ACA expands Principal Designer Register to recognise senior architects
The Association of Consultant Architects has announced plans to expand the criteria for its Principal Designer Register, in a move aimed at better reflecting the realities of architectural practice and supporting members in promoting their expertise under the Building Safety Act.
Launched last year at www.principaldesigner.uk, the register was created to help architects showcase their ability to act as Building Regulations Principal Designers, reinforcing the message that architects are best placed to lead on design safety and compliance. The register allows ACA Members to highlight their skills both to existing clients and to potential new
ones, providing professional recognition in this increasingly vital role.
Until now, registration has been limited to ACA Members who are Principals, Directors, or Partners of their practice — a criterion that ensured gravitas and accountability. However, following feedback from members, the ACA has confirmed that the scheme will soon allow Senior Architects within practices to be listed as well.
Many practices pointed out that it is often their Senior Architects, rather than the business principals, who assume the day-to-day responsibility of Principal Designer under the Building Safety Act. In response, the ACA is now developing a process to enable their inclusion, promising a simple, seamless registration journey with no additional fee beyond the annual £100 registration charge.
The association continues to encourage members to embrace the Principal Designer role “where appropriate,” noting that in many cases architects will naturally fulfil the legal definition of a “designer in control of the design phase.”
Further details on the forthcoming updates to the register will be shared soon.
(See page 11 for a Principal Designer update)
Planning update, Andy Rogers page 4
VAT charged on conversions, Tim Chetham page 5
Fixed Price Mediation, Neil Thody page 18
New member benefit page 35
FROM THE PRESIDENT
From the President
ACA President Patrick Inglis on Collaborative Contracts, BSR Reforms and ACA Council Elections
Building Safety Act
It is two years since the fundamental changes to the Building Control regime brought about by the Building Safety Act came into force, so now is a moment to review how the changes are playing out.
Overall the changes are well intentioned and welcome. In particular the creation of the Principal Designer and other roles has brought clarity to who is responsible for Building Regulations compliance and has provided architects with a mechanism to regain some lost control over projects as well as charge additional fees.
However, there are significant issues that are negatively impacting the construction industry that risk undermining the new rules or are causing significant delays and needlessly increasing costs.
The horrific delays to HRB projects caused by the backlog in processing GW2 applications is well documented, but other issues have not received the same degree of prominence, but are also highly concerning.
A key issue is that the new regulations create fundamental problems for design and build contracts. The regulations state that the client must appoint “a designer with control over the design work as the Principal Designer”. This is self-evidently needs to be the lead designer, which on most construction projects will be the architect, and this appointment needs to be direct with the client.
However, if an architect is employed by the contractor under a D&B contract, there is clearly a conflict of interest if you are also acting as Principal Designer for the client. In this situation it is really the contractor, who should act as PD, but many are unwilling or unqualified to take on the role.
As a result the void is too often being filled by 3rd party consultants offering to take on the role. While clearly against the fundamental principles behind the regulations that the role is carried out by someone in control of the design and HSE guidance explicitly stating that PDs should not be a 3rd party with no influence over design decisions, poor drafting has created a loophole that allows the CDM Principal Designer to act as BRPD.
Since they aren’t acting as lead designer, these consultants are often able to undercut architects, who have to carry much more onerous PII. It is also hard to
believe that they can actually be doing the job properly given their lack of control over the design.
Worryingly a recent list of GW2 applications featured a significant proportion of these firms as acting as PD on HRB projects. This is very concerning and if allowed to continue unchecked will completely undermine a key plank of the regulations and risk turning compliance back into a tickbox exercise. Architects acting as lead designer should clearly be the Principal Designer and the regulations should be amended to make this explicit as a matter of urgency.
Another challenge that is not getting much coverage is all the small projects in HRBs, such as flat refurbs. These are suffering significant delays and escalating costs to the point that I would recommend that clients do not buy flats in HRBs unless they intend never to do any work to them.
A third area that I would highlight for concern is all the projects that do not involve an architect at all- such as loft conversions or small extensions. It seems highly likely that many builders operating in this sector are not qualified to act as Principal Designer and will therefore either illegally sign off designs or as likely leave homeowners to have to sign off compliance leaving them in a much worse position that before the regulations came in. This cannot possibly have been the intension and I fear that we are only going to find out about the scale of these problems when lots of projects start going wrong and owners start looking for someone to blame only to find that they have taken on design responsibility by mistake.
By now members will have had considerable experience of the new rules, so please share your experiences so that we can help members deal with the inevitable problems and dilemmas that will arise as the rules bed in. In the meantime, you should be acting as Principal Designer so embrace it and charge for it!
Bats out of Hell
As the promised upturn in construction activity continues to be frustratingly elusive, I wanted to share some thoughts on the implementation of BNG that is added to the woe of trying to actually get anything built in this country.
BNG came in some 18 months ago and in effect it created protection of function for ecologists (lucky
Patrick Inglis is a Director of Inglis
Badrashi Loddo www.ibla.co.uk
them!), who now need to get involved in practically all development schemes including very small ones that they would never have been near previously.
While the BNG regulations in themselves are adding cost, complexity and delay, it seems that an unintended serious side effect is that ecologist don’t seem to be able to attend a site without finding potential bat roosts, which in turn then entail very expensive additional surveys - which by co-incidence also need to be carried out by ecologists.
Apart from the quite frankly outrageous survey costs - which are presumed to be due to a shortage of ecologists - this has the potential to turn into a serious problem as bat surveys can only be carried out 5 months of the year and some sites need up to 3 surveys 3 weeks apart.
The BNG regulations are well meaning and are trying to address an important problem and bats quite rightly need protecting, but as an example, my practice has already had two housing projects delayed by a year due to this and unless something changes quickly I fear we are in danger of only being able to submit planning applications for less than half the year.
The government is consulting on amending the regulations so hopefully change is on its way, but due to the need for primary legislation it will be at least two years before anything improves. So in the meantime I suggest architects address any bat surveys at the beginning of project to try and mitigate any potential delays.
ACA Council Elections
At the ACA AGM three new members of council were elected and I am delighted to welcome Phil Waind, Paul Bussey and Andrew Shepherd to council. More council members are needed so please get in touch if you are interested in getting involved. You’re input and experience would be very welcome.
Until next time, The President
ACAPAG PLANNING REPORT
Andy Rogers says amendments to the planning system are currently limited to the results of court cases* and key appeals.
Planning update
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill has just completed its committee stage in the House of Lords - report sessions took place at the end of October prior to the Bill’s return to the House of Commons. Prior to that, “pro-growth” amendments were tabled by the government designed “to get Britain building faster”. These included measures to slash delays and prevent planning permissions from being timed out, powers to allow the Secretary of State to stop councils rejecting planning permissions and tackle blockers in the courts, plans to accelerate reservoirs, windfarms and large housing schemes, and turbocharging the Plan for Change to create high-paying jobs and secure more homegrown clean energy. Amendments that are likely to be (or have been) agreed will reported in the next newsletter.
Changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in December 2024 introducing Grey Belt as an idea which more easily allows development in the Green Belt subject to specific criteria (‘Golden Rules’) have, according to research by planning consultants Marron and Urbanist Architecture, so far meant approval for some 1,600 new homes. The research records an 80% success rate for planning applications made using this new Green Belt freedom (but of course, not all submissions are approved, especially where other factors such as location and sustainability are taken into account).
progress the development of at least three new towns (of the twelve proposed) “to ensure new towns are a test bed for innovations and to unblock barriers to delivery”. A final decision on locations will be made following draft proposals and a Strategic Environmental Assessment, due in Spring 2026.
• As reported above, further amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to make it quicker and easier to deliver critical infrastructure projects include “streamlining NSIP consultation requirements, ensuring National Policy Statements are kept up to date and reducing opportunities for judicial review”.
• The Environment Agency is continually improving its flood risk data and guidance, including provision of a new Flood Risk Assessment template and Main River consultation: also the blocked development permissions that were being held up (in Sussex, etc) have now been freed.
• MHCLG has set up a £50,000 grant system to help LPAs accelerate digital transformation within planning services.
NEW! A housebuilding support package for London was published on 23rd October:
• Temporary relief from CIL (from 50% depending on amount of affordable housing)
Andrew Rogers is Chairman of ACAPAG and a fomer partner in the Manser Practice
The government's housing delivery test (HDT) aims to measure how effectively each local planning authority (LPA) is delivering housing. It applies sanctions to LPAs where, over a threeyear period, housing delivery was lower than 95 per cent of their housing requirement and the severity of the penalty varies according to the extent of the underperformance. LPAs face a presumption in favour of sustainable development if they score below 75 per cent in the test, or if they are unable to demonstrate a supply of deliverable housing land (over 5 years, as set out in the NPPF). The presumption may render a council’s housing policies out of date, leaving it vulnerable to speculative applications and appeals. A total of 126 LPAs (ie more than one third of all English authorities) are likely to fail the test this year.
The MHCLG Chief Planner’s latest missive included the following:
• Local authorities are encouraged to make use of a pre-examination checklist for new local plans that was published by the Planning Inspectorate on 6th September, designed to ensure plans are ready for examination so that the process is more efficient.
• Re-emphasis of support for self-build and community-led housing through the Self Commissioned Homes Unit at Homes England.
• A New Towns Unit is being established to immediately
• Removal of elements of guidance (such as dual aspect, cycle storage, etc) that can constrain density
• Time-limited (to 31 March 2028) planning route to allow permission without a viability assessment with 20% affordable housing
• New power for the London Mayor to call-in schemes of over 50 homes and proposals on the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land, if the borough is minded to refuse
• Power to make Mayoral Development Orders for strategic schemes without needing borough consent
• Funding of £322m (initially) for a City Hall Investment Fund
*Results of example court cases
- R (Caffyn) v Shropshire Council [2025] about the environmental effects of a proposed intensive poultry unit and the ramifications for how planning decisionmakers should assess “in-combination” environmental impacts in circumstances where multiple intensive livestock units (and other noxious uses) are located in close proximity to one another.
- Mole Valley DC v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2025] concerning whether recent changes to the NPPF 2024 have altered how assessment of development which is ‘not inappropriate’ in the Green Belt is approached.
- Somani Hotels Ltd v Epping Forest DC [2025] considering the contentious issue of asylum hotels and whether their use needs planning permission.
- Cotham School v Bristol City Council [2025] with lessons to be learned for schools to ensure that their land is protected from applications seeking to register school playing fields as common land or village greens. n
POINT OF VIEW | TIM CHETHAM
Conversion & restoration versus new build – the VAT implications
The ACA is always interested in hearing the challenges our members face in the day to day running of their practices. Here Tim Chetham provides his insights on VAT charged on conversions
Tim brings to light the challenges where the majority of projects of an architectural practice are renovations and conversions. These options are more sustainable than demolition and new build.
The issue then becomes the constant battle had with builders who will invariably inform the Client that a new build will be VAT exempt and easier for them to build - as on the other hand a renovation incurs 20% VAT and 5% VAT if the building has been empty for over two years (with some reduced rates on energy saving materials).
The resulting VAT exemption encourages the
demolition of perfectly good buildings which could easily be converted and/or renovated. Tim has raised this issue with his local MP and we would be interested to hear the view of our members; we realise the Government’s agenda is to build new housing but upgrading existing housing stock to current standards must also be important to achieve net-zero targets.
A solution proposed by Tim is to either equalise VAT rates on renovations and new builds or remove the VAT exemption if the house is demolished. So what are your thoughts? And what renovation or conversion projects have you completed?
Tim has also shared the illustrated project which demonstrates the power in restoration and sustainability. This turned a derelict bungalow with an Energy Rating F, into a healthy and comfortable home with an EPC B.
‘Springfield’ has just been shortlisted for this year’s Build It Awards/Best Architect for a Conversion or Renovation Project. It shows what can be achieved with renovation and an enlightened client together with a reduced VAT rate of 5%. n
Tim Chetham is principal of Chetham Architecture Design
ABOVE LEFT: ‘Springfield’ before and ABOVE: after LEFT: Interiors before and after
THE NEED FOR DECISIVENESS
ACA Survey
The ACA is considering launching a Practice Membership whereby Members can receive a bundle of our benefits and services for a nominal monthly fee. If you haven’t already completed the Survey please do take a few moments and provide your feedback:
https://us8.list-manage.com/survey?u=c3fae4992dedc093304820a43&id=3172bbe142&e=19873dbcf0
NEW COUNCIL MEMBER
Andrew Shepherd QUESTION TIME: ANDREW SHEPHERD
Please introduce yourself to our Members
Having trained in London, I moved to the North of England to complete my studies at Manchester and joined a small two partner practice in Sheffield in 1978. Through the illness of others, I was invited to become a partner aa year later and remained at the same desk for 44 years! It is typical small practice work, principally in conservation with an ecclesiastical bent. As my midlife crisis I undertook the Architectural Association's postgraduate Building Conservation course and subsequently enjoyed more than 10 years on the staff of that course. From that, I found myself being consulted and lecturing abroad in Eastern Europe and the Balkans.
