onq wrote:Houses are often set out by builders based on the planning drawings, because that's what they have permission for.
I trust your CPD courses are keeping you up to speed on these "new-fangled" ideas...
Thus, last time I checked, the design of the building was supposed to be completed at planning stage.
If you're willing to oversee builders building off your planning application drawings well good luck to you, because you'll need it.
Undoubtedly you've informed your P.I. insurer.
I suppose your only exercise these days is jumping at conclusions Tayto, but that's not what I posted.
As you might have inferred, or simply accepted, since I stated it explicitly - I took over the job.
Your clever comment presupposes insufficient information for setting out on planning drawings.
Since dimensions to site boundaries became mandatory in March 2002, this is not the case.
Builders setting out according to planning drawings can be assured of good accuracy.
Assuming the architect has correctly detailed the house internally there is no change.
In this case, the deed was done, and in planning terms it was in compliance.
As for taking over another's questionable design, you need competence, experience and ability.
Luck didn't play a huge part, and no, this is no worse than MRIAI work I have taken over and remedied.
onq wrote:..While you could claim certain things are allowed under the exempted development schedule, widening the house by circa 300-400mm is not one of them, nor is relocating nuderground services [although the "sure who'll know?" brigade do this all the time] and installing a second set of foundations to one side was beyond my clients means.
The point being that this genius hadn't ALLOWED for an adequately wide living room [3.3M min to 3.6M pref] for a small house, hadn't ALLOWED for 80-100mm insulation, still had LEFT OVER in excess of 2.5m of site and had designed the wrong size WC.
Excusing his incomptence at planning stage is not acceptable and you have just destroyed your own credibility by doing so.
You're waffling and scrambling here and you know it.
The ad hominem attack is the lame ducks first port of call - you're better than that Tayto.
In a planning application the size of the jacks, as indicated in the plan, will not inform the decision.
Straw man argument - I didn't say it did.
A non-compliant internal layout is bad design but insisting that the internal layout in the planning drawing is the complete and finished design is absolutely wrong. The internal layout, such as an alteration in the toilet size, can be done post-planning.
Where have I excused incompetence? RTFP, old stock.
You're excusing this guy's shoddy work.
You have just done so again.
Its pretty obvious.
The design process refines the design of the dwelling to suit the intended occupants.
In a circa 50sqm Gd Floor Plan, there is no excuse for putting in an undersized toilet at planning stage.
The Architect's role to take this completed design to site, having reviewed it for compliance with the building regulations.
Not to throw his hands up once he's been paid his fees and gotten to sit, sayinge - "Oh, we'll have to change everything the toilet is wrong!"
That is incompetence, pure and simple - and don't forget they had gone to site on this person's drawings, services were in, pipe outlets positioned.
If you haven't included building regulation compliance elements that affect the design at planning stage you are behaving incompetently.
At the worst you may have an unbuildable permission, at best significant changes that will cost the client extra money.
In the middle range, you will probably require revised P.P. for the amended dwelling.
None of this is excusable if you are offering a professional service.
So why are you defending this guys working method and undermining my position?
My due diligence review of plans highlighted the error, and I had issued revised drawings to site remedying the plans and attended and agreed drainage revisions one morning, ot the great upset of the contractor.
That afternoon a Council representative from Building Control hot0footed it to site with the intention of stopping the work if the wrong size toilet had been installed.
(Originaly Imcumbent) Incompetent Design <=========> Competent Design (Me)
Its fairly eary to understand isn't it?