application to be valid..... No.

Would I include it if I was sure it would be am FI issue..... Yes

PeachPie

sydthebeat wrote: »

Is it required for a standard application to be valid..... No.

Would I include it if I was sure it would be am FI issue..... Yes

Very clear answer, thanks.

I guess it is something I will have to discuss with him. I will put it to him that while not mandatory it could still be reasonably expected and see what he says.

I am at the very start of the planning/building process and I think I need to steel myself for plenty more situations/discussion like this.

sinnerboy

It is not a standard requirement to include to site cross section as described. What is "reasonable" will depend on the level of fees agreed i.e. if you have agreed a knock down price it is reasonable that you pay more for this .

PeachPie

sinnerboy wrote: »

It is not a standard requirement to include to site cross section as described. What is "reasonable" will depend on the level of fees agreed i.e. if you have agreed a knock down price it is reasonable that you pay more for this .

I did not seek any knock down on the fees, just paid what was asked.

ht9zni1gs28crp

Begs the question did the Architect even visit the site and then if so why not the foresight or even insight to think Planning wouldn't want to know this information? Especially if height lines would play an important part especially on an elevated site!

PeachPie

Gia Gentle Minefield wrote: »

Begs the question did the Architect even visit the site and then if so why not the foresight or even insight to think Planning wouldn't want to know this information? Especially if height lines would play an important part especially on an elevated site!

The did visit the site a number of times. One of these visits was to select the best site position within the field. This selection (their choice, which we agreed with and are still very happy with) was based on a number of factors such as elevation, light, views, visibility from neighbors, access.

They knew that the house was going to be elevated and spoke to me about the height the ground floor and upstairs windows would be in terms of views of the countryside. They seem to have had (or certainly gave the impression that they had) a clear idea of how elevated they thought the site should be. This however never translated into the application.

I am going to ask what work was required to meet the information request, so I know precisely what I am being charged with.

muffler

Gia Gentle Minefield wrote: »

why not the foresight or even insight to think Planning wouldn't want to know this information?

Have you ever worked with planners?

Trust me, they are all different. A different planner may or may not have looked for that info.

sinnerboy

PeachPie wrote: »

I did not seek any knock down on the fees, just paid what was asked.

Talk to him/her and armed with all the inputs here to form a fresh judgement.
Do you have the right architect? Be prepared to change if not because you will have plenty of time for regrets later.
But - don't dispense with the right person over a relatively small sum ( if it is relatively small)

.

PeachPie

sinnerboy wrote: »

Talk to him/her and armed with all the inputs here to form a fresh judgement.
Do you have the right architect? Be prepared to change if not because you will have plenty of time for regrets later.
But - don't dispense with the right person over a relatively small sum ( if it is relatively small)
.

That sounds like good advice. At this stage the plans are complete and the application has been made, so I don't know if were are able to change arch at this stage (we certainly don't feel we have the time). We are actually happy with the plans.

However as I alluded to earlier there are significant 'trust issues' which has lead me to question if this further information request has resulted from the arch not doing his job to a reasonable standard or is just the planners being thorough.

I will not fall out with him over a few quid though.

ht9zni1gs28crp

muffler wrote: »

Have you ever worked with planners?

Yes.

muffler wrote: »

Trust me, they are all different. A different planner may or may not have looked for that info.

True, some are stuck in the dark ages whilst the new crop are pretty much on the ball and do a good job.

The 'may or may not' phrase is the gamble a lot of submissions I see are taking. The argument then is what are you hiding if you cant furnish as much information as possible at the first design stage/submission. Surely pre-warned is pre-armed. If you cant submit a knowledgable and informative submission then yes of course your wide open for Further Information requests which leads to situations just as the OP has stated.

All of course is my own opinion on the matter.

DOCARCH

Wondering if there is a level survey of the site included in the original application? There should be. If there is, should not be that difficult to draw up site sections?