What inspired you to become an architect?
I don't really remember. I was born and brought up in colonial Cyprus and I remember visiting mosaic and frescoed churches with my father. We subsequently lived in Malta and I noticed the joys on the building sites of local masons working the very green tufa limestone. When I went to the School of Art architecture course it was very much in vogue at the time to say that an architectural qualification suited one for other careers. I suppose I had that as a fallback position!
Describe your typical day?
Like most architects I imagine, it is a combination of meetings, site visits, Zoom/Teams activities, time for a little drawing, time for lots of administration, paperwork, report writing, etc., etc. When teaching I used to remark that buildings are long constructed of stone, brick, timber, lead or the like merely of paper being the administration paperwork of design team, planning authority, building control, etc., etc.
What is your most challenging aspect of being an architect; who do you look to for help and guidance?
Well, I am so old and generally carry out the same type of work for existing clients to historic buildings and each project is obviously a new challenge, but very often a variation on a past project. I find the keeping up with the legislative requirements of our professional lives challenging, to say nothing of the endless demands for CPD records. Help and guidance I suppose comes from professional institutions, Google, Chrome and often from longstanding architect friends. I have found the world of conservation architecture, particularly within the ecclesiastical sphere, is not as competitive as I remember mainstream architecture being and advice is freely offered and given to long-standing chums.
What advice would you give to up-and-coming architectural students?
Remember when drafting on your computer that you are dealing with real materials. A sash window has an architrave, parting beads, chamfered glazing bars and the like and is not just "a collection of lines on paper". And also remind them that their efforts will be required to be understood by a possi-
bly foreign tradesman in a trench half-full of water on a
Which architect (past or present) do you admire the most and why?
As one who spends much of his spare time reading architectural history, my heroes tend to go with the flow of the current enthusiasm. On balance, I think probably I admire the late John Ashurst the most. We met on very few occasions and he wouldn't have known who I was, prior to his premature death, but his beautifully illustrated publications continue to advise and inform, particularly his masterwork "The Conservation of Ruins" (2007). I have only had the opportunity work on three or four ruins during my career, but I am always ready for the next!
What more could associations such the ACA and RIBA do / implement to help architects?
I really do not know. Lobbying of government on the issues of the day by the RIBA, particularly, appears to have had little effect. The Architects' Registration Board continues to exert increasing influence over the day to day operation of those on the Register. The production of excellent comprehensible Forms of Contract from both bodies is a boon for practitioners.
Tea or coffee?
Coffee except for the occasional builder's tea midafternoon.
Night owl or early bird?
Night owl definitely.
If you had a super power, what would it be?
To be as well as I was twenty years' ago!
Describe an interesting fact about yourself!
At 15 I had a scholarship to join the Royal Navy after school. However, when the time came, I gave backword because Dennis Healey, lately the Minister of Defence, had slashed the size of the armed forces and I realised I was not going to be an Admiral! n
QUESTION TIME: PAUL BUSSEY
Paul Bussey
Please introduce yourself to our Members. I have worked in Architectural practices since leaving school after A-levels in 1974.
Having achieved better grades than expected I took a year out before going to Liverpool University School of Architecture. I could not afford to go travelling so worked for TP Bennetts in Brentwood where they liked my hand drawing skills (Grade A at Art), and also sent me on day release to Barking College of Technology where I joined the HNC course in Building Construction. With only a year to spend, I independently took and passed an A Level in Building Construction.
These studies equipped me with extensive awareness of Building Regulations and Working Drawing detailing, as well as being exposed to the more conceptual design drawings in the architectural office. This created the foundation for my future career and specialism. At Liverpool I was told by my 1st Year Tutor that “we don’t deal with Building Regulations here you will learn that in practice”.
However, the Summerland Leisure scheme fire in 1973 lead to a nationwide requirement for Schools of Architecture to consider “Fire Regulations”, which lasted a few years but were subsequently dropped from most curriculums due to “no time available”. This had however awoken my life long interest in the early integration of fire and other building regulations into good architectural design rather than as an after-thought.
What led you to transition from an architect through to Senior Technical Consultant?
After University and Part 1 RIBA, I took an opportunity to work in Zambia, East Africa for a small ex-patriot architectural practice where I learnt to apply my skills in an overseas jurisdiction. Instead of returning to the UK after 1 year out, I stayed for 3 years during which I helped to design a Pharmaceutical factory , and
spent the last year with the main contractor helping to procure & build it. Returning to the UK in a recession to resume my Part 2 studies I rejoined TPBennett and attended North London Polytechnic’s part-time 3 year Architectural Diploma course.
Increasingly I was asked to deal with construction detailing and building regulations issues which has proven to be the best way to gain their understanding. After Part 3 I joined RHWL for 20 years specialising in theatres, hotels, shopping centres and offices where my regulatory experience greatly increased, including developing a CDM expertise. Joining Scott Brownrigg for 10 years I was able to extend my knowledge to railway stations and airports including work in Dubai & Istanbul respectively, and working with the HSE on the 2015 CDM regulations guidance. The last 10 years I have spent with AHMM as a practice-wide consultant on CDM & Building Regulations. Latterly assisting the RIBA Expert Advisory Group & Building Safety Regulator to help introduce the Building Safety Act and the new Principal Designer function.
Describe your typical day?
Commuting from outer London every day I do most of my CPD reading or viewing whilst travelling.
Most of my office time is spent reviewing AHMM’s many projects from a CDM & regulatory perspective, having developed a CDM Analysis Toolkit for this purpose. With the support of the project teams this captures all “Significant Issues” in one document which evolves throughout each project informing the final design and capturing the Health & Safety File information. This is currently being developed to embrace Building Regulations. My voluntary work as chairman of both with the HSE CONIAC (Construction Industry Advisory Committee) Keeping Pace with Change Working Group and the Construction Industry Council (CIC) Health, Safety & Wellbeing Committee helps me to keep abreast of developments in the CDM & Regulatory arena. This all
feeds into my work as Chair of the Designers Initiative on Health & Safety (DIOHAS) which captures all these relevant issues and shares them with an outward industry facing website. This balance of projects and research greatly enhances my understanding of complex construction design related issues and has enabled me to provide up to date CPD on these issues to the RIBA and many UK Universities.
What are the challenges you face as a technical consultant versus being an architect?
Having trained as an architect I can empathise with the architectural & consultant teams and provide them with confidence to explore their designs at early stages without fear of major errors and redesign, or prosecution. Keeping abreast of new or changes in regulations is the biggest challenge but by constant awareness of publications, CPD and other specialist groups the overall picture becomes clearer. The need to know it all is NOT essential or necessary but knowing what is out there and where to find it quickly is key, then interpreting it appropriately for the project in hand.
You have been an architect for over 40 years, what advice would you give to up and coming architectural students?
Architecture is a fantastically rewarding professional career, although only adequately financially, and provides a rich variety of opportunities to contribute to the ever-increasing complexity of architectural design.
My personal but mild dyslexia has helped me develop a highly 3-dimensional & visual perspective of construction design analysis and encouraged me to avoid hugely bureaucratic reports and measures which are rarely read. Consequently I have developed a CDM Safety Visually & Differently philosophy in my one book “CDM 2015 A Practical Guide for Architects & Designers”. I would encourage anyone with a similarly visual perspective of the world to enter the profession.
Which architect (past or present) do you admire the most and why?
Filippo Brunelleschi-1377-1446 who managed to design & construct the dome of Florence Cathedral in 1423-36 in such a way that no centering scaffolding was required for this 55m span during construction, whilst maintaining the safety of the workforce.
He gained the confidence of the client & construction team by providing exemplar models and 3-D drawings demonstrating the validity of this practical approach whilst achieving the artistic & architectural aspirations of the project, in the face of much opposition from other competitors. As an artist, engineer & construction specialist who studied the building work of ancient Rome, he combined all the skills, knowledge and experience of an architect at the time. He also developed a visual methodology to create accurate perspective drawings from
plans and elevations. This all underpins the way modern architecture is designed ,promoted and built by means of BIM Models & Computer Generated Images.
What expertise are you planning to bring to the ACA Council and Members?
The Principal Designer Toolkit (CDM & BRegs) has been developed over many years with many industry specialists in the face of scepticism and criticism from others who are not prepared to look at alternative ways of achieving safety than by a “Risk Register”.
By making the process more visual and comprehensible, concentrating on key issues the Toolkit demonstrates compliance with regulations in a proportionate and practicable way, which in turn demonstrates competence, and makes this comprehensible to anyone in the client and project team, regulators, third parties and even the judiciary. Support of the ACA would greatly enhance the development & use of this set of documents or tools that combine into a Toolkit.
Tea or coffee? Both in equal measure.
Night owl or early bird? Both depending on the urgency, but prefer early bird.
If you had a super power, what would it be?
To help create beautiful architecture whilst preventing all injuries, ill-health and death to all persons constructing, living in or affected by building or buildings.
Describe an interesting fact about yourself!
I played cricket from an early age at school, university and club level, achieving county schools and senior, over 50 level honours. Whilst working in Zambia after 2 years I qualified for and was selected to the national cricket team playing in the 1981 East African Quadrangular tournament, in Dar es Salam, Tanzania, which we won.
Returning to England I resumed playing club cricket and qualified as a Level 2 Coach, helping to develop my local cricket club from one of relative anonymity with one senior and one junior side to, 6 & 15 sides respectively, in a 15 year period, and establishing them as one of the strongest cricket clubs in Essex. n
Grand & National Halls at Olympia London November 19th (Wed) 9.30am - 5.30pm November 20th (Thurs) 9.30am - 4.30pm
London Build is the UK's largest and leading construction show. Featuring 500+ Exhibitors, 700+ Speakers across 15 CPD Conference Stages, 35,000+ Registered Attendees, 20+ Networking Parties, Meet the Buyers, DJs, entertainment and so much more.
London Build 2024 show highlights: https://youtu.be/il4iWeu3egY?si=QAoZ14v8bsYLh0op
An unmissable two days featuring: 35,000+ registered visitors from contractors, architects, civil engineers, developers, local councils, house builders/associations and construction professionals
700+ inspiring speakers across 15 CPD conference stages including Skyscrapers & Tall Buildings, Digital Construction, Fire Safety, Sustainability, D&I, Skills & Marketing and more
220+ hours of CPD training and education
The UK’s biggest Festival of Construction with DJs,
musicians, live performances, celebrity guests, entertainment and competitions
Meet the Buyers with Procurement Teams exhibiting from top contractors
Architect’s Hub with project displays and 3D models of upcoming projects from leading architects across the UK
Local & Global Government Hubs showcasing opportunities for import/export
20+ Exclusive networking parties co-hosted with leading industry bodies
The UK’s largest networking events for Women in Construction and Diversity in Construction
An inclusive Ambassador Programme supporting Women in Construction, Diversity in Construction, Sustainability in Construction, Mental Health in Construction, Fire in Safety in Construction and Digital in Construction
500+ exhibitors showcasing the latest services, products and innovations transforming the industry Register today at https://www.londonbuildexpo.com/aca-2024
Principal Designer update
In May 2024, we launched the ACA Principal Designer Register which allows our Members to promote to Clients that they have the ability to act as Principal Designer for Building Regulations and demonstrate they have competencies and experience to take on this role.
In continued support of our Members, we have published the PD Register content hub which is located in the ACA Members Area; here you will find a logo for use on your website and stationery, site board creative, guidance and articles to support you in the adoption of the role. We will continue to update information on the content hub as developments occur.
You can refer your Clients to the PD register, however, we would recommend you also develop a personal statement which you can give your Clients or Building Control outlining the self certification process you are required to follow when registering:
• You are aware of and understand the duties of and competencies required of a Principal Designer as set out in PAS 8671 and SI 2023/911.
• You are aware of the duties of a Principal Designer under the Construction (Design and
Management) Regulations 2015.
• You can evidence if required of your experience in leading and /or co-ordinating a design team in preparing Building Regulations level information.
• You have done and will continue to undertake CPD on
- the role of the Building Regulations (BSA) Principal Designer
- the revised Building Regulations approvals procedure (Gateways 1,2,3)
- recent and ongoing changes to the Building Regulations.
- You will ensure that the client is aware of their own duties under the relevant legislation before taking up any appointment as PD.
• You will not accept any appointment as PD where you are not the designer with control over the design work as required by PAS 8671 and SI 2023/911.
• ACA Members will soon be permitted to add architects within their practice to the Principal Designer Register; they must fulfil the self certification process outlined and commit to undertaking the required continued CPD to ensure their experience and knowledge remain up to date. Watch this space for further information.
The criteria may evolve as the industry navigates through the requirements of the PD role.
There is no registration fee and the annual fee is just £100 per year; this nominal fee allows the ACA to maintain and update the register in accordance with the latest guidance and information. n
The Members Area of the ACA website currently hosts two supporting documents. The first is a template for your Building Regulations Principal Designer Competence Statement and the second is advice you need to give to your domestic Client. As we develop further supporting material, we will email you with updates
ACA PRINCIPAL DESIGNER UPDATE
Building Regulations Principal Designer Competence Statement
Building Regulations Principal Designer Competence Statement
Practice Name:
Practice Address:
Email: Website: Tel:
This document sets out the competence of PRACTICE NAME to act as Building Regulations Principal Designer.
The competence criteria for Principal Designers is set out in PAS 8671, which can be found here.
PRACTICE NAME is registered with the Association of Consultant Architects Principal Designer Registerwww.principaldesigner.uk
PRACTICE NAME’s Designated Individuals under the regulations are NAME/s. Their individual Competence Statements are below.
Individual Principal Designer Competence Statement
Date:
Architect Name:
Practice Name:
Position:
Education / Experience / Training
Education and Qualifications:
Relevant Project Experience:
Behavioural Competence as PAS 8670
1a) Ethical Behaviour
Architects are required to act ethically and professionally at all times in accordance with the ARB Code of Conduct. Registered Architects are therefore compliant with the competency requirements for acting as Principal Designer as set out in PAS 8671 & 8670. Add / Edit as appropriate
1b) Leadership, Teamwork & Communication
Architects are trained to act as Lead Designer, are already experienced in this role, and therefore inherently qualified to lead the design team with attendant teamwork and communications skills. Registered Architects are therefore compliant with the competency requirements for acting as Principal Design as set out in PAS 8671 & 8670. Add / Edit as appropriate
1c) Managing Individual Competence
ARB registration requires mandatory CPD including annual training on the Principal Designer role, Building Regulations, Fire Safety, Project Management etc. Registered Architects by doing this, are therefore compliant with the competency requirements for acting as Principal Design as set out in PAS 8671 & 8670. Add / Edit as appropriate
1d) Personal Responsibility and Accountability
Architects are required to act ethically and professionally at all times in accordance with the ARB Code of Conduct. Registered Architects. Registered Architects are therefore compliant with the competency requirements for acting as Principal Design as set out in PAS 8671 & 8670. Add / Edit as appropriate
1e) Respect Duty of Care to Others
Architects are required to act in accordance with the ARB Code of Conduct, which set out standards for respect and duty of care to others. Registered Architects are therefore compliant with the competency requirements for acting as Principal Design as set out in PAS 8671 & 8670. Add / Edit as appropriate. n
A Guide to Your Role and Responsibilities as a Domestic Client
The Principal Designer has to advise the client of their responsibilities under the Act
Safety in Construction: A Guide to Your Role and Responsibilities as a Domestic Client
Construction work can be dangerous, but with increased awareness, it has become much safer. Everyone involved has a role to play, including you as the client. Since 1995, the Construction Design and Management Regulations (CDM) have imposed obligations on clients on most construction projects with regards to health and safety. The Building Safety Act 2022 expanded these responsibilities to include Building Regulations requiring additional appointments and documentation at all stages. This guide aims to clarify your duties as a client and the roles that others play under the regulations.
Does This Apply to My Project?
The regulations apply to all construction projects with more than one contractor. In practice most projects involve a sub-contractor and therefore the regulations are likely to apply in all but very simple single trade projects.
Domestic clients are exempt from some duties. However, this exemption only applies to non-business-related works. New houses and alterations to existing ones are considered domestic, but even modest work on commercial buildings or converting a house into flats is not exempt.
These notes apply to domestic projects under 18 meters tall. Additional regulations apply to buildings over 18m and you should seek further guidance on your duties as a client if your project is above this height.
What is your Role as a Client?
For domestic clients, the responsibilities are:
1 Appointing Competent People: Ensure you appoint suitably qualified individuals to design, build, and sign off on the project. You must appoint a Principal Designer and a Principal Contractor in writing.
2 Providing Relevant Information: Share any relevant information you have about the building or its site.
3 Maintaining Records: Keep records of what was built, including maintenance and operating instructions (the Health & Safety File), and share this with anyone working on your building in the future.
What
is a Principal Designer?
The Principal Designer coordinates the design team to ensure the project is safe to construct and maintain. The Building Safety Act also requires the Principal Designer to ensure the building as designed complies with the Building Regulations.
What
is a Principal Contractor?
The Principal Contractor coordinates the construction phase of the project with regards to health and safety and Building Regulations compliance. Like the Principal Designer, they need to be appointed by you, and you must ensure they are competent. For domestic jobs, if you don’t nominate a Principal Contractor, the role defaults to the contractor, who may not be aware of this responsibility.
What
Services will the Principal Designer Provide?
The services the Principal Designer will provide are:
• Planning, Managing, and Monitoring: Plan, manage and monitor the design work during the design phase with respect to compliance with relevant Building and CDM Regulations.
• Coordination: Coordinate matters related to the design work within the project with respect to compliance with relevant Building and CDM Regulations.
• Documentation: Prepare the CDM Pre-Construction Information File and Hazard Register.
• Liaison: Liaise with the Principal Contractor and share relevant information for the planning, management, and monitoring of the building work for the purpose of compliance with Building and CDM Regulations. This includes coordinating building and design work to meet Building Regulations.
• Client Assistance: Assist the client in providing necessary information to other designers and contractors.
• Health & Safety File: Prepare the CDM Health & Safety File.
Where
can I find out more?
Guidance for Duty Holders including clients can be found here. The full regulations for Duty Holders including Clients, Principal Designers and Principal Contractors can be found here.
NEW ACA COUNCIL
Meet new ACA Council members
Paul Bussey
RIBA, ARB, FIFireE, FASFP,FIIRSM, RMaPS
Paul is an architect with over 40 years experience of architectural practice including job running and consultancy. He has developed a technical expertise in the application of all types of building related legislation and constructional guidance. He represents AHMM Architects Technical Consulting team providing solutions and regulatory compliance to assist project teams to meet their statutory and contractual obligations on all projects.
Paul is particularly interested in how regulations in all “people risk” areas of architecture including fire ,safety, and health, integrate with day to day project risk management especially at design stages, in a proportionate manner.
He was involved with the HSE’s development of the CDM 2007 and 2015 regulations on behalf of the RIBA. He was a member of the HSE IICC & BS 8671 PD Committees, and current Chair of both the CONIAC KPWC & CIC Health, Safety & Wellbeing Committee, and a current member of the RIBA Fire Expert Advisory Group, and assisting their delivery of the previous and forthcoming Principal Designer Course. He is also a member of the CLC& BSR Task & Finish group developing proportionate and deliverable guidance for integration of the new Building Safety Act & Building regulatory change.
Andrew Shepherd Dip Arch (Manc), Dip Cons (AA), RIBA, IHBC, FRSA, ACArch.
Andrew was a partner, then Director, of a longstanding small Sheffield Practice, latterly Elden Minns & Co. Ltd., specialising in conservation and ecclesiastical work. Having completed the Architectural Association postgraduate Diploma in Building Conservation, he was invited to join the course staff, and contributed for the next 13 years.
Arising from that, he has regularly participated over many years, in training programmes for young professionals in Transylvania and many of the Balkan countries, particularly Albania. He is a Trustee of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation and the Wentworth Woodhouse Preservation Trust.
info@andrewshepherdarchitect.co.uk
COUNCIL AND OFFICERS
Council Members
ACA COUNCIL MEMBERS
John Assael DipArch GradDip AA MSc RIBA FRSA, ACArch –Assael Architecture Ltd
johnassael@assael.co.uk Tel: 020 7736 7744
Paul Bussey RIBA, ARB, FIFireE, FASFP,FIIRSM, RMaPS
Allford Hall Monaghan Morris pbussey@ahmm.co.uk
Andrew Catto AADip ACArch HON SECRETARY & IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
Andrew Catto Architects Ltd
Email: ac@andrewcatto.co.uk Tel: 020 8785 0077
Richard Harrison Dipl Arch Poly ACArch
richardlharrison@icloud.com Tel: 07973 213426
PRESIDENT
Patrick Inglis MA(Cantab) DipArch ARB RIBA ACArch
Inglis Badrashi Loddo
Email: patrick@ibla.co.uk Tel: 020 7580 8808
Jonathan Louth
BAHons DipArchM.St(Cantab) ACArch
JONATHAN LOUTH ArConsulting arconsulting@jonathanlouth.co.uk
HON TREASURER
Alfred Munkenbeck RIBA ACArch Munkenbeck & Partners Architects Email: alfred@mandp.uk.com Tel: 020 7739 3300
Andrew Rogers AADip ACArch
DipTP MRTPI
DipEnv&Dev (open)
Andrew Rogers: Planning Email: AR@awrogers.com Tel: 07841 538869
Andrew Shepherd Dip. Arch. (Manc.), Dip. Cons. (A.A.), R.I.B.A., I.H.B.C., F.R.S.A., A,C.Arch.
Andrew Shepherd, Architect info@andrewshepherdarchitect.co .uk
Phil Waind
BA Hons Dip Arch RIBA WGP Architects phil@wgp-architects.com
PRESS OFFICER
Brian Waters MA DipArch(Cantab) RIBA MRTPI
DipTP ACArch
The Boisot Waters Cohen Partnership
Email: brian@bwcp.co.uk Tel: 07957871477
OFFICERS
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
Melanie Hern office@acarchitects.co.uk melaniehern@hotmail.com 07500 180973
DIRECTOR OF ENTERPRISE
Alison Low MA DipArch ACArch and VICE PRESIDENT
Alison Low Architect alisonlowarchitect@gmail.com 07947 320298
STUDENT representative Joanne Wong (Post-graduate, University of Westminster)
sthirunesan@managementfordesign.com
https://m4d.com.au
Fixed Price Mediation
“A Practical, Cost-Certain Solution to Construction Disputes”
Why Mediation Matters in Construction
Construction disputes, no matter their size, are costly, time-consuming, and often damaging to relationships.
Arcadis’ Annual Construction Disputes Report found that the average UK construction dispute is valued at $37.8 million and takes nearly a year to resolve. The causes are familiar: unclear contracts, poor communication, and misunderstood obligations.
While adjudication remains common in the UK, it puts the outcome in someone else’s hands. Mediation is different. It’s faster, less adversarial, and gives you control over the solution.
What the Courts Expect
Under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), courts strongly encourage parties to try mediation or another form of ADR before or even during litigation.
Key provisions include:
• CPR 1.4 – Courts must manage cases justly and proportionately, including by encouraging ADR.
• CPR 3.1(2)(m) – The court may stay proceedings to allow settlement discussions.
• CPR 26 – Judges consider ADR at every stage of case management.
Refusing to mediate can have serious cost consequences.
Cases such as Halsey v Milton Keynes NHS Trust (2004) and Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil (2023) confirm that courts can even require ADR where it is proportionate.
With rising litigation costs and stretched courts, the direction of travel is clear, mediation is becoming an expected step in any civil dispute.
What Makes Evaluative Mediation Different
Unlike purely facilitative mediation, evaluative mediation blends the neutrality of a mediator with the insight of a construction expert. Your mediator can: claims
• Help parties reality-test their positions using professional expertise
• Highlight risks or weaknesses in claims
• Offer structured guidance to help the parties reach a commercially sensible outcome
This pragmatic approach is especially effective in technical or contract-heavy construction cases.
Our “Fixed Fee” Mediation Packages
To make mediation accessible and costeffective, we offer two fixed-price services:
• 1hr pre-mediation meeting (held online on MS Teams) with each party;
• Read-in to the case and preparation for mediation;
• 4hr mediation (held online on MS Teams);
• Preparation of Settlement Agreement
Additional fees will be charged at £100 per hour, per party.
All fees exclude VAT, disbursements and out of pocket expenses
For disputes over £50,000, a tailored quotation will be provided.
Benefits of a Fixed Fee Mediation
The benefits of a “Fixed Fee” Mediation are:
1. It offers cost certainty to the parties so that they can budget for the dispute;
2. It can resolve the issue in a single day, providing a speedy way to resolve your dispute;
3. It could be used to address multiple disputes on the same contract. That is, it could be used to unlock each “issue” rather than tackling everything in one go and this might be helpful to unlock a more major issue and build confidence between the parties to collaborate to resolve their differences on an issue-by-issue basis;
4. You will be appointed an RICS Evaluative Mediator who has experience in dealing with construction matters. This experience can be drawn upon by the parties (if they agree) to help unlock any technical/contractual matter which will be within the sphere of competence of the Chartered Surveyor/Evaluative Mediator as the subject matter expert;
5. All mediations under the “Fixed Fee” scheme will be held online, via MS Teams, using separate rooms and joint rooms to enable both private and joint meetings. This is an efficient way of mediating and can be tailored to the parties’ busy schedules;
6. By conducting mediation, you are following guidance by the courts. Even if the mediation isn’t successful in resolving your dispute, the Mediator can provide evidence to the court, that you have tried ADR.
