ᐅ Site development plan not followed by architect – consequences
Created on: 26 Feb 2020 20:33
C
ChipChip
Hello everyone,
We are currently in the planning phase for our two-family house. We have hired an architect who is supposed to cover work phases L1-4. The house will be built on an existing property, and there is a development plan. This states that, in principle, a two-story construction is possible and that only gable and hipped roofs are allowed.
Since the plot is a hillside property, our idea was also to integrate a granny flat in the basement level. This basement level is not intended to be counted as a full floor. Above it, there should be two full stories with a hipped roof. We shared these ideas with the architect, who immediately started working on them. After the third revision, we received our final design, which could have been submitted to the building authority.
Shortly before that, the architect informed us that the preliminary inquiry with the building authority had led to some changes. The granny flat in the basement level is not allowed to be defined as living space but must be declared as storage space in the building plan. However, renting it out should still be possible, according to the architect.
I was somewhat surprised by this statement, so I contacted the person responsible at the building authority myself. He pointed out a detail in the development plan stating that floors that become exposed downhill due to the slope are only accepted as living space if the building is single-story.
Throughout the entire planning process, the architect did not mention this point and should have intervened when we expressed our wish for two full stories with a hipped roof and a basement level with a granny flat. Instead, the individual details were planned and adjusted, only to find out later that at least the upper floor would need to be completely redesigned. During a personal meeting, the architect denied any responsibility.
Now I wonder who is really in the right here? Of course, the plan can still be adjusted, but this will cost us extra, which I honestly do not find reasonable. Furthermore, the planning process would certainly have developed completely differently had we been fully informed from the start.
How would you proceed in such a situation? Does it make sense to seek legal advice here? I am somewhat overwhelmed by the situation and do not want to delay the planning any further. On the other hand, I also do not want to be the one paying all the extra costs and do not believe I am in the wrong. Any advice is very welcome.
Thank you very much and best regards,
Dieter
We are currently in the planning phase for our two-family house. We have hired an architect who is supposed to cover work phases L1-4. The house will be built on an existing property, and there is a development plan. This states that, in principle, a two-story construction is possible and that only gable and hipped roofs are allowed.
Since the plot is a hillside property, our idea was also to integrate a granny flat in the basement level. This basement level is not intended to be counted as a full floor. Above it, there should be two full stories with a hipped roof. We shared these ideas with the architect, who immediately started working on them. After the third revision, we received our final design, which could have been submitted to the building authority.
Shortly before that, the architect informed us that the preliminary inquiry with the building authority had led to some changes. The granny flat in the basement level is not allowed to be defined as living space but must be declared as storage space in the building plan. However, renting it out should still be possible, according to the architect.
I was somewhat surprised by this statement, so I contacted the person responsible at the building authority myself. He pointed out a detail in the development plan stating that floors that become exposed downhill due to the slope are only accepted as living space if the building is single-story.
Throughout the entire planning process, the architect did not mention this point and should have intervened when we expressed our wish for two full stories with a hipped roof and a basement level with a granny flat. Instead, the individual details were planned and adjusted, only to find out later that at least the upper floor would need to be completely redesigned. During a personal meeting, the architect denied any responsibility.
Now I wonder who is really in the right here? Of course, the plan can still be adjusted, but this will cost us extra, which I honestly do not find reasonable. Furthermore, the planning process would certainly have developed completely differently had we been fully informed from the start.
How would you proceed in such a situation? Does it make sense to seek legal advice here? I am somewhat overwhelmed by the situation and do not want to delay the planning any further. On the other hand, I also do not want to be the one paying all the extra costs and do not believe I am in the wrong. Any advice is very welcome.
Thank you very much and best regards,
Dieter
Hello everyone,
Thank you first of all for the responses. We hired the architect on an hourly basis.
The third (and supposedly final) draft now needs to be revised again, specifically so that the second full floor is not designed as a full floor with a pitched roof. However, we are supposed to pay for the hours ourselves.
My main concern is that the architect should have informed us about what is possible and what is not. Usually, it should not matter initially what the client wants; first, it should be clarified whether the request fits within the building regulations / planning permission. This did not happen here.
I feel that the mentioned section about the split-level floor / walk-out basement was overlooked by the architect and therefore not included in the design planning.
Only after feedback from the building authority did it become clear that significant changes still need to be made, which really frustrates me because the architect should have known this (as it is stated in the building plan). Of course, I am also annoyed that I overlooked this point, but I’m an amateur and expect the professional to point this out to me.
