On 3 Dec 2005 13:43:49 -0800, "dg" wrote:


Blueyonder wrote:
"mj" wrote in message
...
..
Despite being refused planning permission, said millionaire is still
going ahead and preparing the foundations for his proposed warehouses.
...

Until he has built a building without permission, he hasn't done anything
wrong. Once it is built, _then_ report it and then he will have to take it
down. I would assume also that building regs are not getting involved at
this stage, so perhaps they will make him take the building down to inspect
the foundations, even if he does get retrospective planning permission.

-- JJ

A foundation is still 'development' under the TCPA 1990

True

and will
require planning permission.

Not necessarily.

Have a look here :-
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19950418_en_4.htm
Part 1 Class F.

If one is so inclined, it's possible to argue that the "foundations"
are, in fact a "hard-standing" and therefore exempt.

The local planners may see things differently, get ****ed off and be
as awkward as possible but, in my experience, those who become
millionaires don't worry about such niceties.

It is also relevent works under the
Building Act and will require an application too.

Again, I'm not sure that's true. The "foundations" are just a hole in
the ground filled with concrete *until* walls are built on them.

Are concrete-filled holes subject to building regs ?

Cheers,

John