Architect drawings / costs

[freddiemercurystwin]

Drawing packages have their uses, no need if the builder is highly competent and reliable but otherwise they can form the basis of a contract. The forum is rife with people coming unstuck because their contract with their builder is full of holes.

 

[mrrusty]

The forum is rife with people coming unstuck because their contract with their builder is full of holes.

Isn't that the truth! Hopefully as a someone who routinely works with many construction contracts that wouldn't be me!

 

[conorcook]

Just want to thank everyone for their replies! Lots of advice and information.

I am planning to DIY as much as possible, but on everyone’s advice I decided to get a architect technician to do the drawings and he’s going to get me quotes from a few structural engineers in the area too.
Price is not as bad as some architects firms (£3k-£5k) and as ^woody stated - It's no good saving £1500 on plan drawings, if it's going to add £2000 in build costs - that’s sort of where my head was at with it anyway but you’ve given me clarity.

Hopefuly I can DIY as much as possible and I will be using the threads on this forum for lots of help and no doubt a fair few silly questions ahead! Cheers

 

[tony1851]

I think the reference to the structural engineer is because the OP is in Scotland. Don't they have that strange system where all building regulations applications need to be self certified by a structural engineer?
I have a nasty feeling that England wants to go down a similar route with the new Building Safety Act post Grenfell. Has anyone noticed that with applications now the designer has to sign a statement that the design complies with building regulations? I thought that was building control's job?
Also under the Act a domestic client has a duty to appoint a competent designer and a competent contractor! I don't know what the implications are if it is a DIY design and build? I predict trouble ahead.

You've hit the nail on the head here. On completion, Building Control are now sending out forms for the Principal Designer to confirm that the work complies with Building Regulations. It raises the question as what exactly is Building Control's job? In getting an architect or other professional to sign a compliance form, does that mean they are offloading liability?
So why does the client have to pay them £££s if they get someone else to confirm compliance?
All ultimately down to the Hacket Report and her ridiculous 'golden thread' nonsense.
I

 

[mrrusty]

Building Control are now sending out forms for the Principal Designer to confirm that the work complies with Building Regulations

@tony1851 It's a mess. What happens with a DIY/self build small project where there is no architect and carried out using a notice? Are we saying BC will ask the client as PD to sign off? That's ridiculous - it suggests the client carries the liability and not BC. Or are we saying all projects now need a "competent (i.e. with "bits of paper")" PD, no matter how small? You can't even really pass the PD job to the contractor, if the client has just employed different trades...

 

[noseall]

it suggests the client carries the liability and not BC

Why should BC bear the liability?

Or are we saying all projects now need a "competent (i.e. with "bits of paper")" PD, no matter how small? You can't even really pass the PD job to the contractor, if the client has just employed different trades...

Not sure about 'amateur' controlled jobs. I suppose their home insurance comes into play.

 

[mrrusty]

Building Control are now sending out forms for the Principal Designer to confirm that the work complies with Building Regulations. It raises the question as what exactly is Building Control's job

@noseall I was responding to this. In the past surely BC would be the ones to sign-off conformity. If they are now asking the PD, it changes things dramatically. BC, particularly privatye BC, have to carry PI insurance against them being negligent - this was what the fuss was about after Grenfell. If the responsibility for confirming conformity passes to the PD, I am still asking the question about how that affects jobs where there is no certified and regulated PD, but just an "amateur" self-builder or domestic client.

I really don't know the answer. What I think I know is that this is going to be a very onerous requirement for tiddly little jobs that wouldn't normally need formal plans but still come under BC and technically therefore require a PD

As to home insurance - no that's totally irrelevant.

As an example, ask AI "does a small amount of new private sewer replacement work under £1000 that requires building control also require a principal designer under the building safety act" and be concerned at the answer! If a householder employs a man with a digger, and a plumber to make repair, and a BC visit to tick the box.....it still technically requires drawings and Principal Designer!!!

 

[^woody^]

Why should BC bear the liability?

Because a client is paying them a fee. A contract exists, and it's only fair and reasonable to expect the inspector to perform his duties under that contract - ie to check that the work complies.

Further, it is reasonable to expect that the same level of skill and reasonableness would apply when the Building Inspector checks the work and the Principle Designer checks the work and both certify compliance. And yet that's not the case, there is less obligation on the building inspector, and if things go tits up, the responsibly is significantly biased against the Principle Designer.

So fundamentally, we are in a situation where the client has to pay both a Building Inspector to check the work, and pay a Principle Designer to do the exact same checks. And then, if things do go wrong and there is non-compliance - which will be negligence by both inspector and Principle Designer (failing to do their checks and both certifying compliance), then the client can only sue the Principle designer (as long as he's still trading) and the Inspector gets off scot-free.

All this hinges on the old Murphy vs Brentwood case precedent that limited building inspector's liability. And yet in the many decades since, the goalposts have been moved significantly by this new legislation.

Bear in mind that this new Principle Designer function carries significant responsibilities and penalties, and requires costly insurance which will be passed on to clients. No one, such as the homeowner or random person should sign to certify compliance unless they are 101% confident that all the work conforms - even the unseen work. There are both civil and criminal consequences if there is damage or injury to others.

So yes, building inspectors should do the job they are being paid for and accept the responsibilities of that job, and be accountable to their customer for not doing their job.