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
The plot is perfectly fine and meets our requirements. We have no issue with having sloped ceilings on the upper floor. However, if you have had a different idea in mind throughout the entire planning process and no one—who might have known better (in this case, the architect)—corrected it, it’s frustrating to have to change the final plan you had grown attached to.
We will meet with the architect again to work on a solution.
Thank you for the advice and suggestions.
Kind regards,
Dieter
We will meet with the architect again to work on a solution.
Thank you for the advice and suggestions.
Kind regards,
Dieter
ChipChip schrieb:
however, it would be a nice extra that we would like to have, since we don’t actually need the room.For me, it would be a disadvantage to have strangers living below me.
ChipChip schrieb:
However, if you had a different vision in mind throughout the entire planning process and no one corrected it—someone who might have known better (in this case, the architect)—then it’s frustrating when the final plan you grew attached to has to be changed after all.But that doesn’t answer my questions in #16. Too bad.