ISSUU edition ACANews SUMMER25

ACANews SUMMER 2025

NEC acquires ACA’s collaborative contracts in major industry move

In a landmark deal set to reshape the UK’s collaborative construction landscape, Thomas Telford Ltd – publisher of the NEC suite of contracts and commercial arm of the Institution of Civil Engineers – has acquired publishing rights to the Association of Consultant Architects’ (ACA) flagship collaborative contracts: FAC-1, and TAC-1.

The acquisition, for a substantial payment, brings together under one publishing roof all major collaborative forms used across the construction industry. The deal adds the Framework Alliance Contract (FAC-1) and Term Alliance Contract (TAC-1) to NEC’s already influential NEC4 suite, enabling practitioners to source and implement every leading collaborative contract from a single, trusted source – with consistent drafting philosophy, integrated guidance, and consolidated training.

FAC-1 is already prominently recommended in the UK Government’s Construction Playbook and, together with TAC-1, has supported over £45 billion worth of construction programmes globally. The move is expected to further cement their role in shaping procurement strategy across the public and private sectors.

Professor David Mosey CBE FICE, emeritus professor at King’s College London and the lead author of FAC-1 and

TAC-1, has joined the NEC4 Contract Board, adding significant alliance contracting expertise to the NEC team.

“I am delighted that Thomas Telford and the ACA are collaborating to bring these powerful tools to a wider audience,” said Professor Mosey. “I look forward to supporting this important initiative.”

The acquisition will enable the ACA to invest significant resources in promoting its suite of architect appointments and supporting ACA members through initiatives such as the ACA Principal Designer Register.

Patrick Inglis, President of the Association of Consultant Architects, welcomed the deal, “This partnership secures the future of the ACA contracts and represents a tremendous boost for our members and the wider construction community,” he said.

Guidance on integrating NEC4 with FAC-1 was launched at the NEC annual conference in 2024. FAC-1 and TAC-1 are now available for purchase alongside the NEC suite, with the joint implementation guidance accessible at neccontract.com/news/fac1-guidance.

This consolidation signals a new era for collaborative contracting – uniting expertise, simplifying access, and promoting a more aligned approach to construction procurement across the UK and beyond.

Abolition of apprenticeships a tragic blow says ACA page 7

London Planning & Development Forum page 23

Robert Peake on Successful leadership succession

PII: Morgan Taylor reviews some of the protections which your appointment contracts might include page 38

ACA President Patrick Inglis on Collaborative Contracts, BSR Reforms and ACA Council Elections

FROM THE PRESIDENT

From the President

Collaborative Contracts

I am delighted that the ACA has agreed a deal for Thomas Telford to acquire the rights to the ACA suite of partnering contracts. The deal strengthens the status of collaborative contracts by bringing the key contracts under one roof and will allow a consolidated strategy to promote collaborative construction contracts to the industry generally.

I am incredibly proud of the fact that architects have been so instrumental in developing such a successful contract, which has now become the gold standard for collaborative construction contracts and is used widely across the UK construction industry and internationally. I offer my thanks to all involved for both developing and promoting the contracts over the last 25 years and for striking the deal that ensures collaborative contracting’s future.

The deal also significantly strengthens the ACA financially and will allow the ACA to invest in existing and new services to members and to bring greater focus to your needs and the support that your architecture practice requires.

This is therefore important moment and I am excited about the opportunities that it will bring. As I write, ACA is working on a number of new initiatives that we will hopefully be able to present to members later in the year.

BSR Reforms

I welcome the recently announced reforms to the BSR, which will split the regulator away from the HSE and combine it with a construction products regulator as recommended by the Grenfell Enquiry. This follows in the wake of the abject failure of the BSR to process HRB applications in a timely manner, which has resulted in horrific delays to tall residential buildings being able to start on site and significant knocks-ons to housing starts as a result - all of which will make the hitting the governments housing targets even harder.

The failure of the BSR to deliver is an inevitable consequence of the botched rollout of the regulations, which were only finalised 6 weeks before they came into force in 2023. The reorganisation will hopefully eventually result in a better per-

formance, but in the short term it is hard to imagine that reorganising everything is going to lead to immediate improvements in approval rates - all of which is bad news for the construction industry and the government.

The ACA is very concerned that some of the measures announced will have significant unintended negative consequences. For instance given that many of the delays are due to staffing shortages, the proposal to fast-track major schemes will lead to poorer performance in other areas. In particular we are worried that small schemes in HRBs will fall to bottom of the priority list and take even longer than they do currently.

As many clients are finding out, what were once minor works of refurbishment to a flat in an HRB that might only taking a few days to construct - such as installing a new kitchenhave become bureaucratic nightmares because of the need to gain approval from the BSR. We are hearing stories of huge delays because BSR approvals take so long as well as disproportionate fees for minor works.

If the fast-tracking of larger projects makes this even worse then either people will abandon the idea of refurbishment works - or worse do it without permission with all the attendant risks, which would not be good for anyone.

ACA Council Elections

The ACA AGM is coming up on 3rd September and we are looking for members to join the ACA Council as there are a number of vacancies. If you are interested please get in touch. I or one of the other council members would be happy to talk through what is involved and look forward to hearing from you.

Lastly I would encourage members to take advantage of all the services the ACA offers including the new concise PSA22 for small works and the comprehensive SFA24 for larger projects, both available at member discounts and in our new ground breaking subscription format. Architects looking to promote their ability to act as Principal Designer should join our Principal Designer Register to show case their services.

Until next time

The President

Patrick Inglis is a Director of Inglis Badrashi Loddo

Years of Innovation

This year marks a decade of driving progress, showcasing innovation, and shaping the future of the built environment. Since its launch, UK Construction Week Birmingham has grown into the UK’s leading construction event - uniting the entire supply chain under one roof.

To celebrate our 10-year anniversary, we’re going bigger than ever, with bold new features and standout exhibitors across the show floor, including EasyTrim, Don & Low, Polypipe Building Services, Rubberseal, PladRadar, Hahn Plastics, Bove, Ubbink, Fischer Future Heat, Euro Towers, and many more.

Explore Build X – the beating heart of the event – where cutting-edge products, breakthrough systems, and sustainable solutions take centre stage.

Step into Digital Construction, where emerging tech is transforming every stage of the construction lifecycle.

The Roofing, Cladding & Insulation Expo returns after a successful debut, now even bigger with top suppliers and live solutions from across the roofing sector.

Don’t miss Onsite On Hire, where the latest in plant, tools, and equipment come to life with interactive demos from the biggest names in the industry.

Across all three days, expect exclusive product launches, expert insights, and high-value networking with construction’s leading professionals.

This is a must-attend event for decision makers across the sector – including Local Authorities, Tier 1/2/3 Contractors, Housing Associations, Engineers, Surveyors, Housebuilders, Developers, Roofing Specialists, and Infrastructure Project Leaders.

Whether you design, build, manage, specify, supply or innovate, UKCW Birmingham 2025 is your essential event of the year.

Register now and be part of the future at UK Construction Week Birmingham 2025 here: https://tinyurl com/yyaype5b

ACAPAG PLANNING REPORT

Andy Rogers brings us up-todate on a new Bill and a new regulation régime

Planning update

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill has passed its third reading in the Commons and also its first and second readings in the Lords, where it is now being considered by a House of Lords committee, with another four stages to go before its enactment later in the year.

One of the most controversial sections of the bill has been Part III relating to environmental protections, which were wrongly reported as being watered down or even removed. Current rules in the National Planning Policy Framework are clear: any development that results in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees, should be refused. This is not being changed by the bill and in fact there is a very high bar for exceptions – with such proposals being wholly exceptional and demonstrating that the public benefit would outweigh the loss or deterioration of habitats, under longstanding safeguards: they must also propose a suitable compensation strategy to enhance the environment. Furthermore the bill proposes to create a new type of document: an Environmental Delivery Plan (EDP) to secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation.

The new Grey Belt land designation in the revised National Planning Policy Framework (published in December and updated in February) continues to produce more planning approvals for housing and other developments, with a significant number of planning appeals having been determined to allow development on green belt land, but only if the grey belt criteria (golden rules) are met - while the ‘golden rules’ requirement is being interpreted flexibly by appeal inspectors; and several appeal cases have ruled that Green Belt criteria relate to the merging of towns, not villages.

Andrew Rogers is Chairman of ACAPAG and a fomer partner in the Manser Practice

Planning Practice Guidance is regularly updated to clarify new green and grey belt policies, sequential tests, housing numbers, etc: but new guidance on viability and flood risk, which MHCLG promised to issue in the Spring, is still awaited (as at the beginning of July). Recently, as previously noted, the Court of Appeal has ruled that the online PPG and latest NPPF guidance are legally of equal importance.

The Planning Action Group has responded to two MHCLG consultations on reforming thresholds for site sizes and speeding up build out times. The former proposes

• streamlining requirements on Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) including more options for full exemption in respect of small and medium-sized sites

• reinforcing the position that affordable housing contributions are not required on minor development

• retaining the position that sites of fewer than 10 units are

exempt from paying the proposed Building Safety Levy (BSL)

• retaining the shorter statutory timeframe for determining minor development at 8 weeks – but with measures to improve planning authority performance including better monitoring

• reducing validation requirements through setting clearer expectations in national policy on what is reasonable and proportionate

• requiring that all small and medium sized schemes are delegated to officers and not put to planning committees as part of the National Scheme of Delegation

• reviewing/simplfying requirements for consultation with statutory consultees

The other consultation invited views on further action the government should take to speed up homes being built, butwhile attempting to establish why (or whether) there are real delays in build-out rates - in our view does not go far enough. For example, we reiterated the ACA view that most of the simpler planning applications could be processed by approved agents to alleviate the pressure on planning officers and also that taxing housebuilders by requiring them to provide affordable housing (or by introducing a Building Safety Levy) has been - and will continue to be - counter-productive.

A third and parallel DEFRA consultation posed questions on Biodiversity Net Gain Regulations as noted above. While we agreed with streamlining suggestions and proposals to make the imposition of BNG less onerous, with more exemptions, etc, most of this consultation related to technical issues that we did not feel competent to comment on.

It is useful to note that the ‘fast track’ written reps. appeal system will be extended later this year to apply to most written reps. appeals, including refusal of planning permission or reserved matters, the imposition of conditions on approvals and the refusal of prior notification or prior approval. When submitting a planning appeal, appellants will usually only need to submit:

• a copy of their application [which it is important to note must be fully comprehensive as no further information will be allowed]

• the notice of the local authority’s decision and

• a brief statement responding to the LPA’s decision and why they disagree with it.

