Planning permission costs

[Mayo1969]

I want to apply for planning permission for a rather large but relatively straight forward garage in my back garden. I've asked a friend of mine with IAI membership for a quote for a planning application and he's quoted me €1,200 plus vat which seems rather steep unless he's made a mistake and added on an extra nought in which case I think it would be very reasonable.


Any idea what would be a reasonable quote for a straight forward planning application for a 4 walled 50m sq concrete block built, plaster rendered, hip slated roof garage with roller shutter door and two windowas and two skylights in a spacious back garden with the nearest neighbour >200m away?

 

[Pope John 11]

I assume his quotation includes planning permission fee, site location map costs, newspaper add costs, printed drawing costs, site location plan etc.

€120 would be too low, & probably barely covers the costs of the above.

€750-€900 perhaps, remember you will still be required to submit all elevations, & perhaps drainage requirements may be sought by Co. Co.

 

[Pope John 11]

IAI membership

Is he an Archaeologist or an Architect?

[broken link removed]

 

[PaddyBloggit]

Why not get another quote?

 

[onq]

I want to apply for planning permission for a rather large but relatively straight forward garage in my back garden. I've asked a friend of mine with IAI membership for a quote for a planning application and he's quoted me €1,200 plus vat which seems rather steep unless he's made a mistake and added on an extra nought in which case I think it would be very reasonable.


Any idea what would be a reasonable quote for a straight forward planning application for a 4 walled 50m sq concrete block built, plaster rendered, hip slated roof garage with roller shutter door and two windowas and two skylights in a spacious back garden with the nearest neighbour >200m away?

That's RIAI not IAI if he's an architect registered with Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland.

People don't seem to be aware of the costs of running a practice of any kind, architectural or otherwise, from the annual fees for the RIAI to Professional Indemnity Cover to undertaking Continuous Professional Development Courses - required by law now - just to keep up with the welter of changes to the legislation and stay "current".

Considering the difficulty in even lodging an application that's technically valid these days [and interpretations can vary from county to county], €1,200 is on the light side.

The Planner may want full plans and elevation of the house to judge the design against it and that means that the supposedly "simple" application for a garage will require the same production time as a once off house, with the compilation of required documentation and forms the same regardless.

The fact that some people may not want to pay €1,200 for a planning application is down to "competitive" prices for this kind of work emanating from people who haven't attended a full time 5-year course in a recognised third level institution and gone on to learn the ropes with a member of the Institute, all of which costs money and time.

You are free to go to such creatures of course - at your peril.

Your pain won't stop there BTW, because a large standalone garage has to stand up and you should get an engineer to comment on the structure or don't be surprised if your "friendly neighbourhood builder" hasn't a clue about the effect of wind loading on long exposed walls and wind suction on flat roofs [if you go that route].

One apartment building in South Dublin had its roof blow off twice because in the first instance the builder didn't follow the building regulations for larger roofs and in the second instance he didn't follow the inspecting engineers recommendations regarding fixing in position.

No point paying bottom dollar for professional services and then complaining when the roof falls in, blows off, or lands on your new car, which you' may have paid €40+ for to get you from A to B - all because you did not shell out 10% of the cost of the build on professional services.

You've got to keep all this in mind when you're consideration what constituted reasonable fees.

ONQ.

 

[DBK100]

I would think that €1,200 sounds like an appropriate price given the work involved in preparing a full planning application with all required drawings of the existing building etc.

You should get one or two other prices that allow you to compare.

I would suggest to you that you don't need an RIAI Architect for this type of job (I am one). The work you describe could be done professionally and competently by an architectural technician or a small engineer's practice. Make sure that whoever you engage is not working on a 'nixer' basis, - that their work is covered by their professional indemnity insurance.
The engineer can advise you on the structural requirements (something that a good technician can also do for this type of structure).
It is the designer's legal responsibility to design in accordance with the building regulations and the builder's legal responsibility to build in accordance with them.

 

[RKQ]

Pjordan you should get at least 3 quotes for local Arch Tech with PI insurance, you'll find things are very competitive, especially for very straight forward domestic work.

As the OP is very clear on what is required, there is unlikely to be any design changes. It sounds like a very straight forward application - detached domestic garage in a rural area, 200m from nearest neighbour.
IMO €1200 + vat for such simple work is daylight robbery, totally unjustified.

 

[onq]

RKQ and DBK100, I cannot agree.
Not because an Arch Tech isn't competent to lodge a planning
Its because there is nothing worse than an ugly shed beside a nice dwelling [I'm assuming this is the case - I don't know the site].

