At this stage we are going to give them 7-10 days to re survey and amend the PL's to match the T's and then resubmit. We will not be making any payment for this whether or not they request. If they fail to do this we will then instigate proceeding's of formal complaint.
Has my Architect been Negligent?
- Thread starter Straycat67
- Start date
Sponsored Links
I have now attached some Architect drawings... see if any of you can spot the differences! At no time did we as clients give consent to the Architect to make material changes that could/will jeopardise the build and be in breach of planning based on the approved drawings. The colour drawings show what was actually approved, the black & whites are the tender/building reg drawings.
You haven't said what explanation the architects gave for changing the drawings. The original scheme was approved and apparently you were happy with it. Why did they suddenly come up with something different? What made them think - after planning had been approved - that you might want to have a different scheme that would require a further planning application? Even if they thought you should have looked more carefully and realised yourself that a further planning application would be required, it makes no sense that they thought that you would want that?
Will let you know the answers to that tomorrow as meeting architect on site again at 7am. Last Friday they were so bullying, that to be honest nothing of what they said made any sense and I think being on their "own turf" didnt help. But yes your right, a straight out question of "Why change without our consent" is a straight forward question.
Sponsored Links
It looks like they've made alterations to the dormers to provide more head height and simplify the construction. I wouldn't have expected the planners to be concerned about the garage door and any other small drawing anomalies. Have you got a list of what's different?
I can see window sizing differences, changes to fenestration details, alterations to window positioning (including the removal of some roof lights completely) as well as a chimney stack that seems to have gone walkabouts and of course that garage door change.
The most important thing I can see though is the change in the rear dormer heights. From a planning point of view its one thing to remove items which help reduce the impact (such as omitting windows) but its quite another to make changes that could potentially be seen as increasing an impact (such as raising heights).
If I had the full scalable plans side by side I'm sure there would be many more tweaks.
The point has already been made though - they have made changes to a proposal that was approved... without your consent and more to the point without seeking the approval of the local authority.
Normally, when small changes occur councils are happy to receive an application for minor amendment, but the fact there appear to be so many minor changes (as well as the height difference, which is not normally considered as minor) means that it is unlikely this route is a possibility. A full new plans application may well be needed.
The thing is though, your architect has your original existing plans... and he has your building contorl plans (which are what was being built to) so they should be able to just submit those sets of plans that you already have. I suspect that you did not retain the services of your architect to oversee building works, as this is the only situation where a re-survey would be needed, because they will need to be sure that they know what was built on site (in case the builder decided not to follow either set of plans!)
The most important thing I can see though is the change in the rear dormer heights. From a planning point of view its one thing to remove items which help reduce the impact (such as omitting windows) but its quite another to make changes that could potentially be seen as increasing an impact (such as raising heights).
If I had the full scalable plans side by side I'm sure there would be many more tweaks.
The point has already been made though - they have made changes to a proposal that was approved... without your consent and more to the point without seeking the approval of the local authority.
Normally, when small changes occur councils are happy to receive an application for minor amendment, but the fact there appear to be so many minor changes (as well as the height difference, which is not normally considered as minor) means that it is unlikely this route is a possibility. A full new plans application may well be needed.
The thing is though, your architect has your original existing plans... and he has your building contorl plans (which are what was being built to) so they should be able to just submit those sets of plans that you already have. I suspect that you did not retain the services of your architect to oversee building works, as this is the only situation where a re-survey would be needed, because they will need to be sure that they know what was built on site (in case the builder decided not to follow either set of plans!)
Garage door is not the problem, that was our amendment.
We are talking Fenestration issues -
1) If you follow the lines of the garage on the coloured Planning drawings as opposed to the technical drawings you will see they differ.
2) Dormer 2nd in from right is larger in the tech drawings as opposed the planning ones.
3) Dormers over new garage, planning shows a set back join, tech's show nothing.
4) Window to the right of front door on plan drawings show render above, tech drawings do not.
5) Rear gabled dormers on rear on plan drawings sit lower than the tech drawings when considering the ridge of existing house.
6)Roof lights (Velux) x 3 on plan drawings and none on tech drawings.
7) Chimney on plan drawings, but not on techs
8) rear extension lean-to cuts in below gutter line on plan drawings, but on tech drawings cuts on or above.
There are circa 20-25 deviations but they are just a few.
Did you not notice any of these changes before the build started?
Some of them are quite obvious I had thought you may have requested them by yourself, when you said you didn't request 'material alterations', I thought you may have asked for 'non material amendments'.
I can't think of why they would make a lot of those changes. Some will be for construction reasons or to achieve necessary head heights, others might be to effect fire escape (lower dormers).
IMO the planning drawings look quite pretty, I wonder if they have used software that focuses more on artistic design instead of a 2D CAD package that would have cleared up some of the design issues and stopped certain elements being omitted (chimney and rooflights). The planning drawings simply don't look like they have been used as the basis of the working drawings but I don't know what all the latest CAD packages can do, I would be interested in different opinions.
