architect refusing to use materials we want in the house

This does seem unusual. While an architect can strongly advise against a particular material for design, durability or sustainability reasons, it is generally the client's decision unless there are planning, regulatory or contractual constraints involved. The key issue here may not be the laminate flooring itself, but whether the architect is refusing to provide the Stage 4 deliverables that were included in your appointment. If you have paid for a full construction package, it would be reasonable to ask why a change to a single material specification prevents the delivery of those documents. I would suggest reviewing your appointment agreement carefully and asking for a written explanation of: 1. Why laminate flooring cannot be included or noted as a client-selected alternative. 2. Whether the architect intends to withhold any Stage 4 deliverables that are part of the agreed scope. 3. How the proposed design-and-build route would affect the services already paid for. You may not be able to force the architect to endorse a material they fundamentally disagree with, but it is reasonable to expect clarity on the contractual implications and the deliverables you have already paid for.

That is very unusual. The architect can advise on the best use of materials for the project, but he cannot refuse to complete his obligations that he is contractual bound to (if you have a contract). Ultimately, you are the client and you are paying for the build and for the architects services, therefore you get the final say on materials and finish, it is not the architects project.

you can simply issue Instruction to Change specification, define location and the amount of the material, refer to NBS specification to amend the relevant clause. If your consultant refuse to undertake your direct instructions, you can still instruct this to contractor during the tender under value engineering.

This does appear unreasonable unless the architect can identify a genuine technical, safety, acoustic or contractual reason why laminate flooring would be unsuitable. The architect may advise against a particular material and explain the disadvantages, but the property belongs to the client and personal dislike of “man-made materials” would not normally justify refusing a reasonable client instruction. Provided the chosen flooring is appropriate for its location and complies with any relevant Building Regulations, planning conditions, manufacturer’s requirements and acoustic or fire standards, the client’s preference should normally be respected. I would ask the architect to confirm in writing: 1. The specific technical or contractual reason for refusing laminate flooring. 2. Where the appointment gives them “design control” overriding the client’s instructions. 3. Exactly what Stage 4 information and construction documents were included within the agreed fee. RIBA Stage 4 concerns the technical design, but the precise drawings, specifications and other information owed will depend on the written appointment—not simply the stage number. If a full Stage 4 package was agreed and paid for, changing the procurement route should not automatically remove those agreed deliverables. The client should issue a clear written instruction confirming the required flooring and asking the architect either to incorporate it or explain why doing so would breach a specific regulation or professional duty. If the issue cannot be resolved, the architect’s formal complaints procedure and the termination provisions within the appointment should be reviewed before appointing another professional.