Architect or Structural Engineer - what comes first?

[Blim_bug]

I’m about to embark on a fairly extensive home renovation along with a single story extension. I’ve got a good idea of what I want done, however I’m unsure how to kick things off. I plan to knock down a few load bearing walls (to create an open plan living space) and remove chimney breasts throughout the property (2 story semi detached property).

I’ll obviously need drawings to facilitate planning permission and for the builders to work off, but I’m not sure what I should do first:

So, do I first need to get a structural engineer to do the various sums in order to advise what size steel work / lintels I will need, followed by an architect (that would take the structural engineers recommendations into account), or is it the other way around (architect followed by structural engineer)?

[mrmaggit]

I'd speak to an architectural technician, first, if that's all you intend to do. He'll draw up the plans for you, and will suggest a structural engineer if it's too much for them.

[eps]

It depends on the project.

Most of the time it's architect or similar and then a structural person. This is mainly due to some of the overriding factors that will influence the structural or Building Control part coming from the size of the extension or changes that are allowed or agreed with the local Planning Dept. Of course a lot of the structural stuff you are looking at might be separate to the planning part of the project.

Some architects have a good eye for structural stuff, some do not! i.e. producing wall arrangements that just won't work or not explaining the need for nibs or piers to take the load from a steel!!

We tend to handle both parts for clients, that way the internal layout has a close bearing to what will be the finished project. Feel free to PM if you want.