Yet the discussion here only confirms my suspicion that this large structure in the landscape will not get the design attention it needs.
There are far too many buildings built in Ireland designed by persons with limited or no design training or ability.
That's not to say some Architectural Technicians cannot design buildings, many can.

But the OP's "large but relatively straight forward garage " description suggests no design options have even been listed, never mind explored.
He's come to the table with a pre-conceived idea of the design and the price, not a good combination to produce good design.

The fact is that if the client isn't willing to pay for it, its simply not going to happen.
If they client doesn't see the need, he's not going to pay the fees.

This is despite the fact that the improved visual amenity and utility of a well designed building will pay dividends in terms of usability and at the eventual sale of the property.
This should include considerations of multiple uses for the building, its attic space, its amenity and comfort while in use and its links with the main house in terms of material, detailing, scale and access.

Never is the old truism more appropriate than on smaller buildings - good design needs good clients.
We should all be more interested upping the game on small works, not just looking on as potential clients race to the bottom of the fee scale and beyond.
That's just not sustainable in this industry at the moment.

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

 

[Pope John 11]

The engineer can advise you on the structural requirements (something that a good technician can also do for this type of structure).

This is a very unprofessional comment to make. A structural engineer, IEI status (I am one) has the competance to design the foundations & ground floor slab to suit the ground conditions, the masonry to take wind loads, the roof to take snow, live, dead & wind loads, all to current irish/british standards etc.

In the back of a structural engineers mind all the time is safety for the persons using the building, & if something goes wrong, then he/she the structural engineer is held responsible.

'A good technician' is a term that has been around for years, especially in the architectural field where you see 'a good technician' can do that for you instead of a fully qualified RIAI architect. More often than not this leads to many issues down the road, with the builder saying, 'i put in the foundations in accordance with the drawings', whereby the Client gave the technicians drawings to the builder, assuming they were construction drawings.

'A good technician' could mean an IT technician, CAD technician, engineering technician, architectural technician, electrical technician etc

 

[DBK100]

This is a very unprofessional comment to make.

'A good technician' is a term that has been around for years, especially in the architectural field where you see 'a good technician' can do that for you instead of a fully qualified RIAI architect. More often than not this leads to many issues down the road, with the builder saying, 'i put in the foundations in accordance with the drawings', whereby the Client gave the technicians drawings to the builder, assuming they were construction drawings.

'A good technician' could mean an IT technician, CAD technician, engineering technician, architectural technician, electrical technician etc

No, it’s not an unprofessional comment.
We are talking about a very, very simple, single-storey garage structure and an Architectural Technician of course.
Furthermore, we have been discussing the preparation of a Planning Application scheme as opposed to a set of Construction Drawings.

Later, when the garage was granted planning permission and the OP required a set of Construction Drawings I would be astounded if a competent and professional technician could not utilize their intimate knowledge of structure and detailing gained from three to four years training in college and subsequent professional experience to put together a very comprehensive set.
Please do read the relevant posts before stating that subsequent comments are "unprofessional" (and consider more moderate adjectives too).

 

[GL01]

To the OP:

Do you honestly expect someone to prepare and submit a planning permission for €120?

Do you have any idea of the work that goes into this?

I am astounded at people claiming that quotes are completely unreasonable when they clearly have no idea what it takes to prepare a planning application for a building, no matter how straightforward.

Here is a non-exhaustive list of what must be undertaken prior to submitting a planning application.

1. survey the property
2. read the development plan for the area
3. read the particular planning requirements for the area
4. draw the site and any buildings on it
5. design the new building, in consultation with any other consultants necessary, (this might incur an additional fee).
6. draw plans, sections, elevations, contiguous elevations, fully labelled dimensioned
7. prepare a report describing the development
8. fill in the planning application
9. make relevant number of copies of the planning submission and submit

Throught this process your consultant will need to visit the site at least once to take the measured survey, they will need to meet with you initially to discuss requirements, once again to submit a draft and prehaps again to go through the final application. Travel costs need to be taken into account, as do printing costs, the cost of any maps that need to be bought from OSI, along with any overheads the consultnant may have.

Please rethink the idea that €120 would be a reasonable amount to pay for this.

 

[Pope John 11]

DBK100, please dont take my words out of context, see below:

We are talking about a very, very simple, single-storey garage structure and an Architectural Technician of course.).

I agree

Furthermore, we have been discussing the preparation of a Planning Application scheme as opposed to a set of Construction Drawings.

I agree, I never said otherwise
just making the OP aware that an engineer will be required at a later stage. In some cases, like a simple building of this nature, where perhaps no certification is deemed necessary in the opinion of a Client, the Client may assume the planning drawings as Construcn drawings.

