He showed us his plan which does indeed show a completely different spec
where did his plan come from?
The problem is the plan I was sent, which has a big "Approved" stamp on it, doesn't say any of this.
So Where did this plan come from then?
Who was responsible for submitting plans? Planning permission and buildings regulations are not the same approvals, and plans need to go before both. Its sounds like someone submitted two sets of different plans. Who was responsible for that? did you have an architect?
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
The plans were prepared by an architect, who submitted them to the planning department. It seems the planning people wanted minor amendments (not so minor now), which were made and submitted. The guy from building control brought his plan with him. My plan was sent to me when the planning permission was granted. Both are stamped "Approved" and both have the same date and reference number on them.
Incidentally I knew nothing of this amendment until now, so my architect is guilty of not keeping me informed. On the other hand it makes no difference to the appearance or amenity of the building and would not have cost more.
|
If your beef is with your architect then you could suggest that his proffesional indemnity insurance meets the cost of the extra work you have had to have done.
If your beef is with the Building Control Dept then forget it. They have Crown Immunity.
|
With due respect to Hugo I would like to know what the problems are that need addressing. It is not unknown to have a perfectly sound scheme in place and for an annoying little nerk to attempt to stamp his ground when indeed he is wrong. Now I am not suggesting that here this is the case, but I have been building and renovating for a full time living since 1978 and may just have some idea.
Over...............................MD.
|
The roof has a shallow pitch--not sure how shallow exactly, but it looks shallow. However according to a roofer I know it "should be ok with Marley Modern" which is what the architect said, and what we've put on it. We've extended out sideways from an original roof, leaving one side of the roof in place and increasing the span of one side to make a new room. The original plan says something like replace as original with heavy duty felt, batten, and tiles. The building control plan, which I saw for the first time today, says plywood, plus felt, plus tiles--effectively a low-spec flat roof on a pitch with tiles on top. Can't see how it would make a difference frankly. It's either too shallow for the tiles or it isn't.
Hugo's answer about Crown Immunity is the one I didn't want to hear, but what I expected.
|
Having just gone through, a couple of months back, what you're going through now you have my sympathies.
From what you say I think TVM has deduced your problem.
You do need both planning approval, where required, and building regs approval. The planners will only be concerned with dimensions, appearances, meeting local planning guidelines, etc, when they are happy then building regs come into play and they will look at things like the stress loadings on your roof and such like, that is when they may require changes to meet the regs. As they take several weeks after the planners you can go ahead by giving them 48 hours notice that you intend to start work and they will then visit site as you go and discuss any points they have, that's the way we went and we virtually re-designed the roof with the building control guy, my contractor, the roofer and myself standing on the scaffolding! And a cracking job we made of it if I may say so, ended up witha vaulted ceiling that makes the room.
I would hazard a guess that the architect has sent you a copy marked approved by the planners but didn't forward you the copy after approval by building control, if that is the case then your architect has let you down badly. The approval stamp and date on the building control copy of the plans may well be the planners stamp and not theirs. If this is the case i would suggest that your architect could well be liable for the extra costs involved as he could be construed to have been negligent in not informing you of the changes made by building control. I'm certainly not qualified to advise you legally but I would imagine that the architect has some sort of indemnity cover for such eventualities so I would certainly be bending his ear if he was my architect!
Alternatively, if you went the quicker building notice route then I would suggest that your contractor is negligent as he would have been prudent to have run the roofing plans by the building control officer before starting the roof trusses, especially as he would be aware that you are pushing the limits, if he's not aware he's on the limit then he's possibly not quite as good as you think!
Then again Martin has a very valid point, if you ask three building inspectors and three roofers their take on it you'll as likely get six different opinions/answers.
Having been through the process a few times now, not as much as Martin, thank God, I think builders must have the patience of a saint to put up with some of the inspectors I've come across, and if you've come across an awkward one then I'll say a few prayers for you tonight. From what you're saying it seems like you may have.
Good luck!
|
Thanks for that long post. Lots of things in there and the posts of others to think about.
I now have the paperwork in front of me. I've received from the council one letter granting planning permission and including the approved plan. Nothing else. A written note on the letter says: "Important: work to approved plan." I'm guessing then that this is the plan the contractor is expected to work from, and he has. Yet it is different from the building control plan for some reason. I think it's an error myself. Unfortunately I'm going to be away tomorrow so won't be able to meet with the building inspector.
