Building Reg Drawing Cost

[colin7777]

My Architect has decided to retire, I have gained planning permission but now need to find someone to produce Building Reg drawings.

Am I likely to find a company or individual that would be willing to take planning drawings and produce a set of building reg drawings.

What are the typical costs for Building regs for a simple 2 storey box shape timber building.

[epsilonGreedy]

My architect was too busy or too important to consider creating building control diagrams so he directed me to a firm of architectural technicians who knew his local heritage style.

 

The architectural technician was happy to proceed even though the original architect was one of the few remaining "quill & pen" based practices hence the architectural technician had to recreate the new diagrams without a digital file. The fee was £1350 for an l-shaped 1500 sq ft house plus garage.

 

They are distinct professional disciplines which should be happy to cooperate.

[Jeremy Harris]

If you have time to do a bit of research, and learn some drawing skills (if you don't already have them) then it isn't at all hard to do your own full-plans building regs submission.  I had never done one before, so didn't really know what was needed/expected, but had a go, and was only asked to provide a few fairly minor points of clarification.  Not a massive amount of drawing work needed, most of my time was spent reading the building regs (more accurately, the approved documents), in particular, sifting out the large amount of stuff in the approved documents that wasn't applicable.

 

The bottom line is that a building regs submission for a fairly conventional house is not a lot of work, and doesn't require someone with a great deal of expertise.  It's well within the capability of anyone with a bit of spare time available to learn some stuff and produce the documents needed.  I can provide a link to my blog entry that covers our building regs full plans submission, with the additional information requested, if that would help.

[Oz07]

Might help if you give location I know it can be done remotely but still

[colin7777]

Norwich area

[Jeremy Harris]

To put some costs into perspective:

 

We used a timber frame/foundation supplier who used their SE to do the frame structural calcs.  None of these needed to be submitted to BC with regard to Part A compliance.  All I sent the BCO with regard to Part A was a report from the passive slab supplier. Kore, detailing how the system worked.

 

There is no requirement to use a SAP assessor at the design stage.  It's pretty straightforward to do a design stage SAP and produce an EPC.  I did it using the free version of the Stroma software, available to anyone, took me maybe a day to understand how to drive it and gather the data needed.  Not hard to do, and saved a couple of hundred pounds. 

 

I did the outline design, site plan, foundation and services layout drawings for our build.  Our timber frame supplier did detailed structural drawings to allow them to manufacture the frame components, but building control weren't interested in these - the BCO was more than happy to just accept the reassurance that the timber frame supplier was using a competent and methodical approach, signed off by their own SE.

 

The total cost to me for our building control full plans submission was the fee to LABC.  Off the top of my head I think this was around £650, and included all inspections (but this was in 2013).

 

 

 

[Weebles]

+1 for the @JSHarris approach.

We prepared our own drawing with help from people on this forum, in particular @dogman.   Some of the wording is fairly standard and it is good to understand the specifications in the building regs for when you come to make on site decisions.  

 

Tbh, doing it ourselves saved alot of fees to the architect.  But i suspect it has cost us in terms of a few mistakes we made, that might have been picked up by a professional person.  Silly things but material - will be fine for our next house ?

 

 

[dpmiller]

Our TF people looked after all the structural drawings and forwarded it directly to the BCO. This, as there's no ownership of the kit whilst it's still at the design stage.

[Jeremy Harris]

12 minutes ago, Sensus said:

 Your BCO was being lax, then, quite frankly.

 

They should have checked this as part of the Full Plans assessment.

 

Did you use an Approved Inspector, by any chance?

 

I used Wiltshire LABC.  As it happened, our build created a bit of interest within building control, so we had quite a lot of attention, including me being asked part-way through the build to spend and afternoon giving a CPD session for all the local building inspectors, a couple of planning officers and the conservation officer, at the request of our building inspector.

 

Our completion inspection was by the head of local building control, as he wanted to see how a passive house had turned out (ours was the first passive house he'd seen).

 

There was no indication of laxness.  In  fact, there were lots of photos taken, questions asked and examples of some of the innovative construction methods they'd not seen before noted, together with samples of some things like fasteners they hadn't seen before being taken.

[Jeremy Harris]

3 minutes ago, Sensus said:

 

If they genuinely failed to ask for structural calculations for the timber frame, then that was a pretty blatant indication of laxness in its own right.

 

I should add that I've worked as a BCO myself, in the past.

 

 

Not what I said.  They accepted that the timber frame supplier had used a reputable and well-known SE to sign off the design of both the frame and the foundation, and they saw no merit in asking for copies of his work.  I simply stated this in my submission and LABC accepted it.

[Jeremy Harris]

2 minutes ago, Sensus said:

 

Well, they shouldn't have. That's absolutely unacceptable... you might as well say that there is no merit in asking for copies of any design drawings and documentation, if you're willing to take the applicant's word that the work has been undertaken by a reputable and well-known Architect and Structural Engineer.

 

 

in your opinion.

 

It clearly is not the opinion of Wiltshire Council LABC.  Equally, it's not the opinion of other building control bodies. as I know that others have done much as I did and had their submission approved by their building control body.

 

One has to ask why I was asked to give an afternoon CPD session to their inspectors if they felt that my submission was incompetent.

[Oz07]

8 hours ago, Sensus said:

 

I am inclined to take the matter up with the BCA and LABC.

 

Bit strong surely.  Don't we all have enough to do?

 

With respect @JSHarris you might have found it easy to prepare all the technical details and sap but for us mortals it's harder than you make it seem! I prefer to send the technicians drawings back to him constantly for revisions. Think I've made it to revision G before now!

 

[Jeremy Harris]

In a previous life, I was a head of type approval for all UK maritime radio, radar and comms equipment.  That meant scrutinising reams of evidence from testing and manufacturing standard compliance documentation to ensure that a raft of EU safety standards were complied with.  It was completely normal to trust some self-produced evidence, on the basis that the manufacturer had used a recognised competent authority to gather it and check it for compliance.

 

The parallel here is much the same.  The timber frame company produced a detailed set of drawings with structural calculations that were signed of by a reputable SE and they gave a ten year warranty.  The structural requirements were warranted to meet the equivalent Irish specification to Part A, and agreed as such in the pack.  Our BCO saw no need to go through every page of that checking again, he just took it on face valuie that an accredited company would be working within the terms of their accreditation.  I see nothing wrong with that in the way that building control is supposed to work.

 

A friend of mine works for a pressure vessel accreditation company,  He spends his life looking at evidence that pressure vessels are safe and compliant and passes that information back to the regulatory body.  The regulatory body don't come out and double check his work, they accept that if he's warranted it as safe and compliant on behalf of the manufacturer that';s hired him then it is.

 

This is no different to a BCO relying on standard details for block and brick construction, and relying on the block, brick, lintel, timber suppliers etc and manufacturing their products to the standards they have said they would.

[Russell griffiths]

I have just submitted an amendment to our drawings as we have changed a large steel beam in the roof, this meant a new set of calculations from the structural engineer, I hand delivered them to bc as well as sent an electronic version, in all there where 26 pages of documents for this one steel, I don’t for one minute believe that bc even looked at them, they would have just stuck it in my file and carried on with the next task. 

 

 

[Jeremy Harris]

5 minutes ago, Sensus said:

 

 Don't be absurd - of course it is.

 

The products you have mentioned would all be supported/accredited by Agrement certification.

 

 

So why is a house construction system that carries an NSAI certification (which the UK recognise) as an accredited construction method, with structural warranty, any different?

[Jeremy Harris]

10 minutes ago, Sensus said:

 

NSAI is an accreditation system similar to Agrement. When applied to a house construction system, it assures (among other things) a QA system that would in turn assure the provision of structural calculations for each application of the system.

