Is this normal for Architectural Drawings

tails_naf

Hi,

I wanted to ask people on here if their experience matches that of my sister.
She is looking to build/renovate and employed the services of an architect to do up the drawings for planning and construction. He also offered to oversee the job through till construction completes, but she declined that part of his service.

She was happy with the service and the plans produced, until she received the final plans.

The planning has just gone through and he supplied here the final, A3 printed drawings. The issue is the 'final' drawings have no dimensions on them save for basic room width/length - i.e. no dimensions on openings, no dimensions between various elements, no heights marked - no wall thickenss markings, or anything like it - the drawing looks pretty much like any drawing they had during the design phase.

She asked him about this, and he said that suppling a drawing marked up with all these dimensions would be extra, and any engineer should be able to work with what he has supplied.

I should point out that the initial drawings were 4K, and the final drawings she just received were 1900 - but as I said this seems to be just large print-outs of non-detailed, design drawings they had been supplied in pdf form previously.

When I built myself (in 2009), the Architect I used supplied very detailed drawings with dimensions and did not try charge for extras like this.

I'd appreciate feedback on what the normal practice is. To me it seems very unfair and the drawings they have ended up with are not suitable to begin construction.

mickdw

tails_naf wrote: »

Hi,

I wanted to ask people on here if their experience matches that of my sister.
She is looking to build/renovate and employed the services of an architect to do up the drawings for planning and construction. He also offered to oversee the job through till construction completes, but she declined that part of his service.

She was happy with the service and the plans produced, until she received the final plans.

The planning has just gone through and he supplied here the final, A3 printed drawings. The issue is the 'final' drawings have no dimensions on them save for basic room width/length - i.e. no dimensions on openings, no dimensions between various elements, no heights marked - no wall thickenss markings, or anything like it - the drawing looks pretty much like any drawing they had during the design phase.

She asked him about this, and he said that suppling a drawing marked up with all these dimensions would be extra, and any engineer should be able to work with what he has supplied.

I should point out that the initial drawings were 4K, and the final drawings she just received were 1900 - but as I said this seems to be just large print-outs of non-detailed, design drawings they had been supplied in pdf form previously.

When I built myself (in 2009), the Architect I used supplied very detailed drawings with dimensions and did not try charge for extras like this.

I'd appreciate feedback on what the normal practice is. To me it seems very unfair and the drawings they have ended up with are not suitable to begin construction.

The client refused his construction stage package.
Under current building control regs, it is compulsory to have a certifier on board for the construction stage so the old style of building from planning drawings is no longer an option.

tails_naf

They do intend to get an engineer to oversee the next phase and follow the regs of course. I don't believe this architect has the qualification necessary to fulfil the requirments for the new regs (yet). So for the next stage they want to have drawings with dimensions to supply to that engineer. Is he supposed to make them up, or re-draw from plans that only give room dimensions?

Surely one service should be able to hand-over to another professionally?

Addle

Are drawings always 100% accurate and reliable usually?

Mine were drawn up by an engineer. They did include measurements, but also a note saying everything had to be checked by builder.

tails_naf

Addle wrote: »

Are drawings always 100% accurate and reliable usually?

Mine were drawn up by an engineer. They did include measurements, but also a note saying everything had to be checked by builder.

I've said nothing about accuracy, I'm asking what should be on a drawing provide by an architect that is intended to be used for building. Remember 4K was to get to planning, with 2K extra for the 'final drawings' - which appear to be simply print-outs of planning drawings.

Of course others can and should do due diligence on the plans - but that is much harder when the drawings have almost no information on them - levels, heights, spacings, opes, nothing has any detail or dimension marked.

cerastes

If I paid the guts of 6k I'd want some dimensions, its seems like the kind of thing you wouldn't have to ask, if something of that detail is excluded you could do drawings up yourself, what else isn't included. I don't have experience dealing with architects but any technical drawing I've looked at which has included looking over some drawings of buildings all have dimensions along with a host of other details, otherwise why bother employ an architect?

I guess its like anything, you need to ask and know exactly what is and is not included so you know what you are paying for.
Sounds like a bit of a rip off to me.
I was going to do some drawings up myself for an attic conversion based on layout and where structural and stud walls were but intended to get a professional too, least I'll know to enquire as to the very obvious.