I'll let you all know what happens. I agree with you about the patience of builders.
|
I now have the paperwork in front of me. I've received from the council one letter granting planning permission and including the approved plan. Nothing else. A written note on the letter says: "Important: work to approved plan." I'm guessing then that this is the plan the contractor is expected to work from, and he has. Yet it is different from the building control plan for some reason. I think it's an error myself. Unfortunately I'm going to be away tomorrow so won't be able to meet with the building inspector.
At the risk of sounding patronising, and as several people have said already, planning and building regs are completely separate. The approved planning drawing is what your extension should look like. The approved Building Regs drawing is how it should be assembled to comply with building regulations. Trust me, i've had jobs where the planning drawings are unbuildable.
Your architect in the ideal world should have issued a construction drawing picking up the approvals of both planning and building regs.
It's not an error on the building inspector's part that your builder has used the planning drawing, which appears to be what's happened. Somebody else is responible for the building being built to the wrong drawing. The Building inspector won't have drawn anything, so where did that drawing come from?
Before you start ripping the roof off and starting again, you need to talk to your architect / designer and understand how this mistake came about. He may need to notify his PI insurer.
HTH
|
And in that coincidental way, i found out about this today:
www.rics.org/NR/rdonlyres/6164AC45-4485-4F0A-B751-...f
Property Makeover Guide published by the RICS. Some of the costs, especially the heating ones look high to me. Also it indicates a section on "how to employ a contractor" but seems to have missed it out. Unless the coffee hasn't taken affect yet and i just can't see it.
Nonetheless, if anyone is planning to do some works, worth a read. Better than nothing. Just amazed it's taken 10 years after Changing Rooms started but things move slowly in the RICS. Ho Hum.
Interest - I am a Chartered Surveyor, so i guess i'm promoting something my institution is providing but it's free and for the greater good.
|
...Property Makeover Guide published by the RICS ..
mare : thanks for that pdf link. it seems to be an extract from the full 209 or 212 page book which may have been published in september or maybe october or maybe not yet published -
www.ricsbooks.com/default.asp states
"BCIS ISBN: 1904829465 Item Code: 11582 212 Pages Oct 2006 Price: £17.99 Availability: Not yet published."
www.bcis.co.uk/ConstructionCosts/ProductsAndServic...m states
" £17.99 ISBN: 1 904829 46 5 209 pages Paperback Published September 2006 "
is that and indication of attention to detail you can expect to find in their members work?
|
is that and indication of attention to detail you can expect to find in their members work?
Members are much better than that, of course ;-) I've raised the issue of missing content on the RICS forum.
Wondering if it's a draft actaully. Hope the full thing's not 200 odd pages, you'd fall asleep reading it!
|
It's ok. I don't feel patronised, though I do know the difference. Further investigation required. I'm unable to do anything about this today, but I'll be talking to the architect, have no fear.
Thanks for your help (everyone).
|
|
|
The roof has a shallow pitch--not sure how shallow exactly, but it looks shallow.
Get the Marley Modern spec' and look at the minimum pitch requirement. This will not account for exposed positions/locations. Then measure your pitch for a start. Minimum pitches will have an allowance built in, but that won't excuse you if you fail to meet it, but I have NEVER had a building control officer get involved here, but of course you need it to work for you. Without being there it is quite difficult to advise. I fully support Building control when applied correctly and sensibly and most officers are OK, but there are rogues who can be challenged. IMHO their powers are not wide ranging enough and concentration on additional areas of work should be addressed, including correct mortar mixes, not some itinerant labourer's guesswork.
Crown Immunity.....................Is that a fact? New one on me..something else learnt today.
vbr..........................MD.
|
|
|
|
|
There's two lots of plans here: a planning set and a building regs set.
Sounds like the building inspector has you bang to rights unless i'm reading this very wrong
He showed us his plan which does indeed show a completely differentspec to what's been done. The problem is the plan I was sent, which has a big "Approved" stamp on it, doesn't say any of this.
Sounds like there's two lots of plans here: a planning set and a building regs set. Or drawing rev A (planning) and a rev B (building regs)
I suspectI've been sent the original, unamended plan instead of the final approved one.
