"tim" wrote in message
...
"BigWallop" wrote in message
...
"tim" wrote in message
...
This is completely wrong.
1) planning and building control are two entirely separate things
you seem to have confused them.
2) Whilst retrospective application for planning permission
can be refused on principle, resulting in an order for the building to
be demolished, a retrospective application for a building control
certificate, without the prior submission of plans is a legally
allowed
way of doing things. The worst that will happen is that the BI will
ask you to 'open up' parts that he cannot see to check that they are,
in fact, done correctly. The BI will never take the principled view
that the building is bound to be constructed incorrectly and ask for
it to be demolished just in case. I agree that they don't like this
method of approving buildings but the legislation clearly allows
builders to work this way if they wish.
tim
But Nick has said that there are under pinnings, as well as retaining
wall
removals, that have been undertaken during these works.
This may be relevent in this case but your earlier answer made no
reference to it, you implied that the building would have to be
demolished simply because no plans were lodged. This is completely
incorrect.
Apologise for my previous wording. Bad composition n my part. Point taken.
The building
inspector will need proof of approval from his/her local authority
planning
department
The planning department has no relevence here. There may or there
may not be a planning requirement but whatever was or should have
been submitted to the planning dept does not need to contain the
construction details.
Ground works, as in the under pinning, needs approval before commencement,
there are no if's, but's or maybe's on that point. A good build is only
done on good foundations.
on submitted drawings of proposal before he/she allows any
structural changes of this magnatude to take place.
I think that the amount of work done here is probably less than it
appears to be on paper. But in any case, I fail to see how
knocking down the new build can rectify the critical item which
is the replacement lintel and its support. If this has been done
inadequately, it won't become adequate because the extension
is removed.
My previous wording again. :-)) It is more likely that most of the works
will have to be exposed before any certification is given on this type of
structural work.
Lives are at stake in
these situations, and no local authority I know, would allow this type
of
work to be carried out without the proper planning proposals
Once again, the planning department have no juristriction here
But they do on the ground works.
and structural
drawings being submitted by the bulders or their agent.
I don't believe that they have a choice. If I wish to start work
on a (planning permitted) change to my property *I* can choose
whether I submit the plans to the BCO before I start work
or request a BN after I have started. All the BCO can do is
refuse to issue me a certificate if the work is sub-standard they
cannot dictate when I do it.
Retrospective permission is normally only granted on submission of plan
drawings. It doesn't prevent or dictate when the works are started, but it
does dictate when the inspection should begin. There were grounds on this
job, and as I said previously, a good build is only done on good
foundations, and most buildings inspectors see it that way to.
It is the builders fault, so he'll have to sort it. If he gives his
written
testimony that he's carried out the work to the approved methods, and
then
something goes badly wrong, then he'll be sued to the highest courts in
the
land by the local authority. But that could be to late for the poor
family
who are now left without a property or have been badly injured because
of a
colapse.
The work has been done to the standards set by the surveyor.
If it is wrong then it is his problem.
Fair enough.
Unless he can prove through proper inspections, that his work
has/is been/being carried out to locally approved methods. Which in
this
case, he can't.
But this still doesn't mean that the only solution is the removal of the
new build.
tim
Again, my choice of wording in the previous reply. :-))
---
www.basecuritysystems.no-ip.com
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (
http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 16/10/03