Architect or Builder issue? with planning enforcement issue? Any help welcome.

Panic74

So we applied for planning permission for a flat roofed, single storey extension, the neighbour to one side opposed it but planning was given. The builder has now built it 8 bricks higher than the approve planning permission and now it is in the hands of enforcement, who are saying they want it brought down 5 bricks.

The architect who was a friend, provided all drawings for free and it has been noticed that the planning drawings and building regs drawings dont tie up (the regs drawings show 5 bricks higher) She is saying that once the drawings were handed over to us & the builder 5 months prior to beginning the build, no one questioned anything, the builder changed the roof to a warm roof which added height and then the builder sourced the structural engineer and they changed the roof make up (bigger timbers) which also pushed up the height! The structural engineers drawings were never sent to the architect and she was not made aware of the larger timbers.

So my question is, if this ends up with the roof coming off, who is liable? We didnt pay the architect so I presume it could be said there was no contract. The builder never passed over the structural engineers details to the architect or questioned why it was so much higher than the planning permission, but also he didnt build to the regs drawings and went higher than them, so essentially ignored all drawings, both planning and regs.

Its essentially a huge mess and if the roof comes off is going to cost a fortune, but we dont want to waste time chasing the wrong person!

casper_gutman

It seems like the planning people would have accepted (and indeed, are accepting) a minor discrepancy of ~3 bricks above what was approved. This is probably the sort of variation that could reasonably be expected to result from things like, I don't know, changing to a warm roof system and using slightly bigger roof timbers.

The architect made a mistake which added 5 bricks to the height, which seems like it was more than would have been accepted, even if the extension had been built precisely in accordance with the building regs drawings.

The builder's actions added the additional 3 bricks the planners would have accepted. Were you aware of this? Did you ask the builder to liaise with the architect? Or did you just hand over the building regs "full plans" and ask them to build from them? Were you aware that the change to the roof make-up would result in it being higher?

The other thing that strikes me as odd is that the structural engineer was brought in so late. Why didn't you get the calcs for the roof beams done in time for the drawings to reflect the actual size needed? I'd have expected the architect to at least have mentioned that this would be a good idea. Maybe they were confident they knew what size was needed, but if so this was a further mistake on their part.

To my mind, the architect, the builder and you all potentially own a share of the fault. Perhaps the architect is most to blame, but given that they weren't paid and were just doing you a favour I don't think you can (morally, if not legally) expect them to pay for remedial work.

I wouldn't personally seek to pursue the builder legally either, certainly not right now, as you need some good will from them to get this resolved quickly and with a minimum of additional cost. At most, you could hint that it would be in their interests for this to be resolved to your satisfaction, but you'd need to broach this diplomatically so as not to cause a breakdown in your relationship with them.

I think the answer may unfortunately be that you need to take this on the chin. Sorry!

Doozergirl

Were the building regulations drawings submitted to building control? Who was responsible for that?  

It's my understanding that every roof should be a warm roof now, which does make things higher. I would have expected them to reject a cold roof.  

Your drawings do form a contract with the builder.  The fact that they aren't the same doesn't really help put full liability on the builders doorstep as it sounds like there were some mistakes.  

Your architect has responsibility to get the drawings right, you have the responsibility to ensure building regulations and planning permissions are adhered to, the builder has responsibility to build according to the drawings but also to meet the regulations if they're the ones being told by building control in retrospect if the drawings aren't compliant.  
 

Clear as mud. 

NorthYorkie

Even though the architect was doing you a favour, she still, I believe, has a duty of care. She will also be required by her professional body to have professional indemnity insurance in place to cover against claims for negligence. (I am not saying that she is at fault or that you should claim against her - I am merely making the point that her insurance should cover any claim, though she will no longer be a friend).

There's a lesson for others here - its not worth getting into this situation just to save £1,000 or so fees. Never use a friend or relative. Equally, if you are a professional, never act for a friend or relative.

Section62

NorthYorkie said:

Even though the architect was doing you a favour, she still, I believe, has a duty of care. She will also be required by her professional body to have professional indemnity insurance in place to cover against claims for negligence. (I am not saying that she is at fault or that you should claim against her - I am merely making the point that her insurance should cover any claim, though she will no longer be a friend).

That assumes the architect is a member of a professional body - there's no legal requirement to do so to call yourself an 'architect'.

I'm also not sure that any professional bodies for architects require members to have PI insurance - I'm sure it would be recommended, but a personal requirement for this insurance would be an odd thing for architects employed by companies and authorities.

