Free Expert Advice at Build It Live!
Come and see us 8th & 9th June for a whole weekend of self build inspiration
For info & free tickets worth £24 click hereCome and see us 8th & 9th June for a whole weekend of self build inspiration
For info & free tickets worth £24 click hereEstimate your project costs instantly with Build It's interactive self-build cost calculator
Calculate NowGet an accurate, detailed cost breakdown of your project
Submit plansI am very excited having just witnessed my timber frame go up in a matter of weeks following very protracted design and groundworks phases.
However, I am now concerned that the ridge height is 100-200mm higher than neighbouring properties, with our planning statement clearly indicating that it would be the same. I’m not sure why this would be and can’t be sure without a survey, but the plans that timber frame company were supplied were clear (although there is a higher parapet marked that we decided against, approximately matching the current ridge height) and a surveyor marked out the foundations so I assume these are OK.
No neighbours have complained so I’m tempted to just ignore, but before the I fit out the entire house, I’m considering holding the builders responsible and correcting it. However, I assume this would be such a huge undertaking – the tiles are already on – that they (or their sub-contracted timber framers) would not be willing or would liquidate and the resulting battles/delays seem to me almost as petrifying as the council ordering me to demolish in 5 years time if it came to their notice later on.
Is there any advice you can offer me?
The height issue is down to two things – either the initial levels were wrong, or the frame has been built incorrectly. If it’s the former, the surveyor who set the house out is at fault, or the framers have got their calcs wrong. i’d be surprised if its the latter because these guys measure everything 10 times and cut once for exactly this reason. If the surveyor has screwed up, and was aware of the need to hit a particular level then he will be at fault and your remedy lies with him. What datum did the surveyor use for setting out? I would have expected him to use the neighbouring property to calculate the initial floor levels.
Funnily enough, I had the same problem on my build but caught it early and specified 39 degree trather than 40 degree roof trusses because heights can be corrected by dropping the roof pitch (1 degree will give around 100mm on a large house) but if the tiles are already on, this is an issue for you and you are right the builders won’t rework this for free – they’ve done what they were asked to do.
You mentioned that your planning statement said ridge heights would be the same, but is this stipulated as a planning condition in your approval notice? If not explicitly a planning condition you could apply to get a retrospective amendment to the planning approval. It may well be sensible to own up to an honest mistake with the local authority, backed up with a report from your surveyor. This would be my advice to you.
However, if no-one has complained, I’d be tempted to sit tight and assume everything has gone as it should. Spotting a 100mm difference in height from gound level is tricky because of perspective and it would take someone looking for faults to notice (which is why mine was flagged up!). If someone does spot it, apply the para above. I can’t see the LA demanding you pull the house down for the sake of 100mm, especially if ridge heights were not conditioned.
Mike (Build It Expert)
Thanks Mike.
There’s no specific planning condition called out except that it states I can’t deviate from the plans submitted.
I’m inclined to agree with you about it being less than likely to be a problem but I did wonder if there’s something I should do now to identify where the culpability lies – just in case of future recriminations?