There will be no final comments stage, as the LPA’s case should be represented by its officer or committee report and the decision notice. Additionally, PINS will not accept further comments from interested parties for these expedited appeals. The planning inspectorate (PINS) has also published proposals for the forthcoming digitisation of appeal processes.

THE NEED FOR DECISIVENESS

The need for decisiveness

The need for Decisiveness from the Client when faced with change and options and a Client willing to believe the designer/contractor knows best, says Chris Eaglen. These two things cause more over runs than anything else and “time is money”.

The value to contractors of indecisive “I’m not being blamed for this” mentality is that when the decision is eventually taken the programme is lost and then needs accelerating which then gets delayed again and needs accelerating again. We could call it project manager syndrome but many are long time served project people Therefore we are drawn to the time old problem of those making the decision don’t know what they are dealing with i.e. They are not technically literate and want absolute certainty.

Attention is drawn to a great leader and tactician George S. Patton - A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.

Some designers/contractors take advantage of indecisiveness and some are superb and simply plough on in the hope the Client is benevolent. How backwards a way of dealing with things, the

Finally, the government is also going to bring the Building Safety Regulator under new control, which signals a major reform to clear backlogs in planning High Risk Buildings (HRBs). Currently administered by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the regulator will be part of a new arms-length agency under the Ministry of Housing in the wake of widespread industry criticism. The new body is to be chaired by former London Fire Brigade Commissioner Andy Roe, with fire enforcement specialist Charlie Pugsley as chief executive. A new fast-track process will also be introduced to help achieve the government's house building targets, along with investment to fund a projected 100 additional staff members. These changes are designed to pave the way for the creation of a single construction regulator, as recommended by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. n

people who have the Client’s best interest at heart are often penalized and those who use the Client’s contract against him are rewarded Now we know why government contracts always go over budget and time because everyone cares most who will be blamed and not how to finish on time

This is the heart of a fundamental issue in project management—especially in government contracts. The paradox of indecision is fascinating: hesitation leads to delays, delays lead to acceleration, acceleration leads to additional costs, and then the cycle repeats. The problem isn't just inefficiency; it's that those who try to execute a project in good faith can end up suffering, while those who manipulate contracts may thrive.

Patton’s quote is a great example of the power of swift execution. A less-than-perfect plan acted upon decisively can often outperform a perfect plan delivered too late. In tunnelling and infrastructure, this rings especially true. Uncertainty breeds stagnation, and stagnation breeds cost overruns.

There's a clear connection between risk aversion and technical literacy. Many decision-makers want absolute certainty when working with complex projects, yet absolute certainty is rarely achievable in large-scale infrastructure work. This leads to a cautious approach where they try to cover themselves from blame, rather than push for timely, effective execution.

It’s a frustrating cycle, and as is observed, some designers/contractors weaponize this indecisiveness to their advantage, while others push through with integrity yet face penalties. The result is: Bloated budgets, delayed timelines, and a general reluctance to prioritize efficiency over self-preservation.

This issue has worsened in recent years, and it is a hallmark of major projects.

Strategies are needed to improve decisiveness in

Dr Chris Eaglen reviews delivery plans, procurement strategies, produces tenders, negotiates contracts, implementation plans, requirements and services.

project management:

Improving decisiveness in project management requires a mix of cultural shifts, structured processes, and strong leadership. Some key strategies to foster better decision-making and prevent costly delays include:

1. Encourage a "Bias for Action" Culture

• Adopt principles like Patton’s—favour timely execution over endless deliberation.

• Reinforce accountability rather than blame avoidance, ensuring decisions are made without fear.

2. Increase Technical Literacy Among DecisionMakers

• Provide training sessions to help project managers and project sponsors understand the technical aspects of their work.

• Bring the right specialists into early-stage discussions to pre-emptively address uncertainties.

3. Streamline Decision-Making Processes

• Set clear escalation paths: If a decision isn’t made within a set timeframe, it moves up to the next level.

• Use decision matrices to weigh options objectively rather than relying mainly on instinct.

4. Define Tolerance for Uncertainty

• Acknowledge that no decision comes with absolute certainty—set risk thresholds that allow for

THE NEED FOR DECISIVENESS

ACA excellence in practice

forward movement rather than stagnation.

• Establish contingency planning alongside initial decisions to mitigate potential risks without delaying execution.

5. Align Incentives with Decisiveness

• Reward those who make timely, effective decisions rather than those who avoid responsibility.

• Penalize excessive indecision that leads to costly delays.

6. Improve Contract Structures

• Move away from adversarial contract models that allow manipulative behaviour.

• Foster collaborative environments where both Client and contractor share mutual goals rather than opposing ones.

Some industries have successfully implemented these approaches, but government contracts in particular tend to struggle due to bureaucratic inertia.

Including the concept of frankness and encouraging earlier admission of changes because of enlightenment in the development stage and in the contract may lead to earlier notifications with reasoned explanations.

Encouraging frankness and early admission of changes may transform project efficiency by reducing hesitation and eliminating avoidable delays. This principle could be embedded into project management:

1. Foster a Culture of Transparency

• Create a blame-free environment where admitting necessary changes is seen as responsible rather than risky.

• Encourage open dialogue between contractors and Clients to address evolving conditions without fear.

2. Embed "Continuous Learning" into DecisionMaking

• Recognize that enlightenment—the realization of better approaches—should be welcomed, not resisted.

• Make technical adjustments early instead of waiting for certainty, which often leads to stagnation.

3. Streamline Change Management Processes

• Introduce structured mechanisms for acknowledging and implementing changes promptly.

The fear of contract repercussions has to be overcome by Clients.

Clients must shift their mindset from risk avoidance to progress enablement

• Use proactive risk assessments to anticipate shifts rather than react to them late.

4. Shift Contract Incentives

• Reward clarity and timely admission of needed adjustments rather than rewarding contract manipulation.

• Penalize excessive avoidance that leads to inefficiencies.

5. Leverage Strong Leadership

• Leaders must champion a culture where acknowledging better ideas isn’t seen as an admission of failure.

• Reinforce the idea that early transparency saves time, money, and morale.

This ties directly into the point about decision-

makers wanting absolute certainty. If enlightenment is framed as a positive evolution rather than a mistake, projects can move forward decisively instead of being trapped in indecision.

The fear of contract repercussions has to be overcome by Clients.

Clients must shift their mindset from risk avoidance to progress enablement. If fear dictates decision-making, projects become paralyzed, costs escalate, and efficiency is lost.

Ways Clients can overcome this fear issue include:

• Adopt Collaborative Contract Models – Move away from adversarial contracts that incentivize blame-shifting and instead embrace NEC-style agreements that can prioritize cooperation and add frankness and earliest notification of omissions and under estimates in difficulty, time and cost.

• Empower Technical Decision-Makers – Ensure those responsible for key decisions actually understand the technical complexities rather than deferring indefinitely.

• Instil Confidence in Early Transparency – Reward honesty and proactivity when addressing changes, rather than punishing those who acknowledge evolving circumstances.

• Enforce a "Decide-and-Own" Mentality –Encourage decision-makers to take responsibility for choices rather than delaying due to fear of repercussions.

Clients need to recognize that indecision is the most expensive decision of all. Overcoming this indecision not only improves timelines but also strengthens trust between the project team parties. n

A TRAGIC BLOW

Abolition of apprenticeships a tragic blow to the future of architecture, says ACA

The Association of Consultant Architects has condemned the government’s decision to abolish Level 7 architecture apprenticeships for students over 21, calling it a “tragedy for the profession, for education, and for young talent across the country.”

The move by the Department for Education halts what many saw as the most promising and progressive route into architectural qualification—one that allowed students to earn while they learned, eased the burden of debt, and brought much-needed diversity and real-world insight into the profession.

“This isn’t just a bureaucratic change. It’s a body blow to hundreds of students, practices, and universities who have spent years building a better model,” said Patrick Inglis, President of the ACA. “The Level 7 apprenticeship was a bridge between architectural practice and academia. Now, that bridge has been torn down.”

A model that was working

The Level 7 architectural apprenticeship—a Master’s-level qualification route—was specifically designed to open access to the profession for students from non-traditional backgrounds and mature entrants. It gave them the opportunity to train as architects while working and earning, without incurring five years of student debt just to qualify for a starting salary of around £32,000.

“Conventional routes into architecture are long, expensive, and exclusionary,” said Inglis. “The apprenticeship route was the profession’s best hope of making the pipeline more inclusive and more sustainable. This decision slams that door shut.”

A missed opportunity at the worst possible time The timing of the government’s move has shocked many in the sector. The decision comes

just as the country prepares for a major push on infrastructure and housing—precisely when more trained professionals are needed.

Professor Timothy Brittain-Catlin, who leads the Architecture Degree Apprenticeship at the University of Cambridge, said:

“We were starting to draw in a rich mix of talented people—some from other careers, some who had paused their education, some who couldn’t afford a traditional route. We were creating a melting pot that could have transformed the future of architecture.”

He criticised the Department for Education for failing to understand the realities of architectural training or practice:

“Apprentices are not just students—they are productive, tax-paying professionals. Sending them back to full-time university makes no sense, either for them or for the practices that employ and mentor them.”

Cambridge currently has around 70 Part 2 apprentices, and across the country, hundreds more now face the prospect of being forced out of the qualification route they committed to. With no clear alternative, many will simply not continue.

A decision that undermines its own policy goals

Ironically, the Architects Registration Board’s own recent review into professional education supports models closely aligned with the apprenticeship structure. The ACA warns that cutting off Level 7 apprenticeships now will undermine that progress and deter future entrants from pursuing architectural careers.

“If you tell someone starting at Level 6 that they won’t be allowed to qualify at Level 7, why would they even begin?” asked Inglis.

The ACA is calling for an urgent government review of the decision, urging ministers to listen to the profession, reverse the abolition, and protect a route that is delivering on access, quality, and longterm sustainability. n

Notes

• Level 7 apprenticeships are equivalent to Master’s degrees and were part of a growing effort to modernise and diversify routes into the architectural profession.

• The ACA represents architects in private practice across the UK and has been a long-standing advocate for progressive reform in professional education.

• The 2014 Farrell Review predicted that the conventional model of architectural education was unsustainable. This has only become more true amid rising costs and worsening student debt.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES BY ACA ACA

ACAPAG* meets to discuss government planning consultations and, led by Andy Rogers, responds.

