# Architect fee for house extension - Is this reasonable??



## RMur (25 Mar 2010)

I'm hoping somebody can provide some guidance - 

I wish to build a one story 35sqm single storey extension (which needs planning permission due to stipulation in original planning permission granted for the development area) onto my house and received a quote from an architect. The service offered include: 


site visit and preparation of drawing ofr valuation and planning query
liaising with planner based on this drawing and OS map,
design of extension, - involving a couple of meetings
preparation of planning application and preparation of necessary drawings
submission of planning application form
site notice
submission of newspaper advertisement
The fee quoted for planning permission application is €2,400 plus a cost of €200 per site visit if these are required while on site (plus VAT).

Does this quote seem reasonable or is it outside the going rate? 

Some guidance would be appreciated as this is out first experience with architects! Cheers!


----------



## Sconhome (25 Mar 2010)

It reads as being pretty fair though I would push for the inclusion of working construction drawings for that price. It should not be a major cost to develope these once planning has been accepted.

Be sure that you are engaging with an architect, check the architects institute website for registration details.

Also ask for a copy of professional indemnity insurances and verify with the insurance company that the policy is active.


----------



## RMur (25 Mar 2010)

Sconhome thanks for the reply.

In order to reduce costs, would it be realistic for my husband and I to consider liaising with the planner and preparing and submitting the application ourselves and just using the architect to:

prepare drawing for valuation and planning query 
design of extension, - involving a couple of meetings 
preparation of necessary drawings for the planning application


----------



## Neg Covenant (25 Mar 2010)

The biggest saving the architect can do for you is in preparing proper tender documentation for contractors and managing the contract to avoid cost over-runs.   that does not appear to be included.   Site visits probably only refer to checking compliance for certification purposes.   Watch your step!


----------



## Shawady (25 Mar 2010)

RMur said:


> I'm hoping somebody can provide some guidance -
> 
> I wish to build a one story 35sqm single storey extension (which needs planning permission due to stipulation in original planning permission granted for the development area) onto my house and received a quote from an architect. The service offered include:
> 
> ...


 
We are going to the process of building an extension and your fees do not seem too bad but the site visits seem expensive.
We are building a 2 story extension approx 48sqm. We are able to use an existing garage which will be cheaper than doing an extension from scratch. Our architect is charging us €4,200 + VAT. This includes what you have mentioned above plus drawing of the construction drawings, preparing tender contracts for builder, issuing of certs for banks and weekly site visits (6 to 8).

When we were getting quotes from architects, i know one was going to charge €50 per site visit.


----------



## onq (25 Mar 2010)

RMur said:


> I'm hoping somebody can provide some guidance -
> 
> I wish to build a one story 35sqm single storey extension (which needs planning permission due to stipulation in original planning permission granted for the development area) onto my house and received a quote from an architect. The service offered include:
> 
> ...



Its reasonable unless you're a demanding client in which case I'd double it.

Buts frighteningly low for a full service.

Typically its 1/3 1/3 1/3 for Planning Tender and Site, to included certification.

Some people seem to think working drawings grow on trees.

Are you sure yer maun has a qualification?

Is he registered?

Not all architects who may be competent are registered yet.

But you can check those who are by visiting http://www.riai.ie



ONQ.


----------



## RMur (25 Mar 2010)

Thanks for the replies guys.
Checked and it appears that the architect is registered with the RIAI. A family member will be building the extension so the architect would not need to prepare tender contracts. 
As this will be factored into our mortgage, should we expect a large additional payment for the architect for issuing certs to the bank for the draw-down?


----------



## Neg Covenant (25 Mar 2010)

Yes you probably should. Apart from the fact that the architect will have to visit the site before issuing each cert for stage payment, you may also be charged extra for opinons on compliance at the end as this takes work and creates a possible professional indemnity liability as the architect must stand over the certs to the banks too.   I suggest that you get the architect to agree that he is including the issuing of such certs in his price and also to specify what visits he will have to make to the site for those purposes and for monitoring (excluding any visits where you call him).


----------



## Sconhome (25 Mar 2010)

RMur said:


> should we expect a large additional payment for the architect for issuing certs to the bank for the draw-down?




This is possibly covered with the site visit costs which are to verify compliance. 