 

NSAI are the ISO member body for the Republic of Ireland, and a member of the European Organisation for Technical Approvals, which we currently accept because we are obliged to do so as a member of the EU (that's not to say that there's anything wrong with NSAI, but whether we continue to recognise it post-Brexit is anyone's guess).

 

 

 

 

Precisely, which is why, quite properly and correctly, our BCO accepted that their construction system was compliant with the requirements of Part A.

 

At risk of involving the forbidden "B" word, I rather suspect that most of  the interoperability agreements between the UK and ROI will continue, as so many of them were established before either country joined the EU.  I also suspect that those bodies that currently EU Notified Bodies (as I was was, once) will remain so, as there is no requirement to be an EU member in order to be one (there are NBs in Japan and China, for example, issuing approvals to EU Directives and ISO standards).

 

 

[Jeremy Harris]

Just now, Sensus said:

 

You never stated that your TF supplier had NSAI system accreditation.

 

I can tell you that the OP's preferred suppliers do not, so your advice and approach are not applicable.

 

 

Why did I need to?  It's all over their website and several here used the same company, in part because their accreditation applied here.

[Declan52]

Let's just stick to the facts please. This is becoming a little too personal. 

[Jeremy Harris]

Just to be clear here, as it seems we have a professional trying to convince members that the use of his, or a similarly qualified professionals services are mandatory for self-builders, I can say with certainty that there is no requirement to use one company to manage this for you,  You can coordinate it yourself if you understand the requirements, plus BC will quickly tell you if they need more information, anyway.

 

 Many foundation system providers, including the system we used, include the full structural design, including an SE's assessment of the ground conditions and the appropriate design elements needed to ensure the foundation system is OK, within their package.  If you go to Isoquick, Kore, Supergrund of any of the other package passive slab foundation suppliers, or any of the specialist piled foundation suppliers, you will find they all offer a signed off design within the package price.  I know this for a fact, as before settling on using our chosen builders package I checked out all of the about passive slab suppliers.

 

Similarly, most timber frame suppliers, including those offering closed panel construction system, SIPs etc, will provide the required structural evidence needed.  They produce this when doing the frame design from the supplied drawings, and all those I spoke with (around 5 or 6 different companies) all offered either accreditation for their build system or a drawing pack with calcs for BC.  There should be no need for going to a separate SE to obtain calcs and drawings for the structure, unless opting to stick build to your own design.  There's a lot to be said for using the pack produced by the supplier, as they will have produced similar packs many times in the past, in all probability, and so will be familiar with the process.

 

I've a stack of stuff I collected back in 2012/2013 from when we were trawling around possible builders.  All include details of the structural sign off that is included in their package.

 

 

[Jeremy Harris]

FWIW, the first plot we looked at building on needed piled foundations.  To try and get a feel for the cost of these I looked at several options, and all of those companies came back with a price that included the piling and the design and construction of the ring beam support needed for the house design we intended to build.  Not sure how commonplace this is (the plot was just over the border into Wales, along the Wye valley) but it was a feature that interested me as it seems to be one less things I needed to worry about.

[epsilonGreedy]

1 hour ago, JSHarris said:

Just to be clear here, as it seems we have a professional trying to convince members that the use of his, or a similarly qualified professionals services are mandatory for self-builders, I can say with certainty that there is no requirement to use one company to manage this for you,  You can coordinate it yourself if you understand the requirements, plus BC will quickly tell you if they need more information, anyway.

 

 

Ouch! No we had professional input in the forum to a specific request and we now know that advice was sound in the circumstances of the questioner. Your advise was unsuitable because it was clouded by your previously described dislike of architects.

 

Post Grenfell I am surprised you would champion a culture of blind-faith delegated responsibility in public sector procedure.

