Planning without an architect

nutty nut said:
Sorry but that statement is 100% wrong
Click to expand...

sorry mate, but forms 9101 and 9202 can only be signed by, and I quote,

"To be signed by a Chartered Engineer with design experience appropriate to the Works".

doesn't say technician anywhere in that sentence and last time I checked, a technician wasn't a chartered engineer. there is a reason you know, why engineers do more years in college and a further min. term and assessment to gain the title. i haven't spent 9 years of my life itching to get a couple of letters after my name, believe me.

you seem to state a lot of "facts" but never back them up. i think you may have something against engineers and i'm not going to get into an argument with you about it but neither of those forms that i previously mentioned can be signed by anyone other than a Chartered Engineer and that is 100% correct. The form are even titled "Chartered Engineer's Opinion On Compliance..." and they are an agreed form between the Law Society and The Institution of Engineers of Ireland.

maybe you should state your background before you go off wildly dismissing other people's knowledge just because you don't agree with it.
 
Thats entirely different to what you posted previously - quote "
OP, you may be able to get a technician but they will not legally be able to sign off"

You have narrowed down your assertion by now referring to a form of certification that is being used by members of the IEI. An architect cant even sign off with one of those forms as they are exclusive to engineers.

Just for the record I am an architectural technician but I dont go round wailing about how much longer I spent at third level education compared to a draughtsman - unlike your comments.

I have nothing whatsoever against engineers or architects. I work with them on various projects and yes I agree with your earlier comment and also as mentioned by another user that the title of architect and engineer should be protected in law.

I am self employed and I have signed off on numerous certs down the years as have loads of other technicians so I totally reject your original comment about technicians not being able to sign off on a job with a cert. of compliance.
 

well, your comment about me being 100% wrong was a bit wide of the mark then. maybe i didn't qualify that i was speaking as an engineer but i did say there would be slight differences with architect's forms and if architectural technicians can sign off, then i take your word for it but engineering technicians can't. i did specify who could sign off as per the OP's question. i don't see your reasoning behind your jibe at education...i see no wailing in my post.
 
So can anyone who has supervised the works issue a certificate of compliance or what qualifications (if any) are needed? Is it a case of competence (sp), qualifications or both? There seems to be a lot of confusion about this
 
colmanmc said:
So can anyone who has supervised the works issue a certificate of compliance or what qualifications (if any) are needed? Is it a case of competence (sp), qualifications or both? There seems to be a lot of confusion about this
Click to expand...
There is some confusion alright and as you will have seen from earlier comments there is a different opinion depending on who's opinion it is.

From my point of view and based on my own personal experience an architectural technician can issue you with a certificate of compliance with building regulations and planning permission providing he/she has achieved a min. of NCEA certificate standard, been in practice for 10 years and has professional indemnity.

So in a nutshell it is qualification, experience and insurance cover.

OCD was referring to an engineering technician in his post which is a different ball game.
 
I hope it wasn't on AAM that I saw this little aphorism. If it was, apologies for repeating it:

Building without architect = horrifying, but
Building without engineer = terrifying.
 
what about building without an interior designer....would that be petrifying !
 
No, we're building WITH an interior designer and that really IS petrifying - every time we think we've got something sussed she comes up with another bright (and expensive) idea.
 
if you don't use the services of a competent & qualified architect &
engineer you may very well get a finished extension that stands the
test of time etc. But when you come to sell your home you will
need a cert of complience with the building regulations and if
required a cert of complience with planning permission, believe
me this happens loads and is the cause of many a headache
when something like this can hold up a sale or even cause it to
fall through. Be smart and employ a qualified architect to complete
a drawing package/PP application and also employ a qualified engineer
to look at anything non-standard that your qualified architect thinks
he cannot spec for you. This may seem like a lot of cash in the short
term but piece of mind in the long run and a smooth sale will make it
more than worth it. Furthermore if things do go wrong half way
through you'll have great difficulty in getting somebody qualified to
look after things for you.

I know theres a handy phrase on the tip of my tongue to cover the above ?????

p.s. I've personal experience of all of the above, I have felt sorry for
many of them but 99% of the time people got themselves into trouble
trying to save money where they shouldn't.
 
The majority of work relating to issues of compliance with Planning Permission and Building Regulations in Architects offices is resolved by Architectural Technicians. It is fair to say that Technicians are more knowledgable that Architects or Engineers in relation to Building Regulation Compliance issues and arguably Planning Issues also. Most Technicians nowadays spend four years in college to secure their basic qualification i.e. the same as engineers. Currently the law sociey advises that certs can be accpeted from people who have carried out the work of an Architect or an Engineer for over ten years even though they have no formal qualifications. So technically an Architectural Technician cannot sign a Certificate of Compliance as a Technician but if he says he has worked as an architect for ten years he can - it's all a bit stupid really.
 
AidanS,

Use an Architectural Technician with more than 4/5 years experience. These are the people who do all the donkey work re drawing, regulations, planning etc. Architects really only work with you on the design and if you are only doing a "modest" extension and are very sure of what you want I dont see any need to employ the services of an Architect who will probably change your design ideas or possibly in the first instance not take on the job at all as it might be too small. We had similar work done single storey extension to s/d house, and used an arch. tech that had come recommended. He did all measurements, drawings, planning apps etc and had the final work certified by an engineer that he uses. Worked out very reasonable in the end.

Good luck.....
 
Barry Hall said:
Most Technicians nowadays spend four years in college to secure their basic qualification i.e. the same as engineers.
Click to expand...

I don't think so Barry.

Two years = Cert = Technician
Three Years = Ordinary Degree/Diploma = Technician
Four Years = Honours Degree = Engineer
 
Wake up Mers1 - four year degree BSc Architectural Technology now available W.I.T. C.I.T. D.I.T. and possibly more. In addition there will shortly be a part-time upgrade over 2 years for people with the ord. level degree in Architectural Technology.
 
Apologies Mers1 - that serve was not meant for you but for Dahamster.
 
Barry Hall said:
Wake up Mers1 - four year degree BSc Architectural Technology now available W.I.T. C.I.T. D.I.T. and possibly more. In addition there will shortly be a part-time upgrade over 2 years for people with the ord. level degree in Architectural Technology.
Click to expand...
I dont even understand what you are saying and you obviously dont know who you are directing it at
 
Contrary to a previous post which stated that Architectural Technologists spent three years in College to achieve an ordinary level degree - I made the point that a four year Hons Degree in Architectural Technology is now the norm i.e. the equivalent of an engineering degree. Is that clear enough?
 
A lot clearer Barry.

And to think it took me just 1 day and 1 night per week over 4 years to get the same result as the full time students who had that time spent 2 years full time. Mind you that wasnt today or yesterday
 

I'm not arguing with you here Barry, but a four year Hons Degree in Architectural Technology is not equivelent to an Honours Degree in Architecture or you would be eligable for riai membership or charterd engineer status from the iei
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register