Does an architect Save you Money

It's worth noting that there is a quite a difference between someone who can get planning approval and someone who can design a well considered extension that will be cost effective. It's true a qualified architect may not save you money in the short term when looking solely at planning application fees but in the long term cost savings during the building work can be made by better quality designs. Savings on the actual building work far outweigh the savings on design fees. There is also a question of quality. Architects need to go through at least 7 years of education to be able to call themselves architects, anyone can call themseves a technician/designer so you can't be sure of the standard you will receive from a technician or designer. I often find myself resdesigning poor quality extensions or needing to knock them down because they are poorly designed, poorly built and poorly planned. Not all architects charge fees based on the construction value, we for instance have a policy of charging lump sum fees so you know what your paying from the outset. If someone is suggesting they can turn around an extension design in a day or two, it's pretty clear they won't consider in detail and the results are often poor quality and once built, irrervesable. In a sense, you get what you pay for. Buy cheap, buy twice.

For residential design for house extensions and possibly new build a Draftsman would be the cheaper option depending on his experience with making planning applications. A qualified Architect would charge based on build cost of the project so may not be within your budget. For a more budget option obtain quotes from Architectural Technologists or Technicians/designers. They should save you money with an economical design as along as the rates or not based on the build cost because the more expensive it is to build the more the Architect earns.

No you do not need an architect. I am a Chartered Engineer and get many PA approvals. Many more none architects out there do the same. I have been applying for planning on behalf of clients for 40 yrs. plus.

Unlike on the continent, you do not need to employ the services of an Architect to obtain planning permission. There are may competent professions (as LMDS & Cranleigh point out) that can submit a planning application for you. However, you get what you pay for. Planning is easy to achieve if the scheme is straightforward, actually delivering the planning scheme to budget is a different matter, particularly if the planning approval is not properly thought out. Worse case it may not be deliverable and you may have to seek amendments to the permission or new permission altogether. This, in my experience, is not uncommon when a company is employed just to submit planning permission.

You say it's similar. Therefore not exactly the same. You only need a slight difference and you could end up in trouble if the Draughtsman isn't or hasn't been in the Building Trade.You don't need an Architect but you need someone who is or has been a Builder. Can be a Draughtsman but you would need to check Building Regulations and maybe Planning. Best to speak to a Building Inspector and show him the Plans and ask his advice. He probably will suggest an Architect.

not sure why people are saying that architects always charge a percentage fee. For this kind of small project fees are often fixed and not too different from the draftsmen. It is a mountain to climb to become registered architect. Not all architects are good but generally they are sharper than those who are not qualified. That usually translates into money saving as the architect will make a handful of decisions which can be critical to the overall cost of the project.

A Chartered Architect or a Chartered Architectural Technologist have both been required to demonstrate a higher level of competence. They have degrees, followed by structured post grad training and professional exams. If you employ someone who you cannot verify via their professional institute then you have no assurance of quality. I supervise both trainee architects (the RIBA route) and trainee architectural technologists (the CIAT route) and it is long route for both - they do not give the Charter away, so you are definitely getting value for money and it probably won’t cost a huge amount more than the unqualified draftsman.