i dont see how a self employed tax/insured arch tech, architect or engineer could design a house, get planning, detail that design to the 2011 regs, specify and tender to suitable contractor, offer opinion on compliance etc and walk away for anywhere nearjust wondering how much would it cost to get drawings done up for a house. We will not be doing any building for a while yet but would like to get a design that we are happy with and know the costs.
It would be a 1500sq foot bungalow.
level of 'service' dependant - (this is great one, and IMHO its why so many questions are asked on forums! )€5,000
a crap peace of legislation that I fear will not do what the government claims. I hope supervision will rise, and I hope attention to detail by a large % of professionals will rise also.From 1st MArch 2014 there are new regulations kicking in in the building regulation environment which will require additional information pre planning and therefore additional costs. It will also be requiring additional supervision on any building project so expect costs in this area to rise
planning great. but if the designer is not looking past planning IMHO you'll get an inferior productj
Price is 3,500 euro from first meeting to sit down and discuss what we want, to having agreed on the final solution, and the architect preparing the planning submission, plus pre-planning checks etc.
very true. very rough rule of thumb: 1/3 planning, 1/3 to detailed design tender, 1/3 construction.if you are getting a set of planning drawings only - most would incorporate an amount of additional info on the drawings so they could technically be tender / working drawings only... i would ask about this, cost may not be much more...
rem you get what you pay for.........
just went through the process with an architect for an extension.
Price is 3,500 euro from first meeting to sit down and discuss what we want, to having agreed on the final solution, and the architect preparing the planning submission, plus pre-planning checks etc.
The most important thing is to make sure they have appropriate Professional Indemnity Insurance in place, and that this covers them to sign off on a completed building.
Isn't that what all buyers get - an opinion on compliance - regardless of how the architect was involved? If there are different standards or levels of certification, why would the solicitors for the buyers in Priory Hall have accepted the lower standard 'opinion'?this again! as i understand it the architect/eng (design team) was not retained by the developer for the duration of the construction stage. the plans were changed, all that was offered by an architect/eng at completion stage was an 'opinion on compliance'.
Fully agree.the process is flawed, i do not dispute that. Hogan will change nothing with the new legislation next year, merely increase the architect/eng PI premium - what is needed IMO is a UK style building control system.
Isn't that what all buyers get - an opinion on compliance - regardless of how the architect was involved? If there are different standards or levels of certification, why would the solicitors for the buyers in Priory Hall have accepted the lower standard 'opinion'?
While the PI insurance is indeed important, it was no use to the Priory Hall buyers - so don't rely too much on it
So the question remains as to why solicitors for the purchasers accepted these fairly useless certificates then?There are different forms of Opinions on Compliance appropriate to the level of service the architect/design team provided.
In the case of Priory Hall, as the architect/design team were not engaged by the developer during the construction stage, a relevant Opinions on Compliance would have issued (stating that the architect/design team had no involvemnt in the construction stage).
I think there has been a broader discussion on this site about this issue. This requirement honestly makes these policies fairly useless. If I want the comfort of knowing that my architect has insurance, then I need to know that my architect is going to maintain their insurance for 10-20-30 years into the future. It is effectively impossible to make this happen.Generally these insurances are written on a claims made policy, so a policy must be in force at the time the claim is made. In the case of Priory Hall. the architect would have had to have signed off on the buildings (this would be the insurable action), and then still be maintaining their insurance policy at the time the defect was discovered/claim was made.
So my question above applies - why did solicitors for purchasers accept these fairly useless certificates based on fairly useless policy limits?Irrespective of this the policy limits are normally €1.3m to €2.6m and would have made little impact. However for a house where the values are lower and issues may be more obvious at an early stage it is a very important mitigant.
Sorry my original comment was removed, so this may not have context.....
Generally these insurances are written on a claims made policy, so a policy must be in force at the time the claim is made. In the case of Priory Hall. the architect would have had to have signed off on the buildings (this would be the insurable action), and then still be maintaining their insurance policy at the time the defect was discovered/claim was made. Irrespective of this the policy limits are normally €1.3m to €2.6m and would have made little impact. However for a house where the values are lower and issues may be more obvious at an early stage it is a very important mitigant.
because they paid, and the lax legislation in this county deems this to be 'due diligence', everyone gets paid, and there's little or no culpability. and Mr Hogan will continue this 'fairly useless certificate' system with the new legislation recently written into law.So my question above applies - why did solicitors for purchasers accept these fairly useless certificates based on fairly useless policy limits?