ACAnews Autumn 2018

ACA News132

Autumn 2018

So much has been going on since the last newsletter...

Message from the president ...that I find it hard to know where to begin.

First and most exciting it is my pleasure to welcome several hundred new practices as members, some of them are listed on page 8. Inevitably many are small firms, but there are lots of SMEs from all over the UK and an array of larger practices such as Rogers, Stirk Harbour, AHMM, Fielden and Mawson and the Cullinan Studio.

The ACA with founded in the 1970s by Eric Lyons and friends and to this day continues to represent and support the private practice of

architecture in the UK. More than ever there is strength in numbers and the need to have a voice with government and in the industry.

Despite our modest presence the ACA has both. We continue to find that our apparently radical manifesto ideas about the planning process, which have been evolving since 2006, have been taken up by governments of both colours. Some of these ideas are reflected in this newsletter in contributions by Andy Rogers who chairs the ACA planning action group.

He and I enjoyed an intimate but lively planning update seminar hosted and sponsored by AECOM last month in their cool Aldgate office.

Immediate Past President Richard Harrison has been very actively and

intensely engaged with the work of the Construction Industry Council in the aftermath of Grenfell Tower disaster.

This is ongoing and we have been largely supportive of Dame Judith Hackett’s recommendations, particularly her perception that the ‘golden thread’ of continuity needs to be re-established. Along with the CIC we believe that the shortcomings of the procurement and construction process as shown up both in Grenfell and with the collapse of Carillion need to yield reform across the piece and should not be restricted just to buildings in residential occupation over 18 stories.

I report the ACA response on page 8 as published in the AJ.

14 Hewitsons Column 15 ACA Quiz 17 Simmons Gainsford Column 19 AJ Column 22 ARB Consultation 23 Showcase

27 Towergate Column 28 DWF Column 30 Quiz Solution 31 Publications 32 Benefits of Membership

INSIDE 04 06 08 09 10 11

ACAPAG Report AJ Column ACA Response to Hackitt New Members Raynsford Review Building Memories

www.acarchitects.co.uk

>>>

excellence in practice ACA News 132

2

excellence in practice Autumn 2018 >>>

The salami slicing of larger projects with design teams changing from stage to stage is something the ACA has expressed concerns about for many years. It not only breaks the trust and professional relationship of client and architect but also undermines the commitment to deliver the project that was promised.

Our planning manifesto calls for mandatory signing off of compliance with planning permission as well as with building regulations to ensure that the promised building is delivered.

This is in the public interest as well as that of the building owner. It is common practice in other countries.

It is however essential that the architect signing off compliance upon completion is independent of the contractor and has been fully engaged in the delivery of the building. This mechanism would be a simple and effective way of achieving the golden thread. Sounds a bit like the Final Certificate - remember those?

Whilst harking back, some members will remember the days when the AJ was filleted by the office librarian who then filed and indexed the technical section articles for the office. I am

ACA Council Members 2018 Brian Waters, President, Andrew Catto, Vice President John Assael Francis Brown Terry Brown Richard Harrison, IPP Andy Rogers Jonathan Louth

pleased that the ACA now delivers a column of professional practice interest every month and some of these recently published by the AJ are reproduced in these pages.

Any members who would like to contribute such a column should get in touch and provide a short synopsis please.

Less visible to many members is the fact that we administer the ASG – alliance steering group - which supports our PPC2000 and FAC /TAC Alliance Contracts, which of course the ACA publishes.

I had the pleasure of attending a very crowded conference in Greenwich run by the ACA earlier this month for the ASG. Many billions of pounds worth of construction work in the public sector are carried out under ACA forms of contract and this includes all work by the Ministry of Justice, highways by Surrey County Council, consultant frameworks and modular housing procurement by Crown Commercial Service, housing renewal in Glasgow and facilities around the country by the Football Association.

The conference demonstrated real enthusiasm for both project Alfred Munkenbeck Stephen Yakeley

ACA Secretariat Secretary General Darya Bahram Director of Enterprise Alison Low Chief Operating Officer Shona Broughton 01959 928412 Page 3

3

and term contracting particularly by housing associations and similar providers. Remarkably our contracts have been translated or are in the process of being translated into a number of jurisdictions and languages including Brazil, Germany, Italy, and now Bulgaria (don’t ask).

The conference was not only well attended but also well sponsored by large firms from Savills to Morgan Sindall. It would have been nice to have seen more architects there engaging with the collaborative contracting process where the ACA along with Professor David Mosey of King’s College, London leads the industry.

Finally, we are about to publish an overlay to the RIBA plan of work which reconciles the established alphabetical PoW with their new numerical plan and also re-establishes the key stages where fees have traditionally been invoiced in relation to the planning process. Designed and written by Stephen Yakeley, the ACA plan of work overlay will be available as an A2 wall chart and also will be included as a fold-out in the ACA SFA appointment agreement, which is still by far the best available. office@acarchitects.co.uk Charlscot, Cudham Road, Tatsfield Kent. TN16 2NJ www.ACArchitects.co.uk www.ppc2000.co.uk www.allianceforms.co.uk @ArchitectureACA @ppc2000 Linked in: The Association of Consultant Architects Group

www.acarchitects.co.uk

ACAPAG PLANNING REPORT excellence in practice ACA News 132

A new housing minster & a planning minister...