[Jeremy Harris]

23 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

Ouch! No we had professional input in the forum to a specific request and we now know that advice was sound in the circumstances of the questioner. Your advise was unsuitable because it was clouded by your previously described dislike of architects.

 

Post Grenfell I am surprised you would champion a culture of blind-faith delegated responsibility in public sector procedure.

 

 

That's without any foundation in fact, I think you've decided to just makes stuff up for reasons best known to yourself.  Not the first time you're made grossly false assumptions about me, or my motives, either, it's getting to be a habit of yours, for reasons I'm wholly  unaware of.

 

I've nothing against anyone, least of all architects, and have written here, several times, that I felt that having an architect's input into our design would have been helpful. 

 

I have always done precisely the opposite of placing "blind faith in delegated responsibility".  I resigned as head of UK marine radio, radar and nav aid type approval on a point of principle over this very aspect of the way EU regulation was changing the way that critical equipment approval was being allowed with no proper independent inspection.  I do accept that this is the way that things work though, much as I may despair of it as a process.

 

I described the process I used, in good faith.  It was valid, accepted and fell well within the rules under which building control bodies are required to operate.  I checked carefully to make sure that what I was submitting was most probably what was needed, and have shared everything, warts and all, in the hope that it may be of use to others.  I provided no guarantee that what I did was a universal panacea, just put it forward that it is perfectly possible for someone with zero experience of the system to do some homework on what is required and manage it themselves, so saving some money, if they wish.

 

Ultimately, this is a "self-build" forum, with an inherent implication in that term that "self" means doing stuff oneself.  I very strongly believe that we should encourage people to do as much work themselves as they feel comfortable with, and provide information to help them make a choice as to which approach to take when facing any particular challenge.  I am not going to sit here and suggest that someone must always use a professional service for everything, when I know full well that there are plenty of tasks that can be done on a DIY basis if the person is prepared to learn new skills and apply them.

[Declan52]

4 hours ago, Sensus said:

 

Very well: the facts are that, contrary to the advice offered by 'others', structural engineer's calcs - whether supplied by the TF manufacturer and/or independently - will be necessary to determine B.Regs compliance in this instance.

 

As always, you need to be careful of making assumptions. I hope the OP doesn't mind me mentioning, but from private discussion I can add:

• The TF/SIPs suppliers and systems he is looking at do not have any system accreditation that would exempt them from this requirement.
• The build is in a waterside location in the Broads. As I'm sure we all know, the broads actually exist because the whole area is sitting on a thick layer of peat (the broads themselves are where this has been excavated for fuel in the middle ages, and the workings subsequently flooded). As such, the build will be on a pile-supported steel ring beam. There will thus be two sets of engineeing calcs involved - one for the TF/SIPs structure, another for the foundations/ring beam design. The TF/SIPs calculations will be required to feed line and point loads into the rim beam design, quite apart from anything else.

I don't really care what your debating but when your adding in personal jibes then I start to care. So just stick to the facts.

[redtop]

Not an expert at all... so here goes:-  we have a piled foundation, steel posts on top and then steel substructure and steel on 1st floor and roof for a stick build timber frame.  The SE designed all this (from pile loads upwards) although i stated the timber size (C24 150X47 for the main frame) and insulation (build method) i wanted; he then ensured it would work, specced the ijoists, etc, and provided the documents to BC.  I have to say that, other than pile loads, i havnt seen any calculations although i guess they could have been sent and i just havnt seen a copy.  We are using Stroma for BC; only feedback was to do with fire regs and wanting to see a copy of the actual pile tests (i guess torsion something or other) once inserted into the ground). 

[Jeremy Harris]

My experience was that nothing was sent by any third party to BC directly, with the exception of the Part P installation certificate that was lodged on the database that BC can access and the final as-built EPC which was similarly lodged on the database that BC can access.  Everything else came through me, and was forwarded on by me to BC if needed.  No structural calcs were sent to BC at all.