Our Fixed-Fee Mediation Scheme gives you certainty of cost, flexibility of process, and the confidence of an experienced professional guiding you toward settlement. It’s not about compromise, it’s about control.
Find out more
Neil Thody is a Chartered Surveyor and Fellow of the RICS, CEDR Mediator, RICS Evaluative Mediator, RICS Adjudicator and Independent Adviser, working with clients across multiple sectors. He is also a CMC Registered Mediator. Neil brings deep experience across the construction sector, offering both impartiality and industry insight to help parties reach practical, sustainable resolutions.
For an informal discussion about your requirements, please get in touch at neil@orangepeel.uk
What’s
changing
and what architects need to know,
writes Andrew Hastie
The New R&D Tax Landscape
If your practice has under 500 employees, you’ll have historically been classed as an SME and that means the recent overhaul of the R&D tax relief regime is bound to affect you. Now is the time to get your head around what’s changing. Andy Hastie, Head of Business Development & Marketing at Invennt reveals what’s changed.
The Big Picture: A Merged Scheme Replaces SME and RDEC
From accounting periods beginning on or after 1 April 2024, the old twin-track system will be replaced by a single merged scheme. The only exception will be for loss-making, R&Dintensive SMEs, which will continue to benefit from a more generous relief but due to the thresholds of what qualifies as “R&D intensive,” very few architecture practices qualify.
Under the merged scheme, all qualifying companies will receive a 2o% above-the-line credit for qualifying R&D expenditure, taxed as income. The net benefit, after corporation tax, will typically be around 15–16%. That’s a noticeable reduction for many architecture practices that have historically enjoyed the more generous uplift under the SME rules.
R&D Intensive Businesses
A limited carve-out remains for loss-making SMEs whose R&D expenditure makes up at least 30% of their total costs. These firms can continue to access a higher rate of relief under the Enhanced R&D Intensive Support (ERIS) scheme. There’s also a one-year “grace” period for companies that qualified previously but fall just below the threshold in a later year. In practice, few architectural firms will meet that 30% intensity level, but those working heavily in experimental design, sustainability modelling, or digital prototyping may wish to explore if this applies.
Claim Notification and Additional Information Requirement
Many practices assess R&D every two years, which can create an administrative hoop for some firms to jump through. For accounting periods beginning on or after 1 April 2023, firms must submit a Claim Notification Form (CNF) within six months of the period end to alert HMRC of their intention to claim.
In addition, all new or amended claims now require an Additional Information Form, providing key details about the qualifying projects and costs. Missing either requirement could invalidate or delay a claim.
Clarity on Contracts: Lessons from the Quinn Tribunal
One of the long-running headaches for architects has been the issue of “subsidised” or “contracted-out” R&D. Essentially,
whether client funding makes part of your R&D ineligible for relief. HMRC had historically taken a restrictive view, arguing that much of the R&D undertaken within client commissions was ineligible. The Quinn (London) Ltd tribunal and subsequent cases helped clarify this point. The rulings confirmed that general client payments for project delivery do not automatically make associated R&D work “subsidised”, provided the research is undertaken on the contractors own initiative and not at the direct request of the client.
HMRC has since updated its guidance to reflect those decisions, bringing some much-needed clarity to how architectural R&D is treated.
Planning Ahead
• To ensure there are no surprises practices should get in touch with Invennt to explore how the changes impact their claim. Invennt can help you:
• Model your claims under the merged scheme to see how the new rate affects your net benefit.
• Assess ERIS eligibility if your R&D intensity could meet the 30% threshold.
• Review contracts to ensure that R&D is clearly distinguished from client-mandated development.
• Check timelines for submitting CNFs and Additional Information Forms.
• Tighten your documentation — maintain technical narratives, design logs, and cost records to withstand future HMRC scrutiny.
While the new regime will feel less generous for many, it’s no reason to stop investing in innovation. Architectural practices that remain diligent, well-documented and alert to the shifting landscape can still make strong, defensible claims. The key is understanding that from April 2024 onwards, the rules have changed, and success will come down to how nimbly your practice adapts
Andrew Hastie Head of Marketing & Business Development Andy.hastie@invennt.com.
n
Party conference season, London’s ageing demographic, London’s Office market & Green Belt research
Account of the London Planning and Development Forum meeting on Tuesday 16 September 2025 at the London School of Economics
Discussion topics
I Party conference season
Is the government risking electoral defeat if it ignores local views on its growth plans?
“Unless ministers find a way to balance delivery with democratic legitimacy, they may find their planning reforms have not only reshaped the built environment - but the electoral map as well” – Victoria Yeandle. Speaker: Victoria Yeandle, Associate Planner, Lanpro
II London’s ageing demographic
Speaker: Christine Whitehead, LSE Emeritus Professor of Housing Economics
Speaker: Les Mayhew, Professor of Statistics, Bayes Business School & Chairman of the Mayhew Review
III London’s Office market – a longer view
“We're still oriented towards yet more office growth in central London, preferably in buildings as tall as possible according to the City of London Plan. Does that still make sense post-Covid? Will we return to a London office market at pre-Covid levels of activity or is the need now for more dispersed, remote work options across London (and beyond)?” – Brian Whiteley
Speaker: GLA Gudrun Andrews, planning policy lead at the City Corporation
Speaker: Shabab Qadar, head of London offices research Knight Frank
IV Green Belt research and SME developers
"Nearly 5 years ago I worked with Lichfields to publish some hard hitting research on the challenges facing smaller sites and smaller developers (under one hundred homes). The main challenges: - the viability ask, planning treats smaller sites the same as majors - they take too long to be determined - they become the play thing of nimbys. Five years on the situation has deteriorated. As a industry we have failed to make the case and successive Governments have failed to act.” – Nick Cuff
Speaker: Alex Scarriatta, Group Land Director, Richborough
Report by Riette Oousthuizen of HTA Design also at www.planninginlondon.com >LPDF
Party Conference Season
Is the government risking electoral defeat if it ignores local views in its growth plan?
1. Party Conference Season:
Speaker: Victoria Yeandle, Lanpro
Background: Consultancy involving Planning, Design, and Environment
The presentation addressed electoral shifts and its relationship to devolution. The government has established a national target of 1.5 million homes, with particular focus on developing 'grey belt' land.
Government Initiatives
• New Towns Taskforce
• National Scheme of Delegation
• English Devolution Bill
Strategic Authority Powers
The government proposes creating additional powers for Strategic Authorities, in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, including:
• Newly elected mayors gaining ability to prepare Spatial Development Strategies (SDS), similar to the London Mayor
• Mayoral powers to raise Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and determine planning applications
Key Question: Political Viability of Devolution
Case Study: Ramsey, Huntingdonshire
The discussion centered on whether a top-down approach from strategic authorities could succeed, in particular due to a unique mix of party affiliation across elected officials and how that affects strategic collaboration.
!"!#$%&'()$*)+',-&./0
! !"#$%&%'$#(#)*+,-.$/0,12"*$3/,1*$3$.#+.4+)$)"3-2#$+-$ 5-2(+."$(,)3($6,(+*+).7
! 8#9,04$:$;3+-#<$=&$>,1-)+(.$3-<$*?,$43@,0.7
! A+/#03($B#4,)03*$:$;3+-#<$*"0##$>,1-)+(.
! >,-.#0C3*+C#.$:$A,.*$=D$>,1-)+(.
! A3/,10$:$A,.*$,-#$>,1-)+(
! =&$*,$E,$FC#03(($>,-*0,(
! E3*+,-3($6,(+*+).$<,#.$6(3@$3$630*G$/1*$0#.+<#-*.$3(.,$ ),-)#0-#<$3/,1*$(,)3($+..1#.7
Planning Infrastructure Developments
• Planning Inspectorate handling 814 appeals
• National Infrastructure Projects increasing to 30 projects
Case Study: Meridian Solar Farm, Lincolnshire
• 750MW electricity generation project
• To be determined under Planning Infrastructure Act
• Located in Reform Party stronghold constituency
• Local action groups opposing
Conclusions
Key questions raised include:
- Government narrative positions devolution as gateway to empower local communities but is it working?
on Tuesday 16 September 2025 at
LP&DF TEAM, HOSTS AND SPEAKERS: Riette Oosterhuizen, HTA Design
Brian Waters LP&DF Chairman
Prof Ian Gordon, LSE (host)
Gudrun Andrews City of London Corporation, Victoria Yeandle Lanpro, Alex Scierretta Richborough, Prof Les Mayhew Baynes Business School, Prof Christine Whitehead LSE, Shabab Qadar Knight Frank,
MEMBERS & GUESTS:
Duncan Bowie, UCL, Stephen Heath Bloomsbury Society, Michael Coupe Coupe Planning, D Fitzpatrick UCL, Prof M Edwards UCL, Paul
Discussion
The relationship between Devolution and Local Government
The Government is pushing for unitary authorities at the level of counties or even groups of counties. The problem with this approach in, for example, Surrey and Essex is that it would require different, opposing lobbying groups to work together. It will result in chaos over the next three years.
The Government is also progressing with proposals that groups of authorities will produce Strategic Plans similar to the London Plan. The Government will determine these groupings (and they may not align with the unitary authorities created). The timeline for these Strategic Plans is not clear.
The methodology for determining housing need
Finch Planning in London & emap, Mark Willingale Willingale Assocs,
Darryl Chen Hawkins\Brown, Roger Hepher hgh consulting, Ian Butcher Andrew Martin, Jason Katz UCL, Alex Balkan Sharedvoice, Robert Dolata Highgate Society, Prof Paul Cheshire LSE, Mike Burnell Hopkins Architects, Lee Mallett Planning in London, Deon Lombard architect, Andrew Catto architect, Chris Eaglen architect, Eric Sorensen, John Lett
APOLOGIES:
Brian Whiteley RTPI, Pascal Levine ds2, Thomasin Renshaw Pocket Living, A Wood Age UK London
figures (The Standard Housing Method) is still being reviewed by Government following consultation feedback. Strong representations have been made to review this method by, for example, the Highbury Group. The main criticism is that the housing need figures it produce do not have a direct relationship with local housing need.
The interaction of all of the above components will result in a very messy process. Questions debated by the forum included: would Reform led local authorities want to co-operate? Should there be a Strategic Plan nationally? Do Regional Plans need to align with a National Plan? Will the change in Secretary of State for Housing make a difference to housing strategy?
The Forum discussion then turned to New Towns.
The list of New Towns was still amiss at the time of the meeting with uncertainty around the announcement, but the list has since been announced (on 29 September 2025 prior to the Labour Party conference).
A view was expressed that housing delivery through Government determined New Town locations is a prime example of national politics interfering with localities.
As far as New Town locations are concerned, it is expected the focus will be more on urban extensions rather than actual ‘new towns’, which has now been confirmed.
These New Towns is not expected to be delivered in full in the current Labour term. There will be no actual New Towns prior to 2035.
The New Towns Act is an immediate tool that could be used to enable delivery. It only need altering by a few lines and as such there is an existing legal framework at the ready. Historic New Towns were successful as they were given a lot of money and powers. They effectively bypassed local democracy. They were clear standalone ‘entities’ that could be engaged with.
The town extensions that now seem to be on the agenda may not have any stand-alone autonomous powers. Will they be governed by Local Authorities? Or will Urban Development Corporations be used? Current large scale residential extensions can cause a lot of discontent amongst local residents when social or transport infrastructure is missing. Would planners be able to negotiate the tension between local and wider regional interests? Would we go down a rabbit hole of reinforcing local interests who would never want to support housing in their localities? It is not clear what the mechanisms would be to reconcile these tensions.
Local Government devolution and planning reform is ultimately going in opposite directions although the objective for Strategic Planning is sound. An example is Cambridge. Anglia Water has finally been given permission to relocate its wastewater treatment works to the Cambridgeshire green
London’s ageing demographic
belt. This could free up a brownfield site for 8,500 homes. However, the Government has just pulled the funding for its relocation, which defies logic. !
Speaker: Christine Whitehead, LSE Emeritus Professor of Housing Economics
Christine opened her discussion with the statement that data needs to form the basis for what is said and acted upon. Inner London houses significantly younger households with a peak age group of 25-29. In Outer London the peak age average is 29-35. In comparison, the rest of the country the peak age group is 55-59.