Bendy_House

Panic74, with the walls taken down by 5 bricks, what internal ceiling height does this give?

With our flat-roofed extension, built 3 years ago, the overall external height was limited by the cill of the French doors on the upstairs wall where the new roof would attach. To allow for the required minimum roof slope, the BCO allowed a cold roof design, and we accepted a slightly reduced ceiling height, and we are all living happily therein.

Would a cold roof help in your case? What would the internal ceiling height need to be reduced to?

Try your damnedest to find a solution.

Panic74

Bendy_House said:

Panic74, with the walls taken down by 5 bricks, what internal ceiling height does this give?

With our flat-roofed extension, built 3 years ago, the overall external height was limited by the cill of the French doors on the upstairs wall where the new roof would attach. To allow for the required minimum roof slope, the BCO allowed a cold roof design, and we accepted a slightly reduced ceiling height, and we are all living happily therein.

Would a cold roof help in your case? What would the internal ceiling height need to be reduced to?

Try your damnedest to find a solution.

The cold roof would work and keep ceiling heights the same, but it means that the whole roof thats been built will need to come off and be re-done, costing thousands!!

Doozergirl

NorthYorkie said:

Even though the architect was doing you a favour, she still, I believe, has a duty of care. She will also be required by her professional body to have professional indemnity insurance in place to cover against claims for negligence. (I am not saying that she is at fault or that you should claim against her - I am merely making the point that her insurance should cover any claim, though she will no longer be a friend).

There's a lesson for others here - its not worth getting into this situation just to save £1,000 or so fees. Never use a friend or relative. Equally, if you are a professional, never act for a friend or relative.

This. 

Architect friend will learn this lesson fast.   Hopefully they remain friends.  

Bendy_House

And it works both ways; the architect friend should have been EQUALLY aware of the risks to their relationship when she offered to do this, especially for nowt.

If they are no longer friends after this, then I think this will say more about the calibre of the folk involved (possibly just one of them), than it does the actual issue.
The 'issue' is resolveable, just as it would be with any other client.

NorthYorkie

Section62 said:

NorthYorkie said:

Even though the architect was doing you a favour, she still, I believe, has a duty of care. She will also be required by her professional body to have professional indemnity insurance in place to cover against claims for negligence. (I am not saying that she is at fault or that you should claim against her - I am merely making the point that her insurance should cover any claim, though she will no longer be a friend).

That assumes the architect is a member of a professional body - there's no legal requirement to do so to call yourself an 'architect'.

I'm also not sure that any professional bodies for architects require members to have PI insurance - I'm sure it would be recommended, but a personal requirement for this insurance would be an odd thing for architects employed by companies and authorities.

RIBA require architectural practices to have appropriate PI insurance in place in order to comply with its Accreditation Criteria to be a Chartered Practice. Employed architects clearly do not require such insurance in respect of their employment as they would be covered by their employer's insurance. However, any employee doing 'work on the side' would be highly irresponsible if they didn't have insurance to cover that work.

Section62

NorthYorkie said:

Section62 said:

NorthYorkie said:

Even though the architect was doing you a favour, she still, I believe, has a duty of care. She will also be required by her professional body to have professional indemnity insurance in place to cover against claims for negligence. (I am not saying that she is at fault or that you should claim against her - I am merely making the point that her insurance should cover any claim, though she will no longer be a friend).

That assumes the architect is a member of a professional body - there's no legal requirement to do so to call yourself an 'architect'.

I'm also not sure that any professional bodies for architects require members to have PI insurance - I'm sure it would be recommended, but a personal requirement for this insurance would be an odd thing for architects employed by companies and authorities.

RIBA require architectural practices to have appropriate PI insurance in place in order to comply with its Accreditation Criteria to be a Chartered Practice. Employed architects clearly do not require such insurance in respect of their employment as they would be covered by their employer's insurance. However, any employee doing 'work on the side' would be highly irresponsible if they didn't have insurance to cover that work.

...which is what makes the difference.

1) Is the architect the OP used operating as a Chartered Practice/Sole Practitioner, or are they just calling themselves an 'architect'.

2) If they are operating within a Chartered Practice/as a Sole Practitioner, then was the 'free' work done for the OP under the auspices of the practice, or simply a favour for a mate.

The individual isn't required to have PI insurance AIUI.  And if they do have a policy of some kind, it won't necessarily cover them if they are doing favours on the side rather than providing a professional service.