Problems with building on a hillside

SLIPPERY FROG

hi all starting a new build in wicklow foundations in but..... arch wanted us to go 18 inches under ground level for found according to plan app, we did but when we went down we decided to much clay had to be removed one hundred euros an hour , digger and truck omg,and where would the water go, so we decided to lay 3 courses of blocks to bring it back up unknown to archt, expensive but at least it is higher, not high enough, but suspence suspence a suprise visit by arch, he not a happy boy:(, stall the digger wants us to re-apply for permission,:eek: no way amigo now threatinh to walk. so ive got a 40 thous concrete hole in the ground prob no arch. wat can i do oh wise ones please ur advice, please.

Poor Uncle Tom

SLIPPERY FROG wrote: »

hi all starting a new build in wicklow foundations in but..... arch wanted us to go 18 inches under ground level for found according to plan app, we did but when we went down we decided to much clay had to be removed one hundred euros an hour , digger and truck omg,and where would the water go, so we decided to lay 3 courses of blocks to bring it back up unknown to archt, expensive but at least it is higher, not high enough, but suspence suspence a suprise visit by arch, he not a happy boy:(, stall the digger wants us to re-apply for permission,:eek: no way amigo now threatinh to walk. so ive got a 40 thous concrete hole in the ground prob no arch. wat can i do oh wise ones please ur advice, please.

You've answered your own queary, you breached your own planning permission, no professional will stand over that. Get a new planning permission or rectify the work to comply with the planning permission that you have.

muffler

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

You've answered your own queary, you breached your own planning permission, no professional will stand over that. Get a new planning permission or rectify the work to comply with the planning permission that you have.

+1.

No point in hiring a professional if you are going to ignore him and then you expect him to stand over your mistake. That wont happen Im afraid.

RKQ

SLIPPERY FROG wrote: »

18 inches under ground level for found according to plan app, we did but when we went down we decided to much clay had to be removed one hundred euros an hour , digger and truck omg,and where would the water go,

Comply with your Planning Permission. You retained a professional - so listen to his/her advice.

You may have saved a few hundred euro on groundworks but you have risked your foundation design and invalidated your planning permission. Who will you blame if the foundation sinks?

Lets hope the foundations are wide & deep enough.
Are you a Structural Engineer ?
If not you are not qualified to decide "too much clay to be removed".

I wonder if you will listen to this advice?

dan_d

Get your engineer. Or a structural engineer.You've 2 options here otherwise, one is to keep digging until you reach solid ground.I'm assuming by what you say you don't want to do that. The second is to change your entire foundation design, do a raft foundation with reinforced concrete (which will require design by a structural engineer) to sit on the clay ground. Which breaches your planning permission. Either way, you need an engineer and you need to look at possibly applying for new planning permission if necessary.

SLIPPERY FROG

sorry a bit of confusion here
the arch drew up the plans to have the ffl three foot under ground level, he actually copied it from a prevoious engineer that had to be let go because of that issue, the house is actually on a hill an is a dormar, when we dug out the foundation we were over a metre under the fround and on a hill does not make sence, issued raised with arch, but he would not compromise, although it was pointed out where would the water go and the amount of soil that had to be removed, to get the level, ie instead of the foundation sloping out the ground was sloping in seems to me as a building virgin big trouble, all im hearing is retaining walls and gulleys, and still problems, so asked b/layer to put three courses on to rise it and itt is still to low but an improvement, i thought the basic prin of foundations is to have it higher than the lowest point and slope off, anyway very peed off with the arch for not getting the ffl correct and just copied old ones as his brief was. this was brought to his attention early on but tec a b/s letter saying it be all right on the night. the found is bullet proof but higher than the plan by about 3 ft or less. the arch can walk as far as im concerned but where does it leave me?

Quazzie

SLIPPERY FROG wrote: »

the arch can walk as far as im concerned but where does it leave me?