In London there are relatively few older people aged 55 and over. They form 9.5% of the inner London population and 13.8% in the outer parts of London. The component of this group in the rest of the country makes up nearly 20%. So, London has a relatively young population.
London Population Trends
Pre-war London experienced growth
Post-war decline due to government policy and new towns development
Current population: 8.9 million
Projected: 10 million – but notes that the data source for projection is uncertain
Note: the COVID census has also been roundly critiqued, with poor response rates
Immigration and Migration Patterns
Post-Brexit immigration patterns favour other parts of country over London
London is only UK city where population is ageing
Older people increasingly staying in place
Low birth rate in London due to expensive housing and childcare costs
People moving out of London as result
57% of temporary accommodation and homelessness concentrated in London
Housing Delivery Reality
Government targets versus actual delivery significant gap
Housing starts only 5% of government target
No meaningful relationship between targets and delivery reality
Developers not attempting to meet London targets due to cost.
Speaker: Les Mayhew, Professor of Statistics, Bayes Business School and author of the Mayhew Review
Les presented findings of research undertaken on ‘Age Friendly Neighbourhoods and Homes ’. The Mayhew Review identified that 50,000 fewer homes would be required per annum if older people downsized. However, there are insufficient homes of appropriate size and quality for downsizing. Additional barriers include the cost and complexity of moving and location preferences. ‘Age friendly neighbourhoods’ have the following characteristics:
• Proximity of properties to services, away from harm, e.g. congestion.
• Walkability index, reflecting accessibility to services such as health providers, shops, employment, and green space.
• Home-based services efficacy: social care, voluntary services.
Older households are more isolated than younger households. They have specific requirements such as the need to be warm and live in stair-free accommodation. Older households are put off by the drudgery of moving. They might be very attached to a familiar location. There is a shortage of decent homes to live in. Estate agents are not focussed on the needs of older people. The information listed is very biased.
Les has worked on a ‘Home Accessibility Score’. It is an AI tool where the URL of the property listing could be copied into generating a synopsis of everything good/bad about a property, including its physical size, layout, cost per square meter, etc.
Discussion
Whilst one’s stage of life drives the demand for space, it is clear too few homes for older people are being built. Some skepticism was voiced about downsizing as a solution, whilst surveys showed that cost and the lack of availability of suitable homes among existing stock were key barriers. The reality may be both.
Social networks were also thought to play a very important role in relation to age friendly neighbour-
LONDON'S OFFICE MARKET
1()$,.2#0
!"#$%&'"#($)#*+#($,-./0$1"&12$342444$,#(#5$ "-6#7$&$'#&5$(-.80$9#$/##0#0$+,$-80#5$:#-:8#$ 0-(/7+;#0$
<-(#*#52$1"#5#$&5#$/-1$#/-.="$"-6#7$-,$1"#$5+="1$ 7+;#$&/0$>.&8+1'$1-$0-(/7+;#$1-$ ?00#0$1-$1"+7$+7$1"#$@-71$&/0$@-6:8#A+1'$-,$6-*+/= &/0$("#5#$+7$&$=--0$:8&@#$1-$8+*# B/$1"#$CD<!2(#$7.90+*+0#0$1"#7#$+77.#7$+/1-$1(-$ :&517 &=#$,5+#/08'$/#+="9-.5"--07E("&1$&5#$1"#'$ &/0$$@&/$1"#'$9#$6#&7.5#0F &=#$,5+#/08'$"-6#7 @.11+/=$1"5-.="$1"#$"':#$ &/0$6&G+/=$+1$#&7+#5$1-$6-*#
hoods, according to the Older People’s Housing Task Force (OPHTF) which reported at the end of 2024. Les confirmed there is a whole area of study focusing on ‘living in place’. There are many health benefits from living in a well-connected community. It was felt there is no simple story about the growth of London’s population. Immigration plays a role in the profile of the city’s population. International population movement is occurring, of which the effects may be more prominent in
3.().($4*1(('("$5$ 6#7#*.82#(9$:.&/2$ 2##9'("$;<=>?@>ABC
H-5$,.51"#5$+/,-56&1+-/$@-/1&@1$ D5-,#77-5$I#7$%&'"#($$ J8K0K6&'"#(L@+1'71=#-5=#7K&@K.GM$
London. In comparison, a lot of inertia might occur outside of London.
The question about demographics prompted a discussion on why the type of housing built and its suitability in relation to need is not discussed in more earnest by City Hall. Planning policy lacks sophistication regarding housing suitable for older people or others for that matter. What is built is driven by the availability of capital rather than an understanding of need. !
!"#$"%&#&'()&*+,-)"..#&,+)'/)0,"#'0)1"2,).2/3&+,24)
5,%6"7"#$"89):"&(;04)0)"#'"2.%',%14()<
!"#$%"##&$'#&()#(*+,*-.+./0#.)1"2#/&45*'"#5+*3"%#*)1#%"'6.3"%#78"#+"9/8*)1#38*'/#%8&(%#/8*/#&)+0#*'&$)1#:;<#&9# 8&$%"8&+1%#.)#=/&,"#&)#7'")/#8*6"#>:?4.)$/"#(*+,.)@#*33"%%#/")/.%/%A#BC#5'*3/.3"%#*)1#58*'4*3."%#D5&.)/#EFA#(8.+%/#G;<# 8*6"#H:?4.)$/"#*33"%%#DIFJ#E/#/8"#&/8"'#"2/'"4"#+"%%#/8*)#>;<#8*6"#:?4.)$/"#*33"%%#DKFJ#L9#/8"#8"*+/8#5'&6.1"'%#/8"#'.@8/8*)1# 38*'/#%8&(%#1")/.%/%#*%#-".)@#+"*%/#(*+,*-+"#*)1#58*'4*3."%#/8"#4&%/J
London's Office Market
Speaker: Gudrun Andrews, Head of Planning Policy, Corporation of the City of London
Gudrun presented an overview of the City of London's office space planning and trends. She discussed the city's current office market, including key statistics.
She highlighted the importance of monitoring vacancy rates and understanding changing office usage patterns post-COVID, noting that occupiers now want more flexible space with on-site amenities.
She explained the City of London’s role in supporting office growth through planning policies and a new business investment unit.
City of London Context
• Home to 678,000 workers
• Vacancy rate: 1.5%
• One of Europe's strongest pipelines for new, sustainable office space
• Fintech and creatives increasingly want to locate in the city
• Major occupiers (HSBC, Clifford Chance, tech firm CUBE) reaffirming long-term Square Mile presence
• The diversification of the City – Horizon 22 is now one of the 10% global attractions.
• A 58% increase in Lime bike usages in London during the tube strikes show that people have returned back to the office
• There is a wave of new occupiers resulting in rising rents
• 99.6% of office space in the city is within 5 min walk from a tube
City Plan 2040
Status: Latter stage of examination, consultation responses reviewed Identified Need:
3.5 million square meters of additional floorspace required in central London (between 2016 and
2040)
Strong demand for Grade A space
Ease of access to tube, culture, hospitality, retail Finance sector in particular have preference for on site gyms, swimming pools and even nail bars 78% of movers to Central London office market did so for expansion of floorspace reasons. 60% of movers moved less than 0.5 mile. Location is key. Analysis of Development Capacity
• 'Sieving' exercise and modelling to identify office space locations
• 85% capacity in City cluster
• 5% in Fleet Valley
• Confirmed ability to deliver required floorspace
• 98% of businesses in City are smaller and medium enterprises. Need to understand more about sub-market expectations
Office Trends Evolution
Office trends are influenced by: diversification of offer, lower densities, minimization of emissions, environmental performance, upgrading and repurposing of stock.
The City has a strong pipeline. It needs to follow demand. It is important to understand the timetable for delivery.
Potted Historical Timeline:
• Taylorism (1901)
• Frank Lloyd Wright (1939)
• Bürolandschaft (1958)
• Herman Miller (1968)
• Cubicles (1980s)
• Leadenhall (2025)
Current Trends
• “Flight to quality”
• Diversification of City uses with residential such as student accommodation, co-living and serviced apartments. Smaller offices of around 3,000 sqm are more likely to be changed into other uses.
• The City is working on a New Offices SPD to protect existing office floorspace. It provides guidance on strategic locations for offices, and look at different marketing requirements for different type of offices.
• The City launched a City Business Investment Unit in June 2025 providing specialist support for investors, developers and occupiers.
London Office Market - Q2 2025
Speaker: Shabab Qadar, head of London offices research Knight Frank
Market Fundamentals
• London's office market is structurally undersupplied
• Office demand historically cyclical
• There has been a 69% take up of new/refurbished space
• Demand is strong and supply is weak.
Quality-Led Development
• Drive for 'quality-led office space' rich in amenities, communal space and an experience improving general wellbeing
• Better work life balance requires better office space, providing a customer experience to staff
• Within Grade A prime space – only a small percentage available
• The last 5 years of leasing activity in London indicates the development pipeline not keeping pace with lettings activity
• Occupiers are in a drive to find the best space to occupy; even lightly refurbished space goes
• Demand is relatively strong despite the weak economic outlook. The media commentary tends to focus on a 27% vacancy rate but in the City
core the vacancy rate is only 0.5%.
• There is barely 6 months’ supply at present of prime space in the City core sub-market.
• This squeeze will not be alleviated soon. Future completions fall below demand level. It is likely that there will be a prolonged period of under sup-
ply of around 5 years and 11 million square feet.
Core Submarkets
• Prime rents have moved to the West End and Marylebone. Growth of around 5% expected in the West End core and 5.8% in the City Core.
• Strong risk of obsolescence due to regulatory regime. EPC rates do not comply in many instances.
• Levels of refurb is up at record levels in the City.
Discussion
In comparison to the City, Canary Wharf is different all together. A lot of buildings reached the end of their lifecycle. The cost of refurbishment of the towers is very high. There is resistance toward curating better quality office space in this location. Instead, the focus is on office to residential conversions. There is a shift in occupier base with subsequent place based changes to allow for this change.
The City is now popular amongst legal firms, tech companies and hedge funds who occupy large amounts of space and pay large sums of rent. There is a question to what extend the current focus allow for SME’s to thrive in this area.
There is evidence that people are more productive in office space, supporting the need for expansion.
Grade A office space tends to be occupied at
The London Series 2025
lower densities. Even though there is a large amount of floorspace provided, it will not necessarily result in more foot fall or workers.
The growth ambition for office space in the City poses a question regarding the continued need for decentralized office space. Are Royal Docks and Old Oaks office destinations therefore a non-starter?
It was questioned whether ‘Destination City’, a
Green Belt research
major City of London policy driver within its current Plan, conflicted with its ambitions to grow as a Grade A office destination. The City of London’s view was that ‘Destination City’ was very much a product of Covid. The vision has changed now, although green and healthy streets are still a major objective.!"
Speaker: Alex
Sciarretta, Group Land Director, Richborough
This presentation focused on the Metropolitan Greenbelt and housing policy in London.
Alex presented on the current state of the Greenbelt, noting its historical purpose of preventing urban sprawl and discussing how it has been gradually released over the years. He highlighted the challenges in meeting housing targets, including the drop in housing starts from 40,000 to 7,000 in 2024, and the impact of affordable housing requirements on viability.
The discussion included debate about whether the 50% affordable housing requirement on Greenbelt sites is feasible, with some arguing it places too much burden on developers, while others defended its necessity given high housing need. The group also discussed potential reforms to Greenbelt policy and housing delivery, with suggestions for greater government involvement in housing procurement to reduce reliance on market-driven solutions.
Discussion
Comment 1: Market Viability
• Questioning whether there is any Developer interest in sites with a 50% affordable housing requirement
• Affordable/social rent review and £39b pledge for registered providers
• Private developer participation concerns
Comment 2: Development Viability Challenges Housing Consultancy Perspective:
• NPPF guidance changes impact
• 50% affordable housing ‘significant burden on
!"#$%#"&'()*()& +,%-(".%/&0!'+1 2#%"(3(4.%$)&!"##)&5#
6#7#$"8-
!"#$"%&"'()*)+ +4#9 :8.$""#%%$& &!"(,3&'$)*&<."#8%("
9E(&N(."#%#:*.8,&!"((,&K(:.&O!KP&%"(D8.()& .E(&-"(8.*#,&#C&!K&*,&#.E("&%8".)&#C&F,+:8,D& QE*-E&Q("(&%"#M#.(D&*,&8&!#R(",M(,.& S*"-$:8"&*))$(D&*,&2A11T 9#Q,&8,D&S#$,."J&?:8,,*,+&/-.&2A3@&8::#Q(D& >#-8:&?:8,,*,+&/$.E#"*.*()&O>?/)P&.#& *,-#"%#"8.(&+"((,&U(:.)&Q*.E*,&.E(*"& D(R(:#%M(,.&%:8,)& '(-"(8)(D&*,&)*V(&)*,-(&2AA@&QE(,&*.& Q8)6554555E8
=5&78&*,&H().&I$))(0 ! 25=42A5&78&*,&I$""(J ! =<4;65&78&*,&K(DC#"D)E*"( ! 124A;<&78&*,&K$-L*,+E8M)E*"( ! =345<5&78&*,&K("L)E*"(
2&314.*$1$ 5" 3$ 6 &/.&/$% ' 1/$
! " #$%& '( ) (" *
!"#$%&'()*+#%,*-*&. (//0111(234 ! 567(8",9%&'(8%.:(;","#':$(."(2*.*,-%&*(:"#$%&'(,*+#%,*-*&.(<",( *4=:(;","#':8:%=:(%$(2*.*,-%&*2(;4$*2("&(=434=%.>(,4.:*,(.:4&( &**2($*&.(2"8&(<,"-(?@A( ! B&2%=4.%C*(:"#$%&'(.4,'*.$(<",(*4=:(;","#':(*D3*=.*2( E=.";*,FG"C*-;*,(H1HIA
5,**&(J*K.