Site size reform consultation

1. Would a medium-sized site threshold help reduce barriers and accelerate delivery for SMEs, if linked to the proposed changes to regulatory requirements set out in the working paper? Yes, but size of site should be related to its location because a small site in the countryside is not the same as a small site in an urban location, where site area and the number of units may mean different things.

2. Should the threshold be 10–49 units, or could other size ranges provide a better balance of simplicity and impact? 10-49 is fine depending on its location (see answer above).

3. Should the medium threshold apply to commercial and other non-residential development and how should mixed uses be reflected? Yes - and there’s no need for mixed uses to be considered differently: site area covers any combination of uses.

4. If the medium-sized site threshold were introduced, should the exemption from paying the proposed Building Safety Levy for fewer than 10 dwellings be extended to align with medium-sized development sites? Yes - we are concerned that the levy will generally deter development.

5. Should there be solely area-based size thresholds (ha) given the different contexts and densities, particularly for very small, small and medium-sized sites? Or would it be more appropriate to also specify a unit size threshold? See previous answers - it depends on the location of the site. Both are acceptable but should be related to the local design code?

6. Are the proposed streamlining options the right ones for government to consider? Yes.

7. Are there further changes that could and should be linked to new or existing thresholds? Are there wider changes that could be made through national planning policy that would be beneficial? Yes - there should be proper and severe sanctions imposed on Local Planning Authorities that do not follow the national guidance/policies, for example by demanding unjustifiable and/or disproportionate excessive information for validation (especially when their validation list has not been properly kept up yo date).

8. Is the planning application process for small sites more challenging on brownfield land than greenfield land? If so, then what are these challenges or barriers? No difference in practical terms but may depend on local occupiers.

9. Are the determination periods detailed in this working paper the correct ones? Would shorter determination periods be appropriate for a particular site size once wider reforms to planning fees have been implementedincluding those set out in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Yes, but they must be followed and enforced (eg by allowing automatic approval if the statutory determination periods are not met and by reinstatement of the ‘free go’ following refusal).

10. What are the specific barriers SMEs face during s.106 agreements and what would be the most effective action for government to take, in line with its manifesto commitments on affordable housing? We suggest that the use of s.106 agreements should be removed as proposed when CIL was introduced as a replacement. We also disagree that developers should be taxed in order to supply affordable housing, which should be funded by central government and/or left to local authorities to supply social housing.

11. What are the barriers to developing very small sites as defined above and what parameters could be helpfully addressed in a design code? Too many irrelevant and/or disproportionate requirements imposed when validating applications and too many conditions attached to approvals: all conditions that relate to other forms of legislation must be removed from planning permissions: they can be added as informatives if necessary..

12. What types of rules set out in design codes would be most beneficial in unlocking development? Design/aesthetic control should be removed completely from design codes when related to small and medium sites

13. Are there other issues or opportunities to consider for ensuring the success of these proposals? Yes, the use of approved agents (who would be suitably qualified as, for example, are planning appeal inspectors) to process small and medium size applications. This would relieve the pressures on LPAs and free up officers to deal with larger schemes.

14. Do you anticipate any environmental impacts from these proposals that the government must consider under the Environmental Principles Policy Statement? No comment.

15. Do you have any views on the impacts of the above proposals for you, or the group or business you represent and on anyone with a relevant protected characteristic? If so, please explain who, which groups, including those with protected characteristics, or which businesses

may be impacted and how. Is there anything that could be done to mitigate any impact identified? None.

Speeding up build out

a. Do you agree with the evidence base and theory we have set out on build out rates? No - we find this completely incomprehensible.

b. How could we go further to support models of housebuilding which build faster, such as small sites, strategically master-planned and mixed tenure? All housebuilding should be supported and it should be considered as a business, not a charity, without the need to be taxed (for example to supply affordable housing) other than as a business.

c. For mixed tenure, what would you consider to be an appropriate threshold level? Not applicable, see above.

d. Do you have any views on how the proposed CPO measures would work best in practice? We are concerned that they will stifle the market and stop further housebuilding, so should be withdrawn.

e. How should MHCLG guide local authorities and developers towards reasonable build out schedules (noting that ultimately this will be negotiated locally)? Depends on the market.

f. What are the right set of exemptions for external factors that impact build out rates? Should this include economic downturns which reduce sales rates, or does that mean that payments would be too weak to induce the shift toward the partnerships business models we want to see? See answers above.

g. For the Delayed Homes Penalty, do you agree with the intention to use it to incentivise the shift towards higher build out models of housebuilding? No, we feel the Delayed Homes Penalty idea will be unworkable in practice.

h. How should the Penalty be calculated? What are the strengths and weaknesses of using a percentage of house price, or reference to local council tax rates? What information would local authorities require? See answer above.

i. Are there wider options you think worth worthy of consideration that could help speed up build out of housing? Stop taxing the housebuilders’ theoretical large profits and enforce national policy on planning and building regulations properly. n

Please email your thoughts to the ACA office and if you would like to join ACAPAG please let us know. *ACA Planning Action Group!

Reform Of Planning Committees

Question 1: Do you agree with the principle of having a two tier structure for the national scheme of delegation?

• Tier A which would include types of applications which must be delegated to officers in all cases; and

• Tier B which would include types of applications which must be delegated to officers unless the Chief Planner and Chair of Committee agree it should go to Committee based on a gateway test.

YES

Question 2: Do you agree the following application types should fall within Tier A?

• applications for planning permission for:

• Householder development

• Minor commercial development

• Minor residential development

• applications for reserved matter approvals

• applications for non-material amendments to planning permissions

• applications for the approval of conditions including Schedule 5 mineral planning conditions

• applications for approval of the BNG Plan

• applications for approval of prior approval (for permitted development rights)

• applications for lawful development certificates

• applications for a Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development

YES - BUT WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS FOR EXAMPLE WHEN THERE IS A VERY HIGH LEVEL OF PUBLIC INTEREST

Question 3: Do you think, further to the working paper on revising development thresholds, we should consider including some applications for medium residential development (10-50 dwellings) within Tier A? If so, what types of application?

YES - ALL PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Question 4: Are there further types of application which should fall within Tier A?

NO(?)

Question 5: Do you think there should be a mechanism to bring a Tier A application to committee in exceptional circumstances? If so, what would

ACA PLANNING ACTION GROUP

those circumstances be and how would the mechanism operate?

NO

Question 6: Do you think the gateway test which requires agreement between the chief planner and the chair of the planning committee is suitable? If not, what other mechanism would you suggest?

YES

Question 7: Do you agree that the following should fall within Tier B?

a) Applications for planning permission aside from:

• Householder applications

• Minor commercial applications

• Minor residential development applications

b) notwithstanding a), any application for planning permission where the applicant is the local authority, a councillor or officer c) applications for s73 applications to vary conditions/s73B applications to vary permissions

YES

Question 8: Are there further types of application which should fall within Tier B?

NONE

Question 9: Do you consider that special control applications (e.g. relating to tree preservation orders, listed building consent, advertisement control)should be included in:

• Tier A or • Tier B?

TIER A - BUT SUBJECT TO THE LPA HAVING PROPERLY QUALIFIED CONSERVATION/TREE OFFICERS

Question 10: Do you think that all section 106 decisions should follow the treatment of the associated planning applications? For section 106 decisions not linked to a planning application should they be in Tier A or Tier B, or treated in some other way?

TIER A

Question 11: Do you think that enforcement decisions should be in Tier A or Tier B, or treated in some other way?

TIER A

Question 12: Do you agree that the regulations should set a maximum for planning committees of 11 members?

YES

Question 13: If you do not agree, what if any alternative size restrictions should be placed on committees?

Question 14: Do you think the regulations should additionally set a minimum size requirement?

NO

Question 15: Do you agree that certification of planning committee members, and of other relevant decisions makers, should be administered at a national level?

YES

Question 16: Do you think we should consider reviewing the thresholds for quality of decision making in the performance regime to ensure the highest standards of decision making are maintained?

YES (?)

Question 17: For quality of decision making the current threshold is 10% for major and non-major applications. We are proposing that in the future the threshold could be lowered to 5% for both. Do you agree?

YES

Question 18: Do you have any views on the implications of the proposals in this consultation for you, or the group or business you represent, and on anyone with a relevant protected characteristic? If so, please explain who, which groups, including those with protected characteristics, or which businesses may be impacted and how.

NO COMMENT

Question 19: Is there anything that could be done to mitigate any impact identified?

NO DECISION SHOULD HAVE CONDITIONS IMPOSED THAT ARE NOT STRICTLY RELATED TO LAND USE PLANNING, EG THOSE THAT ARE COVERED BY OTHER LEGISLATION SUCH AS BUILDING REGULATIONS

Question 20: Do you have any views on the implications of these proposals for the considerations of the 5 environmental principles identified in the Environment Act 2021?

NO COMMENT

INTERVIEW: IRIS DUNBAR

Interview Iris Dunbar

What inspired you to become an Interior Designer?

I was only good at Art at school and when I applied to Dundee Art School, they were promoting a new four year course called Interior Design which was being set up between the school of architecture and the school of design. The words that inspired me to join were – Space, Light and Colour.

In your opinion, why is it important that an Architect and Interior Designer collaborate on projects?

The Architect designs from the outside in and the Interior Designer from the inside out which sounds obvious however they are two different disciplines and working in tandem produces the best results. The Interior Designer designs spaces that respond to human needs from the number of spoons in the kitchen drawer to the placement of the light to read a book to creating a calming space to sleep.

We explore the right colours, textures and finishes to create a space that reflects a true understanding of the senses within the interior for the well being of the clients.

What motivated you to open The Interior Design School?

After working at Building Design Partnership for several years, I was asked to teach one day a week at Berkshire College of Art . I found that teaching gave me a better approach to the reasoning behind the design process. I continued as a full-time director of studies within a private school where I developed the course curriculum. From there I set up The Interior Design School aimed at mid career training for people who had started their careers in academic professions and who then wanted to find their creative direction.

What were the challenges you experienced?

Since I began my Interior journey in the late sixties, I have spent endless time clarifying the role to the Interior Designer and explaining to people that it is not about painting a wall and selecting a chair. It is essential to understand the building and being able to create a space that is functional as well as lifting your spirits. It takes time and effort to create a space that works for the user. It is also important to understand that the interior design profession is not just about homes but about schools, hospitals, workspaces, hotels etc. Every space needs consideration and an educated team of collaborators.

Which Interior Designer do you admire the most? (Past or present) And why?

Charles Rennie MacIntosh born in Glasgow in 1868 was a pio-

neer of the modern movement. An architect who designed everything from the building to the furniture and cutlery. Hill House in Helensburgh is such an example of true design and whenever you enter the building you have a sense of light and balance. In the bedroom MacKintosh has taken the illustration of the rose that is applied to the furniture, lights, blinds, and floors giving a cohesion to the space that is so inspiring.

