Fees of an Architect?

teneighty

If the £1200 designer is qualified and fully insured sounds like a bargain. Check the full scope of works they are offering, it should be outlined in their quote/instruction document.


I would expect measured survey followed by concept design/preliminary sketches with opportunity for you to discuss with designer any changes and agree the final designs. Only then would I expect them to prepare the Planning drawings and then the more detailed Building Regulations drawings. Ask to see some examples of previous work if you are unsure and ask for a couple of references.


The one danger of very cheap quotes is that they have a very generic design that they just modify slightly and churn out over and over again irrespective of what the client has really asked for. Also the advice regarding Planning can be very suspect with some designers, anyone worth their salt should have a very good grasp of the local Planning policies and should be able to fully advise you what is likely to acceptable to the planners and what you can do under Permitted Development.


Good Luck

sam1970

I tend to agree with you. The guy with the cheap quote is from a nearby town and I noticed that he was not fully aware of my council requirements while the other one is based in my town and he answered every question I threw at him promptly

cyclonebri1

Why on earth do you think you need an architect for a simple small scale job like this?

That isn't meant to be offensive but that view is proliferated on here, "you always need an architect to lay a brick"

!!!!!! we are all supposed to be here to help folks save money, not to waste it.

You know what you want, you simply need someone to draw up the plans to the agreed idea, he would not be designing or "artitecting" if that word exists.

A guy that draws plans, probably ex local authority, is what you need, not Frank Lloyd Wright.
Forget the insurance issue, the council accepts the drawing and structural loads at their peril. There are accepted supports and such for all the common loads associated with a construction such as yours, only if yours deviates will there be an issue.

sam1970

So you think a double storye extension to one side, single storey ext. to the other side and a loft conversion are a small scale job? I am scared of the whole thing and sometimes think it will be better to knock the house down and rebuild it

tired_dad

worth checking that as an option. VAT free and all that.

sam1970

thank you guys. It is interesting idea..I found couple of adverts in local paper for people offering to draw plans and submitt to council for approval but the adverts has only got phone numbers..no qualifications or websites..how can I ensure that they can do the job properly as the builders will work on these plans so any mistake can be catastrophic

Furts

sam1970 wrote: »

thank you guys. how can I ensure that they can do the job properly as the builders will work on these plans so any mistake can be catastrophic

This is not the case. The builders have a duty of care and are expected to be competent tradesmen. Therefore they should be checking all dimensions for setting out work, the heights of lintels etc. They should be aware of the Regulations, they will do their own take off of materials and ordering...so the risk to you should be small.

The "real world" is different to this but that is not the fault of your "Architect". It is in your interest to seek a competent builder.

Regardless of all this, your "Architect" will probably have so many exclusion clauses attached to the drawings and specification that you would be hard pushed to pin anything on them.

So, check out the clauses, and pick your builder with care.

kate87

Sorry if I'm a bit late in this post but I stumbled upon it looking for something else, perhaps if it doesn't help you, it might help someone else searching for the same thing!

My other half is a technician who whinges about people confusing him for an architect, so I'm now fairly well versed in the differences!

My understanding is that an architect and chartered technologist/technician are both equally competent to carry out a project from design to its completion.
What you need to remember however, an architect is trained with a focus on design, whereas a technician/technologist is more technically trained, with a focus on the science/ technology of building design.

If you're looking inventive design, then employ an architect, and you'll pay a premium for their design expertise on top of their technical skills.

If you want something fairly standard, perhaps that matches your existing home, then a technician will be more than qualified for the job.
Make sure you employ someone who's chartered, as they're assessed for their competency and will be insured to carry out the work by the CIAT.

27col

When I built my house I did the drawings myself on the back of an Admiralty chart. Certainly no need for an architect.
Though I did get an architect involved in signing off the stages as I built it.
kate87 and cyclonebri1 have summed it up quite well.