ETC

@Iceverge Contrary to @ETC would be keen to retain a similar style in this example. A bolt on contemporary extension would feel like my granny wearing bling trainers, but that's just my taste I suppose. However I do think there's a good market for architects presenting balanced functional non flashy design. Plenty of great examples out there where a good imagination has enabled an old building to be extended with a contemporary extension. Is there anything wrong with your granny wearing bling trainers? https://thecoolhunter.net/old-is-new-again/ https://www.wowhaus.co.uk/2014/09/21/on-the-market-award-winning-19th-century-martello-tower-conversion-in-bawdsey-suffolk/ Personally I think you're very close with the downstairs at least. On reflection the utility and W/C are better off as per your suggestion. Not even a million miles close. If I’ve ever seen a bolt on job this is it. Bland and unimaginative.

I’m afraid that I do not like this design. I think the floor plan is quite restrictive and the elevations are over fussy with detailing that will be difficult to do and expensive to build. It looks quaint but the rooms could turn out quite tight. You rightly said that you’d like built in furniture rather than loose furniture and I don’t think this should be difficult to achieve. I think you might be best suited with something a bit more contemporary and simple to build. I don’t see why - with a little imagination - you couldn’t get the number of bedrooms you would like to have. If you like the barrel roof - use a barrel roof over the whole house - it’s quite agricultural and visually appealing but expensive to build and if not detailed correctly could be noisy.

Everything - including how it’s drafted up. Did you click the link?

If these were prepared by an Architect I’m a monkey’s uncle - terrible - ask for your money back! Click the link below! https://architects-register.org.uk

@jayc89 I’ve been reading this post for a while with some interest. I’m really not surprised you got knocked back by the Planners - this house and extension is a monster. I think you need to look at the overall massing of the house with the extension - the overall impression really is massive and you should look at physically and visually separating the original house and the new extension. Look at retaining the original structure and adding on a sympathetic extension rather than just filling the width of the house with something as overpowering as you are currently proposing. The original building looks quite wonderful and I’d go as far as saying that you really should consider taking the building back to it’s original form and then adding a contemporary extension - something that’s not a pastiche and without that dreadful 45 degree corner cut-off which makes absolutely no sense and will only add additional and unnecessary expense. I really think you have a fantastic opportunity to do something quite wonderful with this building - I don’t think the current proposal is it though. Sorry for being harsh but I think your designers should rethink their proposal.

@Indy @CharlieKLP

@Indy, @CharlieKLP Roof Plan.

@Indy@CharlieKLP Ground and first floor alternative plans. Line drawing so not totally sure it will fit into the site. Have kept 2m from one boundary and 1.0m from the other. No glazing on 1.0m side boundary. Flat roof to centopart with 3no. large roof lights to bring light deep into the stairwell and family bathroom. Concept only. All copyright ETC.

@LnPand a completely modern version.

@LnP

@LnP

@LnP

@LnP

Absolutely agree. Contrived and ugly.

Balconies - Absolute waste of time. Never used in this climate.

@IndyI really can’t believe that anyone spending over £1m on a home wouldn’t hire the best architect he/she could find to design a dream house. If I had that amount of money to spend on a build I’d be looking to appoint the best architects out there rather than try and get the cheapest plans drawn by the local plan drawerer. if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

Very much looking forward to seeing them.

@IndyWith a little bit of imagination you can bring light deep into any floor plan.

@IndyI’m afraid I haven’t had time to read all the posts but I have had a very quick look at your drawings. I really think your architect (if he/she really is an architect) could have done so much more with the plan form and the elevations which I think are contrived and over-bearing. The massing of the dwelling is quite over-powering - especially the side elevations and the creation of the gables to the front for aesthetic reasons appear contrived. I’m afraid I’m not convinced by the porch - it really looks out of scale and will be a nightmare to clean and heat or cool. I’m afraid it reminds me of post-modernist commercial architecture. I think you’ll end up with quite dark areas in some of the rooms and if your boundaries are close you may find that you will have to limit the amount of glazing to the side elevations - especially the Snug and ground floor living room. I am by no means advocating the use of any of the ideas that I proposed but I think your need to create a symmetrical front elevation is severely restricting what you can do with your plot and creating a house which will be appear over-powering, cramped and dark. Sorry - I’m not a fan. ETC.