If you had a super power, what would it be and why?

If I had a super power it would be to stop all the television programmes that demean our profession. Programmes that imply that interior designers actually paint walls and build furniture. There is a difference between an interior decorator and an interior designer. If you turn a building upside down what falls out is the decorated items. The Interior Designer is involved with the bespoke furniture and creating spaces that are functional as well as inspiring.

I wish I had the power to educate everyone that every space should be considered and designed to perfection.

Early bird or night owl?

Early bird

Tea or coffee?

Iris Dunbar is Director of The Interior Design School

Coffee

Describe an interesting fact about yourself! I like to sing, swim, travel and chase a ball around the tennis court.

And finally a huge congratulations in winning The Henry Pugh Outstanding Contribution Award 2025! Can you tell us more about the award and what it means to receive it?

The Henry Pugh Award recognises a lifetime of achievement in the field of design; honouring a figure who has made a significant contribution to the creative landscape. Mix Interiors magazine has been established for 25 years and the Awards ceremony recognises the best of interior design and products throughout the year.

“Iris Dunbar is a renowned interior educator who has influenced generations of interior designers throughout her career whilst keeping to her deeply held modernist principles. Iris has nurtured the talents of many of today’s prominent UK and international community of creators and continues to do so through her mentoring programme.”

It was such an honour to receive this award and to hear so many congratulatory messages from friends and colleagues from the industry. I want to continue to be involved in the design industry helping to unite the construction industry professionals to design to the best of our ability. n

PROFILE: Iris Dunbar

A pioneer of Interior Design in its modern form, Iris Dunbar studied Interiors within the School of Architecture at Dundee University.

As practitioner, educator, former President of the British Institute of Interior Design and former President of The International Federation of Interior Designers and Architects , her aim is to establish Interior Design as an essential discipline within the built environment industry.

Iris began her career as an Interior Designer with Building Design Partnership, an interdisciplinary practice www.bdp.com. Over the

years she has had her own company combining graphic design, Interior and exhibition design designing commercial commissions. Founding Director of The Interior Design School since 1991, she now mentors alumni and is on advisory boards to continue to promote the interiors profession. Combining teaching and practising over her career has informed her strongly held view that Interior Design should be taught within a professional framework, and that we need designers from all walks of life to make the industry a rich and relevant sector.

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 for your free ticket here: https://tinyurl.com/3zp598j4

www.ACArchitects.co.uk

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, guidance and articles on 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.

The criteria may evolve as the industry navigates through the requirements of the PD role.

There is no registration fee and the annual registration 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.

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 to us over many years, 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

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

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 VICE PRESIDENT richardlharrison@icloud.com Tel:  07973 213426

Patrick Inglis MA(Cantab) DipArch ARB RIBA ACArch PRESIDENT

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

Alfred Munkenbeck RIBA ACArch HON TREASURER

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

Phil Waind

BA Hons Dip Arch RIBA WGP Architects phil@wgp-architects.com

Brian Waters MA DipArch(Cantab) RIBA MRTPI DipTP ACArch PRESS OFFICER

The Boisot Waters Cohen Partnership

Email:  brian@bwcp.co.uk Tel:  07957871477

STUDENT representative

Joanne Wong (Post-graduate, University of Westminster)

OFFICERS

Melanie Hern CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER office@acarchitects.co.uk melaniehern@hotmail.com 07500 180973

Alison Low  MA DipArch ACArch DIRECTOR OF ENTERPRISE and Vice President

Alison Low Architect alisonlowarchitect@gmail.com 07947 320298

Members interested in joining Council should please contact the President at office@acarchitects.co.uk

sthirunesan@managementfordesign.com

https://m4d.com.au

Unlocking R&D tax relief for architecture: why it matters & how Invennt can help

Unlocking R&D tax relief for architecture

In a competitive and evolving industry like architecture, staying ahead means constantly pushing boundaries. Whether it’s innovating new designs, integrating sustainable technologies, tackling complex construction challenges or constrained sites, architecture practices often engage in activities that qualify for Research and Development (R&D) tax relief. Yet, many either overlook relief, fail to maximise their claim or expose themselves to tedious and protracted HMRC enquiries. In this article, we’ll explore the benefits of claiming R&D tax relief, the costs architects can claim, and why working with a specialist advisor like Invennt is vital in navigating the complexities of the system.

What Is R&D Tax Relief?

R&D tax relief is a government incentive designed to encourage innovation and technological advancement across industries. For architecture practices, it provides an opportunity to recoup a significant portion of the costs to resolve technological uncertainty during the delivery of projects or experiment with new materials and methods. However, the key lies in understanding what qualifies as R&D and ensuring that claims are properly substantiated.

Costs Architects Can Claim

Architecture practices can claim a wide range of costs under R&D tax relief, including:

• Staff Costs: Salaries, pensions, and National Insurance contributions for employees involved in R&D activities, such as architects, technicians, and engineers.

• Subcontractor and Freelancer Costs: Payments to subcontractors or external specialists contributing to the R&D project.

• Software: Expenditure on software used specifically for research and development.

• Materials and Consumables: Costs of materials consumed or transformed during the R&D process.

However, determining the exact boundary of what qualifies can be tricky, particularly in architecture, where the line between creative design and technical delivery is often blurred.

The Grey Areas: Why Expertise Matters

One of the biggest challenges for architecture practices is distinguishing where the creative design process ends, and the technical R&D process begins. While the creative aspect of designing a building might not qualify, the technical efforts to solve complex problems, such as integrating innovative materials or ensuring compliance with advanced building regulations, often do. The rules around these distinctions are nebulous, and scrutiny from HMRC has increased in recent years, making it vital to have

expert guidance.

Why Choose Invennt?

Invennt, the official partner of the Association of Consultant Architects, brings unparalleled expertise to the table. Here’s how we stand out:

• Chartered Architects Working with Tax Experts: Our team includes chartered architects who understand the nuances of the architectural process. They work hand-in-glove with tax specialists to ensure a thorough and accurate claim.

• Technology-Driven Process: Leveraging advanced technology, we streamline the claims process, saving you time and ensuring precision.

• Forensic Investigation: We delve deep into your projects, uncovering all eligible costs and activities that might otherwise be overlooked.

• Persuasive Supporting Narratives: Our expertise ensures that your claim is accompanied by a robust and compelling narrative that clearly demonstrates compliance with HMRC’s criteria, reducing the likelihood of an enquiry.

• British Standards Institute Associate Consultant: We possess the Innovation Management Kitemark™ from the BSI, demonstrating that we can impart lasting expertise in catalysing, sharing and commercialising innovation during the assessment process

The Benefits for Your Practice

By partnering with Invennt, architecture practices enjoy a simpler process that takes the hassle out of preparing and submitting your claim, alongside a comprehensive investigation that ensures you receive the full amount of relief you’re entitled to. But perhaps most importantly, practices can sleep easy knowing they have submitted a water-tight claim that significantly reduces the risk of HMRC enquiries.

Don’t Miss Out

R&D tax relief offers architecture practices a valuable opportunity to offset costs and reinvest in innovation. However, navigating the complexities of the scheme requires expert guidance. With Invennt, you have a trusted partner who understands both architecture and the tax code, ensuring your claim is irreproachable and stress-free.

If you’re ready to explore how R&D tax relief can benefit your practice, contact me today, so Invennt can help you secure the funding you deserve with peace of mind.

Andy Hastie 07948281571 andy.hastie@invennt.com

ArCathedral London, in collaboration with Historic England Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England Cathedral & Church Buildings Division

Thursday 25th September 2025 9:30am - 5:00pm

You are cordially invited to book your place at this technical seminar:

Net Zero Carbon Neutral: options for cathedral estates

considering five salient topics for preparing cathedral estates to meet the low carbon energy challenge: cathedral case studies from architects and consultants alongside the Cathedral Works Fellowship will accompany contributions from HE, CFCE, CCBD about Regulatory Framework, Climate Challenge, Policy & Consent, Strategies & Options, Technologies/Fabric & Sun.

Delegates are welcome from a wide range of fields involved with UK cathedrals and historic estates.

Delegates may book either the whole day or attend only the morning or afternoon session. Both sessions will present all five topics in illustrated talks. The individual case studies and detail presentations will be different in the morning and the afternoon.

So the whole day will afford delegates a fuller engagement with the seminar theme. To facilitate attendance for half days, each session will include a savoury and sweet buffet break enabling networking and conversations with technical exhibitors.

The technical seminar will be attended also by members of the European Association of Cathedral Architects, Heads of Workshops and Master Masons, who are holding their annual colloquy and conference in London that week.

LOCATION

at St James’s Park

The Guards’ Chapel, Birdcage Walk, London SW1E 6HQ

Enquiries intended for the seminar administration are welcome to Dom London <dbmt.london@gmail.com>

The morning session will be attended by Germanophiles from the European Association and the afternoon session by Francophiles, should you wish to have an opportunity to take up contacts in either of those European regions.

For attendance at the whole day, there will be an extended mid-day comfort break with an opportunity to purchase soft drinks, but no formal lunch arrangements.

Please register online by 29th August 2025 seminar web zone hosted ArCathedral London at www.jonathanlouth.co.uk/arcathedral Password: ZERO25

http://www.jonathanlouth.co.uk/arcathedral/

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.

Single copies can be purchased and ACA Members are entitled to an exclusive 25% discount; £27.00 plus VAT by emailing office@acarchitects.co.uk

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.

The SFA24 can be purchased individually with a 25% Member discount£37.50 plus VAT by emailing the ACA directly at office@acarchitects.co.uk

For both agreements, we’ll need the Site Address to be applied as the watermark and the contract PDF will be emailed once payment has been received.

Our Appointment Agreements are also available through our subscription service which provides an unlimited supply of appointment agreements as well as saving time and hassle in negating the need to purchase and download a separate appointment agreement every time one is needed.

