Engineer fees for Attic Conversion

run_Forrest_run

Folks,

I am looking to have my attic converted.
Now there is no structural work to be carried out, the joists have been done in a way that it already allows for a conversion.
The house is a bungalow with a steep pitch.

I want to convert it into two bedrooms and I want to get a certificate of compliance so I want go ahead and get planning etc. Lots of identical houses around me have the work done.

I got an engineer out to look at the attic and get a price for his work. He was amazed [in a good way] with the way the attic was done and he said it is a nice job with a lot of the main work already done...all that's needed is the usual wiring, plumbing , carpentry etc.

Anyway, the engineer gave me a quote of €2200 (excluding VAT!) for doing a few drawings [for submitting the planning] and supervisory work.

Now I think this is crazy money for a small attic conversion, I know lads you had an entire house done for the same price.

Am I being ripped off here or am I out of touch?

Any help would be appreciated, I am getting nowhere with this...it's all very frustrating.

Does anyone know some honest decent engineers who might actually be grateful for the work?? PM me if u you want.

Mellor

Some people paid similar for a house, what kind of service do you think they got.

Planning alone take a few hours to put together, then you have the site supervision, if you pay for somebody to fully supervise a build, he will be there to fully supervise it.
If you find somebody willing to do it for 1k, he will be there alot less.

You get what you pay for.

sinnerboy

run_Forrest_run wrote: »

Does anyone know some honest decent engineers who might actually be grateful for the work?? PM me if u you want.

try the Calcutta yellow pages

250882

A friend of mine used to work in a key cutting shop and he couldnt get over how much people complained about the price of getting a car key cut for the executive cars because when you worked it out it came to less than 1% of the value of the car.
That engineer if certifying the conversion is essentially insuring it with their PI insurance. How much is this conversion going to cost you and how much value is it going to add to your house when certified. They will have to produce drawings of the existing and proposed, put together a planning application and remember that working on an existing building is a lot more work than a new build so all considering they may not really want the job.

sydthebeat

run_Forrest_run wrote: »

Folks,

I am looking to have my attic converted.
Now there is no structural work to be carried out, the joists have been done in a way that it already allows for a conversion.
The house is a bungalow with a steep pitch.

I want to convert it into two bedrooms and I want to get a certificate of compliance so I want go ahead and get planning etc. Lots of identical houses around me have the work done.

I got an engineer out to look at the attic and get a price for his work. He was amazed [in a good way] with the way the attic was done and he said it is a nice job with a lot of the main work already done...all that's needed is the usual wiring, plumbing , carpentry etc.

Anyway, the engineer gave me a quote of €2200 (excluding VAT!) for doing a few drawings [for submitting the planning] and supervisory work.

Now I think this is crazy money for a small attic conversion, I know lads you had an entire house done for the same price.

Am I being ripped off here or am I out of touch?

Any help would be appreciated, I am getting nowhere with this...it's all very frustrating.

Does anyone know some honest decent engineers who might actually be grateful for the work?? PM me if u you want.

You seem to have a low opinion or respect for the work involved.

That quote is very reasonable in my opinion.

The engineer appears to be accepting responsibility for the structural changes necessary, that alone will costs you.
He is offering some kind of supervisionary role, you havent given any other detail.
He is designing the layout of the new attic conversion and how it affects the existing dwelling, and he is also preparing the planning application.

You should expect to pay between €1000 - €1500 alone for the supervision and certification.

run_Forrest_run

Mellor wrote: »

Some people paid similar for a house, what kind of service do you think they got.

Planning alone take a few hours to put together, then you have the site supervision, if you pay for somebody to fully supervise a build, he will be there to fully supervise it.
If you find somebody willing to do it for 1k, he will be there alot less.

You get what you pay for.

well the person who got an engineer to do a full house (3000sq ft!) was my brother and he was very happy with the results (he is in Galway so I can't use the same engineer)..and the build took over 1 year to complete, the work for my attic conversion would take 3-5 weeks!

The engineer said the supervisory visits would be one or two a week!
I just don't think the €2200 fee really is value for money, but maybe I am wrong!

run_Forrest_run

sydthebeat wrote: »

You seem to have a low opinion or respect for the work involved.

That quote is very reasonable in my opinion.

The engineer appears to be accepting responsibility for the structural changes necessary, that alone will costs you.
He is offering some kind of supervisionary role, you havent given any other detail.
He is designing the layout of the new attic conversion and how it affects the existing dwelling, and he is also preparing the planning application.

You should expect to pay between €1000 - €1500 alone for the supervision and certification.

well he is not really doing much design work because my neighbour was kind enough to allow us in to see the attic conversion they did and I just want a carbon copy of that work! He took all measurements from that work etc.

Anyway, OK, so you reckon that fee is normal. Fair enough.
It's not that I don't have respect for the work carried out but I just don't know much about this kind of thing...no need to get all hot and bothered about it.

run_Forrest_run

sinnerboy wrote: »

try the Calcutta yellow pages

great, thanks for that.

Mellor

Ask for a break down of costs, and you might change your mind.

Estimate the hours he will have to do, assign an hourly rate.
Plus the fees for newspaper, lodging etc. Then overheads such as PI insurance, hardware and soft ware etc.

run_Forrest_run

Mellor wrote: »

Ask for a break down of costs, and you might change your mind.

Estimate the hours he will have to do, assign an hourly rate.
Plus the fees for newspaper, lodging etc. Then overheads such as PI insurance, hardware and soft ware etc.

what do you mean hardware and software??

sinnerboy

and the small matter of fire which you engineer will have to specify and certify on completion .....

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,1657,en.pdf

Mellor

Was an example of some of the overheads of doing this work. Computer programs are needed, they aren't cheap. Computers also, paper, printing etc. Each one of its own isn't going to add a huge cost, but all together they add up.
If you were to buy a good PC, a plotter and a copy of autocad, you are looking at maybe 6k or more

sydthebeat

run_Forrest_run wrote: »

It's not that I don't have respect for the work carried out but I just don't know much about this kind of thing...no need to get all hot and bothered about it.

dont worry, your posts dont have me neither 'hot' nor 'bothered'....

perhaps you should get another professional to quote for the same job... after all the more quotes the better...

mathias

Well you should get some other quotes to compare but it doesnt seem like a lot to me , you said it would take 3-5 weeks ,

For arguments sake lets say it took 5 weeks and he spent 200 hours on the job , supervising and so on , thats 1600 if he was to accept minimum wage .... but you dont get an engineering degree to work for minimum wage do you ? .... and then theres the overheads and paperwork , planning apps and so on ,

2200 seems very reasonable to me , but again like I said , get a few quotes , I would imagine its a reasonable price. The only way you'd get that job cheaper would be to go with a handyman and accept uncertified work.

AngryHippie

You aren't really getting screwed tbh. You are asking for an indemnity cover on the job and he is providing that.
You could have gotten a draughtsman to draw up the planned alteration and submit them yourself, get a reliable (good luck) builder to do the work, It will probably be as safe, it shouldn't take from the value of the house, Draughtsman will charge a couple of hundred for the drawings, builder will charge whatever he charges.
Or you could take it on yourself. DIY ain't rocket science. Get a copy of the homebond book, It has all you need in it. The engineer ain't screwing you, but thats not to say you're not screwing yourself.

run_Forrest_run

Mellor wrote: »

Was an example of some of the overheads of doing this work. Computer programs are needed, they aren't cheap. Computers also, paper, printing etc. Each one of its own isn't going to add a huge cost, but all together they add up.
If you were to buy a good PC, a plotter and a copy of autocad, you are looking at maybe 6k or more

Yes but does the engineer buy a new license for Autocad & new PC for every job he takes on???

run_Forrest_run

mathias wrote: »

Well you should get some other quotes to compare but it doesnt seem like a lot to me , you said it would take 3-5 weeks ,

For arguments sake lets say it took 5 weeks and he spent 200 hours on the job , supervising and so on , thats 1600 if he was to accept minimum wage .... but you dont get an engineering degree to work for minimum wage do you ? .... and then theres the overheads and paperwork , planning apps and so on ,

2200 seems very reasonable to me , but again like I said , get a few quotes , I would imagine its a reasonable price. The only way you'd get that job cheaper would be to go with a handyman and accept uncertified work.

absolutely, I will get some more quotes but my problem is actually getting lads out to look at the work and when they do it is next to impossible to get them on the phone later on to send me out a quote!

run_Forrest_run

AngryHippie wrote: »

You aren't really getting screwed tbh. You are asking for an indemnity cover on the job and he is providing that.
You could have gotten a draughtsman to draw up the planned alteration and submit them yourself, get a reliable (good luck) builder to do the work, It will probably be as safe, it shouldn't take from the value of the house, Draughtsman will charge a couple of hundred for the drawings, builder will charge whatever he charges.
Or you could take it on yourself. DIY ain't rocket science. Get a copy of the homebond book, It has all you need in it. The engineer ain't screwing you, but thats not to say you're not screwing yourself.

yes but I want to get a certificate of compliance so the DIY route is not an option (trust me, I am useless at DIY).

Anyway, the general consensus is that I am not being ripped off, that's good news anyway. Now I'm not too annoyed

Mellor

run_Forrest_run wrote: »

Yes but does the engineer buy a new license for Autocad & new PC for every job he takes on???

No of course not, thats why his isn't charging you 10k. don't be so silly/childish, I was highlightlighting some of the overheads, that is an example of how little this are over looked and add up.

Like I said, do up a hourly rate and estimated hours and see how you feel then.

250882

... and speaking of overheads, dont forget to take into account the wages he pays his employees that spend all day on the internet trawling to posts on boards.ie instead of doing any work.

You all know who you are!!!!!!!!

run_Forrest_run

Mellor wrote: »

No of course not, thats why his isn't charging you 10k. don't be so silly/childish, I was highlightlighting some of the overheads, that is an example of how little this are over looked and add up.

Like I said, do up a hourly rate and estimated hours and see how you feel then.

i'm not being silly/childish but there is no need to go into the finer details, sure you could apply that to anything...anyway,the general vibe here is that I am not being screwed so that's good.

10k for a PC and Autocad!! Has he not heard of torrents:D (seriously, I'm joking now, evil torrents of course)

I will have a proper chat with the engineer to flesh it all out...

AngryHippie

But can you catch us ???

At least its not bebo.

ircoha

sinnerboy wrote: »

and the small matter of fire which you engineer will have to specify and certify on completion .....

http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,1657,en.pdf

From the pdf:

The extra cost of professional services should pay for itself by
helping to ensure that the conversion is up to standard and is safe
for you and your family.

AngryHippie

With cheese please !

Homebond, British Standards or Barry construction , with a little calculator work can put the fire regs to bed in less than a half hour. Certificate isn't gonna put out a fire.

mathias

Certificate isn't gonna put out a fire.

But sub -standard work can easily start one! Me , I'd pay the extra for certified work , if only for the peace of mind.

Mellor

Also the fact that if you ever go to sell, if it isn't certified, the house will be worth less.

sinnerboy

AngryHippie wrote: »

With cheese please !

Homebond, British Standards or Barry construction , with a little calculator work can put the fire regs to bed in less than a half hour. Certificate isn't gonna put out a fire.

can I borrow YOUR calculator ?

run_Forrest_run

Mellor wrote: »

Also the fact that if you ever go to sell, if it isn't certified, the house will be worth less.

exactly, that's one of the reasons I want to get all the work certified..anyway i am still waiting on the written quote from the engineer to actually see what the fee includes...it's like pulling teeth with this lad i tell ya.

AngryHippie

sinnerboy wrote: »

can I borrow YOUR calculator ?

If you have a computer and excel it is a piece of piss. Really. All it takes is the confidence to start at the beginning , label everything well so you can spot mistakes and double check at the end. Its all the engineer is doing. It isn't rocket science. Fire risk from an attic conversion can only come from total retardedness. Don't be so dramatic..

Mellor

I rather you used ignorance than retardness.
Alot of people aren't aware of the regs in relation to an attic conversion

sinnerboy

AngryHippie wrote: »

If you have a computer and excel it is a piece of piss. Really. All it takes is the confidence to start at the beginning , label everything well so you can spot mistakes and double check at the end. Its all the engineer is doing. It isn't rocket science. Fire risk from an attic conversion can only come from total retardedness. Don't be so dramatic..

silly person

AngryHippie

Thats not fair. Just because I have a good grasp of science, maths and a little engineering experience. Doesn't make me a silly person. quite the opposite imo.

Some people give professionals way too much "professional respect" But thats just my opinion man !

sydthebeat

AngryHippie wrote: »

With cheese please !

Homebond, British Standards or Barry construction , with a little calculator work can put the fire regs to bed in less than a half hour. Certificate isn't gonna put out a fire.

This just goes to show the lack of understanding you have..... you have quoted 3 publications yet havent quoted the actual regulations that you need to comply with. A little education is a very dangerous thing.

"Fire risk from an attic conversion" comes from not complying with the regulations.. simple as....

AngryHippie

i'd start by having a look through BS 5588-1, BS 4422
If it is compliant with them then there is no problem with fire regs.

Mellor

AngryHippie, your info is misleading. The homebond guide does little to go into fire regulations. It deals mostly with 2 story dwellings. As for the BS, yes, there are relevent BS standards, but you certainly won't get through them in half and hour like you suggested.

As for maths and science, I fail to see how any sort of grasp of either is needed to show compliance. The only maths that is needed is basic arithmatic. The main item required is knowledge of the regs or BSs

Nobody hads said that there is anything difficult about complaince in dwellings, the regs are there to be followed, and must be. BUT the average user here is a layperson, and as such it is misleading to dismiss the issue as something they can work out from scratch in a half an hour. If you have done it before you may find it easy and may take you half an hour. But it will take the average layperson much longer to get to grips with Part B and/or the relevent BS, and they may overlook an area. (the same applies to alot of the planning and design process).

As for giving too much professional respect, even if you don't respect the work they are done on it, you should at least respect their PI insurance, which you won't have if you do it yourself. This fact alone is the biggest flaw in your advice.

Angry Hippie, we try to give advice on this forum. All advice is guidlines, conveying the image that you don't need to worry about fire regulations (or any trival issue) is dangerous, especially when speaking to laypersons.
Please do not be so dismissive of regulations in future.

muffler

AngryHippie wrote: »

But can you catch us ???

At least its not bebo.

A very positive contribution to the thread.

AngryHippie wrote: »

With cheese please !

Homebond, British Standards or Barry construction , with a little calculator work can put the fire regs to bed in less than a half hour. Certificate isn't gonna put out a fire.

Doesn't even warrant a response.

AngryHippie wrote: »

If you have a computer and excel it is a piece of piss. Really. All it takes is the confidence to start at the beginning , label everything well so you can spot mistakes and double check at the end. Its all the engineer is doing. It isn't rocket science. Fire risk from an attic conversion can only come from total retardedness. Don't be so dramatic..

Im glad you think that its as simple as that. God love ye.

AngryHippie wrote: »

Thats not fair. Just because I have a good grasp of science, maths and a little engineering experience. Doesn't make me a silly person. quite the opposite imo.

Some people give professionals way too much "professional respect" But thats just my opinion man !

You certainly havent grasped the ability to post constructively in this forum and yes you do have an opinion and so far it has offered nothing.

AngryHippie wrote: »

i'd start by having a look through BS 5588-1, BS 4422
If it is compliant with them then there is no problem with fire regs.

For your next trick you will show us how to make it compliant.


Look AngryHippe I see very little here other than very loose speculation and a degree of piss taking. So you have "a little engineering experience" which counts for sweet FA at the end of the day and as syd has posted it can be a dangerous thing - not only for others but also for you. As Mellor pointed out a lot of the people here are lay people and depend and rely on professionals who contribute here regularly. Dont go making statements about things that you have "a little experience" of - leave that to the rest of us.

If you are a professional in your own right and possess PI cover and can stand over and explain in detail all the statements you have made then please fill us in. I dont see that happening so therefore I would ask you to please post in a more mature and positive fashion.

carpentoza

Just thought i would throw in my two cents as most of the previous posters have complicated this way out of proportion, most likely because they haven't a clue imo.
Anyway, the fact that its a bungalow you want to convert means that fire is not the issue it would be in a two story house where u would be adding a third floor effectively. So it is a matter of protecting the new room from and providing means of escape from fire as would be applicable to any two story home.
You also say that the attic came with structural work completed. Assuming the original builder did this work then his architect will have certified it in the first place.This cert will be with the deeds/legal docs associated with the property.
Permission is only needed if you want to add a dormer window to the roof or veluxs windows to the front.
So it sounds like this comes under exempted development.

To answer your original question i think the engineer is not screwing you but is unneccessary. If you engage a competent builder to complete the work and have his work certified by an architect (about 500 euro) you would save the engineers fee.

The need for an engineer normally is to ensure the structure of your house is not compromised by a dodgy builder but as u said structural work is finished.

Hope this helps.

smashey

carpentoza wrote: »

Just thought i would throw in my two cents as most of the previous posters have complicated this way out of proportion, most likely because they haven't a clue

Right, As I said to somebody else yesterday...

Put up or shut up.

Don't ever, come into this forum and claim that the contributors don't have a clue.

Banned for a week.

Mellor

carpentoza wrote: »

Just thought i would throw in my two cents as most of the previous posters have complicated this way out of proportion, most likely because they haven't a clue imo.

Thats pretty rich considering that you have made two posts so far, both of which wrong.

Anyway, the fact that its a bungalow you want to convert means that fire is not the issue it would be in a two story house where u would be adding a third floor effectively. So it is a matter of protecting the new room from and providing means of escape from fire as would be applicable to any two story home.

Fire conditions will still apply. To say different is silly. It may be different from a two story house with a converted attic, but if overlooked there could be serious problems.

You also say that the attic came with structural work completed. Assuming the original builder did this work then his architect will have certified it in the first place.This cert will be with the deeds/legal docs associated with the property.

Assumptions can get you into trouble.

Permission is only needed if you want to add a dormer window to the roof or veluxs windows to the front.
So it sounds like this comes under exempted development.

Yes exempt, but we didnt talk of planning but certification and compliance.

To answer your original question i think the engineer is not screwing you but is unneccessary. If you engage a competent builder to complete the work and have his work certified by an architect (about 500 euro) you would save the engineers fee.

If you could also hire an engineer to certify the builders work. This should cost the same as the engineer won't charge for structural work that he doesn't do, just as an architect won't charge for design work that he didnt do

muffler

What did I miss? Who banned God (he who knows all)

Must get up earlier in the morning

smooth operater

Wow, banned for a week was a bit harsh in my opinion....

carpentoza wrote: »

Anyway, the fact that its a bungalow you want to convert means that fire is not the issue it would be in a two story house where u would be adding a third floor effectively. So it is a matter of protecting the new room from and providing means of escape from fire as would be applicable to any two story home.

Afaik, that is true? A three story house is a different story regarding fire safety yes?

carpentoza wrote: »

You also say that the attic came with structural work completed. Assuming the original builder did this work then his architect will have certified it in the first place.This cert will be with the deeds/legal docs associated with the property.

There is a chance that this is true?

carpentoza wrote: »

To answer your original question i think the engineer is not screwing you but is unneccessary. If you engage a competent builder to complete the work and have his work certified by an architect (about 500 euro) you would save the engineers fee.

Entitled to his opinion

carpentoza wrote: »

The need for an engineer normally is to ensure the structure of your house is not compromised by a dodgy builder but as u said structural work is finished.

Hope this helps.

His opening line was disrespectful, but he did say "imo"

Im not an expert but it seemed he had a fair idea?

smashey

smooth operater wrote: »

Im not an expert but it seemed he had a fair idea?

Maybe he had, I don't particularly care. He could have expressed his opinion better. "imo" does not grant immunity from any rules/ettiquette.

We have a great forum here with a core of excellent contributors. It is these contributors who have made this forum what it is and I for one won't let anybody come in here and accuse them not having a clue. All contributors give their advice and time voluntarily and to have it thrown back at them like this is totally out of order.

Mellor

smooth operater wrote: »

Afaik, that is true? A three story house is a different story regarding fire safety yes?

Yes a 2 story is different than a 3 story. Nobody said otherwise.
But they different, fire regulations still apply to two story dwellings, not all the regulations that apply to a three story dwelling but

carpentoza wrote:

Anyway, the fact that its a bungalow you want to convert means that fire is not the issue

This is bad advice, the house was design as a bungalow, so there could easily be issues with adding a story regarding fire regs

There is a chance that this is true?

Of course there is a chance. But we do not know for certain, assuming that it is, and telling somebody else to carry on based on this assumption is terrible advice.

Entitled to his opinion

His opinion was based on nothing. As I have already said, the structural work may already be certified, so the new work only has to, an engineer would not cost an more than an architect to provide this. Carpentoza suggested that it it would, this also is bad advice.
If something is purely opinion, it should be stated as such

His opening line was disrespectful, but he did say "imo"

Saying imo doesn't give you the right to say what you want. If it was his opinion then his opinion was wrong.

Im not an expert but it seemed he had a fair idea?

He likely had a fair idea.
But his attitude was wrong. He suggest that some posters haven't a clue (these posters btw have more than a fair idea)
Some of his advice was pretty bad, especially for a public forum. He also posted in another thread and in that posts he also corrected somebody with his opinion/facts, which were also very very wrong

muffler

smooth operater wrote: »

Wow, banned for a week was a bit harsh in my opinion...............................Entitled to his opinion

He would have got a decent kick up the hole if I had seen it first. And no he's not entitled to his opinion when it amounts to attacking the professionalism and integrity of the regulars. And if you are not happy with the standard of moderation here you can take it to feedback.