mr rusty

I'm a DIY builder, but in the day job I work with construction contracts for MEP packages with the tier 1 contractors. The question I always ask when looking at any contract is "who has design responsibility". Most disputes and problems are associated with design, so making sure you understand exactly where this sits is fundamental in assessing the value for money of any service. The alternative to using your own architect is to employ a builder on a full design and build contract, but of course they will price-in the design risk. I'm not going to comment on your post in detail, as this is not what I have experience with.

Not true. If a son is doing work for his parents, then they can do what they like. Arguably it's not even a commercial arrangement.

My 10c on this, is that if you are owed a reasonable amount of money, and can prove it, use these guys:- https://cobrafinancial.co.uk/ My wife did for a £4.5K debt, and 2 months later they went bust. It was a company, and they sent a couple of guys in uniform with body cams to collect the debt. Having them hanging around the communal reception in the shared office obviously worked....... Winning a court case is only any good if you can collect.

You have absolutely no rights to insist this is done. Few points. 1) The PWA in fact can work against you. A developer, putting in place a PWA, does have to follow the agreed plans BUT, should there be any damage caused by the development, with a PWA in place, YOU would have to prove that in fact the damage was caused by the development - the developer is in a much stronger position. Without a PWA, the boot is on the other foot. If you claimed damage, the developer would have to prove it wasn't because of his work, so in some ways you have more power when the PWA is ignored. from a lawyers website:- "If a neighbour claims that they have suffered damage due to a Building Owners works they will provide evidence of this damage in its current state. Without a Schedule of Condition (usually part of a Party Wall Award) to compare conditions before and after it will be difficult (if not impossible) to identify what damage has been caused by the works. As there has been a breach of statutory duty the claim by the Adjoining Owners will usually be assumed by the Court to be correct unless it can be proved otherwise." 2) You have no power to insist that insurance is in place. If the work is being carried out by the son on behalf of the parents so be it. It is the clients prerogative to insist on insurance if they think it is necessary, but not any third party. Like all claims for damages, if there were to be damage you would have to prove negligence. I'm assuming your property is insured. If there were to be a claim it would most likely be your insurers who would go after the developer IF they thought negligence could be claimed. Absence of insurance is not negligence -it's just a choice. Remember that damage does not automatically prove that work is negligent. To prove negligence, you have to prove that the work has not been done with the skill and care that a professional would be expected to carry out. Despite skill and care, unforeseen things still happen, and that's what insurance is for. Of course, a professional contractor will most likely produce risk assessments and method statements (RAMS) for the work to demonstrate they have considered potential risks. Maybe the Son has considered the risks and documented them. You have no right to ask or see his assessments. 3) I suspect this is the crux of it. You just don't like their build. Be careful, because once you start getting down to trifling issues, there is the principal of de minimis. If you start complaining that the house is 200mm different to the plans, most likely the planning may well agree but that the difference is de minimis and does not warrant enforcement. Every plan I have ever submitted to planning has always had "dimensions are +/- 100mm" written on it, and all have been passed. TBH, I'm not surprised they are not keeping you informed. If I had a neighbour coming across as a bit of a PITA, I wouldn't either.

If you are a real cook, you need a good overhead extractor. Not so good over an island. Try searing off some steaks, or chargrilling aubergine slices on a red hot griddle with an in-worktop downdraft extraction only. You'll have a kitchen full of smoke...

The NHBC guidance says minimum of 100mm beam support https://nhbc-standards.co.uk/6-superstructure-excluding-roofs/6-5-steelwork/6-5-4-installation-and-support/ Apologies to @George - I see this has already been posted......

It depends - not all will want to. In any construction it is essential that the client understands who is carrying the design risk. If you employ a designer and give the builder a set of plans to build to, then it's you carrying the risk. Your builder has no contractual relationship with your designer, so if the design goes wrong because the drawings are incorrect, the builder can wash his hands of liability "your drawings, your design", not my problem", leaving you to take it up with your designer who might say "I don't agree with the builder, nothing wrong with my drawings". It is for this reason that many contracts, certainly in the commercial world, are "design and build". The client produces their specification and technical requirements, but the design and the build is carried out by the builder who directly employs the architects and designers. e.g. from an NEC3 ECC contract (which is the first one that comes to hand on my desk) "The contractor provides the works in accordance with the works information, The contractor designs the parts of the works which the works information states he is to design". From the clients point of view it's a very clean way of working since all the risk is with the builder, but obviously the client has to pay the extra for the risk the builder is taking on.

So you have a Building Control that are being a PITA. As @Redbeard says the alternative AIUI is a building notice - you don't have to submit plans at all. IMHO you could do this by employing a design and build contractor with a specification that clearly identifies that it is the contractors responsibility to comply with regs and achieve a completion certificate. Stage payments will be paid in accordance with satisfactory inspections and sign off. You'll pay more passing the design risk to the contractor, but it could be a solution. I've used D&B on a BN for a tiny extension, but it was a very straightforward project.

Surely the question really should be "exactly where is the boundary". In my own case, for expediency a couple of years ago, I allowed a developer to install a new fence that it could be argued was 1m inside an old boundary line of our property. He replaced a very overgrown sprawling hedge at his cost. Should I ever have been faced with an over zealous planner, I would have produced compelling evidence (including the developers own topographical survey) to show the fence wasn't the legal boundary. Sometimes maybe the boundary is obvious to 100mm, other times, not so much.

There was a similar application went through near us recently on a PiP. It might be a useful reference https://publicaccess.southribble.gov.uk/online-applications/files/784C23FE0A04F5A5B1A4B66E7D5A38A5/pdf/07_2023_00285_PIP-PLANNING_STATEMENT-306231.pdf and the approval https://publicaccess.southribble.gov.uk/online-applications/files/59E8C09E3BD1F3CC3951B3C6C8A7D69E/pdf/07_2023_00285_PIP-DELEGATED_REPORT-313190.pdf

If we really are just talking about a garden shed, rather than an outbuilding, then even though technically not permitted, I would just do it. - What's a shed £1K? That's the limit of your risk, and personally I can't see any LA bothering to enforce against a shed if there was one there before. Of course, there's always a chance of a bad neighbour complaining, but if you get one of those, there are ways of hitting back, like suggesting you'll plant a row of tall trees if they are that bothered about seeing a shed.

Every drawing I have submitted for the few (fairly small beer) planning applications I have put in has had "all dimensions are +/- 100mm" marked on. Never been queried.

I think this might hinge on what the quote/offer said. It could have said one of 3 things :- The price is £X Inc VAT or The price is £X plus VAT or The price is £X and the vat is £Y and the price to pay is £X+Y. If it's the 2nd option I think you are stuffed. If it's either of the other two, maybe not...

IMHO, working in the commercial contracting world, there are 3 key things 1) scope - who is doing what, 2) price what exactly is priced for and 3) liability - if the design goes wrong who is responsible. This decision between designer and builder isn't just about cost, it's also about where liability sits. Think about it. There is an argument that says a design and build contract with the builder having 100% responsibility to get that completion certificate has merit because it prevents the builder and architect playing one off against the other. But I expect a full liability D&B contract will be loaded by the builder with more than £6K for his risk. And, of course, if you don't pin-down design liability to someone else, it all rests with you! Just to extend that thought - in the commercial world it would be quite normal for the client to initially employ the architect for early design work, but then when a D&B builder is selected the architect is "novated" to the contractor. The contractor takes on the initial design, and extends it to completion. The initial architect then becomes employed directly by the contractor. The client has one point of contact - the contractor. I have never heard of this arrangement being used in the domestic world though...

^^this. +2