Dudda

There are various stages and it sounds like your sister declined production, tender and construction issue drawings. Equlivant of Stage 2b onwards in public works. The final drawings would include any alterations conditioned by the planners. For example if the planners said to reduce the height of the roof by 500mm the final drawings would include this. The extra 2k was expensive but drawings at that stage wouldn't usually have all opes and dimensions or even wall construction. That would usually be included in production and tender drawings. As I said it sounds like this wasn't included but only the original contract would indicate to what stage the drawings would be taken.

Gumbo

It sounds to me that you engaged the architect for the planning stage only.he has prepared the drawings to sufficient detail to obtain planning.

Now it sounds like he is making sure nobody piggybacks on his drawings and attempts to submit them to building control as construction details.

Making sure whoever you engage for the next stage carries out the required surveys for detailed construction drawings.

tails_naf

kceire wrote: »

It sounds to me that you engaged the architect for the planning stage only.he has prepared the drawings to sufficient detail to obtain planning.

Now it sounds like he is making sure nobody piggybacks on his drawings and attempts to submit them to building control as construction details.

Making sure whoever you engage for the next stage carries out the required surveys for detailed construction drawings.

I don't think his motivations are as noble as 'making sure the next person carries out surveys'. An Engineer was already used to carry out the site survey and passed this info to the Architect during the design phase. He was given 6k to come up with a set of drawings, but his further service of overseeing the build was not required as an engineer will fulfil that role.

We both know that the drawings already have the dimensions in autocad, and providing them to the customer is not additional work on the architect.

I guess this is a case of buyer-beware. Dimensions on plans should not be an extra charge. I'm glad the architect I went to back in 2009 saw it the same way.

tails_naf

Dudda wrote: »

There are various stages and it sounds like your sister declined production, tender and construction issue drawings. Equlivant of Stage 2b onwards in public works. The final drawings would include any alterations conditioned by the planners. For example if the planners said to reduce the height of the roof by 500mm the final drawings would include this. The extra 2k was expensive but drawings at that stage wouldn't usually have all opes and dimensions or even wall construction. That would usually be included in production and tender drawings. As I said it sounds like this wasn't included but only the original contract would indicate to what stage the drawings would be taken.

Fair points - I guess what is disappointing is that the process of getting drawings seems to be intentionally treated the same as you say for 'public works', or indeed a large commercial project. This is a one off house.

I take the point on the wall-construction - that part will be done by the engineer anyway based on the construction method chosen - but I find it hard to stomach that the dimensions could not be simply turned on for all of the spacings and opes and provided in the 'final drawings', without having to commission another 'stage'.

Gumbo

tails_naf wrote: »

Fair points - I guess what is disappointing is that the process of getting drawings seems to be intentionally treated the same as you say for 'public works', or indeed a large commercial project. This is a one off house.

I take the point on the wall-construction - that part will be done by the engineer anyway based on the construction method chosen - but I find it hard to stomach that the dimensions could not be simply turned on for all of the spacings and opes and provided in the 'final drawings', without having to commission another 'stage'.

You don't "turn on" the dimensions. You have to physically put the dimensions in with the dim tool for each bit you want to show.

I'm just trying to give some sort of insight into why the architect may have done this that's all.

Maybe you could post a screen shot of the drawings you received with the personal info deleted of course, just so we could judge whether you did get less that you should have.

But I have to be honest here, if he was engaged for planning purposes only, once the drawings pass the validation process then he has done his job IMHO.

Wall thickness, and dimensions etc is down the design certifier, or whoever is overseeing the project and issuing the certificates of compliance as they will determine what these values are working around the overall dimensions used by the architect in the planning process.

mickdw

For planning stage only overall dimensions would be required.
It would be foolish for an architect to put alot of specific dimensions on a planning drawing that by its nature is only an outline of the proposed works.

tails_naf

mickdw wrote: »

For planning stage only overall dimensions would be required.
It would be foolish for an architect to put alot of specific dimensions on a planning drawing that by its nature is only an outline of the proposed works.

True - but then what is the extra 2k for? I want to point out that NO extra drawing for planning was required to be generated, so it cannot be for FI. The planning stage was 4K, and then they forked out 2k for the 'final drawing' - which amounted to little more than a few A3 print-outs of what was provided for planning. This is where the issue comes in.

