Since I wrote to you last month, the media has been full of the latest news in regard to Grenfell – both the evidence from the independent inquiry, and the coordinated industry response. The Board discussed both these matters when it met on 5 March.

In the most recent evidence, a spotlight has been shone on the requirements of architects in relation to the maintenance of competence. Whatever anyone may say to you on the subject, the Architects Code expects all architects to maintain their competence and keep their knowledge and skills relevant to their work up to date. There are currently no formal Continuing Professional Development requirements made of architects by ARB – you will know from my previous messages that the Board is intending to change this.

Which brings me to what Dame Judith Hackitt, (who has just been chosen to lead the transition Board creating a new building safety regulator), said recently at a conference for the construction products manufacturing industry, which was that the industry fell back on “excuses” to justify its inability to improve. She also complained that change was happening too slowly, despite her review of fire regulations having been published over 18 months ago, and the Government having set out its plans for how things will change.

You will recall that I wrote last month that the Board has set up two expert working groups to advise us on potential enhancements to guidance and possibly standards, in the areas of fire and life safety (and also, climate change and sustainability). It seems to me that the words of Dame Judith and the evidence provided to the Inquiry are a wake-up call for all architects to consider the current state of their competence in regard to the Architects Code – do remember please what the Code says which is: “Be competent“. Reviewing the current state of your competence in regard to fire and life safety and considering whether you need to update your knowledge and skills in this area is a responsible course of action for all architects, so please reflect on this (and if necessary take action) as a matter of urgency.

You probably also recall something else the Code says (and which the Board also discussed at its meeting), which is: “Have appropriate insurance arrangements“. The Board is alive to pressures which have emerged in the provision of professional indemnity insurance (PII), and is currently talking to the insurance industry about the implications of cost increases and new exclusions. Precise information about these matters would be helpful to the Board’s considerations. We will shortly be issuing a confidential survey to all architects to assist us in gaining factual information, so may I encourage you to provide information about your own position as part of that survey. For more information on PII and our current guidance please see our dedicated article featured in this eBulletin edition.

Yours sincerely,

Alison J White

Chair
Architects Registration Board