With the 20% Member discount, our PSA22 multi service is only £10 per month.

https://acarchitects.co.uk/product/professional-services-agreement-acapsa22-digital-multi-use/

Additionally, for unlimited use, SFA24 can be purchased through our 12 month subscription service at a Member discounted rate of £15.00 per month:

https://acarchitects.co.uk/product/standard-form-of-agreement-for-theappointment-of-an-architect-aca-sfa24-digital-multi-use/

And as a step further, for increased costs efficiencies and ease, our NEW com

bination package offers our Members an unlimited supply of both PSA22 and SFA24 appointment agreements at a discounted rate of £20.00 per monthnormal price £24.00 per month.

https://acarchitects.co.uk/product/combination-package-aca-sfa24-and-acapca22-digital-multi-use/pca22-digital-multi-use/

i i Summer Subscription Offer i i

For a limited time only, we are offering 3 months free on all our subscription packages! Until the end of September, you can receive 3 months free across PSA22, SFA24 and our combination package. As well as 3 months free, remember your membership entitles you to 20% off our subscription packages using discount code ACAMEM

The subscription service is available at https://acarchitects.co.uk/shop/

London Plan update,

(some of) the Green Belt has got to go and Oxford Street pedestrianisation

Account of the London Planning and Development Forum meeting on Tuesday 10th June at Barr Gazetas, 35 Heddon Street W1B 4BP

Discussion topics

1 London Plan update

Jorn Peters, GLA LP team; Professor Ian Gordon, Emeritus Professor of Human Geography, LSE; Peter Eversden, Chair London Forum; Dr Agnieszka Zimnicka, Head of City Planning Policy Westminster;

2 The Mayor’s decided (some of ) the Green Belt’s got to go. Response from outer boroughs

Yvonne Sampoh, LB Barnet Principal Planning Officer (Policy); Christopher Waller, LB Redbridge

3 The pros and cons of Oxford Street pedestrianisation

Mark Willingale, Willingale Associates; Magnus Wills, Barr Gazetas

Report by Riette Oousthuizen of HTA Design also at www.planninginlondon.com >LPDF

ATTENDANCE Meeting held on Tuesday 10th June at Barr Gazetas

!"#$%&'()*+&,-.'.&)/$&."()0(1.2& 134554&-675489:3;4<+&,') $473=<& >83?<&@?5487&!"#$%&A9?38B?<& *?=<:7&@3CC7+&>?88D?;45?7& "4548&(E487F4<+&G"&!6<F6<&%68:B& "86H&I?<&D68F6<+&!.(&& %4C3J34&083KC48+&>?88&D?;45?7& *?8K&@3CC3<=?C4&@3CC3<=?C4&)776J7& LE6<<4&.?BM69&!&>&>?8<45& N68<&"45487&D!)& A983756M948&@?CC48&! > 14FO83F=4&

*(*>(1. # DP(.'.2& $46<&!6BO?8F+&$46<&!6BO?8F&)8J9354J5& .54E4<&,4?59+&>C66B7O:8Q&.6J345Q&& ,4C4<&A:59O485+&"C?<<3<=&"654<53?C& "86H&*3J9?4C&(FR?8F7+&PA!& *3J9?4C&>?J9+&!6<F6<&%68:B& $:<J?<&>6R34+&PA!& )<F84R&A?556+&)A)&&

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

Towards a New London Plan

Jorn Peters, GLA London Plan team with contributions from Professor Ian Gordon, Emeritus Professor of Human Geography, LSE and Peter Eversden, Vice Chair London Forum

Summary points based on presentation by

Jorn Peters, GLA

The ‘Towards a New London Plan’ Consultation Document, published in early May 2025, is not a draft London Plan consultation but a discussion document seeking feedback on a number of policy issues where the London Plan might take a different direction.

The document sets out key direction/choices, not all of which would be possible, or are indeed the preferred route. Where the consultation document is quiet on a matter, it implies that those policy areas would not be subject to significant change and be retained.

This document is preceded by an engagement process that started two years ago.

The London Plan will be completely rewritten with a draft to be published in 2026.

London and the rest of country are in a challenging delivery environment. The London Plan does not want to increase the overall burden on development.

The London Plan will plan for 880,000 homes, 10 years’ supply. This number has no direct relationship with available land at present; the best use needs to be made of land.

The London Plan will set housing delivery targets for all London boroughs. There is a ‘Brownfield First’ approach and a Call for Sites. So far, 700 sites have been submitted. There are 47 Opportunity Areas as a possible source for housing. There is also the opportunity for housing delivery in the Central Activity Zone. Good transport accessibility is a necessary criteria for housing delivery.

Historically, industrial land was also a source for housing, but this document considers a more careful

KEY POINTS

➢ Not a draft plan

➢ Sets out key directions and choices

➢ Not all choices will be possible

approach.

Wider urban and suburban intensification will need to happen. Brownfield land alone is not sufficient, so a London Wide Green Belt Assessment is being undertaken to understand how London’s Green Belt parcels are performing. The emphasis will be on release of green belt land to facilitate urban extensions at fairly high density. The emphasis will be on more homes within suitable green belt land parcels, in an efficient manner, ensuring the minimum amount of green belt land is used.

Metropolitan Open Land will be more clearly distinguished from Green Belt land. It is a London Specific designation and it is not suited for this land to be considered under the new rules of national Green Belt policy.

Alongside housing, economic development is important. The CAZ needs to continue to play a significant role in terms of its unique function for the

➢ Not all choices are the Mayor’s preferred approach

➢ Some choices reflect what we have been told already

➢ Everything will be rewritten (even if the policy approach stays the same) – streamlined

➢ Very challenging delivery environment - viability

➢ London Plan will not increase overall burden on development at this stage

➢ All responses submitted separate to events - online survey strongly preferred

London economy. However, parts of it are less commercial in nature than others. It would be appropriate to review parts of this zone that could offer the opportunity for housing – this is a new direction.

It is recognized that there are clusters of economic activity that are not well recognized by existing designations in the London Plan – the document asks whether there should be new designations for these economic clusters?

In relation to Town Centres and High Streets the question is asked whether these could be acceptable for any type of commercial activity related to Use Class E, thus allowing some light industrial and leisure uses. Some exclusions need consideration, e.g. betting shops, as these would not be appropriate. Housing in these areas would be encouraged.

The consultation document also considers managing industrial capacity strategically, so we can safeguarding the most suitable locations for industrial land, while potentially releasing other locations that could be better used for housing. More capacity might be needed for industrial land on appropriate sites in the green belt.

On housing growth and design

Building heights: consider policy levers to bring forward more development capacity in the existing built up areas. E.g. acceptable building heights across the whole of London could be at 4 storeys as a benchmark. This is already possible under permitted development.

Taller building heights would be suitable

where public transport accessibility is better, optimizing building densities. These heights need to be confirmed.

Design codes for small sites intensification could be introduced at the strategic level. Croydon and Lewisham have done some work in this respect.

The GLA could work with Boroughs to set out suitable heights and locations for tall buildings.

There will be less emphasis on heritage policy as these policy levers are well covered at national level. Should there be the option to retrofit our heritage buildings in a sensitive way?

Homes for Families: most of the development that will come forward within London will be flats to achieve the densities required. How do we make it work for families? Lessons could be learned from elsewhere where flatted accommodation is the norm.

On Infrastructure and Climate Resilience Environmental policy – should this be left to national policy guidance? In London there are London specific energy standards. The current London Plan has been at the forefront of the concept of heat networks and circular economy. The document asks whether we should keep the current approach or a new approach?

Open space deficiency – is distance to open space the right metric alone? Do we need to look at the quality of open space? Level of population in area?

In the current London Plan, MOL is linked to national level Green Belt policy. As a result of the changes to the national policy, the position it would leave MOL land in is now more ambiguous. MOL is not to be released to make up for a shortfall for housing.

Next steps

• The consultation document does not present draft policy, the content relates to ideas for policy direction.

• A new draft London Plan will be published in early 2026 for consultation. It is intended that the London Plan will be submitted for examination in 2027 with a new London Plan adopted by early 2028.

Presentation by Professor

Ian Gordon, Emeritus Professor of Human Geography, LSE

Professor Gordon expressed his pleasure with the Mayor having produced a preparatory consultation document, though with disappointment that it did not actually highlight the promised “big issues” or provide bases for their public debate

Instead a reading of the document, suggests a

HOUSING

➢ Plan for 880,000 homes

➢ A very big challenge and increase

➢ London Plan has to set borough targets

➢ Brownfield first (but not a sequential test!)

➢ We can’t do by brownfield alone, even with significant policy changes

➢ Other –

➢ National changes including introducing “grey belt”

➢ Large scale urban extensions

➢ Metropolitan Open Land – e.g. some golf courses

ECONOMY

➢ Dual priority with housing

➢ Maintain importance of Central Activities Zone

➢ New economic designation outside CAZ / town centres

/ industrial

➢ Town centres and high streets for any commercial activity - potentially with some exclusions e.g. betting shops?

➢ Clearer about reviewing town centre boundaries (especially release for housing)

➢ Set industrial capacity strategically (including grey/ green belt where appropriate)

➢ Focus designated industrial land on heavy industrial uses - consider light industrial in town centres

LONDON’S CAPACITY FOR GROWTH AND DESIGN

➢ Set acceptable building heights (excluding where impact on heritage assets)

➢ 4 storeys everywhere

➢ higher near stations – heights tbc

➢ London-wide design code for small sites intensification

➢ London Plan could set out tall building locations (together with boroughs)

➢ Need transport infrastructure to unlock densities

➢ Heritage – leave to national regime? (except views and World Heritage Sites)

➢ Homes for families to be flats rather than houses –how do we make that work?

polarisation between:

• a couple of big issues treated as now being settled by government edict: a need-based housing target of (88,000 extra homes per year over a decade); and systematic reviews of Green Belt to find more space for this;

• An enormous number of trivial questions about design and environmental measures which will elicit 200,000 different opinions.

The London Plan is supposed to be a strategic

plan, for which there are really 3-4 basic requirements:

1) a longer-term perspective, to make sense of the situation we are in and translate into lessons;

2) a much broader spatial perspective too, beyond the areas to be directly planned, to account for interactions with their hinterlands;

3) paying direct attention to underlying processes that drive individual behaviour and the labour, housing and product markets mediating these;

INFRASTRUCTURE, CLIMATE CHANGE AND RESILIENCE

➢ Environmental policies – leave to national regime or keep?

➢ Use benchmarks to current reporting (so industry know when they have done enough Energy standards

➢ Open spaces – Revisit how we assess and what is open space

➢ Fix unintended national changes to Metropolitan Open Land to distinguish from green belt

PLAN DEVELOPMENT STAGES

utterly implausible (150% above a recent average of about 33,000 p.a.) is because a series of Mayoral London Plans, over the past 15 years or so, had failed to come near targets that were taken as being credible – and thus got hiked up, like a cumulative overdraft. What is truly shocking about this consultation document is that it neither admits, nor starts to account for this record of chronic failure.