Again, they were happy with the service up to this point, but feel a bit cheated that this final drawing is nothing of the sort - it WILL have to be either re-drawn or otherwise marked up to be of any use in any subsequent phase. I think charging 2K for what they got is the problem.

As another poster pointed out, yes he would have to click between each pair of points to get the dimensions displayed, and not a 'single button' - but that just means it's a 10 min job instead of a 2-second job. My point was the dimensions of all elements are IN autocad, so having them displayed on the final output for 2k would seem fair.

It's a shame after a good experience with a professional up to this point that having dimensions on or off is such an issue, especially after 6K total spend. Anyway, thanks for the opinions - from the sounds of this what has happened is not 'surprising' - though I have to say it is to me.

mickdw

tails_naf wrote: »

True - but then what is the extra 2k for? I want to point out that NO extra drawing for planning was required to be generated, so it cannot be for FI. The planning stage was 4K, and then they forked out 2k for the 'final drawing' - which amounted to little more than a few A3 print-outs of what was provided for planning. This is where the issue comes in.

Again, they were happy with the service up to this point, but feel a bit cheated that this final drawing is nothing of the sort - it WILL have to be either re-drawn or otherwise marked up to be of any use in any subsequent phase. I think charging 2K for what they got is the problem.

As another poster pointed out, yes he would have to click between each pair of points to get the dimensions displayed, and not a 'single button' - but that just means it's a 10 min job instead of a 2-second job. My point was the dimensions of all elements are IN autocad, so having them displayed on the final output for 2k would seem fair.

It's a shame after a good experience with a professional up to this point that having dimensions on or off is such an issue, especially after 6K total spend. Anyway, thanks for the opinions - from the sounds of this what has happened is not 'surprising' - though I have to say it is to me.

Two different issues really. Price and detail provided on drawings.
The price would seem rich as far as I'm concerned.
Again, the issue of turning on dimensions is a red herring. The planning drawings would likely chowing little in the way of construction detail. They may have no detail in relation to wall type for example. If the exact wall type is not known at planning stage, adding dimensions is a waste of time as they will be incorrect and possibly only lead to confusion.

tails_naf

mickdw wrote: »

Two different issues really. Price and detail provided on drawings.
The price would seem rich as far as I'm concerned.
Again, the issue of turning on dimensions is a red herring. The planning drawings would likely chowing little in the way of construction detail. They may have no detail in relation to wall type for example. If the exact wall type is not known at planning stage, adding dimensions is a waste of time as they will be incorrect and possibly only lead to confusion.

As I said, the wall detail is not really the issue. The locations and dimensions of windows, doors, etc are. How can anyone quote for windows, or any other part of the build without those details. The planning drawings cost 4K and do not need this detail. However, the final drawings, for 2K more should have SOME more detail. It IS easy to provide, so the fact is has not been seems very unfair.

sydthebeat

tails_naf wrote: »

As I said, the wall detail is not really the issue. The locations and dimensions of windows, doors, etc are. How can anyone quote for windows, or any other part of the build without those details. The planning drawings cost 4K and do not need this detail. However, the final drawings, for 2K more should have SOME more detail. It IS easy to provide, so the fact is has not been seems very unfair.

because 'planning drawings' are not to be used for tendering. they are only issued for planning purposes.

There are many reason individual measurements would not be used on planning drawings.
1. they are not required
2. they would prescribe exact distances on a planning drawing that, in all likelyhood, wouldnt match the final 'as built' measurement, and thus could be found to be in contravention of planning. Not having exact individual dimensions protects against this.
3. if wall construction and individual dimensions are shown on planning drawings, it only leads to clients trying to use these for tender and/or construction which can lead to problems as thats not what the drawings are designed for.

now, this isnt a comment on price, but i will say that you should have known the complete fee structure before engaging the architect

Gumbo

tails_naf wrote: »

As I said, the wall detail is not really the issue. The locations and dimensions of windows, doors, etc are. How can anyone quote for windows, or any other part of the build without those details. The planning drawings cost 4K and do not need this detail. However, the final drawings, for 2K more should have SOME more detail. It IS easy to provide, so the fact is has not been seems very unfair.

Nobody will quote for works from planning drawings.
You need a construction set of drawings with door and window schedule.