It leaves you exactly here

SLIPPERY FROG wrote: »

re-apply for permission

No one here is going to tell you anything else as its illegal and against the Charter.

dan_d

OP, your post is deeply confusing, but what I'm getting is that the architect, on his drawing, showed the wrong finished floor level, and you excavated based on that FFL, which means that you are now a lot deeper than you should be. And since you've built the foundation up to make up for the mistaken FFL, you are at the FFL you should be at, had it been written on the drawing correctly.

I'm no planning expert, but I would imagine you'll have to make the planning office aware, because the drawings they approved are incorrect - wrong FFL.

I am an engineer. I'm not offering you engineering advice as I haven't seen your situation and it's (rightly) against the charter here for many good reasons. I will however say one thing. If you're on a hill, and you're now being told about retaining walls and gulleys, there is a possibility that that's the only way out of the mess. But I'm coming back to the same advice.Go employ a structural engineer and get them to look at it. By raising your foundations even 3 courses, you change the whole design. You've got wrong planning drawings approved (and I know it wasn't your fault), you've dug deeper than you had permission for (what if you had hit a water main, or ESB cables?) and you've altered your foundation - which you also have no permission for, and could possibly impact the overall structure. Stop what you're doing and go and get a structural engineer with insurance, and possibly an architect with a background in planning to advise you.

I know it's not what you want to hear, but it's the only way.

SLIPPERY FROG

ta all
in simple language, the foundation is higher than specified on the plan by 2 foot, no fear of hitting water pipes, its a field on a hill with the nearest house one mile away. my question is do i let the council know and re apply and run the risk of been refused or let them find out for themselves. p.s. houses do not stick rigidly to the planning permission either in height or location, any builder will tell you that.

Quazzie

SLIPPERY FROG wrote: »

ta all
in simple language, the foundation is higher than specified on the plan by 2 foot, no fear of hitting water pipes, its a field on a hill with the nearest house one mile away. my question is do i let the council know and re apply and run the risk of been refused or let them find out for themselves. p.s. houses do not stick rigidly to the planning permission either in height or location, any builder will tell you that.

It also means your ridge height will be two foot too high which might have significant implications with the planning department. Accept the advice given by your Architect and your peers here. No one will risk their business by signing off on it, knowing full well its against the planning permission granted.

SLIPPERY FROG

previous to last post
i hear the phrase you hired a professional,
i would disagree totally, i know nothing about building so i hired people who had a simple brief, to build an efficent cost effective structure, what do i get? a copied survey which was wrong in the first place and pointed out by me, all i received was a bluff/ b/s letter. this is my third so called professional and from experience all i can call them is moneyhungry cowboys worse than any subby. they are like something left over from the cold war, set in their ideas, lazy, incompetent, and arrogant, def not professional, if they were professional i would not have a FFL on a hill, a metre under thE ground any builder will tell you that it is crazy! so please do not patronise me with the word professional.

dan_d

Slippery frog I don't know what you hired, but it doesn't change the situation you are now in. It's on your head what you decide to do...if you keep going as you are, be very sure you realise the knock on effect it will have on the rest of your house - front entrance, driveway levels, extra backfill, higher ridgepole than you've got permission for etc, and the risk that if the planning office do become aware, you'll run into even bigger problems. Either that or hire a qualified engineer and a qualified architect, with proper insurance/experience to look at it and give you an opinion.

There's really nothing else to say.

Poor Uncle Tom

The phrase "have your cake and eat it" comes to mind. On the one hand you say

SLIPPERY FROG wrote: »

...houses do not stick rigidly to the planning permission either in height or location, any builder will tell you that.

and in your very next post you say

SLIPPERY FROG wrote: »

...if they were professional i would not have a FFL on a hill, a metre under thE ground any builder will tell you that it is crazy!

You were given planning permission for a specific house in a specific location and at a specific level.

The advice you are being given here is to either build that house in that location at that level in compliance with the planning permission or apply for a new planning permission to reflect whatever changes you make or want to make.

Any other advice outside of that could be misinterprited as advising you to flout the planning laws and that would breach the forum Charter.

SLIPPERY FROG

WELL
prebs and previous three expert architect in their own words were qualified experienced insured all the bits, but also greedy, wholly incompetant, and arrogant, a mess has been left on my hands tat i have to take a chance on, i dont want to hear flout the planning laws, tat is wrong. i want to hear wat is the procedure wat are the options and where does the buck stop, surely there was professional negligence on the part of the last architect for not sticking to the brief he was given. if he applied for perm 3 foot higher and failed so be it. no use applying and getting something tat is of no use and costs thousands upon thousands to rectify, and still isnt right. i have no intention of flouting the planning laws but money is draining away and the buck stops somewhere. i need to know wat happens next, i know the architect is going to wash his hands and walk away, but that really isnt good enough from him. i am aware of options but they are wrong and dishonest but if i did not raise the ffl id be left with a house in a hole tat nothing could fix it, worse case scenario i re apply for permission and get refused, reapply all ok project set back 3 months, id rather be facing that scenario than have a house on a hill in a hole surrounded by topsoil tat costs 100 euro an hour to move,and when it rains my back door to be flooded. any one with knowledge on how county councils look on a situation like this. and please less of the hire a qualified/professional, it was a so called prof/qualified 3 actually that got me into this mess.
sorry bout the stress

muffler

Im moving a few posts to this new thread as its running completely off topic in the Live Builds thread

Mellor

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say in your posts. and either did a few people for the first while.
I am not one bit surprised your architect and engineer didn't either.
Your posts are very hard to read, full stops and paragraphs help.

dan_d

OP I've said it before and I'll say it again. Your next step is one of 2 things - you keep going, breaching your planning application and changing your foundation along with all the associated changes that may come with that. Or you hire another engineer and possibly an architect to advise you. Your other option is to hire a solicitor and try and figure out who is liable for the mistake. They're all going to cost you money.

I have frequently seen drawings where either the engineer or the architect has made a mistake. It happens. Normally it's picked up by the builder or site team. I have no idea who the liability rests with here - you say you told the architect...but when, and what was his response? And did you put it in writing? And did the builder inform him of it and do you all remember this conversation? If you mentioned it in passing at some point as a comment, then I'm sorry but I don't think you really have a leg to stand on. Unless something is in writing it's very hard to prove....cover your ass is the bottom line on every building site.

Anyway, OP, there's your 3 options. Nobody here is going to tell you who will bear responsibility from the bills arising from this, you'll have to get a solicitor for that. You say you'd accept reapplying and have a 3 month delay - then maybe that's the way for you to go. Just think about what route you take there - do you stick with what you've now built, reapply based on that, with a new engineer's design for new foundations, or do you take out what you've built and reapply for the original design with the correct FFL being the only change from the first application.

There's your options.And as Mellor says, could you please make your posts a bit clearer, they're very difficult to read.

rayjdav

I find this confusing. The OP stated his dilema, peers on here, in good faith, have given their opinions, which, coincidentally, are that of his Arch, and still the OP argues about professionalism.

As the OP states, "We decided"? Who's we? You and builder? If the house has structural defects due to foundation design failure, will your builder stand over? Me think not.

All I can add is Slippery Frog, when you are being given good sound educated opinion, and it's free, listen. Solve youir problem now, be it new application or whatever route. You will have to do this at some stage down the line if the house was not built to permission anyway, especially if you ever want to sell it.

No6

In essence the solution to the planning delima is simple, make a new application to retain and complete the works at the higher level. The structural issue is a totaly different kettle of fish, get a structural engineer asap. You appear to have had a number of issues with architects and engineers on this site and I would suggest that you look to yourself and or your builder to see if you are causing some of the problems. I have frequently found that where a client is inflexible, their way or no way it leads to trouble, why are you paying professionals when you ignore their advice and then consider legal solutions. Have you asked your architect why the floor level is where it is, have you considered that the planners may have insisted on it being at that level. I also dont mean to denigrate builders but their advice should always be cross checked with your architect before acting on it. They tend to like to find the easiest and cheapest way for them to do things and don't worry too much about complaince issues, after all some poor fool of a professional will sign off on it not them!! A building project is a very stressful time particurarly for you as the client but if you go around falling out with everybody you will end up with an expensive hole in the ground, my advice would be to take a deep breath and try to work out the issues with the people you have there including retention applications and or remedial works if necessary.