@CharlieKLP It seem s to me reading through the posts that the answer to your question of what self-builders want in an architect (capital A) I think the answer is quite simple - a first class design or designs within a very specific and often meagre budget, planning approval, building regulations drawings, building control approval and to hold their hand on site and when the sh*t hits the fan all for a fee that you’d pay a plan drawer working with a couple of blunt Rotrings on his kitchen table. But seriously - I think you have a great opportunity for getting involved with the self-build community although I think that you find the experience much more challenging than working in practice. @IanR In relation professional fees - you get what you pay for - pay peanuts and you get monkeys. There are some very good architects out there who will be more than happy to give you a great design, give you construction drawings and help you on site for a very modest fee. You seem to think that an architect (A) is out to get as much money out of you for a small a service as possible. This is not the case for the majority of us who are very conscientious and who will go above and beyond what they are paid to do. I joined this forum in the hope of helping any self-builder with my skills and have done so successfully over the last few years through PM. I firmly believe that it is a false economy to hire one architect for the design and then take the design to a plan drawer to draw up. Finally - I will never hand over a CAD file to anyone.

@IanR Because the Architect's work is not the finished article. Having the Native CAD files is an advantage for preparing the Regs Drawings, drainage drawings, frame design, further renders to try different options etc. etc. etc. My question was rhetorical - use the same architect for building regulations drawings as planning drawings. This will remove the need for a CAD file to be given to a client and reduce mistakes and liability issues between all parties. If the client doesn't have these, then they need to return to the architect and pay a premium for the additional work, or get others to start from scratch. Agree a fee for planning and building control drawings at the start. I really can’t see any advantage - other than cost - for splitting the services but I do see a shed load of problems.

I’m afraid that I feel the same way as @the_r_sole. The is absolutely no need for any client to need the CAD file and I would never dream of giving a CAD file to anyone. Why on earth would I - having spent years setting up drawing types, creating line types, text and dimension types not to mention notes and blocks - hand this information to a client so that they can either hand it over to their friendly neighbourhood “plan drawer” to copy and to use as their own data. I was asked once for CAD files and when asked my client said that he wanted them so that if he ever extended the house he would have a CAD file and make doing any future drawing easier! I appreciate that the client may only require a part service (planning) from one person and then get an additional service (building regulations drawings) from another person but the only reason anyone would do this is to potentially reduce the cost of the preparation of the drawings. Having two consultants preparing separate design and construction drawings is in my opinion a very bad idea - mistakes can be made and once made fingers will get pointed and the client is stuck in the middle. I cannot understand why an architect would market him or herself to just do design or planning drawings. In my opinion a continuous service is the best way to go so that the construction drawings follow on once the design has been finalised and planning permission is obtained. I recently met an architect (A) who admitted to me that he didn’t do his own construction drawings. I really was dumbfounded that he had to bring another company in to do the construction drawings. Madness. Why on earth would you throw away the chance to earn money by not being able to do construction drawings?

I’m trying very hard to understand why a client would want a CAD file. Can someone please explain this to me.

You’re not paying for the CAD files. You are paying for drawings to get your proposal built but the drawings should be fully dimensioned and not left to a builder to scale from. There are copyright issues and potential abuse of CAD files if handed over to a client. I don’t agree that houses are no better than caves when it comes to design - space planning and conceptual design as well as smart housing, low energy and passive house design are all complex design problems that need a talented designer (note I didn’t say architect) to carry out.

Absolutely true. Resigned from the RIBA last year after paying a shed load of money in fees with next to nothing in return. I don’t even think the RIBA is interested in protecting the title and would prefer to promote the public using a “chartered architect” rather than anyone else who would - when the ARB is scrapped - be able to call themselves an architect.