Building Reg Drawing Cost

[Patrick]

@colin7777

+1 for doing the Building Regs yourself . I would retrospectively do this and didnt find the 739 amendments I have done myself to the (rubbish) plans submitted by my architect too difficult.

Fair bit of reading and time consuming , yes, but not difficult.

 

Different Topic:

I watched this verbal battle between @Sensus and @JSHarris over the last weeks in all the topics when they clash, and their opinions always seem to clash.

For the Forum s entertainment, I would like to suggest a fair match of Chessboxing  between the 2 of you.

On Neutral Grounds somewhere in Birmingham .

 

?

[redtop]

On 20/09/2019 at 14:31, Sensus said:

 

Why C24 grade timber, out of interest?

 

The design calcs for a timber frame run to many dozens of pages. We used to send them directly to building control - never bothered with the client, as they would be absolutely meaningless to most people.

 

Similarly with trussed rafter roofs; most people aren't even aware that the manufacturer's calcs go to Building Control, but they are necessary, and if the BCO is doing their job properly, they should be requesting them if not provided.

150X47 means they fit on the steels perfectly and C24 because its stronger than C16 :-) i didnt need to go to C24 but all the way through we have over specified a bit. I view it the same way as insulation, we could go with the min to meet BC but as its our own we want better; same with the main structure.

[epsilonGreedy]

On 20/09/2019 at 11:52, JSHarris said:

That's without any foundation in fact, I think you've decided to just makes stuff up for reasons best known to yourself.

 

 

In one of your appearances on the House Planning podcast the episode is summarized as your guide on how to avoid using an architect. Elsewhere I recall you participating in the thread which dismisses architects as "house artists". Two of the defining ingrained opinions of this forum's old hands is a cultural belief that architects and the NHBC are inherently bad. I have given up posting links to authoritative NHBC technical guidance documents because of the derision this triggers.

 

Back to this thread. The pro architect clearly demonstrated the limited validity of your opinion and your response to being debated into a corner was a spiteful public warning targeted at him. Your post should be subject to review at the next FMG meeting to assess whether your post warrants censure.

 

On 20/09/2019 at 11:52, JSHarris said:

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.

 

 

You probably feel this way because you construe any challenge to your opinion as a hostile personalized act.

 

On 20/09/2019 at 11:52, JSHarris said:

I described the process I used, in good faith.

 

 

One thing that distinguishes amateurs from professionals is that amateurs over extrapolate general beliefs from very limited personal experience. I believe I am as good as an NHS GP in diagnosing tennis elbow and recommending treatment because I suffered from it. I would not however set up as clinic to treat sufferers because I know I might misdiagnose bone cancer. If I did offer an opinion about tennis elbow on a forum and a pro GP chipped in and said "actually it is a bit more complicated" I would not then proceed to post a public warning targeting that GP.

 

[Jeremy Harris]

6 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

In one of your appearances on the House Planning podcast the episode is summarized as your guide on how to avoid using an architect. Elsewhere I recall you participating in the thread which dismisses architects as "house artists". Two of the defining ingrained opinions of this forum's old hands is a cultural belief that architects and the NHBC are inherently bad. I have given up posting links to authoritative NHBC technical guidance documents because of the derision this triggers.

 

Back to this thread. The pro architect clearly demonstrated the limited validity of your opinion and your response to being debated into a corner was a spiteful public warning targeted at him. Your post should be subject to review at the next FMG meeting to assess whether your post warrants censure.

 

 

You probably feel this way because you construe any challenge to your opinion as a hostile personalized act.

 

 

One thing that distinguishes amateurs from professionals is that amateurs over extrapolate general beliefs from very limited personal experience. I believe I am as good as an NHS GP in diagnosing tennis elbow and recommending treatment because I suffered from it. I would not however set up as clinic to treat sufferers because I know I might misdiagnose bone cancer. If I did offer an opinion about tennis elbow on a forum and a pro GP chipped in and said "actually it is a bit more complicated" I would not then proceed to post a public warning targeting that GP.

 

 

 

Not sure why you feel the need to make a personality neutral debate into a personal attack on me.  Yes, I am construing your comments as a "hostile personalized act" (sic) as it seems very clear that is how you intend them to be read (and not for the first time here, either,).

 

FWIW, My views are based on my personal experience, not your personal experience and not the personal experience of anyone else here.  It's a matter of record (legal record in Scotland as it happens) that we were very badly let down by the NHBC, and that as a consequence I ended up spending a lot of money to get a nearly new house, with an NHBC warranty, repaired to the proper standard.  A 12 month legal battle with the NHBC has left me a little jaded with them as a body.  I'm not alone, either, as it seems that barely a month goes by without there being a tale of houses, built by NHBC members, being found to have major defects, some of them structural.  People can draw their own conclusions as to whether or not they feel that the NHBC are competent.

 

I will correct you on one error, though.  You have implied that I have a "cultural belief that architects and the NHBC are inherently bad".  That is a lie, plain and simple.  I've never once said that architects "are inherently bad" at all.  I have reported my mixed experiences with architects, which were just that, mixed.  We saw four practices that didn't impress us at all, have since met a few that seemed OK, plus a couple that I happen to think are very good indeed, one of whom I have recommended to several other people, as she has impressed me that much.  I would say that this is reasonably balanced overall, given that architects are, just like the rest of us, people, so there are bound to be good, indifferent and bad amongst them.

 

Of course anyone here on this forum is posting their opinion based on their experience, whether that be limited or not.  It matters not one jot what profession, trade, or whatever someone has earned a crust from, posts will always reflect the views and experiences of the person writing them.  My posts are coloured by experience from my profession as a scientist and then manager, working for the government until I retired in 2010, from having rebuilt several old houses, from having removed the roof, raised the walls, re-roofed, re-wired, re-plumbed and dug out the ground floor and laid a new one in a house years ago, from having built an industrial unit, a couple of garages, rewired dozens of houses, restoring a 1920's pitch pine on oak yacht from the keel up, building a couple of road cars, plus three race cars, designing, building and putting into series production a kit aeroplane, building an electric motorcycle and most recently designing and building a passive house. 

 

Sure there are gaps in my experience and knowledge, but when  I am critical of something, or some organisation, it is always based on my experience, not something I've read somewhere on the internet.

[Bitpipe]

On 19/09/2019 at 21:28, Weebles said:

+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 ?

 

 

 

+1 again - our architect wanted £15k for the BCO drawings and planning conditions discharge stage - however we got detailed drawings and calcs from our TF manufacturer and commissioned a SE to do similar for the basement design. We parted on friendly terms at this stage.

 

I passed those two packages to the independent BCO plus a DIY SAP calc (they were not interested in the PHPP) and I got a list of other items he needed, water calc etc..

 

Was all very straight forward with a few back and forwards to answer specific questions.

 

I did the planning discharge myself, a few hours of work on life time homes and similar requirements - main bit was commissioning the GI & contamination survey (did that via basement SE) and the archaeological survey brief.

 

Very useful exercise to get under the skin of the build and gave me the confidence to PM it all the way through.