RKQ

rayjdav wrote: »

All I can add is Slippery Frog, when you are being given good sound educated opinion, and it's free, listen.

+1
Why ask for free advice, only to argue against it, just because its not what you wanted to hear?

The FFL is interesting as its stated that the Architect copied it. If the survey was correct and height was an issue then the FFL may well have been correct. The OP may have been happy to get planning permission, while not realising the extent of excavation it involved.

I too am quite confused by certain posts. Maybe I have misunderstood the OP on some points. I think OP should apply for Retention & completion of works and retain a Structural Engineer to advise on the revised foundation.

I do think changing the foundation depth on site without discussing it with your Architect was a bad decision. Excavations can seem huge or too small to the inexperienced eye.

morning delight

OP
You need to take a break from this project. Take the long weekend off, unwind, have a few beers, forget about the house and relax.

Come back to this with a clear head and take note that experienced contributors/ moderators/ professionals are all giving you pretty much the same answer! I've been following the construction & planning section on boards.ie for over a year now and can tell you the replies you've gotten come from consistently realiable eductated sources.

Poor Uncle Tom

morning delight wrote: »

OP
You need to take a break from this project. Take the long weekend off, unwind, have a few beers, forget about the house and relax.

Come back to this with a clear head and take note that experienced contributors/ moderators/ professionals are all giving you pretty much the same answer! I've been following the construction & planning section on boards.ie for over a year now and can tell you the replies you've gotten come from consistently realiable eductated sources.

Well said...:p
morning delight for mod....;)

I couldn't agree more, a lot of the contributers here have had direct hands-on experience of all building issues discussed here and some others do on a daily basis as part of their working career. All give their time, experience and opinion here free of charge, please respect that, even if you are not hearing what you would like to.

martin46585

just had a though in relation to my own experience, did the person signing off the build not inspect the open trenches before pouring concrete,
if he/she did, firstly would they not have seen the clay matter, and second the difference in levels, from the original datum point or from the corner profiles.
if the same person give you your levels and position of the house, was it not obivous that the FFL was much too high??
(just thinkback to my own build)

Bobbiblu

Ok All I'm going to throw in my tuppence worth SF, the way I read this

SLIPPERY FROG wrote: »

hi all starting a new build in wicklow foundations in but..... arch wanted us to go 18 inches under ground level for found according to plan app, we did but when we went down we decided to much clay had to be removed one hundred euros an hour , digger and truck omg,and where would the water go, so we decided to lay 3 courses of blocks to bring it back up unknown to archt, expensive but at least it is higher, not high enough, but suspence suspence a suprise visit by arch, he not a happy boy:(, stall the digger wants us to re-apply for permission,:eek: no way amigo now threatinh to walk. so ive got a 40 thous concrete hole in the ground prob no arch. wat can i do oh wise ones please ur advice, please.

IS

1. Your planning permission said you had to go 18 inches under ground level for foundations.

2. with the site being on a hill, a lot of clay had to be removed to get you to this level

3. and that you thought was too expensive to do at €100/hr.

4. plus (I'm assuming 'we' is you and your builder) your builder was whispering in your ear about "where would the water go?" and how crazy it was to have a house in a hole so to speak.

I'm certainly no expert and my planning permission is from Carlow co co so it may be different in Wicklow but it was the planning dept not my arch or eng who specified what the ffl had to be and the co co require that my eng submit a written report stating the ffl is what the planning dept say it should be so if that's also the case in Wicklow you can imagine what an impossible position your arch is in.

