Architect vs architectural designer

[Puffthemagicdragongoestobed]

We are planning a ground floor extension and a loft extension and are at the beginning stage of meeting with architects. This week we met someone who called themselves an architectural designer. His company comes up with the initial design, technical drawings, arranges the structural engineer and does all the council planning etc. We really liked him and his style and he had plenty of images on his website of previous projects, which we liked the look of.

We also met with an architect who came highly recommended, and he pointed out to us that he has the qualification and insurance, and we should be wary of so called architectural designers.

Any insight on this? We are new to this process so don’t want to make a mistake of choosing the wrong people for the job.

In terms of the sales pitch the architectural designer was much more slick, discussing potential designs whist the architect was already checking out more technical aspects that could impact the built, such as manhole covers, space for foundations etc.

Would be great if someone knows what to look out for when choosing someone for the drawings.

Thanks!!

An architectural designer is in effect a 'part-qualified' architect.

The trainign for Architects is very long, they study a degree then have to work for a year or two and then do another 2 years of study followed by a final year in work. the title of 'architect' is protected by law so that only people who have fully completed their training can use it.

An architectural designer is probably someone in the process of becoming an architect who is in one of the work phases of their qualifiication. They are not on their own fully qualified. However that doesn't necessarily mean you should run away from them. If they are working for a reputable firm then their work will be being reviewed and backed up by fully qualified architects in the company, however if they are freelance/self-employed then your architect is right and you should be wary of them as they are not fully qualified to act on their own.

Architectural designer could also be someone who has qualified abroad who’s qualifications aren’t quite recognised here - or it could be their person that it’s a good salesperson and can talk the talk but isn’t qualified. As the PP mentioned though, if they work for a bigger company then find out who exactly is reviewing designs and detailing as that is the important bit.

Take a look at the RIBA website and the Architects Registration Board website as they have advice. You need to make sure you’re protected with insurances etc and making sure that it turns out as you want. The planning team at your local council might have advice as well.

The trainign for Architects is very long, they study a degree then have to work for a year or two and then do another 2 years of study followed by a final year in work

This is almost right. They do a degree, then work for a year or two, then another 2 years of study, then a year in work (this is probably the stage your architectural designer is at, also known as a 'part 2'), and THEN a further year or so of study usually carried out whilst also working as it uses a project you're working on as a sort of case study, followed by an exam. Passing this exam and case study project (collectively known as the 'Part 3') is what qualifies you to call yourself an architect.

Much of the Part 3 study focuses on things like contract law, building regulations, employment law should you set up your own practice, professional liabilities, etc. So an architectural designer may have excellent design abilities but may not have the same insurances and legal protections as an architect (which isn't to say their insurance etc is inadequate for what they're doing!)
It's possible for an part 2 architectural designer to be more experienced than a (newly) qualified architect, as some people remain at part 2 level for years and build up a great deal of experience. In practice, they often can do all the same things as an architect, but they're not registered with the same professional bodies and don't have the same legal liabilities etc.
If you have a better feeling about the architectural designer I'd have a chat with them about this aspect - some of them get their work signed off by a qualified architect (particularly if they're employed by an architectural firm), which then confers that architect's protections and liabilities into the project.

Thanks for your advice. Yes we were thinking about the protections and liabilities of the architectural designer.
In our case he is working for his own family firm and has employed someone to do the technical drawings and a structural engineer as far as I understand.
We are going to meet with another architect next week and will probably make a decision then.

Thanks again!

With a fully RIBA qualified and ARB Architect, you will get insurance protection and a legal contract to protect you should things go wrong. Which of course they can, do and can be very costly, even on small projects.

A DD of a family friend has a degree in 'Architectural design technology'. They do amazing architectural designs etc I'm not sure someone who calls themself an architectural designer is necessarily a part qualified to becoming an architect? think they are two separate things but not sure what the difference is.

Just to add, they are 2 different disciplines.