the_r_sole

The best objection I've ever had to one of my projects was that the extension should be refused because the water pipes were only 12mm and wouldn't be able to support the new en suite... (Objection from the previous owners son) ?

Did you have a strict height set in your planning conditions? It doesn't sound like a perceptible difference although I have had planning departments measure ridge heights on occasion...

It's certainly one way to end the job and not get anything done for all the spend so far - along with adding months to resolving the issue at hand.

This is good illustration of why hourly rates are the worst way to work with creative consultants as I said in a different thread yesterday - the attitude is "they're only opening up a cad file and knocking some lines around" so it's not taking any time, which isn't really the case at all. However, in this instance if it's a "few hours" which has turned into a couple of days then there's a big issue! Is there anything in writing as to what they were doing and how they would approach it? (when i worked in edinburgh I had this situation a few times as the company insisted on hourly rates for changes to projects and it usually ended up with producing timesheets to justify to clients what had been done, then a negotiation to get to an agreed settlement etc - i.e. more time on admin than was spent on the work!!) Are they registered architects?

ok ?

I always find this a bizarre approach and really a misunderstanding of the process for delivering a building, the technical design and specifications are absolutely critical in the design of a building - whoever is doing the technical design needs to understand the intent for each area and understand the reasoning for the design being what it is, if you lose the rationale in the technical stage you can end up with something very wrong! Also expect to pay a premium for the release of the CAD files, in the old days you'd get a paper copy of the drawings, you couldn't get the architects pens and drafting table...

I think you've answered your own question there, the best people cost the best money generally! Only you can decide if the value is there in having someone you really want to work with and will trust to give you what you want out of the process. It sounds like they have got everything bang on, in terms of what you've asked for (not necessarily what you want to pay for) and they've understood your pain points. We have offered a similar package in the past of a building regs+ package for self builders, the building regs drawings are made for the purpose of proving the design meets the buidling regs so there will be a good bit of interpretation on the specifics for construction - again it sounds like they've offered you the best fit for your needs but it's up to you whether you see the value in it - I would imagine that the drawing package won't be significantly different but the specifics will be (i.e. they might show threshold details for specific manufacturers doors in your specific construction etc) A word of advice, don't go down the hourly route when you can't define the scope into very small chunks, no one likes working on an hourly rate and it introduces a bit of mis-trust when you get the invoices in - the lump sum route is better for everyone. The planning conditions and committee service is an interesting one - yes, not every application will go to committee, but if it does, then you have the worry of how much in additional fees you are racking up, if it goes to a second hearing etc there could be significant unknowns in there. Conditions generally should be straightforward enough to discharge, but again there is potential in there for something to become sticky so it's all about your attitude to risk, whether you want to be certain of the maximum costs or want to be hopeful of the minimum costs

A small project with a small budget doesn't necessarily mean the amount of work required is equally as small, sometimes trying to rework details to meet a small budget mean much more input than would be required on a bigger project or one with a bigger budget. I've done a bit of research into how fees have worked on domestic alterations and extensions for the last couple of years and I'd say that 15% is about the average for consultant input (that's generally us and a structural engineer) But when you consider that you're having to hand another 20% of your budget over to hmrc for vat and then you've got local authority fees, scaffolding, site set up etc, you can easily get to having less than half of your budget spent on the actual building work!

45 degree walls make me cry ?

How long ago were the permissions obtained? Someone is going to have to redo the drawings and design to your specifications, it's pretty much starting from scratch unless you have the raw cad files to edit in terms of what information is needed for submissions, did they have an engineer on board already etc?

Tbh I find that really strange... I'd always want to be involved from start to finish with any project, going through the technical design stage you are still making key design decisions on how things are put together, if anything this is a more critical stage for making sure the design intention is carried through to construction. Maybe it's just me!

the issue you have is that you aren't commissioning someone to start and finish the project, you are only employing a series of sub contractors directly (and doing some of the work yourself) which lands you in a an uncomfortable space contractually, I think even the RIBA domestic one is set up for a main contractor. It really comes down to exactly what is acceptable to your lender, they may want a quantity surveyor involved to value the works for drawdowns etc...

I don't think either of those contracts would be suitable for a "self build" as you really need a main contractor to undertake and be responsible for all the work and the work of subcontractors up to and post completion, insure the site, take possession of the site etc. The homeowner contracts might be more suitable for your purposes. You can't be client and contract administrator for minor works as it relies on a third party intermediary to make decisions, if you were employer and contract administrator you would certainly have a conflict of interests in any decision making relating to extensions of time or additional costs!

Is that your house design? looks really sweet give us more!!

You could do a non material amendment to your planning permission to do those works during the construction phase. If it's something that falls into permitted development then it shouldn't give you any problems

You've framed that in a very particular way - first of all, I don't think it's ever used for "not adding sufficient insulation" - that would imply that the heat loss of the construction is unacceptable, however many people get to the point where the difference in heat loss between a 0.11 and a 0.12 wall isn't worth the extra investment in terms of the capital costs are never repaid over the lifetime cost of the building.

Not sure they always appear on the portal? Did they get a confirmation letter from the local authority validating the application and confirming timescales?

£1k + VAT!!? It would seem they might not have assessed the liability properly...

Yup ?

I once had a very wealthy client install one of these (not a quooker but same idea) and it caused no end of problems, I'm not sure how much fizzy water a person needs but you could get a few years supply for the cost of the tap without worrying about adjusting the gas all the time...

tbh, I'm not sure that would enhance anyone's portfolio! I didn't really get what the rationale was for the angles, they just kinda shrugged it off by saying it would be interesting to look at?! Your home made perfect drives me absolutely crazy, I actually stopped watching it. The people on it, always set this mind bending brief, where they want something out-there, a new way of living etc for 20k, then they pick the safe option which doesn't answer the brief they set! It happens all the time and I'm not criticising anyone for it, but the irish boy must get driven mad when he designs to the brief and gets dropped when they actually have to commit to building it...

usually the engnieer will consult with SEPA to come to a solution for it, although discharge to a watercourse is generally acceptable to them so can't see what the issue is? The SEPA local offices are one of the few authorities who are actually straight forward to deal with, is this just a planning condition or is it on the consultees response to your application?

Without the context of what you're trying to argue/prove its hard to have any discussion on this; yes it's entirely possible to build a house which burns down and complies with domestic regs, the regs related to fire are there to allow safe escape for occupants, not to stop the thing burning down - and the spread of fire ones are there to stop the fire spreading to other properties...

Clearly I'm missing something here - the sketch shows the glass flush with the deck, and 150mm legs holding the decking to that level - why can't you use smaller legs and use the space for insulation without changing any of the levels on the sketch?

The rule of thumb I've heard with hybrid roofs is you should have twice as much insulation on the outside... If you're using adjustable feet to take the deck, have you looked at all the options for that? And/or can you not raise the finished level of the glass to accommodate a higher deck?