SLIPPERY FROG wrote: »

sorry a bit of confusion here
the arch drew up the plans to have the ffl three foot under ground level, he actually copied it from a prevoious engineer that had to be let go because of that issue,

are these plans you're talking about the plans you sent to the planning office or 'working drawings' ??? if they're the working drawings the arch may have no choice about where the ffl should be as I said above it may be a condition of your planning permission????

Like you I don't know much about building but I've the same issue with my permission, my permission is only valid if the house is built 500mm lower that in the original set of drawings I submitted...I know it sounds nonsensical to be talking about such small measurements in relation to a house but permission is permission, I wouldn't compromise my dream house and location for the sake of half a metre!!


I know I'm a total novice but from reading your posts and trying to read between the lines of what you've said I'd say the added cost and stress you're experiencing is not necessarily due to persons which you've employed but I'd say (imo) that it's more to do with the added stress, design and costs involved in building on a hillside...I know that's of little help to you in answer to your op but maybe like the other guys above have said, you could take some time out and think about where you're going to go from here and face the ugly fact that it's going to cost you more cash
And to echo what other posters have said, the advice you get on this forum from guys and gals who really know what they're talking about should be valued for what it is...... constructive (no pun intended), objective and helpful! even if it's not always what you want to hear.

I wish you well SF and I hope it works out!

morning delight

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Well said...:p
morning delight for mod....;)

Jezz Uncle Tom, I'm blushing here...

SLIPPERY FROG

THANKS ALL for your comments some excellent and interesting, some different, but thanks anyway.

It is not a situation where there is a builder whispering in my ear because an architect is chewing his ass, it galls me to say this that the architect did not explain the amount of money that had to be spent for no reason, when all he had to do was to raise the ffl on the drawing the appropriate level (the reason he was hired for) hence saving much expence on me and heartache and trouble.

if we failed to get permission on that new ffl then no big deal, we could apply in another field etc.

I felt i had no other choice but to order my blockie to raise it a few courses, and as fellow readers know how stupid is it to dig down then raise it with blocks and fill costing a lot of wasted money.

in my view the alternative was to leave it as the architect said, and not only deal with the amount of soil to be removed, a logistics headache in itself, but as i saw it, deal with the rainwater coming onto the back door from the height above it.

I know we could run drains and gullets etc but there was no provisions on the plans for any of this.

I feel that there was a systems failure on the part of the architect to put it mildly, and to an extent the planning office. Not one person, builder included said stop, digging into a hill to build when there was no issue with height restriction, lets all go back to the drawing board and get new permission and do it simple and proper not shortcuts.

Finally one contributer mentioned CYA and that is it, I feel every one is running around trying to CTA, nobody saying, ok maybe we messed up a little. All i am hearing is retention, which i understand to a point, but that puts the build back three months and there is no guarantees.

At the end of the day its my ass is out the window, the money part doesnt bother me much, but I hate waste, and i am bothered by the fact that architects cant get propper simple planning, and builders cant read plans!!

Ps Thanks everone for your replys, they all are appreciated and sorry about sounding cranky. I would love to enjoy the long weekend with a few beers but i have to work to try and keep this show on the road.
but, god is good.

SLIPPERY FROG

why the silence pray tell,

anyone experience with such a situation.

muffler

SLIPPERY FROG wrote: »

why the silence pray tell,

anyone experience with such a situation.

I dont know what else we can do for you. You have had the same advice repeated here over and over but it's obviously advice that you do not want to hear which is regrettable.

Judging by your repeated attempts to discredit certain professionals it is clear to me that rather than getting and accepting the good and free advice offered here you are intent on carrying on with a rant only which is not good for you or the other people who have contributed to this thread.

There is nothing else that can be added to this thread so I am going to lock it. Please dont open another thread on this topic or post in any of the other open threads as you have done in the last 24 hours or so.

sinnerboy

OP there is sympathy for your situation here .

Amongst the many advices already posted here - key is to stop and reflect .

It displays an appalling attitude to everyone who has tried to help you to post "why the silence pray tell"

For you own sake - assuming you still wish to post here - 7 day ban and thread locked for same period *.


* or perhaps for good -Mods will consult

.