The Value of Council Planners Discussing Applications with Architects
As when they do not discuss the application with the architects, they may assess development application based on their mis-understanding.
The research relating to communication suggests that communication is made up of a sender, a message and a reciever, and there is never a complete communication of the message.
Drawings are communication. They are "written" in the formal language of drawing conventions. Trained architects have a sophisticated language of symbol at their disposal to communicate to similarly expert builders. Planners may not be trained to read drawings, let alone understand fully the possible three dimensional complexity of buildings designed by talented architects for complex sites.
Recently Arkitek Hej has experienced this situation, in relation to a sloping site.
There is considerable skill involved in designing for sloping sites, as it requires spatial perception. This is something which architects develop in their training.
This skill is also required of those assessing applications for sloping sites.
Below is a sketch of a building which is on a site with a two way slope.
This perspective sketch shows a generic box “house†with the land is sloping towards the wall of the house and to the front.
When we take a section at the mark shown “location of section†the following is revealed.
It can be seen that the land at the boundary is higher than the land at the wall. Depending on the slope of the land, there is the possibility of a considerable variation between the level of the earth at the boundary and the level at the wall. For example, with a 1 in 3 slope the variation is 330mm.
It is a convention of the drawing "language" that the groundline on a elevation is drawn at the wall. I was taught this, it is the practice in the profession and this is how I teach my architectural drafting students at TAFE.
With computer sections, the elevation may be “cut†anywhere between these two lines, or indeed outside the boundary entirely. Best practice is to cut the elevation groundline right at the wall. This establishes the correct size of the cut required at the wall.
A town planner's misunderstanding of this issue resulted in a letter to a client that implied that the architect's drawings were to a lesser standard than could be expected. Not contacting the architects directly for an explanation of an issue before putting it in writing may result in the client accepting a misunderstanding. This exposes architects to increased risk of legal action.
During the time the application with the sloping site was being assessed the engineers were always treated professionally, with direct contact by Council.
This professional courtesy has not been extended to architects recently by local Councils. This is inequitable.
It is also likely to result in planners assessing applications based on their mis-understaning of the drawings.
And mis-understanding will cause delay and/or adversarial relations to develop.
And this will cost clients and reduce the efficiency of assessment of development applications.
- Login to post comments