Possibly site sections being requested if no level survey and/or level survey is not up to scratch?

On a seperate issue, I would have to agree with Muffler that sometimes, different planners look for different things.

PeachPie

DOCARCH wrote: »

Wondering if there is a level survey of the site included in the original application? There should be. If there is, should not be that difficult to draw up site sections?

I am not sure what a level survey looks like but the plans are just the standard plans with the simple cross-section I described earlier (referencing materials and first-floor roof heights). Any of the maps lack cross-sections or contours or anything that looks like it is 'level' related.

DOCARCH

PeachPie wrote: »

Any of the maps lack cross-sections or contours or anything that looks like it is 'level' related.

That's probably the crux of the issue. If, as you say, the site is sloping, planners will want to see existing and proposed site levels in relation to the proposed house.

Providing levels is generally part of the basic requirements for a planning application.

No6

I would echo what muffler has siad, diffferent planners or different area engineers in the same co council look for different things never mind in different councils. In one area of my country the area engineer always looked for it, so I always put it in, in other areasthey didn't so unless the site was particurarly elevated I didnt do it. and then your normal area planner who never asks for it goes on holidays and you get a different one and lo and behold what you didnt need before you do now.

My point being OP, If is was doing your project and thought I'd get away (planning wise) without it, I would, however I would mention it to you before hand and if I felt it was going to cost a lot extra I would also have let you know.

PeachPie

Thanks to everyone for their input. It has been a great help.

Since there is no consensus that the information is mandatory or standard I feel I don't have strong grounds to question it's omission and I will pay it.

However based on all of your input I will be questioning how much work was involved in fulfilling the FI request and if it should have been anticipated up-front and included in the initial application. I think I have the basis for haggling on price at least.

DOCARCH

Might it be rude to ask what county you are in PeachPie?

If you let us know, I'm sure someone on here could fins/post up some sort of planning checklist for the relevant county? Most local authorities provide information and/or a checklist as to what information they expect a planning applictaion to include.

If you had this information/checklist you could compare information required againdt the information your agent provided/submitted with your application?

I still reckon that it is to do with inadequate information provided with regard to levels in the original application. You should also ask to see the letter your agent receieved requesting the additional information.

PeachPie

DOCARCH wrote: »

Might it be rude to ask what county you are in PeachPie?

If you let us know, I'm sure someone on here could fins/post up some sort of planning checklist for the relevant county? Most local authorities provide information and/or a checklist as to what information they expect a planning applictaion to include.

If you had this information/checklist you could compare information required againdt the information your agent provided/submitted with your application?

I still reckon that it is to do with inadequate information provided with regard to levels in the original application. You should also ask to see the letter your agent receieved requesting the additional information.

I would prefer not to say which county, I'm sure you understand. I have reviewed the planning checklist and they do mention floor levels on the application checklist. I will mention this to him also.

DOCARCH

PeachPie wrote: »

I would prefer not to say which county, I'm sure you understand.

That's understandable.

Anything like this on the checklist?

Site layout plan to show levels or contours.

PeachPie

DOCARCH wrote: »

That's understandable.

Anything like this on the checklist?

Site layout plan to show levels or contours.

Yes. Can't recall the exact wording but something along those lines..

Poor Uncle Tom

You mention that the site section has to show the septic tank.

I presume there was a Site Suitability Assessment in compliance with the EPA's Code of Practice submitted with the planning application. If this is the case, it is common practice to include a longitudinal site section and horizontal site section with the details as part of the Site Assessment.

But also as previously stated, planning officers/engineers can ask on a whim for details the figure should be submitted.

DOCARCH

PeachPie wrote: »

I have not yet seen the proposed response yet as it has not been scanned by the council and I don't want to blindly pay for something that could/should have been included by default, without at least questioning it in an informed manner.

As I mentioned above, I think the first thing you should do is ask your architect for a copy of the letter requesting the additional information.

The wording of the request may shed a little more light on the matter (and whether or not there was insufficient detail).

fclauson

Guys I know it's off topic but can I say you have all done a great job in helping the OP

This thread should be held up as an exemplary example of how this board should work

Well done all and good luck PrachPie - building your own home is fun but challenging and there are many fine brains on this thread who can ease the pain on the brain which is unfamiliar in the ways of the construction trade

PeachPie

DOCARCH wrote: »

As I mentioned above, I think the first thing you should do is ask your architect for a copy of the letter requesting the additional information.

The wording of the request may shed a little more light on the matter (and whether or not there was insufficient detail).

I have seen the letter requesting the information. Only for it I would not have been able to interpret the facts as related to me by the arch.

PeachPie

fclauson wrote: »

Guys I know it's off topic but can I say you have all done a great job in helping the OP

This thread should be held up as an exemplary example of how this board should work

I echo these sentiments exactly. I want to offer sincere thanks to everyone who took the time to reply and give me the benefit of their knowledge and experience. They allowed me to reach an informed decision which I was unable to do previously.

I have a feeling I will be seeking opinions and guidance here throughout the building process.

Mellor

PeachPie, the levels would be included on a survey, OS map, contour map. Not on every plan. The problem may be, and correct me if i'm wrong, that you aren't too familiar with these documents to know what you are looking for.

In my opinion, a basic section is always required. Which wouldn't necessarily include a full site cross sections.
If the lodged section was adequate for planning, then its reasonable to charge a small fee for the additional drawings.

PeachPie wrote: »

Thanks for the responses. A simple cross section was included in the plans submitted with the application. However it just included details on the materials to be used and the following measurements - GL 0000mm (Ground Level, I assume), EL 2240 (First floor level?) and RL 7000mm (Roof Level).

The problem is that its very hard for anyone to say whether or not the lodged section is adequate for planning without actually seeing it.
(from your comments I don't think you want to upload it here, which is fine).


From the comments above it sounds like the levels included on the section were given relative to ground floor levels. Personally, I'd always give absolute levels. This is a very small change if the survey data already exists.

PeachPie

Mellor wrote: »

PeachPie, the levels would be included on a survey, OS map, contour map. Not on every plan. The problem may be, and correct me if i'm wrong, that you aren't too familiar with these documents to know what you are looking for.

You are right I don't know what I am looking for.

Mellor wrote: »

From the comments above it sounds like the levels included on the section were given relative to ground floor levels. Personally, I'd always give absolute levels. This is a very small change if the survey data already exists.

Yes in the context of the drawing it appears that they are relative to ground floor and nothing else.

As I said I have decided to pay up, based on the lack of this being a nailed on requirement for all application.

ht9zni1gs28crp

PeachPie wrote: »

You are right I don't know what I am looking for.




Yes in the context of the drawing it appears that they are relative to ground floor and nothing else.

As I said I have decided to pay up, based on the lack of this being a nailed on requirement for all application.

Ask exactly what your paying for, I would expect them to visit site and survey exact levels to request any additional payment! Unless of course its a rock bottom price and quoted per drawing sheet.

Mellor

Gia Gentle Minefield wrote: »

Ask exactly what your paying for, I would expect them to visit site and survey exact levels to request any additional payment! Unless of course its a rock bottom price and quoted per drawing sheet.

That may not be needed if a survey exists. As I said nobody can advise the OP to pay or not pay as we sime have no reference point.

PeachPie

Gia Gentle Minefield wrote: »

Ask exactly what your paying for, I would expect them to visit site and survey exact levels to request any additional payment! Unless of course its a rock bottom price and quoted per drawing sheet.

I was told on the phone what was involved but can't recall exactly what was said. I am going to wait until I see the full drawings before I pay.

muffler

PeachPie wrote: »

I have a feeling I will be seeking opinions and guidance here throughout the building process.

Hah! We have another one hooked!