The window company will then only quite you for the windows and it will not be the final price as they will not even begin to think about manufacturing them until the opes are built and the window company survey can measure physical dimensions on site.

PROJECT K

Hi OP, i can fully sympathise with you and i think its a very unfortunate situation. I think what has happened under the new regulations is that the previously blurred lines between planning and construction drawings has now become crystal clear, and registered designers are defining these by limiting the amount of information at design stage (perhaps rightly so).

However, as a professional they should have outlined the extent and limitations of their service at the outset when you agreed fees/scope of project - they are the professional here and should assume their clients are not aware of the specifics of the typical professional service on offer. I think its a little unfair to charge another 2k for final drawings when they are in fact larger scale drawings of the planning drawings (but we are obviously not aware of the full details of your issue or the position of your professional!).

I would suggest that if you feel unfairly treated, speak to the RIAI or relevant representative organisation of your professional to gain an independant view (thats what they are there for). Personally, i would have no problem putting dimensions on a drawing for a client - its really not a big job, but when it comes to construction details etc this requires much more effort and generally wouldnt be included in a "planning package". Is your professional willing to email cad drawings to your assigned certifier/professional to prepare construction drawings? if so they wont have to draw it up from scratch, just add the relevant details...

Good luck with the project, there will be many more similar challenges down the line dealing with suppliers and contractors...!:)

Dudda

tails_naf wrote: »

Fair points - I guess what is disappointing is that the process of getting drawings seems to be intentionally treated the same as you say for 'public works', or indeed a large commercial project. This is a one off house.

I take the point on the wall-construction - that part will be done by the engineer anyway based on the construction method chosen - but I find it hard to stomach that the dimensions could not be simply turned on for all of the spacings and opes and provided in the 'final drawings', without having to commission another 'stage'.

I haven't seen the plans but I'm sure for most dimensions they could be added but there are most likely others which need more thought and design which would be done in the next detailed design stage. For example large opes may require a beam instead of a concrete lintel. The ope might be reduced during detailed design to allow for a standard precast concrete lintel to match the others instead of structural steel. Adjacent windows and doors might require a column between instead of blockwork. That's presuming it's blockwork and not timber frame which would be decided during detailed design. A first floor gable may require a smaller window due to wind loading. Final kitchen or bathroom layouts may require minor alterations in height or size of windows. All these things are worked out in detailed design and not at planning. The 2k was expensive for what you received but all the detail and final ope dimensions would only be added in detailed design. The architect shouldn't commit to all the ope dimensions without putting additional thought and design into the construction and other items which require consideration.

Ask the architect for the AutoCAD drawings. This way the engineer can add the dimensions and take responsibility for the next stage.

db

@tails_naf, in your OP you state that the architect was engaged to provide planning and construction drawings. Do you have a quote / contract / invoice that specifically states that construction drawings would be provided? If you do, it appears to me that the architect did not supply the service he was contracted for. What you should have received would depend entirely on what was agreed with the architect and whether you have any documentation to back it up.

tails_naf

db wrote: »

@tails_naf, in your OP you state that the architect was engaged to provide planning and construction drawings. Do you have a quote / contract / invoice that specifically states that construction drawings would be provided? If you do, it appears to me that the architect did not supply the service he was contracted for. What you should have received would depend entirely on what was agreed with the architect and whether you have any documentation to back it up.

I'll check with my sister if there was a contract which clearly stated what the drawings would entail. What they received for the final drawings was a shock, though maybe their expectation was based on assumptions. Hopefully the AutoCAD files cab be forwarded to the engineer - is that a common practise?

sydthebeat

Nope.

I wouldn't be surprised if the architect refused to send the cad file and insisted on only pdfs being sent.

Gumbo

tails_naf wrote: »

I'll check with my sister if there was a contract which clearly stated what the drawings would entail. What they received for the final drawings was a shock, though maybe their expectation was based on assumptions. Hopefully the AutoCAD files cab be forwarded to the engineer - is that a common practise?

I've seen both scenarios occur.
Sometimes the autocad files would not be sent due to the original person not getting the supervision role.

cerastes

sydthebeat wrote: »

because 'planning drawings' are not to be used for tendering. they are only issued for planning purposes.