Andy Rogers updates us My last bulletin bemoaned yet another Housing Minister (Dominic Raab) but also a change of name for planning (to Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government - MHCLG from DCLG). In the few intervening months there has been not only another new Housing Minister (Kit Malthouse) but also a new Planning Minister (James Brokenshire). So much for continuity and full concentration on the nation’s planning and housing problems.

Here is a summary of current activity and issues in the planning world.

RAYNSFORD REVIEW OF THE ENGLISH PLANNING SYSTEM The review’s interim report was launched in May. It’s a very interesting document, entitled Planning 2020, that is worth a look (www.tcpa.org. uk/raynsford-review). The reason for an interim review - the full report is expected to be ready at the end of 2018 - is to flush out the wide variations of opinion and aspiration for a better planning system in England. The review has found a plethora of conundrums, problems and challenges, with little in the way of solutions. The only common ground identified is a general dissatisfaction with the present planning system as voiced by all those concerned with its operation and effects. The report is an excellent publication that sets out very clearly not only the disparate nature of the planning system, but also the reasons why it has got into such a muddle that most people believe it

is no longer fit for purpose, whatever that purpose is - the lack of a USP is identified as a core problem.

LETWIN REVIEW Oliver Letwin’s review on “tackling the barriers to building” also issued preliminary findings, which included the discovery that there is little evidence of ‘land-banking’ by major housebuilders. Unwillingness to build out large housing sites at rates that would cause prices to drop, as well as control of the types of homes that are built, are considered to be key factors.

Final report to be published in the Autumn.

PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT (GPDO) CHANGES There is increasing criticism of widespread changes from office use to residential and the recently extended permission to change from light industrial use (Class B1(c)) to residential, on the grounds that substandard living accommodation is being provided, often in inappropriate locations - although there is plenty of evidence that the GPDO has created a significant number of new homes as compared to the numbers of new houses being built. Meanwhile change to residential of agricultural buildings using pd rights has been extended (but there must be a real structure that can be converted, not just a shell).

PRE-COMMENCEMENT CONDITIONS The long-promised curb on conditions that must be discharged before development starts comes into force on 1 October. The procedure is not 4

simple and there are strict deadlines (on both sides), but the principle is that pre-commencement conditions can only be imposed after the applicant’s agreement in writing, prior to the permission being issued.

REVISED GOVERNMENT PLANNING PRACTICE GUIDANCE (PPG) Further updates following the above changes have been published the PPG is ‘live’ online data and is constantly being amended. Procedures that establish planning in principle (PiP) for housing development have been clarified, namely the requirement for councils to issue a decision within five weeks of application, a right to appeal against refusal, and an allowance for limited non-housing uses to be included. Details of the higher planning application fees, GPDO thresholds, revised powers for neighbourhood forums and guidance on data protection are also now incorporated.

REVISED NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (NPPF) The ACA’s planning group submitted responses to the consultation on the draft document, many of which have been incorporated in the final version.

In summary: • Emphasis on the importance of design standards and creation of high-quality buildings and places, especially ensuring “that the quality of approved development is not materially diminished between permission and completion, as a result of changes being made to the permitted >>> scheme”.

ACAPAG excellence in practice Autumn 2018 •

•

•

A requirement for local policies to be produced along with strategic plans (aka spatial development strategies). The plan-making section of the NPPF has now been adjusted to clarify the difference between core policies (Strategic Plans) and detailed policies (Local and/or Neighbourhood Plans).

This is a change from the draft, which suggested local polices would be optional.

A new standardised method of calculating housing need (to be fully introduced in November and enforced from January, but to be taken into account by local authorities immediately) will measure the number of homes created against local housing need and penalise councils that underdeliver. Thresholds/ methodology to be set by the government’s 300,000 homes a year target.

Failure to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply or meet delivery targets will automatically trigger a presumption in favour of sustainable development for

•

•

•

•

all applications that include a housing element.

There is now a clear definition of “deliverable” housing sites (not in the original NPPF), to include PiP sites and those with outline permission and allocation in the adopted local plan or on a brownfield register, only if there is clear evidence that housing provision will commence within five years.

A more comprehensive definition of affordable housing will include “social rent” (omitted in the earlier draft).

Councils must accommodate ten per cent of their housing requirement on small sites (watered down from twenty per cent in the draft).

Minimum density standards for city/town centres and other locations that are well served by public transport should be included in local plans, with an emphasis on “different types of housing” such as build to rent and other specialised housing; and “a flexible approach” when

considering issues such as daylight and sunlight.

Much of the revised NPPF is very similar to the original, but in an amended order and with adjustments that accommodate new legislation, changing demographics, recent court cases, etc. For example, councils will no longer be expected to identify primary and secondary shopping frontages but should “respond to rapid changes in the retail and leisure industries”, with a greater emphasis in town centres on “a suitable mix of uses (including housing) [that] reflects their distinctive characters”.

