Drawing Names

[Big Neil]

I can't quite find the answer after days of surfing through various posts, but i've another probably very dumb question.

 

I know that one requires a set of drawings for planning submission - "Planning Drawings". I know one must submit drawings for building control "building control drawings". But is there a name one gives to the drawings which act as the effective instructions to a builder/roofer etc etc to tell them how to build the house. Is that "Construction Drawings"? Do these differ from the building control drawings or are they one and the same?

 

Also (side question), for anyone reading here who themselves knew exactly what they wanted and took their sketches and dimensions, to an architect/technician/technologist to do these drawings, (i.e. were looking for no aesthetic or stylistic input just the relevant structured drawings) what did you pay? I've yet to start playing around with any computer programs so i couldn't even begin to estimate how long it would take a pro to turn rough sketches into workable documents.

[vivienz]

My experience is that it depends on your project.

 

I have a student property that I'm going to extend next year and the building control drawings have been sufficient for builders to quote off and eventually do the actual work.  The house is a fairly standard 1930s suburban detached.

 

My self build is a different matter.  There were drawings for planning permission and then more for building control, both drawn up by the architect, then the timber frame firm did their own engineering drawings for the actual construction.  From the plans they brought with them to site, parts of this were subcontracted out, wherever there was specialist input from a structural engineer.  Typically, the foundation requirements where ring beams and piles were, then for the superstructure, wherever there were critical loading points or interaction with the steels.

 

 

[the_r_sole]

.

Edited September 26, 2019 by the_r_sole

[ToughButterCup]

1 hour ago, Big Neil said:

[...]

But is there a name one gives to the drawings which act as the effective instructions to a builder/roofer etc etc to tell them how to build the house. Is that "Construction Drawings"?

[...]

 

It depends. Locally, (West Lancs) yes.

There is no simple common standard to which builders and architects work. Our architect mutters darkly about builders doing what they want to anyway no matter how much detail is given, and  builders mutter darkly about not enough detail in the Construction Drawings.

 

Its another fine mess that they all got themselves into by not caring about communication. 

I cope with it by collating in great detail all the relevant information into one document. And provide a one page summary and a contents list.

A slog, but it works. Eventually.

 

[ultramods]

I was stung here with the difference between building warrant drawings and construction drawings.

 

Initially when I asked my architect for a quote to design the house he quoted for planning drawings and building warrant drawings and managing the submission to the council for both stages. At no point did he mention construction drawings. Once the planning and building warrant were approved we started engaging with the companies that were going to supply our: timber frame, windows, granite building blocks and even the builder for the foundations, they all wanted the CAD files for the house. The architect wouldn't give them the CAD files as he said the plans were not construction drawings and therefore his PI insurance wouldn't cover him giving the CAD files to the various companies. 

 

This was very frustrating. If when or we build again and use an architect I would contractually insist that we own all the CAD files that are created for the house design.

[the_r_sole]

.

Edited September 26, 2019 by the_r_sole

[ultramods]

7 minutes ago, the_r_sole said:

 

It's fairly common that you don't get to own CAD files, our appointment documents detail that, however we would always issue cad files to timber frame companies if we were employed on a full service, not sure why a builder would want cad files for foundations or a window company either tbh!

The builder wanted the CAD file for the setting out as the CAD file had the house positioned on top of the topographical survey. 

[the_r_sole]

.

Edited September 26, 2019 by the_r_sole

[ultramods]

1 minute ago, the_r_sole said:

 

yeah but surely they only need the footprint on the topo and not the full cad files - setting out drawings only have minimal information

surely the builder only needed a tape measure, a string and some pegs..........

 

Do you not get my frustration? The architect by not giving the CAD file as the single source of the design is increasing the likely hood of human error in another stage of the build.

 

When I initially asked him for a quote at no point did he tell me that when we come to the construction of the house various companies would ask for the CAD files but he wouldn't give them. The architect not giving the CAD file increased the risk that the timberframe company etc may have made a human error in translating the 2D drawings into a new CAD file, which could have resulted in the house being too high for example.

 

It's like Chinese whispers, what if the timberframe company wouldn't then give the company supplying the granite their CAD drawings of the house,? There would be an increased risk of the granite not being the correct size.

 

What if the timberframe company wouldn't give the builder their CAD file? Again more chance for human error resulting in the foundation being wrong dimension for the timberframe base/sole plate.

 

As a self builder you could say that I was naive in not knowing that all these companies would also be using CAD. My parents built a house around 6 years ago and there was no CAD used!

However as the architect is a professional I would have appreciated that he would have told me this before I appointed him, to then allow me to make an informed decision.

 

[the_r_sole]

.

Edited September 26, 2019 by the_r_sole

[ultramods]

10 hours ago, the_r_sole said:

 

not all builders will want a cad file, not all timber frame companies will want a cad file - all of the intellectual property is tied up in the CAD, someone can edit, cut and paste details from the source, so you could end up with very wrong cad files going around and all the liability for mistakes sitting with the original source - basically once you send out a cad drawing, anything can happen with it.

If you employ us for a full service there should be no issue with issuing cad information, as it can be controlled for specific uses by relevant parties. If you just want the cad files to do as you please then it's a different thing altogether. 

Having CAD plans doesn't really reduce the risk of mistakes or inaccuracy on site as it's still controlled by a human...

I knew the risk of doing this, however I said to the architect I would sign a document to state that I was accepting the risk.

