The Tribunal also rejected the justification put forward by the architect that the works could revert to what was permitted by the original permits if the amendments sought were not granted. The Tribunal did not accept that it was permissible to allow the works to proceed because waiting for the approvals to be granted, which had already taken considerable time, would delay the progress of the project and therefore not be in the owners’ interests. The architect was found to have breached 18 of the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct (Code) as included in the Architects Regulations 2015, in that he had not met his duty to “endeavour to maintain the standards and integrity of the profession of architecture” (paragraph 18). The Tribunal determined that given the architect proceeded as if the permits were in place for the work when he knew they had not been granted, he was guilty of unprofessional conduct. Given the amendments to the planning permit had not been granted, the work did not comply with the planning permit (and with respect to most of the work, did not comply with the building permit either). The work related to the widening of the balcony to the attic of the dwelling, the construction of a wall to a boundary and the construction of the dwelling with an increased wall height. The building works proposed in the application to amend the planning permit were then carried out. However, various amendments were sought so the proposed works, so an application to amend the planning permit was made. The architect prepared the design and administered the building contract.Ī planning permit and building permit had been issued for the construction. The matter related to the construction of a new three level home in Hampton. The Architects Tribunal has found that an architect involved in building work carried out without the required permits is guilty of unprofessional conduct. It can also assist to avoid any misunderstandings or disputes between the parties.įor more information view the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct: So, even if architects are providing architectural services to local clubs, organisations or even friends at no cost, a written agreement must be in place.Ī written agreement ensures that both the architect and client are clear about the services to be provided and the fees (if any) to be paid. “Client” is defined as “an entity with whom an architect, an approved partnership or an approved company enters into an agreement (whether or not for payment) to provide architectural services” (regulation 5). Importantly, the obligation to enter into a written agreement applies whether or not the architect is actually charging the client for his or her services, given the way in which the Code defines “client”. A failure to enter into a compliant written agreement is a breach of the Code, which constitutes unprofessional conduct. The agreement must address the matters listed in clause 4(2) of the Code, which include the scope and nature of the services, the timeframes in which they will be provided and how the client may authorise changes or amendments to the services. ![]() Item 4 of the Code prohibits architects providing architectural services for a client unless the architect (or the relevant approved company or partnership) has entered into a written agreement with the client for the provision of those services. Not only is this good practice, it is a legal requirement pursuant to the Victorian Architects Code of Professional Conduct (Code). Architects must enter into written agreements with their clients before they commence work.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |