How much do architects charge to draw up plans and how much is planning permission?

[sandyballs]

Generally speaking? I know it must vary depending on size of extension etc. I am talking about an average 3 bed semi, extending downstairs, approx 12ft x 8ft, and adding another bedroom and bathroom upstairs.

After finally getting DH to agree to go ahead with this I am anxious to get cracking but need to know we have enough money to do this and then get estimates etc out of our savings, before borrowing more on mortgage

hello sandy,

i understand that this was a long time ago from your first question, i would not even use a local architect, they are very pricy and employing the services of a local technical designer that specialises in design home extensions and loft conversions is your best bet.

we used a company in north london and they were £800 all in for a full building regulations design pack.

just do your research and take your time, i went on google search and typed "discount plans" you will have a list of company’s but one stood out from the rest. for a fraction of the cost you will get a better service without getting ripped off by the RIBA architects.

the other architects which were coming around to see my simple extension design were charging £2000 for a set of drawings, that was ridiculous! the company we used even acted as our agents free of charge, they did not charge for amendments and also no charge for a site measured survey.

watching all of these daytime programmes and getting information that now going and shopping around for a specialist in the design field will save you for your plasma tv or your sofa suite.

i would only pay £800 - £950 for any set of technical drawings, but i would expect to see not only plans drawn up but, agent service, no amendment fees, no call out fees! and no paying for any survey that is all part of the parcel.

good luck sand and i hope you found the right company.

regards zaya.

Ho everyone.Can anyone help me with an advise?We are about to do a kitchen extension ,then knock down the conservatory and build a living room and 2 bedrooms upstairs.I found an architect.He charge us £750 just for submiting and do the drawings.He sent the drawings to us but to be fair to you for £750 he just aded a bit more on the original plan and that's it.Does anyone know if he should provide us anything else.He should tell us what materials to use or do the infrastructure??Thank you

Hi Xandya,

It sounds like your Architect has prepared the drawings only for 'Planning Approval', in which case, yes they'll be pretty basic.

There's a second, and quite separate, approval stage called 'Building Regulations', which needs to show the technical detail of how the extension is actually constructed.

It's normal to apply for Planning first, because that's the bit that can be subjective and open to refusal, then only do the Building Regulations once you're sure you've got Planning (Building Regulations, since they are checked against a definite set of technical standards, are pretty much a certainty if your Architect knows what they're doing).

Basically:
Planning is about what the building looks like, and its impact on other people.

Building Regulations is about making sure that it is built right, is safe and energy efficient.

You need to check with your Architect what the £750 represents - if it's a two storey extension that would be very cheap indeed for a total fee and I would expect your Architect to tell you that there is a second fee, of roughly the same again, to pay for the Building Regulation drawings.

We always provide itemised quotes the cover, explain all the stages, and also include the application fees that are payable to Local Authority, but some Architects are not so clear, or assume that you know what you're doing - so if you asked for drawings to obtain Planning Permission (only), then that may be all that they've done.

Thanks very much Sensus for the reply.Have you got any idea if it's possible to submit myself the aplication?Or there is posibility to have problems to obtain it?

When you say submit the application yourself, do you mean simply filling in the application form and sending it to the Council, with someone else's drawings?

If so, then yes, it's possible, but you might not understand some of the questions being asked on the forms, and it would certainly take you a lot longer than someone who is used to preparing such applications on a daily basis. We always make the submissions for our clients - it doesn't take long.

It all depends what you've agreed with the person who is preparing your plans, though.

Thanks so much

I payed the architect just half of £750.I should pay the other half after i see the drawings.He sent me the drawings 2 weeks ago but i wasn't happy.Now he had to do some amedments and today he send them to us.Again desapointed.There's nothing as we explained him that we want.I told him we want a refund and we'll find a proper architect.And he's not answering not even the text.In this case what can i do to recover my money back?

Once again, it depends what agreement you have with him about when the fees should be paid.

Also, it depends on why you are not happy with the drawings.

He will certainly not refund you: even if there is not an explicit contract in place between you, there is a phrase in English law called "quantum meruit", which means that he is entitled to a reasonable sum for the work he has done, if you gave or implied your instruction for that work. Unless you can prove in a court of law that he has been grossly negligent or incompetent in interpreting your brief, it will be very difficult to recover any monies paid, and he may in fact pursue you for the unpaid sums for more recent work undertaken.

In fairness, he has probably interpreted your communications as de-instructing him. He has no further obligation to work on your behalf, or even to respond to you, and in in a similar situation I would probably act in the same manner. You have probably put yourself in a situation where any further action in either direction would need to be via the courts, but whether you think that worthwhile for such a relatively small sum of money is a matter for your own judgement.

I could not really comment further, I'm afraid, without knowing much more about both sides of the dispute, the nature of your original agreement with him, and the brief agreed upon for the work.

But am asking you.Is it normal not to answer my calls or text at least to try and redo the work.How to pay him the rest if hasn't done any drawings like we instructed him?

"But am asking you.Is it normal not to answer my calls or text at least to try and redo the work"

If those calls and texts have been to say that you want your money back and are going to engage another architect, then in all honesty I'd say yes, it is a perfectly rational thing for him to do.

Bluntly: you've just made it clear to him that you're more trouble than you're worth, for the sake of £375/£750.

Sorry, I know that's probably not what you'd want me to say!

Check the government's register of Architects on www.arb.org.uk/

'Architect' is a Protected Title and it's a criminal offence to pretend to be one.

If he's a genuine architect then you can complain to the board if you are unhappy with his professional behaviour.

If he doesn't appear on their Register then he's a fake. There was a fake architect fined £30,000 last week in Luton.

Either way, the Architect's Registration Board will help.

"Architect' is a Protected Title and it's a criminal offence to pretend to be one."

But only if you actually present or promote yourself as one, of course: It is entirely legitimate to call your self an Architectural Designer, Architectural Technician or Architectural Technologist, if you are not ARB registered, and to be honest, for domestic extensions and the like, you're probably better off with an Architectural Technologist than an Architect: they are cheaper, and much more technically focused.

I'd be very suspicious of any Architect who spends a significant part of their time doing domestic extensions, except, perhaps, as a hobby.

The comment on page 1 of this topic that Architectural Designers do not offer insurance is utter nonsense, by the way - some will run the risk of getting away without it, and it's worth checking, but many do.

There's also no reason that they can't offer Professional Consultant's Certificates (colloquially 'Architect's Certificates'), though you'd be a fool to rely on these as a means of insurance - they're literally not worth the paper they're written on, in most situations.

I'd be very suspicious of any Architect who spends a significant part of their time doing domestic extensions, except, perhaps, as a hobby.
There are many RIBA Chartered Practices which do nothing else. Especially in urban areas. Why would that be suspicious?

It's probably be true that 'Professional Consultant's Certificates are worthless though. Because 'Professional Consultants' probably do not have Professional Indemnity Insurance. Architects would have it (as it is compulsory and they'd be fined if they didn't). Architectural Designers might have it if they are members of a professional body - such as the Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists. Very often, though I see them advertising that they have insurance but it turns out to be Public Liability Insurance (great if they knock over your Ming vase) and not Professional Indemnity Insurance (which pays out if the designer turns out to be negligent).

Winefred, I can tell by your other posts that you clearly have some sort of axe to grind, but you really are talking nonsense, I'm afraid.

It would be suspicious if a Chartered Architect did nothing but extensions, because there's bugger all money in it, so it would imply that they're fit for nothing else.

Yes, Architects go through 7 years of training, but what you've got to remember is that while they spend 5 of those 7 years attending a couple of hours lectures a week and getting drunk, most of the Architectural Technologists you're disparaging are spending 40 hours a week actually designing and technically detailing buildings.

You are right about one thing: Professional Indemnity Insurance pays out against an Architect's Certificate/PCC if the designer turns out to be negligent.

The trouble with that is that insurance companies will fight tooth and nail to avoid paying out, so you will be expected to prove, [i]to a standard acceptable in a court of law[/i], that the building defect results from something that the professional should have reasonably been expected to spot during their scheduled site visits while construction was under way.

You've be taking the consultant that you've built up a relationship and possibly friendship with to court, to try to prove that they are an incompetent liar. Meanwhile his or her professional body will be closing ranks and defending their member to the best of their ability, in an attempt to protect their own reputation and standing.

I have been in a position on numerous occasions where I have had to make claims against Architects' PI, so I know that of which I speak.

Compare that to a proper Structural Warranty, where if there is an identifiable defect, the Warranty provider pays out - simple as that; no court case, no question of apportioning blame - and you'll understand why I am saying that you'd be a fool to rely on a PCC.

Compare that to a proper Structural Warranty, where if there is an identifiable defect, the Warranty provider pays out - simple as that; no court case, no question of apportioning blame - and you'll understand why I am saying that you'd be a fool to rely on a PCC.

A current case I'm working on didn't reach completion and so a structural warranty would not have helped. A Building Control enforcement notice stopped the job. Had the designer been someone with PI then there'd be some hope. As it is £100K worth of commercial fit-out is destined for the skips.

@Winefred: Your scaremongering really knows no bounds, does it?

Structural Warranties are inspected in parallel with Building Control inspections, so if the contractor was going that far astray, the Warranty inspections would have picked it up, and liability would be established.

I say again: Please STOP your scaremongering nonsense.

I'm not sure what axe you're grinding, or why, but it really is quite absurd.

No, in this project they had proceeded without applying for building regulations approval (or planning permission).

(the designer wasn't claiming to be an architect though)

@Winefred: "No, in this project they had proceeded without applying for building regulations approval (or planning permission)."

Ah, ok. So you'd have us believe that a project that has neither Planning nor Building Regulations was being inspected under a 'bogus' Architect's Certificate by a bogus Architect?

Sorry, but this is just raving nonsense. I haven't heard anything so absurd in my 4 decades in the industry.

You're simply trying to deflect from my point that PCC's (even when backed up by proper PI insurance) are worthless, compared to a proper Structural Warranty.

No, no bogus architects on this one. Or real ones. Just a mess of a job and a client out of pocket. Structural Warranty wouldn't have helped. The designer wouldn't have heard of one anyway (he didn't know about PP or BR)