 

However us having the CAD files to give to the timberframe company etc would have still lowered the risk of human error in one of these companies in reproducing the drawings.

 

[Big Neil]

So how does one ensure that a design for a house is adhered to, you know, so that all the walls are the right size and what not, and all the things like Roof trusses and floor joists that might be ordered prior to a shell being started, are the correct size?. Is the best thing actually to start with whoever is building the main structure, so the timber frame company, the brickie or whoever else, and get them to recommend someone they have worked with before, to ensure there is a proper set of working drawings?

One worry is that you end up building something that is lets say half a metre wider or deeper than was intended by the plans, and that even if this can be materially compensated for, a planning officer would come along and tell you to rip it down for not meeting a planning application.

 

I'd be interested to see  an example of where someone has worked with an architect/technician, where the drawings they provided were sufficient for the builder to go off, and the framing company/block supplier or whatever, to do their own calcs.

 

[jack]

10 hours ago, ultramods said:

I knew the risk of doing this, however I said to the architect I would sign a document to state that I was accepting the risk.

 

However us having the CAD files to give to the timberframe company etc would have still lowered the risk of human error in one of these companies in reproducing the drawings.

 

I've made it something of a mission to defend architects on this site, but in this case, I agree with you. Unless there's some legislation or caselaw supporting his position, the PI excuse is lame, imo.

 

10 hours ago, the_r_sole said:

not all builders will want a cad file, not all timber frame companies will want a cad file - all of the intellectual property is tied up in the CAD, someone can edit, cut and paste details from the source, so you could end up with very wrong cad files going around and all the liability for mistakes sitting with the original source - basically once you send out a cad drawing, anything can happen with it.

 

I appreciate why an architect would contract to retain ownership and control. It gives you a lever if you haven't been paid, for example. But if the client doesn't want to use the architect beyond a certain stage, and they're paid up, I can't see any reasonable basis for not releasing the CAD files.

 

I also don't follow your conclusion about an architect being legally responsible for downstream modification and manipulation by others. How is that possible? If you email the files, you have a cast iron record of the form in which they were sent. Any modifications after that are clearly outside your control and responsibility, and therefore surely can't be your or your PI's responsibility? With suitable disclaimers (not that I think they're even necessary), what's the problem?

[Ferdinand]

12 hours ago, the_r_sole said:

all of the intellectual property is tied up in the CAD, someone can edit, cut and paste details from the source, so you could end up with very wrong cad files going around and all the liability for mistakes sitting with the original source - basically once you send out a cad drawing, anything can happen with it.

I do not see that liability transfer.

 

If I change something such that it is not in accordance with the architect’s plans, then how is that architect liable? That would be a material fact.

 

F

[the_r_sole]

.

Edited September 26, 2019 by the_r_sole

[ToughButterCup]

1 minute ago, the_r_sole said:

[...]

it's very easy for notation to be removed relating to technical compliance,

[...]

 

Lock the file. Password protect it.

[the_r_sole]

.

Edited September 26, 2019 by the_r_sole

[ultramods]

IMHO the only actual reason that architects retain the CAD files is to retain as much business from the client as possible.

 

All this PI stuff is nonsense as it can easily be mitigated. 

 

My timberframe company said a couple of architects won't give them the CAD files but majority do.

 

My original point was to highlight this issue to the person that created this post so hopefully they don't find themselves in this situation.

 

As I have said above I have learnt from this and in future I simply would not use an architect that wont provide the CAD files, clearly I now know to ask this when initially engaging with architects. If they will provide CAD files I would then ensure I have a contract that states this.

 

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by ultramods

[Triassic]

I can remember being in a meeting where someone stated that they’d issed a document  in PDF so as to ensure it’s couldn’t be tampered with, at the time I had some pdf editing software installed on my laptop, so opened the secure file and edited the title and the project bottom line cost and sent it back to them during the meeting so as to demonstrate the PDF wasn't assecure as some would have you believe.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Triassic

[PeterW]

AutoCad has a read only file setting but you can just save as and take it off. I do get the issue however building and design need to join the 21st century at some point and realise you can use CAD,TotalStation and 3D machining as a system. 

[ToughButterCup]

13 minutes ago, the_r_sole said:

try doing that in autocad - [...]

 

Windows - make file read only, thus 

 

Right click the file icon> Properties>Attributes>Read-only>check the box>OK

 

But pdf 'ing something is better in terms of security......

[ultramods]

1 minute ago, PeterW said:

AutoCad has a read only file setting but you can just save as and take it off. I do get the issue however building and design need to join the 21st century at some point and realise you can use CAD,TotalStation and 3D machining as a system. 

 

Exactly technology is becoming more and more prevalent, I would imagine in 10 - 20 years if an architect isn't willing to provide CAD files they will be out of business.

 

Although I am from a software development background I work for a large manufacturing company that rely on a number of external vendors to manufacture different electrical and mechanical sub components. I can assure you that providing the CAD files does reduce the likely hood of human error. I'm not saying it removes human error but it does reduce it.

[ToughButterCup]

10 minutes ago, Triassic said:

[...]

I had some pdf editing software installed on my laptop, so opened the secure file and edited 

[...]

 

You cracked the security on a pw - protected pdf?

PM me, would ya please? I need it.

[the_r_sole]

.

Edited September 26, 2019 by the_r_sole

[the_r_sole]

.

Edited September 26, 2019 by the_r_sole