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
PK4&(P*,%"2( ! ?#''*$.*2(QIL>*4,(3*,%"2(."(4K%'&(8%.:(".:*,(6P7$(4&2(=*,.4%&.>(<",( $.,4.*'%=(2*K%C*,>
clients’• High CIL rates
• Difficulties with Scheme viability
Comment 3: Long-term Green Belt Policy
These are short term issues. Planning needs a wider strategic view.
• GLA lacks a coherent Green Belt policy – what will the picture be in 30 years?
• Viability questions are based on land values that may change with policy shifts and as such it is ‘fictitious’, but altogether real in the immediate term
Comment 4: Reality Check on Delivery
• London Plan is totally divorced from reality: allocates 88,000 homes annually
• Historically delivery has been approximately 30,000 homes
• Plan described as based on "fiction" with institutional blindness to gaps between policy and delivery, amounting to a kind of "political cowardice" in addressing delivery shortfalls. No one expects to meet targets.
• Grey Belt as improvisation "planning by appeal" while broader strategic guidance developed. !
!"#$%&%'(%
+ ( , " $-. " /, ( 0 ( )1, ( &/
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
!"#$%&'$()*+,-.'/0$'.11*'2*3 2%&2 3*4',2,*'$-5 667 3(& 8-./3 9* &8% *+*3 -4$!)**4 :*/2$)*/*&'*'$,4 ;45,*/3< =%* >&)?*2@/*3 &(()-&8%$ '$5-)$AA 3(%$2&88->>-3&2* 5/&2'$&43$%-.'*' =&9/* 9*/-B 3*>-4'2)&2*'$%-B >&40 %->*'$!:$)*/*&'* 8-./3 3*/,+*)C !)*#!"+#,-'&%#./#0%1%&.23%45
6 7 2%#./#0%1%&.23%45
D*',3*42,&/ ! E/&22*3 3*+*/-(>*42 66F -5 &55-)3&9/*$%->*'$3*/,+*)*3 ,4$"-43-4 -+*)$2%*$(&'2 G7 0*&)'$B*)*$%-.'*'$-)$9.41&/-B' H.2*)$"-43-4 9-)-.1%'$B%*)*$!: ,'$8&44-2 &9'-)9 /&)1* +-/.>*'$-5 5/&22*3 3*+*/-(>*42 ! I*B =-B4'$=&'?5-)8* J67K777L$%->*'M ,4 /-8&2,-4'$B,2%$1--3 &88*''$2-$(.9/,8 2)&4'(-)2< N-B*+*)K /-41*)$2*)> &43$)*O.,)*' >-)* 8-//&9-)&2,+* B-)?,41 &8)-''$9-)-.1%' ! N-.',41$)*O. )*>*42 ,48)*&'* ,4 H.2*)$"-43-4 9-)-.1%'
P43.'2),&/ ! Q2)&2*1,8 P43.'2),&/$"&43 JQP"M ,4 &)*&'$/*''$'.,2&9/* 5-)$%-.',41 ,<* %,1%$4-,'* *+*/'$-)$9*22*)$8-44*82,-4'$2-$)-&3 4*2B-)?$)&2%*)$(.9/,8 2)&4'(-)2 ! R&2& S*42)*'
!"#$%&' ( )*+), (H2I54&%>(5'(=?(&+(53$#"(:>(%1#(.5$"5$(?545;@1+(31&61(128#(:##$( "&+65;$%#"('45J(5;4(+#2461C(K1#($#B%(724@#+%(72$"53$#4+(&"#$%&'&#"(3#4#( &$"&8&";27+(2$"(!$8#+%54+LM5J92$>+C( K1#4#(24#(58#4(,*N(=57'(M5;4+#+(3&%1&$(%1#(HDOP(J2$>(5'(31&61(24#( 53$#"(:>(%1#(?545;@1(H2>54(54(65;$6&7(C(Q&%1(2(%5%27(24#2(5'(-PFF,(12P( ,PORD(5'(31&61(24#(9;:7&67>(53$#"C
The Conservation, Heritage, Restoration & Building Journal
Our Journal is distributed on a controlled circulation and subscription basis quarterly to key decision makers in organisations in the world of Conservation, Heritage and Ecclesiastical matters.
Conservation & Heritage Journal keeps abreast of what’s happening in this important sector of our culture with the latest news and a wide range of informative features written by well-respected individuals and organisations in their specialised field of expertise.
With a readership of over 22,000 and growing to a highly targeted audience, Conservation & Heritage Journal is an A4 perfect bound full colour journal published quarterly, this makes it a unique vehicle to advertise specialist skills, product and services so essential to this sector.
Our website has all our latest news and articles, it also has a ‘Search’ function where you can search for tradesman, craftsmen and suppliers. In this search you can obtain contact details, examples of work and company history.
Visit our website at: www.consandheritage.co.uk Or Email: nigel@consandheritage.com
For architects, by architects
R&D tax relief claim assessment and preparation assisted by chartered architects working hand in glove with tax experts.
The sticking point for many architecture practices when assessing and preparing their R&D tax relief claim is the professional language barrier that exists between architects and accountants. Because Invennt’s team includes RIBA qualified architects working hand-in-glove with tax experts we can breakdown this barrier and make R&D tax relief assessment effortless. When paired with our specialist eDiscovery technology we can be more forensic, produce a more persuasive supporting narrative for HMRC and remove virtually all the burden on our clients.
20%
…of eligible practices in the AJ100
£4.8m …in benefit claimed for architecture practices since 2016
Invennt’s R&D tax relief assessment service has been invaluable, thanks to their use of qualified architects who truly understand the technical detail and nuances of our industry. Their expertise made the process seamless and ensured we maximized the benefits. I highly recommend them.
John Assael Chairman, Assael Architecture
www.invennt.com
41%
…lower HMRC enquiry rate than the industry average.
£18.9m …of eligible cost identified in architecture practices
Book a Consultation
Please contact Andrew Hastie to find out how Invennt can improve both the process and outcome of recovering R&D tax relief.
Andrew Hastie Head of Marketing & Business Development
Andy.hastie@invennt.com
07948 281 571
Architect Appointment subscription service
The ACA offers two Architectural Appointment Agreements:
1) The ACA Professional Services Agreement (PSA22) is the refreshed published contract for small and domestic works. With many standard form building related agreements becoming ever more lengthy and complex, the ACA PSA22 seeks in its concise format to provide a fair basis for an agreement between a client and an Architect when it comes to building projects of a simple nature. The Agreement is suitable for both Consumer and Commercial entity Clients.
Individual copies can be purchased through our Shop page with ACA Members entitled to an exclusive 25% discount; £27 plus VAT.
2) The Standard Form of Appointment Agreement (SFA24) with our President, Patrick Inglis quoting:-
“This update of the popular contract between client and architect meets the need for a fair and balanced Standard Form of Agreement which has been updated to comply with current legislation. New for 2024, the agreement is now available in digital format for speed and ease of use”.
Individual copies can be purchased through our Shop page with ACA Members entitled to an exclusive 25% discount; £37.50 plus VAT.
For both Appointment Agreements, we’ll need the Site Address which will be applied as the watermark on the PDF which will be emailed to you.
The ACA also offers a subscription service for both Appointment Agreements which provides you with an unlimited supply of agreements, costs efficiencies and saves time as removes the need to purchase / download a separate agreement every time a new one is required.
With a 20% Member discount PSA22 is available at only £10 per month and the SFA24 at £15.00 per month. Plus, as a step further, for increased cost efficiencies and ease, we have introduced the combination package which offers an unlimited supply of both agreements; and with the 20% Member discount comes to £20.00 per month.
Individual copies and the subscription service are available at https://acarchitects.co.uk/shop/
Robert Peake of Management for Design discusses succession planning
BUSINESS SUPPORT FOR MEMBERS
Successful leadership succession
Succession planning is merely the first step in a much broader process — one that culminates in new leaders stepping confidently into key roles within a business. While there is no onesize-fits-all formula for succession, the objectives remain broadly consistent: to preserve the core values of the organisation, retain and build client relationships and capabilities, and ensure the business continues to function smoothly in line with its original vision.
However, many design and engineering firms struggle to identify their next generation of leaders — those who will sustain creative standards, nurture clients, and drive the business forward. If you find yourself in this position, you are not alone. Research by Management for Design reveals that only one in ten firms has a succession plan in place, and of those, most are executed in a reactive and disjointed fashion.
That said, the most successful leadership transitions occur in organisations that have spent years fostering a culture that supports natural succession. Leadership transition is not a single event — it is an evolution.
Leadership in Design Practices
Succession in design and engineering practices differs significantly from other industries. Key distinguishing traits include:
• Leaders are often the public face of the firm and play a central role in client acquisition and relationships.
• Principals are deeply involved in project delivery and often struggle to detach from day-to-day operations.
• Financial matters are frequently kept confidential, limiting potential successors’ understanding of the business.
• Business management is often seen as secondary to design excellence and project outcomes.
• Profit can be deprioritised in favour of producing outstanding work or achieving impact.
• Successor generations may lack the entrepreneurial mindset of the founders and be less willing to take risks.
• Client relationships are typically more personal and deeply rooted than in many other sectors.
As a result, letting go can be emotionally difficult for founders whose businesses reflect their personal vision and years of hard work. Today’s emerging leaders are also more mobile and independent, often seeking broader experiences or starting their own ventures — a trend made easier by technology.
Distinguishing Leadership from Ownership
Succession involves two distinct but related elements: leadership succession and ownership succession.
• Ownership is a legal and financial process — involving valuation, accounting, and transfer of equity.
• Leadership is about how the business is managed: client relationships, project delivery, team development, and strategic direction.
Both aspects must be planned and executed in parallel. However, developing leadership is by far the more complex challenge.
Creating a Culture of Succession
Succession is not a single moment in time — it is a cultural mindset embedded in the day-to-day workings of the business. It requires an environment where leadership is shared, and the following attributes are actively practised:
• Trust and transparency
• Open communication and sharing of rewards
• Identification and promotion of standout talent
• Collaboration and innovation
• A commitment to personal and professional development
• Accountability and ethical integrity
• Delegation of client and design responsibilities
• Internal promotion wherever possible
In multi-generational firms, these traits are deeply ingrained and underpin a high-performance culture. While many firms have some of these qualities in place, those who succeed at succession cultivate all of them consistently.
Identifying Future Leaders
Today’s professionals are often more loyal to their careers than their employers. They seek autonomy, diverse experiences, and rapid development — including early pathways to ownership.
The most talented individuals will often:
• Possess strong technical skills
• Align with the company’s values
• Demonstrate initiative and accountability
• Build trusted client relationships
• Show leadership potential, even in the early stages of their careers
Robert Peake is principal at Management for Design
BUSINESS SUPPORT FOR MEMBERS
To retain them, businesses must be proactive. Make the pathway to leadership and ownership visible and act early to engage them.
When recruiting, prioritise cultural fit and attitude over skills alone — the latter can be developed.
Key Steps for Succession
Successful leadership succession involves unlocking the potential of existing talent and enabling them to thrive. Here are five critical steps:
1 Articulate the Opportunity
Share your story and expectations. Make the pathway to leadership clear by explaining what success looks like in your firm and how it is achieved.
2 Provide Support and Exposure
Mentor future leaders by giving them insight into business operations — financials, proposals, systems, fee structures — and gradually expand their influence.
3 Foster Openness
Involve emerging leaders in key decisions and support their autonomy. Begin handing over responsibility in a structured and supportive way.
4 Set Clear Performance Expectations
Define what constitutes strong leadership in your business. Ensure there are short- and long-term goals aligned with financial, operational, and client outcomes.
5 Clarify Ownership Pathways
Explain how ownership works, including valuation methodology, buy-in expectations, and how transitions are funded and timed.
