Why should I ask about how my Architect's quote will be structured?

This is my penultimate blog in a series about what you should ask your architect before appointing him to your project. The series stems from a period of time where we were being asked a wide variety of questions when quoting, many of which were completely irrelevant and couldn't have been of any realistic help when the (prospective) Clients were considering who to appoint to deliver their project.

As you will have read in my first post on this subject, we are rarely asked the three or four questions that I WOULD ask if I were in their shoes. In previous posts I have touched upon the first few questions namely:

1. What are you professional qualifications and/or memberships?

 

2. Do you carry Professional Indemnity Insurance, if so what's the limit of any one claim?

3. Would you be actually working on my project yourself or would other people in your office actually be doing the work, if so, what are their qualifications and how will you be checking their work?

The next question in my list is as follows:

"Will your quote break down what you have to do into manageable and clearly explained stages so that, if I decide to stop, I know how much I owe you as well as when you will be invoicing me?"

Now you might be forgiven for thinking that the answer to this question is obvious, in fact it often isn't as many architects and other consultants have a variety of ways in which they structure their quotations - some give clarity, others offer clarity if you're prepared to do a bit of research and other methods give little or no clarity at all. Lets look at the most common structures for consultants quotes:

RIBA Outline Plan of Work 2007

 

The RIBA Outline Plan of Work 2007 is a useful document which breaks the life of a construction project down into stages (A through to L) with a description of key tasks associated with each task.

Many Chartered Architects will structure their quotations around the various stages, for example getting you to a Planning Application might cover stages A through D whilst Building Regulations Approval is achieved at the end of stage E with tender actions being covered by stages F through H.

Whilst this is extremely useful on complex projects where many complicated and interlocking tasks have to be carried out, for a smaller project this level of complexity can be somewhat overwhelming and reference to work stages as opposed to outcomes can lead to confusion, particularly for domestic clients who will have to look up the relevant document and then try to work out which stage they are on at any moment in time.

To be fair to the RIBA, they have recognised this and are currently in the process of replacing the Plan of Work with a revamped version, the consultation document can be read here, which will simplify the workstages down to seven easily understood stages that apply equally as well to all scales of project.

Hourly Rates

Some building consultants have chosen to disregard the RIBA Plan of Work and instead have adopted the approach of Solicitors or Accountants, charging by the hour.

Putting to one side, for a moment, what an Architect is "worth" in terms of hourly rates*, I want to focus instead on the lack of transparency involved when someone quotes on the basis of an hourly rate.

How long does it take to prepare and submit a Planning Application or a Building Regulations Application? How long does it take to survey and draw up an existing building? How long is a piece of string? How complicated is your project?

Frankly whilst we as Architects effectivly sell our time and expertise, how can we expect a customer to understand how complex their project is and how involved our role is and thus how long the project is likely to take from our point of view. Most of our clients have no idea how long it takes us to put together a Design Statement, Access Statement or any of the other multitude of documents that we have to submit in support of a Planning Application these days let along the drawings for their project which "coz it's done on a computer probably takes you no time at all"!

If we, as Chartered Architects, are to provide proper support to a client as they embark on their project, surly the first thing we should be doing is being clear about our fees and the added value we bring to a project. Not only does this allow them to budget properly (minimising the risk that they default on our fees) it also builds trust that we will be up front and clear about the costs they might expect to incur.

In my opinion, quotes based on an hourly rate should be stuck straight in the bin!

*Coming back to what an Architect is "worth", consider this:

- Architects train for a minimum of seven years before being eligible to sit their final professional exams which are required before they can register as Architects - more often than not the training takes eight years to complete;

- In contrast Solicitors train for about 6 years, Accountants for 5 years.

- Solicitors can charge £200 plus per hour whilst Accountants will regularly charge £150 plus.

So what's your Architect "worth"........more or less than your Solicitor?

Bespoke stages:

At Architecture & Design Services we quote for the vast majority of projects on the basis of bespoke stages with the outcomes defining the stage. For example a domestic project might be broken down as follows:

Stage 1: Survey the existing building & prepare existing drawings for the basis of further design work.

Stage 2: Prepare outline designs for Client approval, make all neccesary revisions and prepare and submit a Planning Application the agreed scheme.