It also needed to be recognised that the optimism bias of London Plan authors (relying on forms of densification) was not shared by other informed observers. There were warnings from deeply sceptical EiPs – wanting a mix of full Plan reviews, Green Belt reviews and WSE-wide strategic engagement (taken further in the 2016 OLC reports, which the Mayor seems just to have ignored). And in 2019 the Inspectors simply removed one over-optimistic element from the target calculation, leaving a 14,000 gap.

On Green Belt review

plus, more pro-actively 4) building political alliances via deals/shared analysis with potentially key public/private actors, to secure more desirable outcomes.

Remarkably none of these are evident within the consultation document.

He then focused on what should have been discussed in relation to the two Big/Settled Issues:

Housing delivery and targets

The set target of 880,000 additional homes over the next decade comes from a sort of “need” calculation in the revised NPPF. The calculation is somewhat arcane (a previous version would have given 990,000). But a central logic running through it is that any shortfalls in one period need to be made up in the next one. So the fact that the target now being set seems

The required Green Belt review in London has already started (with a sudden Mayoral “change of mind”), although on a mundane bottom-up grey-belt basis. Within the consultation document there is no analysis of how/why this could be a game-changer, which on this basis is pretty unlikely. The obstacle is a micro-level (sticking plaster) approach – seeking sites that could be assigned to specific development within the plan period. Rather than recognising/addressing how the market-based WSE housing system, responds to strong external demands so long as a large proportion of potential developable land can be expected to retain Green Belt status, underwriting expectations of long term (30 year) growth in price and consequently slow rates of release. To deal with this, what is needed is a series of Wider South East reviews, involving sets of interested parties (in growth corridors) to generate sustainably acceptable and credible new frameworks/boundaries – rather than an ad hoc and disturbing “moth-holing” of grey belt with only temporary value. Objectively there are shared interests now across the regional boundary, since the Rest of the WSE now also faces a very challenging housing target. This will not be a simple matter, as it requires political alliances –but the Mayor of London ought to be in a position to provide some leadership!

Presentation by Peter Eversden, Vice President London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies

Peter focussed on more factors for consideration for the challenges and issues in preparing the next

London Plan.

The Government's imposition of a target 'need' of 880,000 homes over the next decade in London would require additional social infrastructure and transport improvements that will be very difficult to fund. The target in the current London Plan is 520,000 over ten years and recent trends indicate delivery rate is far below that.

Jules Pipe said at the London Forum’s event for the launch of the consultation document (May 2025) that: “We calculate something like two thirds of the 52,000 annual target should actually be in social housing.”

Last Autumn the Government attempted to apply their ‘standard method’ for targets at borough level which demonstrated that their formula does not work in London. The Government’s target for new homes in London over ten years is totally unrealistic and seems to be simply to meet their aim to have one and a half million new homes delivered nationally.

The Mayor will be using the SHLAA and SHMA to determine land capacity and housing need for apportionment to each borough of a housing target, so let’s look at some of the issues in recent housing delivery which have to be addressed. I cannot vouch for their validity but the sources are DHCLG, GLA, TCPA, RTPI, HBF, Shelter, London Councils and the LGA.

Issues in housing delivery

• Affordable homes started in London down by 88% April 2023 and March 2024

• 90% drop in grant-funded affordable homes started in the last financial year

• Housing association starts had a 92% drop in Q2 2024 compared to Q2 2023

• A significant downturn since last Autumn in both applications and construction

• Proposals by Government on biodiversity and nature recovery are adding costs

• 300,000 homes in London with permission but not built (7.5 years’ supply)

• 24,000 affordable homes lost by office-to-residential conversions under PDR

• Councils spend £114 million monthly on temporary accommodation

• Short term rentals (Airbnb) in 2024 averaged 51,000 in London

• 87,000 homes are long-term empty or second homes

The first four points emphasise the stagnation in the market recently and the question is how long will it take to return to anything like previous levels of supply?

Build costs have increased a lot.

We have to know if the three hundred thousand homes with planning permission will be built and when completion of some of them is likely.

• !"#$%&'$&()*+$+),(+)-'$(."/0)("),'1"+$)2)3345444)($&)6$2%)(2%7$()

• 8.$)+(2&/2%/)'$(."/),+)9:2;$/),&)$2<.)"9),(+)12%2'$($%+)

• ="<2:)$2%&,&7+)12%2'$($%)72#$)8";$%)>2':$(+)'$/,2&)?@3A)9"%)B4BC) )D)&")"(.$%)E"%"*7.)$F<$$/+)?@4A) )D)(.$)%$+*:();"*:/),'1:6)2):";)."*+,&7)&$$/)

• >"*+$)1%,<$)12%2'$($%)72#$)GH)AIJ)2).,7.)."*+,&7)&$$/)"9)K5BLM)12) )D)(.$)(2%7$(),&)(.$)<*%%$&()="&/"&)N:2&),+)KK3)12) )D)2:'"+()<"'1:$($:6)E*,:()*1)2()(.$).,7.$+()/$&+,(6),&)OA) )D)L@P):2&/)<"#$%27$),&)(.$)=NQ),+),&)J"&+$%#2(,"&)Q%$2+

!""#$"%&'%()#"&'*%+$,&-$./

• !""#$%&'()*+#,)-*-.&$.)%*/0*1#0%#0*%#20*'3*445*!6$/(*7879*&0%*:&$;+*787<*

• =85*%$#6*/0*>$&0.?"@0%)%*&""#$%&'()*+#,)-*-.&$.)%*/0*.+)*(&-.*"/0&0;/&(*3)&$*

• A#@-/0>*&--#;/&./#0*-.&$.-*+&%*&*=75*%$#6*/0*B7*787<*;#,6&$)%*.#*B7*7879*

• !*-/>0/"/;&0.*%#20.@$0*-/0;)*(&-.*!@.@,0*/0*'#.+*&66(/;&./#0-*&0%*;#0-.$@;./#0*

• C$#6#-&(-*'3*D#E)$0,)0.*#0*'/#%/E)$-/.3*&0%*0&.@$)*$);#E)$3*&$)*&%%/0>*;#-.-*

• 988F888*+#,)-*/0*1#0%#0*2/.+*6)$,/--/#0*'@.*0#.*'@/(.*GHIJ*3)&$-K*-@66(3L*

• 7<F888*&""#$%&'()*+#,)-*(#-.*'3*#""/;)?.#?$)-/%)0./&(*;#0E)$-/#0-*@0%)$*CMN*

• O#@0;/(-*-6)0%*PQQ<*,/((/#0*,#0.+(3*#0*.),6#$&$3*&;;#,,#%&./#0*

• R+#$.*.)$,*$)0.&(-*G!/$'0'L*/0*787<*&E)$&>)%*JQF888*/0*1#0%#0*

• 4HF888*+#,)-*&$)*(#0>?.)$,*),6.3*#$*-);#0%*+#,)-

!"#$%&'(()$(

• !"#$%&'()"*+,(-,".'/,(011%22%.3,*%/(*/(1'/,#3+(3/.(*//'#(4%/.%/(

• 5%&,(%6(#'/,*/7

• -%2'(8%2'&(3#'("/.'#9%11"$*'.(3/.(&%2'(3#'(%:'#1#%;.'.(

• <8'#'(/''.&(,%(='(3/(3/3+>&*&(%6($83&'.(.'+*:'#>(%6(6%#'13&,(8%2'&(3/.(?%=&(*/( 4%/.%/@&(6%#,>9&':'/(A$$%#,"/*,>(0#'3&(;8*18(;'#'(2'3/,(,%(.'+*:'#(BCD(%6( 3++(/';(8%2'&E(

• F%;(,%(.'/&*6>(,8'(+%;9#*&'(%",'#(4%/.%/(&"="#=&(

• 4%/.%/(5%"/1*+&(#'$%#,&(,83,()%#%"78&(*/(,8'(13$*,3+(631'(3(6"/.*/7(&8%#,63++(%6( 3,(+'3&,(GCHH2(,8*&(>'3#(IBHBC9BJK(

• L3,*%/3+(M':'+%$2'/,(N3/37'2'/,(!%+*1*'&(3/.(4%13+(!+3/&(

• -':'/(N3>%#3+(-,#3,'7*'&(,%(='("$.3,'.(3/.(1%/&"+,'.("$%/

Apparently, over 183,000 people in London are homeless and living in temporary accommodation, including nearly 90,000 children – that’s 1 in every 10 in every school class. As a result of that, Councils are having to house and support them at huge cost.

The last two points indicate the amount of potential homes not available for Londoners.

Of those Airbnb lettings, vacation rentals offering a private room within a shared property were 28% of all listings.

There are nearly 600 tall buildings above 20 storeys in the “pipeline” in NLA’s annual Tall Buildings Survey and at a rate of 280 completed on the last decade, this would be a 20-year supply.

These schemes represent over 100,000 homes, more than a third of all unimplemented homes in London. However, their affordable housing content is minimised by the cost of building towers.

Other factors

• Purpose Built Student Accommodation in central and inner London

• Cost of renting

• Some homes are under-occupied and some are overcrowded

• Some Opportunity Areas stalled

• How to densify the low-rise outer London suburbs

• London Councils reports that Boroughs in the capital face a funding shortfall of at least £500m this year (2025-26)

• National Development Management Policies and Local Plans

• Seven Mayoral Strategies to be updated and consulted upon

Many housing sites in London are being taken by Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA). Could it be built in outer London instead of the locations in Inner London where we need more homes for local people? Travel concessions for students could be arranged.

The Government’s English Housing Survey 202324 [at https://bit.ly/3SRBHFd] showed that among those in the lowest income quintile, the proportion of household income spent on rent for private renters is rising significantly. That is causing homelessness and adding to the demand for social housing.

The existing housing stock is not always well distributed – for example, some homes are under-occupied, some are overcrowded, some are second homes and many are empty.

There needs to be an analysis of phased delivery of forecast homes and jobs in London’s forty-seven Opportunity Areas which were meant to deliver 25% of all new homes.

Another major issue is how to densify the lowrise outer London suburbs with clarity on CPOs for assembling land for development now that the Government has ruled out 'hope value' in compensation.

London Councils reports that Boroughs in the capital face a funding shortfall this year.

Proposals for National Development Management Policies could have implications for the London Plan and particularly for the content of London boroughs’ Local Plans. London Forum does not understand how the Government expects to write rules for decision making for topics that vary in all parts of England.

Finally, seven Mayoral Strategies have to be revised and all London Plan Guidance documents updated. They will all need consultation.

