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
S
Sparfuchs7727 Feb 2020 11:29ChipChip schrieb:
since we actually don't need the room.Better to build only what you need and avoid bringing in strangers.
Vicky Pedia27 Feb 2020 11:29If the secondary apartment is part of the financing, it must actually exist. The bank can simply ask or request to see the building permit / planning permission. Aside from an unfriendly neighbor.
The neighbors are the ones who will report you to the authorities because of the rental. Then it gets really costly, especially if you might have to compensate the tenant and lose rental income.
The alternative would be to rent out the attic space.
To be honest: start the planning completely fresh from the beginning without a granny flat and on a smaller scale.
Regarding your question:
The alternative would be to rent out the attic space.
To be honest: start the planning completely fresh from the beginning without a granny flat and on a smaller scale.
Regarding your question:
ChipChip schrieb:No one can give you a straightforward answer on that. Which project phase are you currently in? The initial consultations with authorities and assessment of the building permit / planning permission feasibility is part of phase 2.
The question was whether the architect has breached their duty here.
ChipChip schrieb:
that the preliminary inquiry with the building authority has led to This phrase makes me suspect that important details are missing from the description of the case. Why are the final plans already being worked on when the decision regarding the preliminary building inquiry is still pending? Why was the preliminary inquiry initiated in the first place? Who requested it? What agreements (written or verbal) exist regarding this?
ChipChip schrieb:
Does it make sense to seek legal advice here? If the relationship with the architect is completely broken down and the feeling of unfairness is causing you sleepless nights, then yes. Otherwise, @hampshire can probably give you good advice on how to communicate with the architect. I still see chances to achieve a satisfactory design at a cost far lower than legal proceedings would require. However, this would require both parties to be willing to compromise.
guckuck2 schrieb:
The architect is responsible for a design that can be approved. [...] This is not an unlimited flat rate for indecisive clients.ChipChip schrieb:
We hired the architect on an hourly basis.That, in turn, is a flat rate for unlimited hours spent up to the approval-ready design ;-(https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics