15/10/2026
This is a project I've recently picked up where things were looking awry with the layout. It's a barn conversion; old stone walls, generally not straight, working within the confines of an existing structure.
The trouble is it's easier to draw straight lines on AutoCAD. Moreover it's easy to make things look right when they're not. The problems arise once you have planning permission and you try to build it.
This original layout not only doesn't comply with the Building Regulations, it simply doesn't work. I've shown a red dashed line which denotes the general internal build-up you need to insulate a barn to meet current regs. Look at the impact on the door openings. I have issues with the flow of the building as well but let's stick to factual elements. The toilet is not wide enough, the stairs are not wide enough and the clear landing at the bottom of not sufficient. It's also not straight.
Slide 3 shows the reality of the barn. There are enough differences there to have a major knock on effect with the layout.
Slide 4 is my revised layout. Yes, the central wall has moved at the client's request but ithe scheme now fully complies with the Building Regulations in terms of layout, and it just flows so much better. It's coherent.
The concerning thing is the original design was produced by an architect - someone qualified and trusted to deliver a workable scheme. They achieved planning permission for something which could not be built. The client deserved better.
Please note this is not a criticism of all architects; I work with some excellent ones. But this isn't the first time I've come across this issue and it won't be the last. The details matter. My role here should have simply been detailing the approved scheme. It has needed re-working from the ground up.
The client-architect's dad on Grand Designs made me chuckle a couple of weeks ago. “The thing with architects is that they focus on design and they're not too bothered how you're going to build it.”