The outcome of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill as an eventual Act will impose more rules on the Mayor for general conformity in the next London Plan. The Bill may introduce Environmental Delivery Plan (EDP) and Nature Recovery proposals which could adversely affect development viability and weaken environmental protection.

There are current consultations on Government proposals for reforming local planning committees, simplifying decisions for schemes below 10 homes to help small and medium builders (SMEs), introducing a medium-sized site threshold up to 49 homes and ‘Speeding up Build-out’ for major developments.

The GLA and boroughs have to consider what will be done to deal with the issues and other factors that

I have outlined above in preparation for actions, new strategies, revised policies and guidance.

In conclusion, London Forum asks Where should the growth go?

• Increased density in the right places – refocus on town centres and stations – based on public transport, accessibility, capacity and connectivity.

• Opportunity areas – conduct a realistic review of progress and what they can deliver, as they are highly dependent on strategic transport infrastructure investment.

• Explore “grey belt” through strategic review of green belt

What form should it take?

• The preference would be for medium-rise, higher density buildings in right places

• In relation to Tall buidings the following should be addressed:

• Retain a plan-led approach through identifying suitable locations through local plans

• Resist reduction in Mayoral intervention thresholds, especially along Thames

• Revive/extend control of tall buildings along Thames and designate additional views upstream of Lambeth Bridge

• Initiate a major shakeout of the tall buildings pipeline.

Discussion

A number of forum members expressed disappointment with the contents of the document.

Sustainability, for example, appears as an afterthought.

The housing target is absurd. Nick Bannon’s book ‘How to Solve the Housing Crisis’ was mentioned – is there really a housing crisis? It is not quantum of housing that is the issue, it is affordability. Could the housing affordability issue in London be addressed through security of tenure?

The last Government brought in residential reform to get rid of Section 21 notices and short hold tenancies. Could there be a London Plan rent control? It was pointed out that rent control is not a policy issue as such and as such not much the London Plan can do about the issue.

It appeared that evidence collection did not feed into the document. Where, for example, did the existing London Plan fail, and therefore need a new direction?

The Standard Housing method is based on 0.8 x existing housing stock adjusted by an affordability factor. It has nothing to do with what the actual housing need is and what should be done about it; where capacity can be found. The London SHMA is just starting. No survey data is available to come to useful conclusions.

Who are we building for? We are not just building homes. There should be more guidance on tenure and

affordability to establish priorities for different groups. Those in greatest need should be prioritized; don’t just leave housing delivery to the market – it won’t address need.

The housing investment budget needs to be 3 times what is at moment – on social rent. We need to get the existing housing stock in effective use. Bannon is right in this way.

Where will the growth go? Expected progress will not be achieved unless there is significant transport investment. Responsibility should be taken back for the location for tall buildings. it might even be appropriate to lower the threshold for Mayoral intervention on major schemes. Over the last 25 years the Thams have been ruined. There are no strategic views beyond the Lambeth Bridge.

There needs to be a massive shake out of the 600 tall buildings in the pipeline. In the last 10 years 280 tall buildings have been completed. There are 20 years’ worth of tall buildings approvals not implemented.

There was a view that the consultation document is not a tame document. Is it proposing a lot of little land grabs? Is it disingenuous? It is said that the intention is not to make the burden on development worse, but is it decreasing the burden at all? The cost of planning delays and planning taxes through CIL and S106 is not acknowledged.

A view was expressed that brownfield land should not be the first priority. The use of existing buildings should be. Windfall sites should be number two; they grant enormous potential to bring in SME builders. The market is dominated by large developers. The consultation document’s focus on the number of homes to be delivered simply open the doors to provide a lot of housing with everyone in panic mode. This is a downward spiral.

There was a question on how the new London Plan interface with local plans as Local Plans come forward when they come forward. The GLA stated that the London Plan needs to provide certainty; it is not possible that local plan timings always aligns.

It was asked if something more radical should come to the fore. How should the GLA, for example, relate its town and country planning functions to wider interventions. The London plan is supposed to bring together the spatial implications of wider policies.

Whilst it was mentioned that the London Growth Plan is referenced in the current consultation document, it was felt by Forum members that the Growth Plan was more of a PR incentive.

It was questioned that the document reflected an understanding of London’s new economy: Google, life sciences, etc. It appears its focus on industrial land is completely outdated.

Members and others would have had the opportunity to comment on the document up until the 22nd of June 2025. !

The Mayor’s decided (some of) the Green Belt’s got to go

Response from Outer London Boroughs led by Yvonne Sampoh, LB Barnet Principal Planning Officer (Policy) and Christopher Waller, LB Redbridge Planning Policy Officer

Yvonne Sampoh

The London Borough of Barnet adopted its Local Plan early March 2025. The Inspector’s Report came a month before the NPPF was published late last year, with implications for some Green Belt releast and development in the Grey Belt. So, the NPPF has interesting implications: Barnet Council need to increase their housing targets and as such take a new look at Green Belt land, identifying Grey Belt.

The Council is very much of the view that its Local Plan position regarding the Green Belt is justifiable. They eagerly await the outcome of London Wide Green Belt study.

Christopher Waller explained that in Redbridge, one third of land falls within the Green Belt and it has a range of different designations, including SINCs and SANGS.

However, there are sites, well located, openly talked about in various contexts that are suitable for release. The Council have decided to release some of these sites but were not successful in this process

during the formulation of its last Local Plan, primarily due to a lack of provision of playing pitches.

Christopher Waller was of the view that the Green Belt needs to be reviewed in its totality: there are land uses other than residential compatible with the Green Belt. It would be important to plan for BNG offset, renewable energy and burial space.

The Borough is in the process of scoping out its need for Public Open Space. Christopher Waller stated that the Borough agreed with the overall thrust of the Green Belt review but with two important considerations: 1) will it overlook green fingers/corridors? 2) will it fully consider Green Belt land that would be better partitioned off as MOL.

Discussion amongst Forum Members

It was noted that Green Belt boundaries were a matter for Local Authorities and not in fact the GLA. Historically, the London Borough of Redbridge have been very proactive in thinking about Green Belt release but they were stopped by the Mayor. Now, the situation is different.

The current GLA London wide Green Belt assessment is the first of its kind. The Mayor is conducting a review, but not all boroughs are active participants. The interaction between the London Boroughs and City Hall will be complex and interesting relating to this matter.

The assessment covers all of Outer London which include 18 Boroughs. All were invited to be involved. 16 agreed to co-operate with the Mayor, whilst the London Boroughs of Croydon and Hillingdon have chosen not to engage.

It was noted that the vast majority of new homes to be built in and around London will be flats. A question was raised regarding the marketability of larger flats in an Outer London context. Who will these be for? Will it suit larger household sizes?

It was noted that the intentions of the land owners with pockets of Green Belt land considered suitable for release are unknown. What are their institutional capacity to get these sites built out? Much of this land could come forward at a very slow pace as a result. !

The pros and cons of Oxford Street pedestrianisation

Discussion led by Mark Willingale, Willingale Associates and Magnus Wills, Barr Gazetas

With announcements by the Mayor that Oxford Street will be pedestrianised, two contributors to the Forum discussed visions for how this may work. Various options exist, such as decanting buses onto neighbouring West End streets, shuttle buses with interchanges, travelators, trams, and so forth.

Brian Waters opened the discussion by making reference to the fact that the idea of a pedestrianized Oxford Street is not novel. As far back as 1974 Brian Richards produced a scheme for Oxford Street. In 1967 Brian Waters published ‘Get our cities moving’ (the Conservative Political Centre) exploring how traffic could be reduced on Oxford Street. Brian Avery, architect of the IMAX and London Transport Museum, explored the idea of an elevated bus deck along Oxford Street to release the groundscape for pedestrians. In 2020, Andrew Chadwick suggested Oxford Street’s movement would be massively improved by travelators the length of the street.

Mark Willingale discussed the idea of an Oxford Street Shuttle, an idea that stemmed from his practice’s work on a 1994 competition for the Marble Arch – a gate that sits in an uncomfortable position. A full article on the competition entry is enclosed elsewhere in this issue of Planning in London.

In 1994 a tram system similar to Istanbul inspired the idea of bringing the Arch towards a more prominent position, and creating another landmark reference point on the opposite end to Centre Point. Now Cumberland Gate, a residential tower, is proposed. The returns from the investment on such a proposal could generate the funds to pay for a substantial amount of the money needed for the Oxford Street pedestrianization.

Magnus Wills illustrated a vision for Oxford Street by Bar Gazetas (SEE overpage). Oxford Street has issues with viability due to declining retail vitality. Congestion needs to be dealt with down Oxford Street, but it also needs to be future proofed with safety and accessibility in mind.

The Mayor is going to pedestrianize Oxford Street but the vision for it is not very aspirational. Where is the joy and delight? Where are the multiple uses? Where is the public space?

Bar Gazetas have a vision of turning Oxford Street into an urban park with performance, installations and play. A plethora of opportunities exist, completely overlooked, including our idea of linking the urban squares to north and south of Oxford Street with a network of green routes contributing to the ‘greening’ of Oxford Street

What better tribute to ordinary people of London to give them Oxford Street?

Discussion amongst Forum Members:

A question was posed as to the Mayor’s intentions with pedestrianizing Oxford Street. The issue at present is the establishment of a Mayoral Development Corporation to enable it to happen; it is not around the practicalities of pedestrianization. Is the intention to create a funding stream?

The UK Devolution Bill will create powers for the Mayor to become a Licensing Authority. As such the public realm could become one of late night drinking, not unlike the Northern Quarter in Manchester. It was felt that after midnight Soho can be a very dangerous place to be. There are over 2,000 robberies and 2,000 assaults each year, fueled by the nigh time economy and over concentration of drinks licensing. Will all of it be replicated along Oxford Street?

Organisations like the Soho Estates are lobbying against these proposals. It is felt the Mayor is disenfranchising local residents. People in Soho are not against late night licensing but the Mayor is appearing to attempt a blatant land grab.

Oxford Street will never become a grand avenue. It is not the Champs Elysees. Historically, a lot of ordinary people have been dragged down Oxford Street to be executed.

It was felt that the solution for Oxford Street should be elegant. Group members mentioned examples in other parts of the world, including the Grand Via in Madrid and the wonderful pedestrian centre of Vienna. !