Site visits contrary to depictions on the TV are not for the architect to wave his arms around insisting you stick to his design, there is a real purpose to these visits


----------



## Sconhome (25 Mar 2010)

onq said:


> Buts frighteningly low for a full service.



I would agree, in general terms, but there are an awful lot of superb architects (and technicians) who have been dropped out of big practise over the past 2 years. 

Many are in the early stages of running their own business and are quite good value. The guys I know would prefer to get a regular steady range of fees than hope for the big one!



onq said:


> Some people seem to think working drawings grow on trees.



Its the peanuts people expect to pay that grow on the trees. Well not exactly, peanuts are a ground crop, but you'll get my drift.


----------



## rosemartin (25 Mar 2010)

you are definetly been ripped off.  am getting a 47sq m extension. planing  permission and all correspondence with council dealt with for 1,200vat included.will inspect site and issue cert of complicance for 900 vat included


----------



## Sconhome (25 Mar 2010)

rosemartin said:


> you are definetly been ripped off.  am getting a 47sq m extension. planing  permission and all correspondence with council dealt with for 1,200vat included.will inspect site and issue cert of complicance for 900 vat included



Assuming you have managed to get a comparatively qualified and insured architect then you have managed to get a great deal with your professional. €2,100 all inclusive?

Rates will also vary based on the complexity of the project too or on the expected level of input required for the planning process.


----------



## rosemartin (25 Mar 2010)

yes my architect is all qualified and has pii,had to produce all to bank as part  of top up mortgage offer


----------



## RKQ (26 Mar 2010)

Sconhome said:


> Be sure that you are engaging with an architect, check the architects institute website for registration details.


 
*Not all Architects* are Registered! The process for registration has not been set up yet by RIAI. Therefore it is incorrect to say all "Architects" are on the current old list.

Judge your Architect by _reputation_, past designs in your area and recommendations from friends etc. Check for full PI insurance.
Get a detailed letter / contract from your Architect, outlining *all* services, site visits, certification etc included in his fee. So there is no misunderstanding later on.

€2100 plus vat for planning - single storey extension is expensive. But if includes working drawings, tenders, contracts, site inspections & Certs then "its cheap as chips!". (I doubt it includes anything more than applying for planning permission.)


----------



## rosemartin (26 Mar 2010)

all discussed,  my man is a realist knows work is scarce and is not living in the past has adjusted to the new order


----------



## Sconhome (26 Mar 2010)

RKQ,

For clarity I was using the RIAI as a point of reference as not all architects are architects. It would be a good place to start when verifying that anyone calling themselves an architect is in fact an architect.

There are many architectural practises around offering architectural services but it doesn't necessarily mean there is an architect at the helm of these businesses. And I am not diminishing architectural services either, but there is a vast difference.


----------



## Brigid (26 Mar 2010)

Hi, on a related issue can anyone tell me the basis for charges by Architects; I know that sometimes it is a percentage of the total construction costs which I think is unreasonable, but if a percentage isnt used, is it on the size of the construction or the preceived complexity? or do they charge per hour or per job (eg so much for drawings, so much for advising on specs, so much for liasing with planner or engineer etc)   - is there an industry norm on which estimated or project fees are based? or does it vary architect to architect?  thanks.  I hope this wont be seen as my hijacking the original thread.


----------



## onq (27 Mar 2010)

On the contrary, a percentage fee is very reasonable and the old rates suggested by the RIAI started high within a low price range and the percentage diminished with increased costs. It is reasonable because in general the comlpexity of the project and the workload associated with it rises in proportion to costs. Sompe people think its unreasoanble because they expect something for nothing.

Architects are under pressure right now by some unscrupulous clients driving them out of business by either not paying profitable rates or not paying at all.

This is not a "new order" - its oppressive or in come cases criminal actions by clients.
I've recently issued a seven-day notice to one of mine - first time suing someone, but I suspect it won't be the last.

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon  as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be  taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in  Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at  hand.


----------



## onq (27 Mar 2010)

rosemartin said:


> all discussed,  my man is a realist knows work is scarce and is not living in the past has adjusted to the new order



Plenty of "new order" builders out there not finishing work, not building compliantly, not paying their subbies and eventually going out of business.