Stage 3: On receipt of a Planning Applicatiomn, prepare and submit a Full Plans Buildign Regulations Application.

and so on.

The advantages of this approach speak for themselves. The Client knows exactly what to budget for, how much is due at each stage and when that stage falls complete.

So, why ask the question, because frankly you want to know how much you're going to be paying for your Architect's services and when that money is going to be due!

Why should I care who's doing my drawings?

Yet again I find myself revisiting my blog many months after I last posted - apologies!

As some of you might have picked up, I am trying to complete a series of blogs entitled "What should you look for from your Architect" the first of which can be found here, who knew that doing a series would take so long!

Earlier in the series I covered why I thought it was important that anyone looking to appoint an Architect should ask questions about their qualifications, memberships and Professional Indemnity Insurance cover. In this post I want to explore why it is important that you know who is actually going to be working on your project - hence the title "Why should I care who's doing my drawings?" 

The actual question that I posed in my original post was: "Would you be actually working on my project yourself or would other people in your office actually be doing the work, if so, what are their qualifications and how will you be checking their work?"

So, you've decided to build an extension, new house, office etc and have made contact with a couple of local Architects (always go local they'll probably be cheaper and know your local Planning Department, Building Control officers and local builders) and have asked them to come over to have a look at your site* and now you're face to face with a very presentable person who seems to know what they're talking about and, frankly, you're convinced that this firm is "the one"!

*note: Most Architects will happily come out to your site and spend about an hour with you without charging you for the privilege, if they won't then go elsewhere as these firms are likely to charge you for ever last minute of their time! Visiting site gives us a chance to understand your site and you and to work out just how big the project is, how complicated the site is and whether we are going to be able to work constructively with you - all factors that affect the fee that we charge - remember we are selling our time and expertise!

So, back to the narrative;

Imagine, having signed up to work with the nice Architect you met on site, that you then meet the person who is actually working up your dream project and you discover that they are fresh from University, don't have a clue about what you want or how to build it and, worst of all, are wearing a dirty Arsenal shirt - not quite what you had been led to expect!

Most architectural firms will have staff with a wide range of qualifications and experiences and the fact that the chap working on your scheme is not very experienced is not, in itself, a major problem as long as they are being properly supervised by someone who is properly qualified and experienced.

So why should you ask the question that I posed at the top of this post - frankly because you need to know that the project is in safe hands. A good practice will have systems in place to ensure that staff with less experience are being guided, mentored and encouraged as they develop within the business and that all the work that they produce is being checked thoroughly by a qualified, Registered Architect.

If the nice, well presented person in front of you is not able to answer the question without looking a bit shifty then walk away - you don't need to be employing a salesman as well as an Architect!

Why should I ask about my Architect's insurance?

This is the second part of a short series that is trying to give some guidance about the questions you should ask your 'architect' before entrusting them with your most valuable asset - your property!

My introduction to the series can be read here and the first post in the series, dealing with making sure your consultant is properly qualified, can be read here.

So, why should you worry yourself about your consultant's insurance cover - after all they're only doing some drawings aren't they!

Firstly, let explain what Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) is:

Professional Indemnity insurance is held by many different types of professional to cover them for claims for loss or damage made by a client or third party should they, the professional, make mistakes or are found to have been negligent in some or all of the services they provided.

Registered Architects are required to carry PII as a prerequisite to being registered and must keep up that insurance for a minimum of 12 years after they cease practicing. This is designed to protect you, the client, against the worst case scenario!

So what might go wrong?

Honestly - it's very unlikely that anything will wrong but, in the last few years, we have regularly been contacted by people who have been given incorrect advice by unqualified 'designers' which has led to them building extensions or making alterations to their property without the necessary permissions.

Legislation around building works has become more and more complex over the past few decades. Most projects will need Planning and Building Regulations Approval - both of which areas are constantly changing, in addition you may also need Covenants Approval and/or a Party Wall Award! If your 'consultant' gives you incorrect advice and you don't have all the necessary permissions you might have to undo the work that has been undertaken - a costly experience!

If your 'consultant' or 'designer' does not carry PII, or is reluctant to discuss this matter with you, it should set off alarm bells! It may be an indicator that they are not registered with an appropriate professional body such as the ARB, RIBA, RICS or CIAT.