LEFT CLOCKWISE: Brian Richards, Brian Waters & Bryan Avery. BELOW LEFT: Avery; RIGHT: Andrew Chadwick >>>

Oxford Street Pedestrianisation Ideas

Oxford Street Pedestrianisation Ideas

Linear Park

Oxford Street Pedestrianisation Ideas

Meanwhile - Making Room for Fun

Oxford Street Pedestrianisation Ideas

Places

Oxford Street Pedestrianisation Ideas

Heddon Street

Oxford Street Pedestrianisation Ideas

Fair Field Croydon

Oxford Street Pedestrianisation

The Missing Magic

BUSINESS SUPPORT FOR MEMBERS

ACA excellence in practice

Robert Peake of Management for Design discusses succession planning

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

ACA excellence in practice

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

Are you prepared for your professional indemnity insurance renewal?

PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE

Morgan Taylor reviews some of the protections which your appointment contracts might include

Whilst it is important to remain wary of potentially onerous contractual liabilities within the agreements you enter into, it is also true that your liability can be limited dependent on the terms of your contract.

Whilst the bulk of our suggestions on any contract review are intended to ensure that a claim is covered under professional indemnity insurance, we may make further ‘risk management’ suggestions, intended at limiting or reducing any potential liability.

The limitation clauses should not be seen as mutually exclusive, and may be “stacked”. There is no reason why you cannot limit your liability to the amount recoverable from your insurance for example, and also set a cap on this liability of a relevant sum.

It must be noted that the suggestions below are made in line with the laws and jurisdiction of England & Wales.

Separately, this is general advice which may, or may not, apply to the terms of any agreement you enter into, and we stress that you should seek specific advice on any contract you enter into.

Liability Caps

A liability cap allows you to set a financial limit in the event of a claim being brought against you, thereby limiting your losses.

The exact value of the cap is up to your own commercial discretion, and you may wish to consider inserting a value reflective of your fee on the project, the project value, or indeed, the level of Professional Indemnity cover you hold. You may wish to consider whether the value of your cap is, however, fair; under the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA), it is stipulated that a liability cap cannot be wholly disproportionate to the value of a given claim brought against you. Moreover, as set out in our example below, there are certain matters you cannot exclude cover for, such as death, personal injury, or fraud.

Finally, we would suggest ensuring that your liability caps are effective when considering a potential claimant’s costs; it may very well be the case that a £5,000,000 claim limit is honoured, however, if a claimant incurs thousands, if not millions, of pounds in associated legal costs, unless these are explicitly referenced you may find yourself liable for the same.

Additionally, you could consider making the cap apply in the aggregate, rather than apply to each and every claim. However again, UCTA should be considered here.

Evaporation Clauses

An Evaporation Clause operates in a similar fashion to a liability cap, however, the cap is reflective of the amount recoverable by you from your Insurers.

This may be especially useful when considering aggregate limits of indemnity, which will vary over time as claims are brought. Evaporation Clauses reduce your risk of uninsured losses through excluding losses which are in excess of the cover you hold.

It is important to note that clear reference to your policy at time of claims notification should be made, to avoid a shortfall in the event that your levels of cover fluctuate.

Net Contribution Clauses

Under the law of England & Wales, you are ordinarily considered to have ‘joint and several liability’. This means that, in the event of a claim, a claimant may pursue you for all of their losses, even if you were only partially involved. It is then your responsibility to recover your losses from other involved parties. Whilst this is, theoretically, a useful tool to ensure that claimants are more likely to recover their losses, it can prove dangerous in the construction industry when considering the rate of insolvencies.

A Net Contribution Clause reverses this standard legal position, ensuring that you are only held liable for the proportion of losses which is fair to attribute to you. For this reason, inserting a Net Contribution Clause into your agreements is a prudent decision.

Limitation Clauses

Under the Limitation Act 1980, your liability period under contract will be either 6 years for simple contracts executed under hand, or 12 years for matters executed as a deed. This is the default position, however, you are able to agree to a liability period of your own choosing in the drafting of a contract.

There is certainly a degree of risk as associated with the same, as extending your liability period

Morgan Taylor is Claims and Technical Executive, Howden

beyond the default is likely to be considered as onerous, generating a risk of uninsured exposure in the process. On the other hand, the ability to potentially reduce the limitation period, tying the same to the end of your involvement in a given project, is a useful tool.

[Please note, the above limitation periods are offered in line with the laws of England and Wales, and may vary dependent on the relevant jurisdiction of a given agreement].

Hold Harmless Agreements

Hold Harmless Agreements serve as useful provisions whereby one party to a contract undertakes to not hold the other party responsible for any losses sustained in the course of their services.

The ability to absolve yourself of responsibility is, naturally, favourable, and so where such a clause can be included, it is generally good practice to do so. Moreover, the inclusion of indemnity style language in such clauses can be utilised to ensure that the other party to the contract is required to reimburse your losses.

The above examples demonstrate some of the approaches which may be relevant to your contracts, when considering limiting your own liability. As noted, the efficacy of any given clause will depend on the exact terms of your contract, and we would suggest seeking further advice ahead of entering into any agreement. n

The Conservation, Heritage, Restoration & Building Journal. Celebrating our 10th anniversary.

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, products and services so essential to this sector.

Please email for a complimentary copy.

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.

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

The FAC-1 Handbook

“FAC-1 is a truly transformative contract that delivers up new relationships throughout the supply chain, whilst introducing shared systems and an effective approach to risk”. — Rebecca Rees, partner Trowers & Hamlins

To purchase visit the ACA shop: https://acarchitects.co.uk/ product/fac-1-handbook/ https://tinyurl.com/4adk47ra

Spring 2023 saw the publication of ‘The FAC-1 Framework Alliance Contract-: A Handbook’, written by FAC-1 author Professor David Mosey and described by John Welch of Crown Commercial Service as ‘the best friend of everyone, in every sector of the construction industry, who wants to make a real difference.’ FAC-1 has been used to integrate and enhance procurements ranging from £5 million to £30 billion across several jurisdictions, and the new Handbook is designed to provide an introduction for those who are new to this form and a refresher for current users. It includes 30 case studies and 46 practice notes to illustrate how FAC-1 can be used by architects and their teams who are engaged on projects and programmes of works, services or supplies in any sector.

FAC-1 has its origins in research by the King’s College London Centre of Construction Law & Dispute Resolution with the Association of Consultant Architects, exploring with over 100 organisations the potential for a new standard form framework alliance contract to integrate a programme of multiple projects or to integrate the components of one or more complex projects. As a multi-party umbrella, FAC-1 connects any range of consultant appointments and JCT, NEC or PPC forms through collaborative systems which can achieve value improvement, risk management and net zero carbon targets.

The UK ‘Construction Playbook’, published in 2020 and updated in 2022, promotes frameworks as an efficient method to procure public works, goods and services and states that a ‘successful framework contract should be based around principles that align objectives, success measures, targets and incentives so as to enable joint work on improving value and reducing risk’. It recognises FAC-1 as ‘a good example of a standard form framework contract that can achieve many of the ambitions set out in this Playbook.’

A contract that only allocates risks and responsibilities does not recognise the value of contractual connections between architects, engineers and the many specialist contributors to construction and engineering projects. FAC-1 makes these connections, and the Handbook examines notable FAC-1 successes such as:

• Integration of a community of micro-SME architects and engineers to share innovations drawn from community knowledge and experience

• Environmental improvements and integration of architects, engineers, contractors and suppliers using modern methods of construction and BIM on the Ministry of Justice New Prisons programme

• 7 per cent cost savings, 48 per cent time savings, BIM inte-

gration and collaborative risk management by designers and contractors on a new school and civic centre project.

For example, the Handbook describes how FAC-1 supports a drive for net zero carbon by including in its definition of improved value ‘measures intended to reduce carbon emissions, to reduce use of energy and or natural and manmade resources, to improve waste management, to improve employment and training opportunities, and otherwise to protect or improve the condition of the Environment or the well-being of people.’ The Ministry of Justice New Prisons alliance used FAC-1 to ensure that the design for the four new prisons would target BREEAM 2018 Outstanding ratings and to establish routes to net zero carbon, for example by achieving a significant reduction in operational energy consumption from the national grid and an 85% reduction in operational carbon emissions.

The purpose of the Handbook is to guide all parties involved in delivering projects or programmes of works, services or supplies through the FAC-1 contractual relationships and systems. It is designed for use by framework providers, clients, designers, managers, contractors, specialists, operators and legal advisers.

An FAC-1 framework alliance creates the foundations for the integrated working practices such as early supply chain involvement, modern methods of construction and BIM that are essential to the modernisation of the construction industry. The Handbook helps clients, advisers and industry to make clear:

• How an FAC-1 alliance is created, between which alliance members and how additional members can be added

• Why the FAC-1 alliance is created, what are the measures and targets for its success and how it is brought to an end if it does not succeed

• How FAC-1 alliance members are rewarded for their work

• How each stage of the agreed scope of FAC-1 works, services and supplies is authorised, in what stages and among which alliance members

• What FAC-1 alliance members should do together or individually in order to improve economic, environmental and social value, by means of what contributions and by what deadlines

• How the FAC-1 alliance members reach decisions, manage risks and avoid disputes.

The Handbook also tracks how FAC-1 brings to life the 24 recommendations for framework contracts that are set out in ‘Constructing the Gold Standard’, Professor Mosey’s independent review of public sector construction frameworks which was endorsed by government and 49 industry bodies in the 2022 version of the Construction Playbook. !

ACA CPD EVENTS

ACA CPD events

SEPTEMBER

ACA AGM Wednesday 3rd September

6pm over Zoom

London Planning & Development Forum

2pm Tuesday 16th September at the LSE

email editor@planninginlondon.com for details

OCTOBER

UK Construction Week

NEC Birmingham

Tuesday 30th September to Thursday

2nd October

ACA Principal Designer Event

Date and venue to be confirmed

NOVEMBER

London Build Expo Olympia London

Wednesday 19th to Thursday 20th

November

DECEMBER

Christmas - ACA Office Closed

Christmas Eve Wednesday 24th

December to New Year - Monday 5th

January 2026

Please keep an eye out for emails from the ACA Office inviting you to further webinars and other events

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 offer a 25% member discount by emailing office@acarchitects.co.uk and are now available in unlimited copies on subscription either individually or in our combination package; see article in this ACANews.

> Download the worked example of SFA 2012 edition (with updates) as a ‘taster’ from here: https://tinyurl.com/b2d6rmz7

www.planninginlondon.com

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 PPublications 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 offer a 25% member discount by emailing office@acarchitects. co.uk and are now available in unlimited copies on subscription either individually or in our combination package; see article in this ACANews.

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

Tasters

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.

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

Keith Handy - Howarth Litchfield Partnership Ltd

Welcome to new members ACA is growing

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 (NEW!): ACA@groups.io and

LinkedIn The Association of Consultant Architects