Working below cost isn't a "new order" - its professional suicide.

That's not "getting good value" - that's exploitation.

ONQ.


----------



## Brigid (31 Mar 2010)

Hi, I think that a percentage fee is unreasonable because if for instance someone wants to use particularly expensive materials this will push up the construction costs but will not affect the complexity of the build or increase the input from an the architect.  I fully agree with ONQ's sentiments on what some people may perceive as being 'good value' is in fact exploitation but that works both ways.  Is not a percentage fee a way of exploiting a situation where clients building an expensive house are seen as being able to afford to pay a professional more than he would have received were the house the same design but using less expensive materials?  All professions and trades people and workers are suffering at the moment and out of necessity 'the client' will be looking for value for money ... which may indeed result in exploitation.  Have we all not been living in cloud cuckoo land for the past 10 years???


----------



## onq (31 Mar 2010)

Brigid said:


> Hi, I think that a percentage fee is unreasonable because if for instance someone wants to use particularly expensive materials this will push up the construction costs but will not affect the complexity of the build or increase the input from an the architect.  I fully agree with ONQ's sentiments on what some people may perceive as being 'good value' is in fact exploitation but that works both ways.  Is not a percentage fee a way of exploiting a situation where clients building an expensive house are seen as being able to afford to pay a professional more than he would have received were the house the same design but using less expensive materials?  All professions and trades people and workers are suffering at the moment and out of necessity 'the client' will be looking for value for money ... which may indeed result in exploitation.  Have we all not been living in cloud cuckoo land for the past 10 years???



Your question is sound and deserve an answer Brigid.

The short answer is "no" .
Percentage fees are not a means of exploiting clients.
This assumption arises from a lack of knowledge of how projects progress.
That's not so much an "I know more than you do" answer as a "here are some things you should know" comment. 

So, without further ado, here are some things you should know. 

---------------------------------------

1. Percentage fees are not charged pro-rata as cost increases.

Usually the percentage diminishes as the total cost rises.
My experience of clients suggests that those willing to spend the higher sums on their buildings expect a higher level of attendances - which have to be paid for.

---------------------------------------

2. The old "bumping up the materials bill" comment is seldom true where most buildings are concerned.
Primarily this is because most architects I know of do no build using extravagent materials - how many all copper clad or granite stone outer leaf houses do you know of?
Besides, the costs of materials alone do not form a significant cost of most buildings.
Costs are usually diviided thusly; -

1/3 Structure
1/3 Services
1/3 Fit Out

Structure usually encompasses the building envelope.
Fit out usually encompases all interior finishes.
Doubling either one will raise o/a costs 1/6.
IN addition, we have never specified something like gold taps and where something like that is introduced by the client as a variation to the contract we have never charged extra for it.
Varying work defined on finished drawings, yes, that is a significant extra cost, but again, we seldom charge for such work - I cannot answer for most archtiects, but if its a more expensive house this is expected of the client and the increased fees covers it.

---------------------------------------

3. Dearer houses are seldom less complex than cheaper ones - the opposite is usually the case.

"Expensive" houses require larger spans, more complex structures, consequently difficult details and increased supervision and co-ordination to get it right.
To put this in a nutshell - an architect can leave a small builder to his own devices doing a 4M x 3M rear extension using traditional and standard details.
However a 6M x 6M extension with a bay window without pillars and a large lantern light in the centre of a flat roof immediately requires structural steel, increased cost and complexity and specialist detailing for the bay window.
The pro-rata cost and the percentage charge system in that case may not actually cover the cost increased workload and detailing, never mind the additional time on site doing limited inspections.

---------------------------------------

4. We never get the percentage we look for initially.

Architects usually charge fees on the cost per square foot for an building of a particular type.
Very often we will agree fees before starting work that may start out based on a percentage but that's merely to set the first figure that will be discounted.
We want the client to realise the value that's been achieved with the negotiation of fees. 

---------------------------------------

5. The reverse can occur.

You can have your fees agreed and do a lot of work on detailnig and product research only to have the clients change their mind and reduce overall costs.
You've still gone and done the research and the detailing to finalise the cost, even though the client doesn't proceed with that work.
Happened on a project we did once where the granite walls - not promoted by us I hasten to add - after search in terms of materials pricing and finishing - were rejected as being too costly.
On another building a carefully detailed, proportioned and designed feature rooflight was scrapped.