I can't think of why they would make a lot of those changes. Some will be for construction reasons or to achieve necessary head heights, others might be to effect fire escape (lower dormers).
IMO the planning drawings look quite pretty, I wonder if they have used software that focuses more on artistic design instead of a 2D CAD package that would have cleared up some of the design issues and stopped certain elements being omitted (chimney and rooflights). The planning drawings simply don't look like they have been used as the basis of the working drawings but I don't know what all the latest CAD packages can do, I would be interested in different opinions.
We noticed minor amendment points.. eg.. garage, But minor amendments are massively different to MATERIAL amenedments.
But why as clients should we be made to notice fenestration elements that an Architect decides to change of his on accord without informing us and subsequently leaving us with an illegal build. Thank god the originally builder did a runner without completing, it's all making sense now!
Yes, I will demand some straight out very simple questions answered tomorrow. I believe without his admittance, but I'll get this out of him tomorrow... that what he made look pretty in design to get approved planning was not in theory workable from a practicable/build/liveable sense, thus his changes without our consent.
Without being an Architect/Eng ourselves I can only but presume the Architect SHOULD HAVE made sure the pretty approved plans were of a design and BUILD spec. Presume his CAD program decided otherwise once he got on with breaking down the sections/elevations in more detail..???
But why as clients should we be made to notice fenestration elements that an Architect decides to change of his on accord without informing us and subsequently leaving us with an illegal build. Thank god the originally builder did a runner without completing, it's all making sense now!
Yes, I will demand some straight out very simple questions answered tomorrow. I believe without his admittance, but I'll get this out of him tomorrow... that what he made look pretty in design to get approved planning was not in theory workable from a practicable/build/liveable sense, thus his changes without our consent.
Without being an Architect/Eng ourselves I can only but presume the Architect SHOULD HAVE made sure the pretty approved plans were of a design and BUILD spec. Presume his CAD program decided otherwise once he got on with breaking down the sections/elevations in more detail..???
One further technical drawing brought to our attention by SE, potential new contractors etc.... Proposed side elevation tech drawing does NOT show front & rear dormers nor new front porch, which is different from the pretty plan drawings.
* What approach do you think we should take with this Architect tomorrow?
a) Not settle for anything less than what was originally approved
b) IF he admits the approved plans are not workable, thus the changes he made to technicals without our consent..then what?
c) IF he says the only move forward is via a new planning application with new plans to fall into align with his tech drawings this will cause major delay and no guarantee of approval.
d) What value of negligence is there?
e) We have roofing contractors willing to start ASAP and the other thought was to get confirmation in writing from the Architect what dormers would fall under PD whilst we await hopefully new planning approval.
* What approach do you think we should take with this Architect tomorrow?
a) Not settle for anything less than what was originally approved
b) IF he admits the approved plans are not workable, thus the changes he made to technicals without our consent..then what?
c) IF he says the only move forward is via a new planning application with new plans to fall into align with his tech drawings this will cause major delay and no guarantee of approval.
d) What value of negligence is there?
e) We have roofing contractors willing to start ASAP and the other thought was to get confirmation in writing from the Architect what dormers would fall under PD whilst we await hopefully new planning approval.
I would have thought you would have noticed the major differences ahead of the minor ones to be honest.
If the architect has done these changes without agreement then it's truly a poor show but something doesn't quite add up here.
I can't see how or why they'd change the plans so much without your agreement or knowledge.
Would you have been happy if it had been built as per the bc drawings, but are now unhappy because the planning breach has been identified?
If the architect has done these changes without agreement then it's truly a poor show but something doesn't quite add up here.
I can't see how or why they'd change the plans so much without your agreement or knowledge.
Would you have been happy if it had been built as per the bc drawings, but are now unhappy because the planning breach has been identified?
We wanted to have built what was AGREED by us, the architect and the planners. Nothing to do with a breach. Are you suggesting an Architect has a right to go against the LPA and build something for which does not have planning permission because that seems to be what your implying.
Oooo bit angry there with the bold posts.
I'm not saying that it's up to you to spot the differences...I'm just saying it's pretty hard not to have noticed the major differences.
I think that most professional architects wouldn't change the plans in such material ways unless someone asked them to do so. If they have I feel truly sorry for you.
I'm not suggesting that the architect has the right to go against the LPA, I'm saying that I can't see why they would do unless someone (I.e you) asked them to.
I'm not saying that it's up to you to spot the differences...I'm just saying it's pretty hard not to have noticed the major differences.
I think that most professional architects wouldn't change the plans in such material ways unless someone asked them to do so. If they have I feel truly sorry for you.
I'm not suggesting that the architect has the right to go against the LPA, I'm saying that I can't see why they would do unless someone (I.e you) asked them to.
kingandy2nd";p="2775328 said:
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
