Validtion of Application Plans not To Scale - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Validtion of Application Plans not To Scale
i was recently asked by a friend to object to a planning application for replacement of a public house to a retail unit. While in my opinion there are number of issues with regard to policy for loss of community facilities etc one of the main issues i noted was tar the application should not have been validated as it failed to comply with the minimum legal requirements of the 2010 development procedure order which states:-
Any plans or drawings required to be provided by paragraph (1)(c)(i) or (ii) shall be drawn to an identified scale and, in the case of plans, shall show the direction of North
The issue with the submitted plans was that they where all annotated with Do not Scale, so regardless of any information on the drawings the plans are not drawn to scale.
This is an issue for which in my time as a council planner i have invalidated more applications then i can remember and as a private sector planner has been a recurring argument with architects.
The Council dismissed this comment and my client is considering a judicial review of the application on this and numerous other counts.
I have dealt with a number of Council’s who state in their local lists that they will no accept applications annotated do noT scale
I would be grateful for any views on this issue
I wouldn't necessarily agree that if the drawings state 'Do Not Scale' then they must not be to scale. Do they have a scale bar ? If so why are they marked 'Do Not Scale' ?
Notwithstanding what the legislation states I would accept plans that were not scaled but instead had written dimensions provided they weren't drawn with a pencil on a sheet of A4 ripped from an exercise book.
Clearly this is a matter for the LPA and not strictly related to the query here but drawings are often produced for planning application purposes only and another set produced later for construction which will be those used to build out
[quote=David Vickers]
I wouldn't necessarily agree that if the drawings state 'Do Not Scale' then they must not be to scale. Do they have a scale bar ? If so why are they marked 'Do Not Scale' ?
Notwithstanding what the legislation states I would accept plans that were not scaled but instead had written dimensions provided they weren't drawn with a pencil on a sheet of A4 ripped from an exercise book.
Clearly this is a matter for the LPA and not strictly related to the query here but drawings are often produced for planning application purposes only and another set produced later for construction which will be those used to build out
[/quote]
The provision of witten dimensions on site a plan whic is a legal requiremnt oif a site plan again a point many auhtorites miss is a diffrent issue for me.
one of the main reasons plans have to be drawn to scale is to ensure the development is built in accordance with the plans ,as such if the reliance was on written dimensions as oppose to scale, plans would have to include all dimensions for example the size of the windows ,doors etc which is clearly not practicval or sensible.
The point is say for example you have a complaint that a house has been built in the wrong place or is to big and is potentially contravenining the privacy seperation distance of a local authority by 1m how does the planing auhtority establish if the house is in the wrong place or not if the drawings say do not scale.
The developr can alwys fall back on the argument he has room for manouver as the plans said nit toi scale they are indicative an argument I have had used aginst me as an enforcement officer and used myself.
As an Architect, I find that clients need to minimise their costs in the face of Planning risk, in particular often relying on Ordnance Survey mapping material for site boundary shape and size, and for relationships with off-site properties, highways and other relevant features.
However, many are not aware that OS mapping is constituted within a range of stated tolerances, depending on scale. In some cases, we have found OS defined site boundaries to be as much as a metre out, once an accurate topographical survey arrives. With the call for increased densities, this has often caused problems, however, it is probably unreasonable to require topographical surveys for every application, and especially until the risk of obtaining permission becomes clearer.
It has been standard practice for many years to include the Do Not Scale notice on drawings, and this may be linked to Professional Indemnity Insurance requirements, arising from past case law. In practice, there is often an additional note indicating that one should work only from figured dimensions. However, that note is generally targetted at builders, so that they will position a building or extension correctly.
I do recall working on a project where our client had purcashed a site which already had Planning Permission, and where the drawings contained figured dimensions to existing off-site properties. This can be a workable propsition, so long as there are no land access or privacy issues arising from the use of those dimensions, when the time to measure and set out arises!
I have to say I read some of the comments above with incredulity. The issue is not whether the plans are to scale, but to know WHAT scale they are. Moreover, it's important to know what scale they will be when printed at a specific paper size. The scales should generally comply with guidance, but sensible planning officers will allow latitude if there are good reasons set out not to adhere to a prescriptive scale: for example, with a linear application, such as for infrastructure.
It doesn't cost too much to produce two sets of plans: one for the planning application and the second (with more GIS layers perhaps) for builders/contractors. I see too many plans with too much information, gratuitous in the context of a planning application. So, development management and validation staff, get those applicants to be both "clean and clear" in their plans, including specific (and usable) information on the scale.
(There is strange belief that plans for a detailed planning application are NOT "detailed" plans. Sloppy use of expressions?)
....and don't get me going as to why architects don't set out what the dimensions of their proposed buildings are....
In this modern age of digital plan submissions (eg PDF), it is certainly good practice to indicate what the applicable scale will be when the page is printed on the appropriate size of paper, such as 1 to 500 @ A3 or somesuch, and it is also good practice to include a scale bar. Even so, great care is required to ensure that a PDF document is printed at full scale, since print dialogue boxes can default to "fit to page".
Even printing to the intended scale is not infallible, however, as we have had experience of planning authorities that print plans off - so that the plans can be stamped (with date and application number) - and then re-scan the documents. They would almost certainly scan plans that have been submitted manually. In both cases, the scale accuracy is likely to deteriorate.
Sometimes the scan is executed in mono, whereas the original is in colour, and the quality of the communication is inevitably degraded.