As I said, I think if these points had been clear from the start, the planning would certainly have been different and probably cheaper (fewer hours).
Best regards,
Dieter
Thank you first of all for the responses. We hired the architect on an hourly basis.
The third (and supposedly final) draft now needs to be revised again, specifically so that the second full floor is not designed as a full floor with a pitched roof. However, we are supposed to pay for the hours ourselves.
My main concern is that the architect should have informed us about what is possible and what is not. Usually, it should not matter initially what the client wants; first, it should be clarified whether the request fits within the building regulations / planning permission. This did not happen here.
I feel that the mentioned section about the split-level floor / walk-out basement was overlooked by the architect and therefore not included in the design planning.
Only after feedback from the building authority did it become clear that significant changes still need to be made, which really frustrates me because the architect should have known this (as it is stated in the building plan). Of course, I am also annoyed that I overlooked this point, but I’m an amateur and expect the professional to point this out to me.
As I said, I think if these points had been clear from the start, the planning would certainly have been different and probably cheaper (fewer hours).
Best regards,
Dieter
Vicky Pedia schrieb:
As you wrote, you commissioned phases 1-4 of the project. Obviously, phase 1 has already failed and needs to be corrected.
In other words, the architect is also responsible for the successful outcome that you are paying for (or have already paid). So if their design (phase 1) is flawed (because it cannot be approved), they must of course make corrections at no additional cost to you.
Put simply: task not fulfilled! Make corrections. The current and final design would be approvable, but only by the workaround of classifying the rooms in the basement level as hobby or storage rooms. However, since we are more or less dependent on the rental income from the basement apartment, we prefer not to use any tricks that could lead to complaints (from anyone) and possibly prevent us from continuing to rent it out. We have also clearly stated by email that we definitely want to keep the basement apartment.
N
nordanney27 Feb 2020 09:38ChipChip schrieb:
Since we are more or less dependent on the rental income from the basement-level granny flat, we prefer not to use any tricks that could lead to complaints (from anyone) resulting in us no longer being allowed to rent it out. If I have read it correctly, the floor must not be classified as a living floor. So, officially, it cannot be rented out as an apartment if it is only a basement.
ChipChip schrieb:
We have also clearly stated by email that we definitely want to have the granny flat. Then you are only allowed to build a single-story plus the granny flat.
You have to choose one way. Either you get an approved granny flat, in which case you may only build a single story. Or you build two stories and have a granny flat in the basement that is officially not rentable since it is not considered living space.
P.S. If you are dependent on the rental income in the current interest rate environment to be able to build at all, you should reconsider your specific project.
nordanney schrieb:
If I have read it correctly, the upper floor cannot be classified as residential space. So officially, it cannot be rented out as an apartment if it is just a basement.
Then you are only allowed to build one story plus the separate apartment.
You have to choose one option. Either you get approval for a separate apartment and then build only one story, or you build two stories and have a basement apartment that is officially not rentable since it is not considered living space.
P.S. If you currently depend on rental income due to the current interest rate environment in order to afford building, you should reconsider your specific project. I imagine the original poster really wants two full stories, neither of which are at basement level, but since the house cannot be built on stilts, they need the separate apartment because they cannot afford that much basement space. However, with this setup, wouldn’t the bank refuse financing anyway if the separate apartment is declared not as a dwelling but as a hobby room?
nordanney schrieb:
If I understood correctly, the floor cannot be classified as a residential floor. So it cannot be officially rented out as an apartment if it is only a basement.
Then you are only allowed to build one story plus the secondary apartment.
You have to make a choice. Either you get an approved secondary apartment and then build only one story. Or you build two stories and have a basement that officially cannot be rented out—since it’s not considered living space—as a secondary apartment.
P.S. If you rely on rental income in the current interest rate environment to be able to build at all, you should give up your specific project. Thanks again for the feedback. Regarding financing, we could manage without a secondary apartment, but it would be a nice bonus to include, as we don’t actually need the extra space.
We also understand that we have to make a choice. That’s absolutely fine.
What frustrates me is that the planning never went in this direction and that we only received this information at the final stage—and now we have to bear the costs for the changes. The question is whether the architect failed in their duties here.
Thanks again for the kind responses. Perhaps I am a bit emotional about this topic, so I appreciate every piece of feedback.
Best regards,
Dieter
Similar topics