The level of cover carried should be appropriate for the size of project. Most policies are 'each and every claim' which means that each (unlinked) claim made is dealt with on it's own merits so it is not always necessary to look for cover that exceeds your budget - most architects will ensure that they carry sufficient cover for the type of work they undertake.

So some pointers to conclude:

1. It is very unlikely that you will ever need to make a claim on a reputable, properly qualified, consultant.

2. All qualified, registered, consultants will carry PII and be happy to talk to you about the level of cover carried.

3. Most unqualified 'designers' won't carry PII.

Most importantly:

4. PII is carried to protect YOU!

Asking your consultant for details of their PII cover, at a very basic level, is a great indicator of wether your consultant is truly professional whose advice you can rely on or simply someone doing pretty drawings!

Don't forget - your property is your most valuable asset - can you afford to take the risk of using anyone other than a properly qualified, insured, registered professional?

Local involvement in Planning - will it really work?

As some of you may have spotted in the national press, the Coalition Government is pushing forward with a raft of proposals to transfer power away from Whitehall and into the hands of "local people".

One such proposed reform was announced last Monday (6th December) when

"Radical new planning reforms were announced [today] to hand powers down from Whitehall bureaucrats and down from Town Hall officials to communities so local people shape the character of the very neighbourhood in which they live"

(Department of Communities and Local Government press release).

The proposals are intended to give "Local People" more involvement in drawing up the framework within which Planning Applications are considered and, in some cases, will allow those communities to grant permission for development without the requirement for a Planning Application to the Local Planning Authority (LPA).

On the face of it these proposals sound great but, if the intention is to increase local involvement in the planning process, reduce centralised costs and promote development (through the use of financial "carrots"), will it actually achieve what it sets out to?

Let us consider, first, how the current system engages with "Local People" and the strengths and weaknesses of the system:

Development of Local Plans:

Each LPA is currently required to develop a Local Development Framework (LDF) which  is the name of the new spatial planning system that was introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to replace district-level Local Plans.  LDFs are made up of a collection of Local Development Documents (LDDs) which, taken as a whole, outline the spatial planning strategy for a local area.

In shaping the LDF, each LPA is required to carry out extensive consultation at regular stages with the local community and other interested parties (such as Architects who regularly submit applications to the LPA).

In my experience very few "normal" people take part in this consultation. on the whole responses are received from Community Groups (such as Civic Societies) - who see themselves as the self-appointed guardians of particular patches, professionals - who have to deal with the system every day (such as Architects, planners etc) and those who have vested interests in promoting development (such as developers).

Occasionally, the LPA will produce travelling displays that will be erected at Town Shows or in shopping centres to take the consultation process out to the community but this often produces relatively mundane responses - "that's pretty" or "we need more parking"!

The unfortunate truth is that most "normal" people don't have the skills to be able to understand the process of developing planning frameworks and the sheer complexity of balancing the differing pressures and long term implications that are implicit within such strategic documents - they focus instead on the things that affect them and their quality of life. 

The Application Process:

It has long been established that planning applications are publicised by the LPA when received. Neighbours and surrounding houses who might be affected by proposals submitted for planning are notified both in writing and by the posting of a brightly coloured notice fixed at the boundary of the application site for a minimum of 21 days.

Representations made by the public are all recorded and, if more than two are received, an application must be heard by a Planning Committee before it can be granted permission. At committee stage "local people" can speak their piece in front of the committee members (who are all elected councillors) and the applicant has the opportunity to defend their proposals.

The sad reality is that, again, most people are only interested in what affects them directly (normally in a negative way) and very rarely attend these important meetings out of a sense of civic duty or to support applications that they feel would be beneficial to their area or town.

This week I had personal experience of one Planning Committee meeting and was also interested to follow the tweets of Andrew Johnson who is Leader of Harlow Council as he attended a very different Planning Committee in Harlow (as a spectator).

On behalf of a Client I attended a meeting of the London Borough of Redbridge Regional Planning Committee to speak in favour of an application for which I was the agent. the application was for the extension to a childcare nursery and had been recommended for approval by officers. Having ensured that I arrived some fifteen minutes early I was somewhat surprised to find that, when the meeting started, I was the only member of the public apart from one other applicant!

Andrew, on the other hand, was tweeting regularly from a Planning Committee meeting in Harlow that was considering, amongst other non-contentious applications, two items that had stirred up considerable local public emotion. As a result his meeting was packed to the rafters with opponents of the applications in question. 

So will an agenda of "increased localism" result in an improved planning system with lowered centralised costs and an increase in development?

I remain to be convinced!

Firstly, mechanisms already exist that allow certain development to take place without the need for a planning application. This mechanism is called Permitted Development (PD) and it is a consistent set of rules that apply nationally and have been structured to ensure that any developments undertaken under this "relaxation" of the normal procedures are modest and neighbour friendly. Unless neighbourhood plans are going to allow development in excess of that allowed under PD they will simply be ignored in favour of the PD limits.

If local neighbourhood groups are to be allowed to approve schemes that go beyond PD limits, thus cutting cost centrally within LPAs, what training are they going to be given to enable them to consider the wider implications of their decisions and what safeguards are going to be put in place to ensure that decisions are made on the merits of the scheme as opposed to how big the brown envelope is?

The obvious route for enabling this is to use the existing Parish Council structure - allowing their Planning Committees to make decisions whereas now they can only comment on applications to the LPA. The fundamental problem with this approach is that almost every Parish Council I have had the "joy" of coming into contact with have been fundamentally against development on their patch and most of them are dominated by one or two individuals who drive through their particular agenda.

Secondly, if the aim is to engage "local people" in the town planning process then the existing process is not actually broken, opportunities exist throughout the life of an application for the public to comment, force an application to committee and then speak up in a public meeting. even in the context of the LPA developing strategic plans the public have every opportunity to make their comments known and to influence how a town is developed in the longer term.

In summary, the current system is not broken in the way that those with limited knowledge of the system think. Most decisions are taken by professional planning officers who test an application against planning policy that has been developed by other professionals who have taken into consideration those representations that have been made. The Planning Committee process is, on the face of it, a robust, democratic process and gives those who are interested the opportunity to participate in the planning process.

The fact that people only wish to get involved if an application affects them directly and they percieve that it will have a negative impact can not be blamed on the system!

Is the current system perfect? Of course not!

As someone who submits Planning Applications to a variety of LPAs every month, I know all too well how the system has become more drawn out, more bureaucratic and more costly over the past five years. I also know how poor the training and knowledge of some of those involved in the process can be.

Once upon a time a Planning Application simply consisted of drawings (plans, sections and elevations - proposed and exisiting) and an application form. Nowadays a valid application may consist of the drawings, application form, design and access statements, ground contamination surveys, sustainability reports, bat surveys, tree surveys, tree protection plans, lifetime homes checklists and any number of other "local requirements". All of these take time to prepare and, I guess, involve planning officers having to wade through reams of paperwork - all of this before the aesthetic impact of a proposal is considered!

I have learnt that if you want to reduce costs you reduce paperwork. The faster someone can process something the cheaper it is!

In addition  the system is also suffering from a lack of appropriate training. Councillors and officers alike have to take into account any number of, often, conflicting issues when making their decisions and I am always shocked at how poorly informed Councillors are on issues of design and urban planning. Decisions made at committee stage are all too often preceded by ill-informed, inaccurate debate where incorrect statements by a councillor of an applicants case or scheme can't be corrected by the applicant and can often colour subsequent discussions and thus the decision.

To give you an example, my application to Redbridge was refused (I'm not bitter - we'll win on appeal) because of a lack of on-site parking. The councillors decided that, despite of the evidence provided to them (which they clearly hadn't read) there was going to be a significant increase in vehicular movements. Despite having clearly set out how the nursery was operating (sessions in the morning and afternoon) and stating clearly that the demand would only be limited to very short periods of time, the councillor decided to base their decision on the opinion of a member who "had done the whole nursery thing 15 years ago and everyone drives" - the fact that the nursery funding structure has completely changed since then which has completely changed the profile of the "average" client was completely ignored - his incorrect statement was taken as fact despite the evidence contained in our submission!

To be fair, Harlow Council's Planning Committee this week made some very difficult decisions - one of which was to approve an application despite significant public disquiet - but they are supported by an increasingly well equipped Development Control Team and they are prepared to listen to their officers opinions and advice - something Redbridge did not!