On another a chandelier was introduced that requried a whole set of new supports, a winding mechanisms and control systems - we didn't charge additional fees for our time.

---------------------------------------

6. There are exceptions to every rule

Perhaps with some firms the percentage fees system has been abused, and I cannot defend every firm.
Most firms will agree discounts [you may have to haggle, but that's business - and expected].
In general the apparent increase in percentage-generated fees on more costly buildings is justified by the quality of work, detailing design and supervision requried for more expensive buildings.
The fees do not increase pro-rata but on a sliding scale - or did, when there was an RIAI scale fo fees to refer back to.

---------------------------------------

7. Bona Fides

I don't get paid for my posts here or the time I put into researching or composing my  replies - none of the regular contributors or posters do.

You may not believe me until you've been on board with an architect on one of these projects and seen in through from start to finish, but take some solace from the fact that I've nothing to gain by lying to you.


ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon   as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be   taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in   Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at   hand.


----------



## RKQ (3 Apr 2010)

Sconhome said:


> RKQ,
> 
> For clarity I was using the RIAI as a point of reference as not all architects are architects. It would be a good place to start when verifying that anyone calling themselves an architect is in fact an architect.
> 
> There are many architectural practises around offering architectural services but it doesn't necessarily mean there is an architect at the helm of these businesses. And I am not diminishing architectural services either, but there is a vast difference.


 
Sconhome, you are missing my point - not ALL qualified Architects are members of RIAI. There is no legal requirement for a Registered Architect to be a member of RIAI. You are therefore wrong to to suggest RIAI is a good place to "verify" an architect.

Secondly experienced Architects wishing to join RIAI are unable to at present, as the structures (Technical Assessment) have not been set up by RIAI yet. Again this means that not all Architects are on RIAI's old & outdated list.....


----------



## onq (3 Apr 2010)

I know you weren't trying to get at anyone Sconhome.
You were just follow the good example we try to set on AAM and offer the bes advice you can.

But for the record, and to show the kind of people who may be out there  qualified but unregistered:

----------------------------------------------------------

I am a qualified architect of almost 20 years standing - 27th June 1990 was the date I received my Diploma in Architecture from Bolton Street College of Technology - a very funny day as my name was read out incorrectly.
Back then we were also conferred with a Bachelor of Architectural Science Degree from Trinity College Dublin, in the following November of that year, IIRC.
The full cap and gown treatment - its was the proudest day for my parents and a great day out for all.

My qualification Dipl. Arch DIT was one of four titles cited specifically in European Economic Community DIR 85/384/EEC as entitling the bearer [me] to provide architectural services and call himself an architect.

This document became known as The Architect's Directive.
Statutory Instrument 15 of 1989 wrote this right into Irish Law.

DIR 2005/36/EC is the Directive on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications - much wider in scope but including architectural qualifications - and this also refers to my qualification.
So in summary I legally called myself an architect until May 2008 when the Building Control Act 2007 came into force, in theory preventing me using the title until I became registered.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I say in theory because of difficulties in being able to apply to  register or actually being registered that persisted until November 16th  2009.
That was when the Registration Board was finally able to accept  applications, or in the case of those RIAI members entitled to be  automatically registered, to automatically register them.

You see, under the Act only RIAI Members were automatically entitled to become registered and call themselves "architect" once that law was passed.
In my opinion this is inequitable, given the previous acquired rights of all persons holding the qualifications referred to in the Directives and the Statutory Instrument.

I am currently preparing for registration, but with most of the relevant documentation more than 12 years old - and therefore shredded or no longer on file - I anticipate some difficulty.
Still, just another straw on the camel's back at the moment.

--------------------------------------------------

 Many RIAI  Members are very competent architects, and I have had the privilege of working with several of them and learning from them during my career.

But competence varies from person to person and from practice to practice - not all RIAI  Members are paragons of competence.
I'm not disavowing your advice, merely hoping to broaden it a bit.

People may judge my competence by my posts on AAM.
Often the only real judgement is vox populi. 

--------------------------------------------------

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon     as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be     taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in     Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at     hand.


----------