There are many reason individual measurements would not be used on planning drawings.
1. they are not required
2. they would prescribe exact distances on a planning drawing that, in all likelyhood, wouldnt match the final 'as built' measurement, and thus could be found to be in contravention of planning. Not having exact individual dimensions protects against this.
3. if wall construction and individual dimensions are shown on planning drawings, it only leads to clients trying to use these for tender and/or construction which can lead to problems as thats not what the drawings are designed for.

now, this isnt a comment on price, but i will say that you should have known the complete fee structure before engaging the architect

For 4k, saving that, whats the benefit of using an architect if they arent specifying anything? if the level of detail such as specific dimensions are not needed anyway, why dont people just do their own drawings up?

sydthebeat

cerastes wrote: »

For 4k, saving that, whats the benefit of using an architect if they arent specifying anything? if the level of detail such as specific dimensions are not needed anyway, why dont people just do their own drawings up?

Cos architects design, not "do drawings up"....

I wasnt commenting on the price.

ht9zni1gs28crp

cerastes wrote: »

why dont people just do their own drawings up?

and there is the reason for mish mash architecture and bungalow blissfull mile long corridors

Geniass

Interesting information. It would be galling to have to go back to this architect.

You might get a few PMs. It's as important who not to use as recommendations.

cerastes

miller_63 wrote: »

and there is the reason for mish mash architecture and bungalow blissfull mile long corridors

Im not sure that is the reason why there is mile after mile of bungalows, but it seems if its unclear what you are getting, then people probably avoid employing architects when houses have in years past been approved for planning anyway.
The cost seems to be quite high, where the end result is not determinable and then you have people witholding details or drawings, in the least a person employing someone should know what they are getting for their money and not be suprised when something isnt forthcoming, which wouldnt occur if the customer was fully informed.
But 2k for printouts of an existing drawing is extortion.

ht9zni1gs28crp

cerastes wrote: »

Im not sure that is the reason why there is mile after mile of bungalows,.

Corrdior length not ribbon development

cerastes wrote: »

then people probably avoid employing architects when houses have in years past been approved for planning anyway..

Bungalow bliss...the aftermath continues

cerastes wrote: »

The cost seems to be quite high, where the end result is not determinable ..

eh....to achieve Planning Permission, set a design that works to the person and site


But to then expect full construction drawings and details is akin to asking your plumber a labour only price for fitting then expect him to supply the goods aswell

MisseyB

I agree with Project K

In my experience there can be huge disparity between the services provided by professionals in the construction industry and the oweness is on the professional to explain, as clearly as they can, to a client what is covered by the fee agreed. In fact a barrister informed me once that in a court of law a judge will always put more liability on the professional in disputes about issues like this because they know more about the process than the lay person. (Although i'm not a barister and open to correction on this)

To be honest it all comes down to the contract your sister had with the professional she hired. That should have outlined exactly what was to be provided for the agreed free. If there was not contract i don't think she had any recourse, it's a he said / she said situation.

As suggested above contacting the RIAI is probably the best option but if there is no contract they may not be able to help.

E

DOCARCH

MisseyB wrote: »

As suggested above contacting the RIAI is probably the best option but if there is no contract they may not be able to help.

That's if they are a member of the RIAI?

Approx. 85% of complaints about 'architects' to the RIAI are in relation 'architects' that are not members of the RIAI...i.e. unregistered 'architects'.

BryanF

Do we have all the facts in this case?
the op's sister may have been given a description of what the fees were for, perhaps during a one on one discussion? The op's sister may have given the designer directions to change the design more than once for example.

Strolling Bones

BryanF wrote: »

Do we have all the facts in this case?

Hell no.

The only thing we know is that the OP is being STROKED BLIND!!!

sky6

BryanF wrote: »

Do we have all the facts in this case?
the op's sister may have been given a description of what the fees were for, perhaps during a one on one discussion? The op's sister may have given the designer directions to change the design more than once for example.

I think you're stretching it there Bryan. I worked with plenty of Architects and Designers. Including some of the biggest in the Country, And other than preliminary sketches I've never seen Final Drawings without dimensions. It's clear the op is been scammed.
She requested a set of Drawings to build her house. That's what she should get.
As that's what she paid for.
What she does after that is her business. She should be taking legal advice by now. As that's what I would do.