When these steps are followed with clarity and intent, businesses foster loyalty, engagement, and long-term success.
Linking Ownership and Leadership
Ownership and leadership must be aligned. However, newer generations may not view ownership as the goal — for some, it’s a burden rather than an opportunity. To attract future owners, firms must rethink their ownership models:
• Offer more flexible and accessible ownership structures
• Increase transparency in decision-making and finances
• Share leadership responsibilities earlier Owners must adapt their perspective and accept that future leaders may operate differently — and that’s okay.
Common Pitfalls
Succession can fail for several recurring reasons:
• Poor leadership dynamics: Inequity in effort or contribution can lead to tension and hinder transition.
• Lack of leadership development: Too much focus on operations and not enough on mentoring future leaders.
• Inadequate financial planning: Younger staff may not have the resources to buy in without structured support.
• Emotional reluctance to let go: Even when financially ready, current owners may struggle with handing over control.
• Late planning: Leaving succession too late makes it difficult to establish readiness or smooth transitions.
Getting Started
If you’re a business owner considering your succession plan, ask yourself:
• Why do I want successors?
• What are my options — internal or external?
• How much time do I have?
• How will the transition be funded?
• What do the next generation of leaders want?
• Where is the firm in its lifecycle?
• What makes the business unique?
• Do I need external support?
• Is there already a culture of succession in place?
Final Thoughts
At Management for Design, we’ve seen countless examples of succession discussions that go nowhere. There’s no formula — every business is different. But the principles of successful succession remain the same: foster a culture that engages your people beyond project work, and let succession emerge naturally.
Above all, don’t delay. If you’re stuck or struggling to move forward, act now.
Succession isn’t planning — it’s doing. n
New member benefit
BSI, the UK National Standards Body, is reviewing how best to support SMEs with access to standards. A pilot commenced in 2024, aimed at start-up/micro businesses in the UK, that provides unfettered access to the BSI digital standards library via their Knowledge platform.
The ACA has teamed up with BSI to allow ACA micro/small practice members access to the offer that includes:
• Access to full text viewing of the complete BSI Knowledge online library core content set of BS, BS EN, BS EN ISO/IEC, PAS (excluding BS 7671 Wiring Regs which are co-published with IET) https://knowledge.bsigroup.com
• Circa 90,000 full text documents (current, historical, withdrawn, draft)
• Ability to set up alerts to track standards and receive email notifications if a standard changes
• Unlimited searching and viewing (no download or printing)
• Video of the Knowledge library functionality: BSI Knowledge for Micro Video https://knowledge.bsigroup.com
£360 per year (plus VAT) for micro businesses 1-5 employees and <£632K turnover per year £720 per year (plus VAT) for micro businesses 6-10 employees and <£632K turnover per year
If you are a micro/small practice fulfilling the above criteria and would like to know more about the offer and how to sign up, please complete this expression of interest form: https://pages.bsigroup.com/l/35972/202508-12/3t93zqy ACA Expression of Interest Form for BSI Micro Offer and a representative from BSI will contact you.
Please note, dependent on number of enquiries, BSI will do their best to respond as quickly as possible.
Be
Are you prepared for your professional indemnity insurance renewal?
PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE
Awaab's Law: What is it and what property managers and surveyors must know by October 2025. Guest article written by Ella Green and Kat Cusack at RPC
Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025, which was introduced in section 42 of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 and is known as "Awaab's Law", is due to come into force on 27 October 2025. Awaab's Law seeks to ensure safer housing conditions for tenants by holding landlords to account.
It is particularly important for property managers and surveyors to be aware of this legislative reform and to have a plan in place by October 2025. This article therefore sets out the key requirements and steps to be considered.
Background
Awaab's Law is named after two-year-old Awaab Ishak who tragically died in 2020 due to a respiratory condition caused by prolonged exposure to damp and mould in his home, despite repeated complaints from his family and health professionals to the housing association.
The inquest into Awaab’s death exposed flaws in existing legislation and prompted the government to introduce better protection for tenants and hold landlords to account for failing to address dangerous living conditions.
The Law
In February 2025, Angela Rayner, Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, introduced Awaab's Law to parliament.
Ms Rayner confirmed that Awaab's Law will come into force for social rented housing from October 2025. She also stated that the government would use new powers in the Renters Rights Bill to extend Awaab's Law to the private sector.
In summary, Awaab's Law seeks to protect tenants from dangerous health and safety hazards including damp and mould, asbestos and domestic and personal hygiene hazards (amongst others). It gives tenants the right to demand repairs to ensure their homes are safe and provides a legal obligation on landlords to investigate and repair health hazards within strict time limits.
Phase 1 – Mould, damp and emergency hazards
(From October 2025)
The government will introduce time limits and other statutory requirements on social landlords in respect of mould, damp and "emergency hazards".
An emergency hazard is defined as one that poses "an imminent and significant risk of harm" to the health or safety of the tenant. An ‘imminent and significant risk of harm’ is defined as "‘a risk of harm to the occupier’s health or safety that a reasonable social landlord with the relevant knowledge would take steps to make safe within 24 hours".
The requirements include:
1 Emergency hazards must be investigated and remediated within 24 hours of being reported to the social landlord.
2 Social landlords must investigate reports of damp or mould within 14 days.
3 A written report summarising the findings of the investigation must be provided to the tenant within 48 hours and no later than 14 days after the tenant's complaint.
4 If a hazard is identified which is a significant risk to health and safety, the repairs must be carried out within 7 days of the report being issued.
5 If the repairs cannot be completed within the prescribed time limits, the social landlord must offer the tenant alternative accommodation.
Phase 2 – Expansion of hazards (from 2026)
Statutory time limits will be introduced for other types of "significant hazard" including excess cold, health and hygiene risks, and fire, electrical faults and explosions.
A significant hazard is defined as a "significant risk of harm" to the health or safety of a tenant. A "significant risk of harm" is defined as "a risk of harm to the occupier’s health or safety that a reasonable lessor with the relevant knowledge would take steps to make safe as a matter of urgency".
Phase 3 – All remaining hazards (By 2027)
Awaab's Law will be extended to include all remaining hazard in the Housing Health & Safety Rating System (except overcrowding). This includes (amongst others) protection against accidents and protection from: asbestos and manufactured min-
Ella Green is an associate and Kat Cusack is a Partner with RPC
eral fibres, biocides, carbon monoxide and fuel combustion products.
Property managers
Awaab's Law will first apply to social housing landlords, but it is expected to be extended to private landlords by the Renters' Rights Bill.
Property managers acting on behalf of landlords should prepare for the upcoming regulation by taking proactive steps now.
Property managers should educate their landlord clients on their obligations under Awaab's Law. Mindful of the order in which the phases are being rolled out, property managers may wish to prioritise those properties where a risk of mould or damp has been identified.
Checks should be made generally to ensure that inspections of all social housing properties have been carried out as required by the lease and if any have been missed, these should take place as soon as possible to minimise the risk of a claim being pursued by the tenants. Property managers should consider increasing the frequency of inspections of properties where there is higher risk of a hazard occurring (such as older buildings) and instruct staff to use pre-prepared checklists to help identify the early signs of damp and mould.
Landlords and/or their managing agents must have appropriate policies and systems in place to ensure oversight of their clients' properties and that they are able to enable their clients to meet the strict statutory deadlines.
This includes implementing a system that allows tenants to report hazards and enables property managers to quickly and easily access these reports and respond to tenants within the required timeframes. Property managers should also make suitable
arrangements with reliable surveyors and contractors to ensure they can carry out inspections and emergency repairs expeditiously and in accordance with the deadlines.
The only defence to an allegation of breach is that the landlord used "all reasonable endeavours" to avoid the breach. Proving this this will be fact specific but may include situations such as where the landlord or managing agent has been unable to gain access to a property or obtain the necessary approvals or specialist materials and/or contractors for works. The onus will be on the landlord and may in turn fall to the managing agent if responsibility lies with them under the terms of the property management agreement.
Property managers should keep detailed evidence of their actions and decision making in case they are required to prove that they/the landlord have used "all reasonable endeavours" should a breach of the regulations occur. This includes retaining a comprehensive log of all inspections, actions taken and communications with third parties such as tenants, surveyors and contractors which includes dates and times in order to demonstrate compliance with timescales at each stage.
Surveyors
Surveyors' workload is likely to increase as a result of Awaab's Law and their role will become vital in identifying and reporting on hazards. Therefore, surveyors should educate themselves on landlords' requirements under the legislation.
Surveyors will need to conduct thorough investigations into reports of damp, mould and other hazards. This includes having a good understanding of the Housing Health & Safety Rating System and using modern technology to detect hazards.
Surveyors will also need systems in place to prioritise inspections of "emergency hazards" and to ensure that reports are provided quickly as delays could result in the landlord breaching the statutory time limits.
Good record-keep and comprehensive reports will also be vital for surveyors since a landlord may rely on surveyor's advice if it is accused of breaching the requirements. Thorough reports and notes could
also assist surveyors in defending a claim from a disgruntled landlord who has been penalised.
Howden PI Perspective
As mentioned above, good record-keeping will put you in good stead, in the event of a claim. To be able to have all necessary information required by insurers in the early stages of a claim ensures that the matter is handled with clarity and efficiency, taking stress out of deadlines and allowing ample time for strategy to be considered.
However, from a Professional Indemnity Insurance perspective, the steps outlined above will not only assist in defending a claim in the event one is pursued it will also evidence to insurers the proactive steps being taken as part of the overall risk management strategy for the company. This will form part of any company’s renewal presentation and should ensure that it satisfies insurers minimum requirements for this type of work.
– Archie Barwick, Claims & Technical Executive, and Jamie Russell, Associate Director, Financial Lines Group Claims
Conclusion
In summary, with Awaab’s Law coming into force from October 2025, property managers and surveyors must act now to ensure that they have
robust systems in place for identifying, responding to, and remediating hazards such as damp and mould within strict statutory timeframes. Proactive and thorough inspections, clear recordkeeping, and prompt communication will be essential to demonstrate compliance and avoid liability as these new obligations take effect. n
This article has been written by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP "RPC" and the opinions and views stated in this article are those of RPC and not Howden Insurance Brokers Limited (“Howden”). Howden is an insurance broker and is not authorised or regulated to advise on the guidance notes regarding Awaab's Law. Howden shall not (i) owe or accept any duty, responsibility or liability to you or any other person; and (ii) be liable in respect of any loss, damage or expense caused by your or any other party’s reliance on this article. ella.green@rpclegal.com, kat.cusack@rpclegal.com
The Members Area of https://acarchitects.co.uk hosts an array of content and creative assets
Are you getting the most from your ACA membership?
The Members Area hosts an array of content and creative assets which are free for you to download and review or use to promote your practice; this is located at the top red panel of the ACA website and you just need your username (email address) and password to access. Don't worry if you have forgotten your password then, you can reset it!
As a recap, the Knowledge Hub holds the library of previous Newsletters which you can download as well as useful
and all our recent News articles.
Marketing Creative Assets hosts the ACA logo which can be used on your website and stationery; we have also developed creative for an ACA Site Board; you just need to incorporate your practice details and have the board printed for use on your project sites.
Thank you to member Tim at Chetham Architecture Design for supplying the photo!
Our Members Area is where you can also find: • Principal Designer Guidance, Articles, Logo, Site Board Creative, Domestic Client Duties and Competency Statement templates
All of which are available to support you when you take on the role of Principal Designer. Our register has been created to provide a platform for architects in private practice to
Image: Tim Chetham
demonstrate their competence as Principal Designers under Building Regulations established by the Building Safety Act.
If you haven't already, you can register at www.principaldesigner.uk - it's a quick and easy process at just £100 a year plus VAT.
Here’s the text of the ACA’s submission to ARB in response to their consultation
ARB CODE OF CONDUCT
ARB: proposed new Code of Conduct
The ACA is a professional body for architect principals and represents architects working in private practice as well as promoting excellence in practice. We have nearly 500 architect principal members across the full range of practice sizes and therefore represent a substantial proportion of architects.
We have significant concerns about the new code of conduct. In particular the repeated use of broad and ill-defined language in many standards as well as un-caveated absolute terms such as “must”, will potentially expose architects to unwarranted complaints and sanctions. We therefore do not think that many of the standards are reasonable as currently worded. Our specific comments on each standards are set out below.
Guidance on some of these issues is welcomed, but quite a few are just unnecessary duplication of other already existing legislation that will potentially lead to confusion and greater exposure to risk for architects. This is overreach by ARB and the extent of guidance should be substantially reduced from that proposed.
Standard 1 - Honesty and integrity
1.1 Act impartially and exercise professional judgment based on the evidence available
Agree
1.2 Promote their services responsibly and accurately.
Agree.
1.3 Declare and manage any conflicts of interest appropriately.
Agree.
