Re-using architect drawings

I hired an architect for my house extension last year. All completed and signed off.

Now i'd like to make an ammendment to a rear door to the back garden which I believe requires planning permission.

I can't afford to go through the architect again and am going to go ahead and apply for permission on my own.

Can I use the architects drawings as a template or do I have to draw up new ones? Is there a copyright issue or do I own the drawings?

Thanks in advance.

an 'amendment to a door' sounds like very minor works and may not require planning permission....
what exactly is the amendment??

you may arrange a preplanning meeting with a planner and ask their advise...

regarding eh copyright... unless you have permission from the architect to reproduce or augment their drawings, then what you propose is illegal.

Thanks Syd
I've had a meeting with the planners and yes I require the permission unfortunately.

You've answered my question though. I'll have to redraw them then. Although they'll obviously be almost identical as the dimensions etc will be the same.

I've to pay for a license to copy the ordnance survey map so I suppose it's a similar situation.

Spreadsheet,

Assuming you have paid for the planning submission, you own the drawings and the submitted planning application. The architect will retain intellectual copyright and probably a design copyright.

What you can do is get some drafting film, ruler and permanent ink drafting pens or fine markers. Trace the outline of the existing drawings, make your adjustments and work with these.

Bring your drawings to a print shop, get them scanned and converted to paper and pdf for your files. You can then submit your drawings to the planners.

sydthebeat said:

regarding eh copyright... unless you have permission from the architect to reproduce or augment their drawings, then what you propose is illegal.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I'm not 100% with that. If the client has paid for the design, I'd argue it's the clients' property, not the architects. The design is not 'leased' or 'hired', it's bought and paid for. As surely as you pay the builder to lay the blocks - they're yours, and he's executing them. Ditto the plans.

galwaytt said:

I'm afraid I'm not 100% with that. If the client has paid for the design, I'd argue it's the clients' property, not the architects. The design is not 'leased' or 'hired', it's bought and paid for. As surely as you pay the builder to lay the blocks - they're yours, and he's executing them. Ditto the plans.

Click to expand...

Not entirely the same....

This is an issue that has been debated worldwide and the consensus is that the 'design' is copyright to the designer. This is very similar to artistic copyright. The designer is also the 'author' of teh work and thus holds the copyright.

This copyright is generally legally formed in the contract signed between the client and the architect. This contract 'may' include a clause offering license to the client to reproduce the drawings subject to conditions.

have a read
[broken link removed]

However, in cases where a contract doesnt exist then things become a lot 'greyer'. AFAIK simply having 'copyright joe bloggs' on a drawing is not sufficient to claim copyright.

Update:
I took the advice of posters above and re-drew the drawings from scratch to cover myself (and do the right thing!). They look similar to the original architects drawings as they have the same basic layout and ratios, but I included all of the small changes that occured during the course of the build that were only encountered and decided on-site.

Thanks for your help.