Competence, insurance and planning: the big questions facing practices

Of course, there are issues that affect architecture and everything else: the effect of the pandemic, climate change, diversity and so on. However, there are three specific areas that, as a practice manager or director, would keep me awake at night.

The first of these is competence. This is a subject that, decades ago, became the theme of the then RIBA president, Fred Pooley, during his two years in office. On the face of it, it is a dull subject, and Fred had to put up with a certain amount of leg-pulling.

But he knew what he was talking about: the danger of the profession gradually sliding towards the creative end of the activity spectrum and, thereby, moving away from the technical knowledge and understanding required to deliver creative design outcomes: buildings.

He was right to be concerned then, and he would be appalled now. The Grenfell Inquiry has unearthed shocking revelations about how little some architects know (or, worse, think they don’t need to know) and should be compulsory listening for all concerned with construction. The BBC podcasts are horribly instructive and record terrible failings by almost all concerned – it isn’t just architects.

The government response, among other things, has been to ask the ARB to investigate architect competence, which will no doubt trigger fresh requirements for registration renewal. The RIBA has announced its own initiative, which will require the co-operation of schools, as well as practices, if it is to get to the bottom of (a) the nature of the problem; (b) where might solutions lie; and (c) how this is going to be brought about.

Whatever temporary inconveniences may be caused, these exercises will benefit practice in the medium and long terms because performance should improve, assuming the identifiable gaps in education or training can be sensibly overcome.

There is a massive short-term problem stemming from Grenfell: the explosion in the cost of professional indemnity insurance

However, there is a massive short-term problem stemming from Grenfell: the explosion in the cost of professional indemnity insurance, about which I have written before. Nobody wants to talk very publicly about the precise cost of premiums being required, because it makes it look as though your practice is in trouble.

But the reality is that premiums are rising for everyone, whether or not they have good claims records. The few practice managers with whom I have been able to speak all tell the same story: exclusions covering cladding, fire design and, bizarrely, basements. This really requires a summit of practices, brokers, insurers and the professional institutions, perhaps even government, to sort out. Perhaps the AJ100 could take a collective lead on this.

My third big issue could be an opportunity – though some will, doubtless, see a downside. It is the planning reforms proposed in the White Paper recently issued for consultation. Unfortunately, it has been elided with permitted development rights proposals; they are separate matters and subject to a separate parliamentary process.

On planning, the White Paper is positing the biggest change since ideas contained in the Community Land Act, never implemented, in the early 1970s. In brief, as the AJ has comprehensively reported, the proposal is that: local plans will have to be updated in the next 30 to 42 months; all areas should be zoned for development, enhancement or protection; and that conforming proposals will, in effect, have outline planning permission without the need to apply for it.

The intention is to encourage development, particularly housebuilding, through the reduced risk in respect of getting planning permission. This could be a silver lining in our current dark-cloud circumstances.