1.4 Are open and honest about any payments or inducements offered or received.
Agree
1.5 Report to ARB any instance where their own professionalism may be called into question, or any apparent breach of this Code by another architect.
Disagree. This requires architects to second guess whether a client might complain, which is unreasonable. The requirement to report other architects for even minor infringements places an unreasonable burden on architects. In particular junior architects maybe be placed in an impossible position by this requirement.
1.6 Co-operate with any formal inquiries or ARB investigations.
Disagree. It is unreasonable to require blanket co-operation with all enquires where there might be vexatious complaints.
Standard 2 - Public interest
The wording of the standard is highly problematic. “Must” is an absolute standard and the standard is worded in a way that is far too broad and puts far too much responsibility on architects. The standard states that architects must prioritise the public interest over everything else.- potentially including making a decent living or the interests of their client. The absolute requirement to prevent harm to others is unreasonable and in combination with other standards such as 2.1 leaves architects exposed to vexatious complaints and conflicts of interest with their client. Overall this standard as worded is unreasonable.
2.1 Use their best endeavours to enhance the environment in which we live.
Disagree. This is far too broad and “best endeavours” is far too absolute and will invite potentially vexatious complaints by clients or environmental activists. This standard is therefore unreasonable. There is no standard of reasonableness in line with other professional obligations.
2.2 Protect the health and safety of those who construct, maintain and use buildings and places.
Disagree. This is too broad and absolute given the role that architects have in constructing buildings. This is also covered by other legislation and therefore unnecessary. There is no standard of reasonableness in line with other professional obligations.
2.3 Challenge others where their actions may put people at risk, and report them to an appropriate authority when those risks are not adequately managed.
Disagree. This is already covered by 2.2 and by other legislation. Broad and absolute wording with no test of reasonableness may leave architects exposed to vexatious complaints.
2.4 Advise clients of their legal responsibilities and withdraw from any commission which is unlawful or requires them to act contrary to these Standards.
Disagree. Architects are not lawyers and not qualified to give legal advice. This standard is unreasonable as worded. In theory as worded and in combination with the current wording of 2.1 this could require architects to withdraw from projects where a client wanted a gas boiler or did not want to add PVs. This stan-
dard is unreasonable as worded.
3.1 Acknowledge and work within the limits of their competence, expertise and experience.
Agree.
3.2 Adopt a reflective approach to their work by identifying individual learning needs, ensuring they are up to date with current standards and best practice.
Disagree. A reasonable requirement would be to make sure architects are up to date with current standards by carrying out CPD. Anything wording beyond this is unnecessary and unreasonable. “Best practice” is too broad.
3.3 Seek and reflect on feedback from others, so they can apply what they have learned to future work.
Disagree. This is unnecessary and unduly onerous. It would be unreasonable for an architect to be sanctioned for failing to invite feedback from all “others”.
3.4 Appoint only competent people to carry out work.
Disagree. What is meant by “appoint” or “work? This potentially carries too much liability for architects and is unreasonable as worded.
3.5 Provide appropriate supervision and sufficient resources to people they appoint to carry out work.
Disagree. What is meant by “appoint"? This potentially carries too much liability.
3.6 Encourage the professional development of those for whom they are responsible.
Disagree. What is meant by “responsible”? This is not clearly worded and therefore potentially carries too much liability.
3.7 Maintain their knowledge and understanding of guidance issued by ARB in support of these Standards.
Disagree. Is this really covered by the Architects Act?
4.1 Provide written terms of engagement which are understood by their client before commencing work.
Agree.
4.2 Plan, monitor and manage their work in a timely manner.
Agree.
4.3 Have sufficient resources and capacity to provide their services effectively.
Agree.
4.4 Establish quality assurance processes to ensure projects are regularly monitored and reviewed.
Disagree. Wording is too absolute with no standard of reasonableness in line with other professional obligations.
4.5 Maintain proper records of their work and decisions.
Agree.
4.6 Protect the confidentiality and security of information for which they are responsible.
Disagree. This is already covered by national legislation and there is no need for duplication.
4.7 Ensure their liabilities are covered by adequate and appropriate professional indemnity insurance.
Disagree. It should be up to the individual person or firm to make these decisions.
4.8 Deal with disputes or complaints promptly and professionally.
Agree but needs to be clearly defined.
4.9 Manage their finances properly.
Agree.
5.1 Communicate professionally and in a way that will be understood by their audience.
Agree but needs to be clearly defined.
5.2 Understand and confirm their clients’ requirements before committing to work.
Agree.
5.3 Explain their role, and manage the expectations of others as to what might be achieved.
Agree.
5.4 Communicate any issues that may impact the cost, time or quality of a project in a timely manner.
Disagree. Wording is too absolute with no standard of reasonableness in line with other professional obligations.
5.5 Collaborate proactively with other professionals to achieve positive outcomes.
Agree with the sentiment but what if a "positive outcome" is not achievable under any circumstances. This needs rewording.
6.1 Are polite and considerate.
Disagree. This is subjective.
6.2 Display a committed approach to equity, diversity and inclusion, including in their approach to designing environments and in their relationships with colleagues, employees, clients and communities.
Disagree. Agree with the sentiment, but the word “committed’ is too absolute and broad and invites potentially vexatious complaints. This is already covered by national legislation so only needs aspirational wording.
6.3 Contribute to a positive and inclusive working environment.
No problem with this, but is this really necessary in the Code? This is covered by other legislation already.
6.4 Maintain and respect professional and personal boundaries. No problem with this, but is this really necessary in the Code? This is covered by other legislation already. n
ACA forms of appointment
The ACA publishes two architectural appointments.
The highly successful SFA 2012 – Standard Form of Agreement for the Appointment of an Architect – which has now been refreshed and launched as SFA24 available only in digital format at £50 plus VAT.
Secondly, our updated contract of architectural appointment the PSA22 which is for small and domestic works.
Available only in a digital format £36 plus VAT, however, pricing includes cover copies for both parts of the agreement.
Both contracts are available individually or through our subscription service; members discounts are available https://acarchitects.co.uk/shop/'
> Download the worked example of SFA 2012 edition (with updates) as a ‘taster’ from here: https://tinyurl.com/b2d6rmz7
ACA CPD events
2025
NOVEMBER
ACA Networking Drinks
Tuesday 11th November
Venue: The Sekforde, 34 Sekforde Street, Farringdon, London EC1R OHA
from 6:30pm
Members and colleagues welcome; please email Melanie at office@acarchitects.co.uk
London Build Expo Olympia
Wednesday 19th to Thursday 20th November
Grand and National Halls at Olympia London
DECEMBER
London Planning & Development Forum
Tuesday 2nd December at HTA Design
To attend just email editor@planninginlondon.com
Christmas - ACA Office Closed
Christmas Eve Wednesday 24th
December to New Year - Monday 5th
2026
Look out for details on our next Principal Designer Role / Building Safety Event!
Please keep an eye out for emails from the ACA Office inviting you to further webinars and other events
Kevin Burrell - Kevin Burrell Consulting Architect
Siobhan Maguire - Siobhan Maguire
David Roden - Niazi Roden
Andro Monzon - Niazi Roden
Andreas Krause - Krause Architects
Arminas Panavas - Michael Jones Architects
Melissa Lawrence da Cunha - Andrew Catto
Architects
Tara de Linde - Atelier de Linde Ltd.
Paul Bussey - Allford Hall Monaghan & Morris (AHMM)
Kristina Tafa - TOAW Limited
Welcome to new members ACA is growing
Keith Handy - Howarth Litchfield Partnership Ltd
Neil Turner - Howarth Litchfield Partnership Shahid
Hussain - SHA
James Groux - Building Design Workshop Ltd
Richard Zinzan - Archangels Architects Ltd
Simon Vickers - Vickers Architects Ltd
Sonya Flynn - Meme Architects
Roy Collado - ColladoCollins
George King - George King Architects Ltd
Tamsin Walmsley - BW Architects Ltd
Andrew Banks - BW Architects Ltd
Theo Jones - Fynn Architects
In order for the ACA to have more of an effective voice and representation when providing Government consultations and lobbying parliament, we are always looking for new members.
Membership is FREE so do spread the word to colleagues. and be sure to follow us on: ACA@groups.io and
LinkedIn The Association of Consultant Architects Twitter/X @ArchitectureACA
ACA PUBLICATIONS
GO TO: https://acarchitects.co.uk/shop/
The ACA publishes a number of key documents used extensively by the building professions and within the industry. They are divided into the general sections below for clarity.
The ACA recommends the following as best practice guidance: incorporation of terms by reference1
1. Ensure you complete and sign an appropriate and current Standard Form of Agreement / Contract at the outset. This should prevent misunderstandings on what has been agreed.
2. Agree the scope of services within the Agreement / Contract with the Client. Clarify what is included and the cost.
This should avoid the risk of unlimited liability
3. Consider the effect of any proposed amendments to the Standard
ACA Suite of Partnering Contracts, PPC2000, TPC2005 and SPC2000 and related Guidance
The current publications are:
1) PPC2000 (Amended 2013) - ACA Standard Form of Contract for Project Partnering
2) TPC2005 (Amended 2008) - ACA Standard Form of Contract for Term Partnering
3) SPC2000 (Amended 2008) - ACA Standard Form of Specialist Contract for Project Partnering
4) SPC2000 Short From (Issued 2010) - ACA Standard Form of Specialist Contract for Project Partnering
5) STPC2005 (Issued 2010) - ACA Standard Form of Specialist Contract for Term Partnering
6) Guide to ACA Project Partnering Contracts PPC2000 and SPC2000
7) Guide to ACA Term Partnering Contracts
TPC200a5 and STPC2005
8) Introduction to Pricing Under PPC2000 Introduction to Pricing Under TPC2005 PPC(S) –Scottish Supplement to PPC2000
ACA Forms of Architectural Appointment
The ACA publishes two architectural appointments.
The highly successful SFA 2012 - Standard Form of Agreement for the Appointment of an Architect which has now been refreshed and launched as SFA24. Available only in digital format at £50 plus VAT.
Secondly, our updated contract of architectural appointment; the PSA22 which is for small and domestic works. Available only in a digital format £36 plus VAT, however, pricing includes
Form and ensure you take appropriate legal advice. Avoid jeopardising good working relationships.
4. Ensure all terms of any agreement / contract are clearly set out and that none are “incorporated by reference” as these will not appear within what you sign. If necessary ensure terms of agreement are signed separately. Don’t waste time and avoid costly disputes
The entire publications catalogue is available to view on the Publications Shop page at https://acarchitects.co.uk/shop/with a short description of each, costs and their ISBN numbers.
cover copies for both parts of the agreement. Both contracts are available individually or through our subscription service; members discounts are available https://acarchitects.co.uk/shop/
A full sample ‘worked’ copy of the ACA SFA 2008 edition (with updates) appointment document is available to view free on the Taster pages. Download the worked example from here: https://acarchitects.co.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2021/04/ACASFA08WorkedExa mpleA41-1.pdf
Other building related Contract and documents
The ACA produces other documents including:
1) ACA Form of Building Agreement
2) ACA form of Subcontract
3) ACA Certificates for use with ACA Building Agreements
Architects, Chartered Architects and Architectural Derivatives – A guide to who should help with your building project:
To help your clients understand the difference between architects, architectural technicians, architectural technologists and other classifications of design professionals, the ACA in collaboration with the ARB, CIAT and RIAS have produced an information leaflet which can be downloaded from Consumer information leaflet.
More complete descriptions and some ‘Tasters’ of the main ACA documents may be viewed on the ‘Tasters’ pages.
Order documents via the website on the Order Form at https://acarchitects.co.uk/shop/
If you are ordering more than five copies of any publications, or are ordering from overseas, please contact us at office@acarchitects.co.uk to arrange for a bespoke shipping quote and discounted costs on the publications.
Please see our terms and conditions of trading ACA Publication purchase T & Cs.
Tasters
The Conservation, Heritage, Restoration & Building Journal
Our Journal is distributed on a controlled circulation and subscription basis quarterly to key decision makers in organisations in the world of Conservation, Heritage and Ecclesiastical matters.
Conservation & Heritage Journal keeps abreast of what’s happening in this important sector of our culture with the latest news and a wide range of informative features written by well-respected individuals and organisations in their specialised field of expertise.
With a readership of over 22,000 and growing to a highly targeted audience, Conservation & Heritage Journal is an A4 perfect bound full colour journal published quarterly, this makes it a unique vehicle to advertise specialist skills, product and services so essential to this sector.
Our website has all our latest news and articles, it also has a ‘Search’ function where you can search for tradesman, craftsmen and suppliers. In this search you can obtain contact details, examples of work and company history.
Visit our website at: www.consandheritage.co.uk Or Email: nigel@consandheritage.com