Architect or architectural designer?

[WeavingLoom]

We are planning a double storey extension and some internal changes to a house that we are due to move into over the next couple of months. The majority of quotes we have received from architects have been 10-12% of predicted construction costs, which I believe is a standard set by RIBA. So on our budget of 120,000 for the building work, architects fees would be a minimum of 12,000 + VAT. This seems a huge amount to spend on plans, and the fact that this fee could rise if the actual build cost increases, is quite alarming. Architectural designers have quoted £3-5,000 by contrast. They obviously don't have the full RIBA recognised qualifications but some seem to have more specialised planning knowledge which could be useful. Does anyone have any experience of using architects/planners and any advice to offer? Should we just accept that this is what a good architect costs? Or any positive experience of using an architectural designer? Also any recommendations of either in South London would be gratefully received! Many thanks.

London pricing I'm guessing! I would expect closer to 5%. I have used an architect technician for smaller work, however you have no come back if anything goes wrong like you do with an architect. Also they don't think outside the box like an architect is trained to do. Another option is look on the planning portal and see if anyone in your area has applied for pp for same extension. Then get plabs adapted for your house

We've gone with an AT for a double height extension (much lower budget though) and to be honest I wish I hadn't been so tight and gone with a proper architect!

Not all architects charge Riba fees so shop around. Technicians can be a bit one dimensional in thought processes and I would try and use an architect. Have you asked about a lower quote? If they need the work they may still be keen to do it. Or go for someone who doesn't have swanky studios and an amazing portfolio!

Thank you for your replies. We have had a quote from another architect for more like £5,000, but he doesn't seem to have many completed projects and no reviews, and that is unnerving me too! We are buying a relatively reasonable small house that needs the extension to give us enough space and the building work budget really can't be stretched further. We're not doing a grand high-spec design on a million pound house so most architects that I've contacted don't seem to want to take it on, but we would like it to be well thought out and well-designed. Any recommendations in South London would be great!

Look for an Architect that has a small/ micro practice. Often they are branching out on their own after working for larger practices or big construction firms. They may not be allowed to put projects they have worked on, on their web sites so are starting from scratch with little or no back catalogue. Always check for the professional indemnity insurance.

I'm an architect. It's hard to give a figure as it would depend on the circumstances of your project, however that feels like quotes from larger practices.
Smaller practices / sole practitioners will be cheaper as they have less overheads. This doesn't mean they are less qualified just have a different structure.
I used to be a director in a large practice and we just couldn't be competitive on domestic projects, we did do them but they tended to be more expensive.
There is no such thing as an RIBA fee scale but there are guides that can give you an idea. It's hard for me to comment because I'm in the NE and fees in the SE are a very different animal to up here.
I now have my own sole practice (to suit life & family changes) and do mostly domestic work. I don't work on percentages and only give fixed costs however they are limited to doing certain things so that if I end up doing lots more work (because client keeps changing their minds) they end up paying more.
I have recommended to some people that they use a chartered architectural technologist (see institute of architectural technology for members) for some work as they really didn't need an architect. This meant they got a suitably qualified person and I only recommend people who carry insurance & use proper contracts.
If it's a very simple job and you know exactly what you want then you probably don't need an architect.
What you are paying for with an architect is somebody who can come up with ideas, refine them into something that works for what you need AND your budget, do your drawings and applications and then if you need it (and where I feel I earn my fees) run the build and manage the contract.
Whoever you use check out their qualifications, their previous work (they will be happy to show you but work may not be on their websites - I have very little on mine as most of my work comes word of mouth/recommendations and so I haven't got round to updating my website as I'm just too busy) and their insurance.
Then have a chat with them - you need to get on with them, I find I need to have a good working relationship with my clients especially when working on their homes so I have turned down jobs where I haven't got on with people as I know that I would find them difficult to work with and that means jobs are less likely to go well. Clients should get their architects in the same way.
I have 5 clients at the moment and I am really enjoying doing their projects and they are loving the results.

Thank you, I didn't know about the institute of architectural technology - will look into that, that's really helpful.

Waste of time doing the 7 years qualification then where you work!