Can I do anything about an architect that is altering plans on the fly?

BobbyMercs123 · 08-06-2018 01:31PM #1

The actual plans for previously approved do not include a parapet but only a flat roof up to the gutter line. But now on retention plans previously approved shows that it goes above the gutter line. I can show screenshots of the plans if it helps me explain it better. Basically there is inconsistencies in plans.

godtabh · 08-06-2018 01:34PM

have you asked him/her about it?

Metric Tensor · 08-06-2018 02:25PM

If this relates to your previous queries where the neighbour is building on the party wall then it is in your interest to have a parapet because it forces him to keep all his roof drainage and guttering on his own property.

It is not clear what you mean by:

1: "actual plans for previously approved"
and
2: "retention plans previously approved"

Calahonda52 · 08-06-2018 05:38PM

Metric Tensor wrote: »

If this relates to your previous queries where the neighbour is building on the party wall then it is in your interest to have a parapet because it forces him to keep all his roof drainage and guttering on his own property.

It is not clear what you mean by:

1: "actual plans for previously approved"
and
2: "retention plans previously approved"

+ 1 when approved, then retention

BobbyMercs123 · 09-06-2018 01:22PM

If I could lost the plans I could it won't let me since if a new user. Basically, the plans that have actually been approved are completely different to what he is saying he had gotten approved for. I'll try post them again.

BobbyMercs123 · 09-06-2018 01:23PM

https://ibb.co/gh1UTT
https://ibb.co/eXoXho
These two are the plans actually approved.
https://ibb.co/dHjNho
https://ibb.co/juAjv8
These are the plans that are on the retention that were never approved or seen before.

sydthebeat · 09-06-2018 02:15PM

BobbyMercs123 wrote: »

If I could lost the plans I could it won't let me since if a new user. Basically, the plans that have actually been approved are completely different to what he is saying he had gotten approved for. I'll try post them again.

??????

no they are not completely different.
they are actually very similar

BobbyMercs123 · 09-06-2018 02:18PM

sydthebeat wrote: »

??????

no they are not completely different.
they are actually very similar

The two story extension to the rear was up to gutter level in the permission but is way above in the second and includes a parapet.

brendane · 09-06-2018 02:49PM

Its not that different. It's probable that once more detail was added, they needed to introduce a slight slope in the flat roof to the first storey as it is draining into a gutter.

what is the actual issue here. It probably doesn't flout any planning laws unless rising the back of the roof by about 200mm impacts on you.

Metric Tensor · 09-06-2018 03:29PM

1. There is no parapet shown on the second storey extension in either set of plans.

2. Based on the limited information you have supplied - I am guessing that the "previously approved" option was given planning permission and something else that you haven't told us about was built on site. Now retention is being sought with the architect presenting your "second" set of drawings as a copy of what had originally been approved. In which case I am of the opinion that he has done exactly that.

There is no issue with those drawings as far as I can see and you are wasting your time trying to generate an issue out of nothing.

It would be interesting know what was built on site and what the retention application is towards. You should focus your energies towards what is now on site and the application to retain rather than what was previously approved. The council have a record of what they previously approved, so even if the drawings were substantially different, which they are not, the council will not be "fooled".

Calahonda52 · 10-06-2018 08:19PM

BobbyMercs123 wrote: »

The two story extension to the rear was up to gutter level in the permission but is way above in the second and includes a parapet.

OP: you need to get up to speed with the correct terminology here: as noted by others, there is no parapet.
I see similar issues in your other posts re the boundary wall, its tough to help when we don't know what the issues are in the correct lingo.

Metric Tensor · 11-06-2018 11:13AM

OP sent me a PM that clarifies things a bit. Correct me if I have mistaken anything here OP:

1. The neighbour got planning permission for changes/extensions to the front and rear of the dwelling.

2. What the neighbour built was:
a. Completely different at the front.
b. Slightly different at the back in that there was two small parapets added and an extract box window through the roof.

3. The neighbour is now applying for permission to retain what he has built.

My advice OP is that you need to concentrate on what has now been built that is different from what was previously approved and impacts on your life by being different:

I honestly can't see how the small parapets make a huge difference to your life but if they do then send an observation to the council noting why the parapets are so much worse for you than the previously granted soffits. Likewise if the extra window upstairs is much worse for you than the previously granted window then explain why this is in your observation to the council. However, assuming you live a No. 9 I don't see how the "as built" is any worse for you than what was previously granted.

Direct answer to your question: Lodge an observation with the council as to why the building "as built" is worse for you than the building that got planning permission. Forget any thoughts of nit-pick the architects drawings - if the retention ones match what is built on site then forget about everything else.

BobbyMercs123 · 13-07-2018 10:13AM

A few days ago I found out that the ridge and eaves levels were wrong on all his previous drawings now he has changed them and has not given any levels on the rentention plans I've been talking about previously. Does this affect anything, it's new planning permission with the exact plans since the other was invalidated.

Mellor · 14-07-2018 03:14AM

BobbyMercs123 wrote: »

The two story extension to the rear was up to gutter level in the permission but is way above in the second and includes a parapet.

How do you know the roof is now above the previous gutter level?
Have you considered that maybe the gutter is now below roof level?

The reality is there is no "gutter level" approved on the drawings. The eaves level is what matters. It's dimensioned on both sets and looks pretty consistent. There is no parapet on either plans.

Can I do anything about an architect that is altering plans on the fly?

Comments