A TAVISTOCK architect has been struck off for failings on two separate projects which cost his clients considerable time and money.

Mike Hooper of Mike Hooper Architects has been erased from the Architects Register after the Architects Regulatory Board (ARB) found him guilty of 'unacceptable professional conduct'.

The ARB’s professional conduct committee hearing took place between January 27 and February 5.

Hooper did not attend, citing ill health and seeking to postpone it on health grounds.

Hooper had received a caution in 2007 from the ARB and a financial penalty in 2021 for 'conduct similar in nature' to the new allegations. These were an aggravating factor in deciding to strike him off.

The most recent allegations related to two projects – a home extension project for a 95-year-old disabled war veteran and the redevelopment of farm buildings for a female property owner on Dartmoor.

The client on the first project, who Hooper worked for between 2015 and 2019, said he paid Hooper ‘approximately £11,000 in cheques and cash' but the architect never obtained planning permission.

The ARB said Hooper offered his services after meeting the client at his local social club and suggested on visiting the client’s home that there was room to build a house next to his garage, a larger project than the original extension planned.

Hooper submitted three planning applications, the first two being refused by local planning authority West Devon Borough Council due to drainage issues which Hooper failed to correct after they were pointed out. A third ‘sat in abeyance for six months’ because Hooper failed to submit additional information and the fee required by WDBC, despite the client having paid him the fee.

The ARB concluded that Hooper had failed ‘to act competently and/or with due skill and care’ and had ‘introduced significant delay into the overall timeline, as well as creating unnecessary costs for [the client]’. The client went on to hire another architect, who secured planning permission in less than a year.

The client on the second project approached Hooper in December 2021 asking him to draw up plans to redevelop farm buildings at her property on Dartmoor.

She paid him a £3,000 deposit then and £2,475 in February to cover the first stage of the work.

She did not hear from him until July 2022. He made multiple emails excusing his delays but still did not apply for planning permission from Dartmoor National Park Authority. "I had to chase him for everything," she said.

The ARB said: '[The client] states that she paid the registered person in excess of £9,000 but the application was never submitted. She feels she has very little to show for the money she has paid to the Registered Person."

The ARB decided that Hooper should be struck off 'any lesser sanctuary would undermine public trust and confidence' adding 'at present the Registered Person's behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with continued registration as an architect'. He can apply to rejoin the register after two years.

Approached for a comment, Mike Hooper gave the following response.

“I visited the site to look at the client’s bungalow roof but pointed out that the land to the side was a potential building plot. He asked me to proceed and an application was made which the planning officer was perfectly happy with, but there was an objection from West Devon Borough Council’s drainage officer regarding the old sluice gate on the site and he asked for betterment of it.”

He says this caused the delay in gaining planning application and says the drainage officer observed on a later visit to the site there was no problem with the drainage, which allowed the client to gain planning permission with another architect.

With the second allegation, he said: “We undertook all the surveys of the buildings and met the timescales agreed with the client for this stage. We then produced sketch designs and met with the client to agree which submission took precedence. Drawings for this were prepared but I have signed documented evidence from a client meeting where she changed her mind on the drawings and submission which then caused the delay.”

He said his non-attendance at the professional conduct meeting was due to the recent death of his mother and poor health of his father.

“With the the signs of dementia becoming more evident it fell to my sister and I to provide day-to-day cover for him. With him being 75 miles away it meant I requested an adjournment of any hearing but the ARB proceeded,” he said.