Later, when the garage was granted planning permission and the OP required a set of Construction Drawings I would be astounded if a competent and professional technician could not utilize their intimate knowledge of structure and detailing gained from three to four years training in college and subsequent professional experience to put together a very comprehensive set.

No,this is where you have to be very careful. A technicians downfall normally would be in the foundation design/not knowing the correct ground conditions.

Please do read the relevant posts before stating that subsequent comments are "unprofessional" (and consider more moderate adjectives too).

Note, I have read the other posts & I would view my previous comments as fair. It sends alarm bells through my head when I hear, what I would consider very lax comments

 

[Pope John 11]

To the OP:

Do you honestly expect someone to prepare and submit a planning permission for €120?

Do you have any idea of the work that goes into this?

I am astounded at people claiming that quotes are completely unreasonable when they clearly have no idea what it takes to prepare a planning application for a building, no matter how straightforward.

Here is a non-exhaustive list of what must be undertaken prior to submitting a planning application.

1. survey the property
2. read the development plan for the area
3. read the particular planning requirements for the area
4. draw the site and any buildings on it
5. design the new building, in consultation with any other consultants necessary, (this might incur an additional fee).
6. draw plans, sections, elevations, contiguous elevations, fully labelled dimensioned
7. prepare a report describing the development
8. fill in the planning application
9. make relevant number of copies of the planning submission and submit

Throught this process your consultant will need to visit the site at least once to take the measured survey, they will need to meet with you initially to discuss requirements, once again to submit a draft and prehaps again to go through the final application. Travel costs need to be taken into account, as do printing costs, the cost of any maps that need to be bought from OSI, along with any overheads the consultnant may have.

Please rethink the idea that €120 would be a reasonable amount to pay for this.

Well said, GL01
I'll a another one
10. Pre consultation meeting with the Co. Co. planners, which may alter the draft plans.
11. Newspaper adverts
12. Planning permission notices

 

[onq]

Well said, GL01
I'll a another one
10. Pre consultation meeting with the Co. Co. planners, which may alter the draft plans.
11. Newspaper adverts
12. Planning permission notices

Well said the both of you.

I''l add

13. Health and Safety Review [Designers Duties under H&S Legislation]
14. Structural Review [especially for wide-span or clear span spaces]

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

 

[DBK100]

A structural engineer, IEI status (I am one) has the competance to design the foundations & ground floor slab to suit the ground conditions, the masonry to take wind loads, the roof to take snow, live, dead & wind loads, all to current irish/british standards etc.

As does a competent & professional Architectural Technician.
I do not know of one who would not have the sense to ascertain ground conditions if they were taking on responsibility for the job. A competent technician would consult another professional to advise if conditions required. This would be in the client's interest and their own (risk management). Many professional technicians who run their own business manage to perform these functions day-in-day-out.

In the back of a structural engineers mind all the time is safety for the persons using the building, & if something goes wrong, then he/she the structural engineer is held responsible.

As is the case with a competent & professional Architectural Technician.
He or she has the exact same motivations to work to the highest standards as the Structural Engineer: Safety, Risk Management, Reputation etc...

'A good technician' is a term that has been around for years, especially in the architectural field where you see 'a good technician' can do that for you instead of a fully qualified RIAI architect. More often than not this leads to many issues down the road, with the builder saying, 'i put in the foundations in accordance with the drawings', whereby the Client gave the technicians drawings to the builder, assuming they were construction drawings.

'A good technician' could mean an IT technician, CAD technician, engineering technician, architectural technician, electrical technician etc

P.J.11, your words were not at all taken out of context.
The comments above are designed to confuse.
In the context of a simple garage the meaning of "A good technician" is clear. 'Good': Of a high standard / competent / professional. 'Technician': Obviously one of the Architectural variety, as any other would make no sense in this discussuion.

DBK100, please dont take my words out of context, see below:

I agree...
I agree, I never said otherwise...
No,this is where you have to be very careful. A technicians downfall normally would be in the foundation design/not knowing the correct ground conditions.

As above, a competent technician would know exactly what his responsibilities are and what to do if they do not have the expertise to deal with poor ground conditions.
You do many, many good technicians a disservice with your comments. An incompetent engineer or architect will cause as many problems as an incompetent technician. I have seen some of the results.
One of the basic skills of any professional is to recognise when they need assistance - and therefore leave no issue unaddressed.

Note, I have read the other posts & I would view my previous comments as fair. It sends alarm bells through my head when I hear, what I would consider very lax comments.

P.J.11, Your comments are not fair and in my opinion are unprofessional (I underline the important words you omitted!).
'A Good Technician' is indeed competent to undertake the described planning application and will most likely do so for a more competitive fee than Architect or Engineer.
'A Good Technician' will seek further advice when he/she determines it necessary.
'A Good Technician' will have the skill to determine when that situation arises.
'A Good Technician' will always act in the client's interest and minimize risk to all.
'A Good Technician' will advise a client and clearly note that planning drawings are not for construction.
'A Good Technician' would advise a client that they should seek further professional advice if he/she is not being retained to prepare construction drawings.

A technicians downfall normally would be in the foundation design/not knowing the correct ground conditions.

This generalization is quite incredible and untrue.
The suitability of a construction professional to undertake this garage planning application is not based on whether they are an Architect, Engineer or Technician, but on whether they are Professional and Competent.

 

[onq]

<snip>
The suitability of a construction professional to undertake this garage planning application is not based on whether they are an Architect, Engineer or Technician, but on whether they are Professional and Competent.

DBK100,

<sarcasm>
"Engineers are okay to design shed buildings - sure they do it all the time."
</sarcasm>

Large garages in the landscape need little design input?
Design training and ability don't really come into it then?
Not the sort of admission I would expect from an RIAI man.
I would have thought big sheds are a challenge to design well.

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

 

[onq]

You know I have to be the devil's advocate here, just to round out this exchange a little.

A guy with a site near us applied for a triple garage recently with a tight entry near the first garage door.
There was no way a car could make it into the third garage door.
All doors were separated by columns and the angle was too acute from the entrance point.

He could have done it in several ways but it made it from elevation to plan to lodgement.
Elevationally acceptable, functionally not workign too well.

You could argue that the third bay was for a motorcycle, but I know this guy is a car buff.
Yes, you guessed it, the application was designed and lodged by an architect [not me].

ONQ.

 

[Pope John 11]

I do not know of one who would not have the sense to ascertain ground conditions if they were taking on responsibility for the job.

Wrong on this point DBK100, I have been involved in carrying out repairs in the form of underpinning works to foundations of many small existing dwelling projects where subsidence has been an issue & incorrect ground conditions have been ascertained. In a perfect world your comments would be correct. Unfortunately people take risks all the time.

A competent technician would consult another professional to advise if conditions required..........

I agree with the wording of your text above, its what I would have expected you to say a little bit earlier. But this is totally different to what you previously said, quote below, in my opinion,

The work you describe could be done professionally and competently by an architectural technician or a small engineer's practice.......
The engineer can advise you on the structural requirements (something that a good technician can also do for this type of structure).

Correctt me if I am wrong, but there is no mention of 'another professional' been consulted in your above quote

The suitability of a construction professional to undertake this garage planning application is not based on whether they are an Architect, Engineer or Technician, but on whether they are Professional and Competent.

I agree

This generalization is quite incredible and untrue.

Unfortnately I am speakng from experience in this case. I ahve come across this on several occasions.

Sorry for the rant OP.

Sorry for the spelling errors if any, my keyboard is on the blink, I think I need 'a good technician' of the IT variety to fx it for me.

 

[DBK100]

I agree with the wording of your text above, its what I would have expected you to say a little bit earlier. But this is totally different to what you previously said, quote below, in my opinion,


Correctt me if I am wrong, but there is no mention of 'another professional' been consulted in your above quote

Agreed, and why i elaborated.
I would have expected you P.J.11 to elaborate or add your thoughts to my comment instead of the "very unprofessional" comment. Those are very strong and unwarranted words. I am relatively new to posting here and have learn't that my comments need to be qualified & considered as the 'audience' and their knowledge is not known.

 

[DBK100]

DBK100,

<sarcasm>
"Engineers are okay to design shed buildings - sure they do it all the time."
</sarcasm>

Large garages in the landscape need little design input?
Design training and ability don't really come into it then?
Not the sort of admission I would expect from an RIAI man.
I would have thought big sheds are a challenge to design well.

ONQ.

ONQ,
Many large garages, sheds, barns, silos, etc. whether clad with profiled metal, precast concrete or fair-faced block etc... are Exempted Development in our landscape when they have an agricultural use.
Thats a lot of potential for ugly structures with no design input.
We can't control everything.

You say this garage should have quality design input. Maybe in an ideal world, but given the lack of quality design associated with many houses in our landscape I think they should be prioritized!

On a purely practical level, if so many are prepared to forego design input for their actual homes do you really think you will find many garage builders concerned enough to pay a realistic fee for 'high-end garage design'?

DBK100