Plans that have previously been scanned to microfische can be subject to all kinds of distortions, something that I have had to unravel on a case involving elements of unauthorised development!
i appreciate that there has to be a limited degree of flexibiliy because of copying of plans and that architects use this anotation to ensiure they do not form the build plans.
However, my point is simply this as all applications have to be built in accordance with approved plans then even if a drawing has a scale bar or a scale, if it states do not scale how can you rely on the submiitted information andtherfore how can such plans accord with the legal requirements.
nicholas waring, modified 10 Years ago.
Validtion of Application Plans not To Scale
Enthusiast Posts: 29 Join Date: 21/01/12 Recent PostsBruce has stated what is standard practice for architects, engineers etc
The drawings may state Do Not Scale - this is an instruction to builders to measure what is actually on site against what is specififed. It is of course particularly important at post-planning stage eg Condtruction Issue drawwings.
All planning permissions have to be built in accordance with approved plans, so it is incumbant on the designer that approved and construction drawings are consistent.
I think the tag "do not scale" can be removed for planning purposes. But in the event of a dispute it could be difficult to measure small differences on site compared with an approved drawing at a scale of 1:100, unless these are related to other parts of the building or neighbours.
Hi Martin, Roger and David: could I maybe have your reaction to the last paragraph in my last posting on this subject, i.e:
Could the participants in this thread kindly confirm that they would have no objection to passing this thread across to RIBA?
And: as Nicholas has also referred to RTPI and DCLG, could you also kindly include in your reply whether we can pass this thread on to them?
Before 1990, designers mainly drew by hand, and indeed there are still some who do. At that time, it was common practice to purchase pre-printed drawing sheets, and these were generally supplied with “Do not scale; report any discrepancies to the Architect” text included on the sheet.
When migrating to digital drawings, most designers would have copied over the “Do not scale, etc” text into their digital drawing templates.
Some developers will purchase a site with planning permission based on OS mapping material, intent on building the approved square footage. We would always check the dimensional accuracy of such drawings against the real world, either by taking limited site measurements or by obtaining a third party topographical survey.
Even when using a third party survey, there is always a possibility of survey error. To protect ourselves against claims that may arise in the event of such errors by others, we would still need to retain the “Do not scale” wording.
In the event of an error, it may sometimes be possible to deal with the necessary corrections through a minor amendment to the planning approval.
Where we are seeking a planning permission for a landowner or developer, we cannot be certain whether the site may be sold on. Whether the available land drawing is based on OS material or a topographical survey, we would still need to retain “Do not scale” on the planning applicaton drawings to protect ourselves from claims from a future purchaser who may otherwise (perhaps naively) assume that our approved drawings can be relied upon.
In general, a topographical survey will provide a greater level of comfort to all concerned. However, the developer and landowner fraternities would object vociferously if this were to be proposed as an essential item for every application, in view of the potentially disproportionate cost involved (£000s rather than around £30). Our professional institute may also wish to engage in a debate on any such proposal, if this were to head in a mandatory direction.
There may be some merit in:
- the development of a pan-industry protocol on the use of survey material and “Do not scale”, so that a consistent, practical, and affordable approach can be adopted.
- for applications based on OS material, the imposition of a suitably-worded standard planning condition requiring the submission of a topographical survey
Could the participants in this thread kindly confirm that they would have no objection to passing this thread across to RIBA?
nicholas waring, modified 10 Years ago.
Validtion of Application Plans not To Scale
Enthusiast Posts: 29 Join Date: 21/01/12 Recent PostsDear Bruce
I have no objection to passing this thread across to RIBA/RTPI/DCLG.
As a sufferer of inconsistent LPAs I would welcome a pan-industry protocol on the use of survey material and “Do not scale”.
Out of interest what happened in 1990 - TCP Act? Hand or digital drawings? - the “Do not scale, etc” text is a safe fall back for reasons you refer.
I am not so sure planning applicaton drawings need this though.
"Buyer beware" to any future purchaser who may otherwise assume that the approved drawings can be relied upon other than for "planning purposes" (see the caveat on the permission).
Any developer and landowner who proceeds without an appropriate survey (topographical or otherwise) do so at thier risk, not yours.
[quote=Bruce Hayball]
Hi Martin, Roger and David: could I maybe have your reaction to the last paragraph in my last posting on this subject, i.e:
Could the participants in this thread kindly confirm that they would have no objection to passing this thread across to RIBA?
And: as Nicholas has also referred to RTPI and DCLG, could you also kindly include in your reply whether we can pass this thread on to them?
[/quote]
Happy to pass this on Bruce
I have no objection to the thread being forwarded i would comment however that the responses are getting a little sidetracked.
The legal requirement is that all plans have to be to a recognised scale
If you put "do not scale" on a scaled drawing you cannot be compliant with this requirement which is in place so planners can assess the application and ensure the development is built in accordance with the approved plans .
The main reason architect advise me this annotation is placed on is to ensure they are not used as the buildi plans.The advise i give my companies architects to adress this is to annotate the plans with "these are only for the purposes of the planning application". This then deals with their concerns while ensuring the apllication is not made invalid or any approval could be subject to legal challenge.
nicholas waring, modified 10 Years ago.
Validtion of Application Plans not To Scale
Enthusiast Posts: 29 Join Date: 21/01/12 Recent Poststhat's what i said