Or you've used the planning drawing rather than the building regs drawing. If the building inspector has got a drawing from your architect spelling out what's to be done, and the builder's done something different then there's several possibilities:
Architect didn't / forgot to issue approved Building Regs drawings
Builder ignored / didn't receive Building Regs drawings
You need to speak to your architect. Good luck
|
|
|
OK, just got back and have been brought up to date.
Firstly a bit of background. The planning/building control people in this mostly rural district operate out of a single small office. There are about four of them. They field each other's calls and cover for one another. I know this from working with them (and I mean with them, not against them) on an unrelated issue.
The letter we received from this office (I hesitate to say which desk) informing us of planning permission has a written note on it telling us to work to the enclosed plan. This was definitely supposed to be the construction plan, but it's not.
My conclusions are these:
1. The architect has been remiss in not sending us a copy of the construction plan, though I can see he might think it wasn't necessary since it doesn't change the appearance of the building inside or out. Naughty perhaps. I didn't pester him for it because we received the plan from the council with no changes, so assumed it was just ok. It's a fairly simple and small extension on the whole. My bad perhaps.
2. The planning/BC office was probably understaffed in the summer (the permission took much longer to come through than anyone expected) and someone must have put the wrong plan--an earlier version--in the envelope. Apparently on the phone this morning the building control officer was very edgy, so maybe it was him. Who knows?
3. Contractor doesn't want to rock the boat so will go ahead and do as instructed. I think he knew how close to the limit it was, but just worked to the plan supplied. And why wouldn't he? Anyway BC wants the full works: strip off, ply, hot felted and then tiled on top. I'm inclined to agree if it makes the roof better, but am very annoyed by the amount of wasted time and work. Contractor is resigned to it.
So thanks for all your help. It goes down to experience I think, but what a mess.
|
You've got a very helpful contractor. You're lucky there. If he's picking up the cost then there's little point in procrastonating over the issue.
However, as Martin has asked above, are the BCO requirements realistic and reasonable?
Also the BCO are plublic servents. If they have dropped off then they have done you a disservice. A letter to the head of building services asking for a full explanation of how the confusion may have occurred from there end could be a good idea.
Once this is received pass a copy to your architect and ask him/her for a response.
This would serve to ensure that each party will work harder to serve your needs more professionally in the future.
|
|
The contractor is a good man, with a very good reputation locally. We'll make sure he knows we appreciate it. There's no doubt had we received the correct plan that it would have been implemented, so nobody is arguing with what's required. I do think a bit of leaway was possible given the circumstances at this stage, but this is such a close thing with the pitch the best thing is to drop it I think and get the job finished wsithout further drama. Your idea of contacting the head of building services and the architect is a good one. But after this is all done and dusted of course.
|
|
Brace yourself, your contractor will want to be paid for his extra work. whoever has cocked up here, it wasn't him.
|
Brace yourself, your contractor will want to be paid for his extra work. whoever has cocked up here, it wasn't him.
We don't know that for sure. Unless Baskerville has had reassurances to the contrary, he would be wise to seek them in the way he sees fit (subtle or direct questioning).
It may be that the rest of the job has gone well and there is room for goodwill on the contractor's part, especially if Baskerville is a regular client. Large jobs are sometimes plagued with little disasters like this. How the contractor handles them depend to a large extent on his relationship with the client. It's obvious that Baskerville values him highly and hence the working relationship is strong.
In the meantime I'm sure that Baskerville will demonstrate his appreciation in allowing flexability and more tea and biscuits etc. It makes the world of difference when you work for a reasonable client. Not only does it make the job easier but the right contractors really do go the extra mile to help out, because they actually enjoy working for them.
Recently I removed an Aga from a house undergoing a total refit in Exeter and had to enlist the help of the builders on the job. I had never met them before but the client was eager to get rid of it and hence the 4 guys on the job were only too willing to do what they had to do to help out.
In addition I had to back my trailer over a flowerbed to get it to the front door. The client was quite understanding about this but asked us to do what we could to avoid damaging the victorian edging stones fininshing with the words "If a couple get broken then we have to live with that". We made sure that all the edging stones were either removed or completely protected with timber. The plants were dug up where practical and only a large bush was damaged, which will recover quickly I'm sure.
|
Sorry Lawman, my response was to your first sentance, not your second. It seems clear that the contractor is unlikely to be at fault here.
That's the problem with not being a moderator anymore, I can't correct my own mistakes :(
|
|
|
|
|
And for exactly that reason I have just discussed and settled this with him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