So what's the solution?

If I were Mr Pickles I would:

1. Scrap the plans for local neighbourhood plans and instead invest the money in establishing a programme that encourages people to recognise that it is a civic duty to be interested in the planning process and that attending a planning committee meeting can give them the opportunity to support what they see as positive applications as well as objecting to the applications that they dislike.

2. Review the rules for speaking at planning committee meetings so that it becomes easier for people to speak (at present you have to give at least 24 hours notice of your intention to speak) and for applicants to correct incorrect statements - there needs to be more dialogue with the public.

3. Spend the next month talking to people like me - small to medium practitioners who have very little influence in shaping Government policy but bear the brunt of its implications and asking our opinion about where the system fails the public;

4. Review the requirements for supporting documents in the Planning Application system - perhaps make it such that if an application is being lodged by a member of a recognised proffessional institute (RIBA, ARB, RICS, CIAT etc) then the requirements for some documents that relate to quality of design can be dropped in recognition of their proffessional training;

5. Invest money in specific training for councillors on Planning Law, Design and Urban design so that they are equipped for their role on planning committees - perhaps such training should be a prerequisite for membership of a planning committee?

So, Mr Pickles, if you get to read this blog entry - feel free to ring me or DM me via twitter - I'd love to discuss this with you further before you make a final decision!

For everyone else - normal rules apply, feel free to comment as I'd love to hear your thoughts!

Who benefits?

It's been an interesting start to the week and one that quite neatly illustrates some of the challenges of being a local Architect.

As with all Architects, we offer our Clients unbiased, professional advice with the aim of steering them away from the potential pitfalls (and financial exposure that accompanies them) and down the path to a well concieved, well constructed, end product - but events yesterday have made me question who really benefits from our expertise and do they recognise the benefit?

My first example is a small domestic project (approx contract value £90k). The Clients, whilst lovely people, are quite demanding and have caused us some twenty hours of additional work trying to identify cost savings to bring the tender return within budget.

Fair enough, you may say, you shouldn't have designed a building that was over budget! That would be fair comment if the overspend weren't the result of their list of "desirables" which have since become "essentials"!

We have managed to identify and negotiate the savings required without diluting the scheme and everyone is happy.....full speed ahead....apart from the fact that the Client is now querying our invoice for five hours of the extra time, even though it is clearly for work outside of our original commission.

Despite our success in saving our Clients about £15k and in ensuring that their dreams could be realised on their limited budget....our efforts were valued at less than the £375 (plus VAT) invoiced!

Do other professionals face this challenge, of course not! Now it may be that, because we don't charge the hourly rates of an Accountant or Solicitor, we aren't considered as much of a neccesity...but when was the last time your Accountant saved you £15k?

Another Client rang us recently complaining that we wouldn't instruct a whole bunch of additional work items on his commercial project!

Now, again, you might be of the opinion that we are out of order - until you hear that his building contract is at large and issuing an instruction at this stage will cost him thousands in lost Liquadated and Ascertained Damages AND he doesn't have Planning Permission for what he wants to do!

For what seems like the millionth time, we explained to him that our primary concern is his position - contracturally, financially and with regards Planning. In effect we are trying to save him from himself - yet I get an earful and (once again) questions about why he bothers to pay us!

Would you question why you pay your Solicitor as he stops you getting sued, ripped off or jailed? I think not!

On the other hand, we have recently had a Local Authority Building Control Department express their pleasure that we are involved in a project because the quality of our drawings and specification mean that they're not having to guess how the project is going to be constructed. We have also had a contractor express similar feelings.

It's a strange thing, but I am increasingly becoming convinced that it is clear that all parties to a building project benefit from the involvement of an Architect (especially architecture & design services Ltd - http://www.aandds.co.uk/) but it seems that the Client is often the last to recognise the value.

I was reminded this evening of the Project Manager who, wisely, observed that in order to be considered a great Project Manager you have to been seen to be great at putting out fires - not preventing them!

The challenge always used to be to get the contractor to value you as an Architect - now it appears that our challenge is to persuade our Clients that the benefit of employing us is that they won't always see the problems we solve or pitfalls we steer them clear of!