It is also interesting to note that the original NPPF document was trumpeted as a great reduction from the hundreds of pages of policy advice that had built up over many years, to a more reasonable 57 pages. This revised document now has 73 pages, using (as for the draft) an arial typeface that is smaller than the calibri typeface of the original NPPF. So lots more words…

SAVE THE DATE 19 March 2019 Annual planning update seminar hosted by Dentons. CULS in association with London Planning and Development Forum.

1.30 for 2-6pm followed by networking drinks ACA members can attend at the CULS member rate.

Page 5

5

www.acarchitects.co.uk

ACA AJ COLUMN excellence in practice ACA News 132 >>>

Forget about Chief Architects where are all the Chief Planners?

Andy Rogers AJ COLUMN The ACA now supplies a monthly practice column to the AJ. Here are a selection of articles with Andy Rogers’ column as the first Older architects will remember that many years ago in a long-lost golden age, most local authorities had Chief Architects and Chief Planning Offic-ers who dealt with design and development in a logical and successful way for their local areas. Over many years this sensible arrangement has gradually been eroded by the rise of corporate management teams ruled by procedure and funding regimes which have little regard for vision and longterm spatial planning.

Not only are there now no Chief Architects, but at June’s Planning Convention, the RTPI launched preliminary research which has found that only 23% of the local authorities surveyed had a head of planning reporting directly to the chief executive, while 9% had no top-level individual responsible for planning at all.

The reinstatement of senior posts both architects and planners - could

influence development positively and support more effective growth. The best planning department is always one that has a good and experienced leader at its head.

Introducing the Convention, John Acres, the current RTPI president, noted that the draft revised NPPF was launched by Theresa May. So planning is no longer the enemy of enterprise, but rather a catalyst for change. This more positive stance might well be underlined by (yet another) new planning minister, Kit Malthouse, who is a strong advocate of local control over planning matters.

Other features of the RTPI’s Planning Convention included the usual plea for better resourcing of planning departments and greater attention to spatial planning. Although the message from the Planning Inspectorate (still well behind its targets for timely appeal decisions) is that as more senior/experienced planners are engaged by the Inspectorate fewer re-main to help improve the failing local planning authorities.

Also evident was a continuing emphasis on housing for rent (and indeed on renting for life) and the Right to Build - with Richard Bacon MP pointing out that the provision of land and the encouragement of self-builders are duties that most local councils seem to ignore. Massive subsidies for affordable housing (and increasingly complex definitions of same) have been slow to tackle shortages, while the Convention pointed to an increasing number of local authorities that are turning back to building housing themselves and even a new emphasis on Build to Rent over Buy to Let. Historically Chief Architects and 6

Planners knew that local planning works much better for housing provision than national policy and focused on place-making in preference to revenue-raising. One of last year’s buzzwords was resilience and this Convention’s title ‘Resilient planning for our future’ suggests that planning might now be “returning to its original form or position after being bent, compressed, or stretched”. For readers who would like to read more on this theme I strongly suggest a look at Nicholas Raynsford’s interim report for the T&CPA on the state of planning titled ‘Planning 2020’.

In the Chief Planners session at the Convention, Steve Quartermain noted that many of the Housing White Paper’s proposals are still to be fully enacted by the MHCLG, but will have an emphasis on good design and faster delivery/implementation.

Initiatives such as Neighbourhood Planning suggest that big changes are in hand as planning is transferred down from central government to local councils and communities.

In the Convention’s Keynote Address Lord Kerslake pointed out that there have over many years been more government reviews of the planning system than managers of the English football team - let alone planning and housing ministers. Local authorities must be allowed to borrow and build, with the priority being quality not quantity. Whether this can happen in the current climate might depend on the resurgent influence of Chief Architects and Chief Planning Officers.

Andrew Rogers chairs the ACA’s Planning Action Group and is a former partner of Manser Associates

ACA A J COLUMN excellence in practice Autumn 2018

BIM’s collaborative ethos Darya Bahram asks does the CIC BIM Protocol encourage an integrated platform?

It has been well over two years since the mandatory adoption of Building Information Modelling level 2 on UK Government projects. The maturity of BIM “specified requirements” continues to develop through the PAS 1192 suite, most recently in the 2018 specification for “collaborative sharing and use of structured H&S information”. BIM as a process is all about collaboration and it is a wasted opportunity to rewire working relationships if BIM is only a bolt on to existing working practices.

The benefits of BIM rely on its use across the whole “information delivery cycle” in an environment where traditional barriers associated with silo functioning are overturned.

Yet construction is a prototype style manufacturing process, relying on different procurement routes with different expectations, from different contributors with different priorities This begs the question of how BIM procurement and contracting can be aligned to successful delivery of projects through BIM. The King’s College London Centre of Construction Law’s 2016 BIM research report analysed feedback from architects and other professionals offering insights as to the successful delivery of BIM-enabled projects. The report demonstrated that integrated BIM data and processes are linked closely to choices made in the procurement models and contract

terms.

The King’s report provided a commentary on the “CIC BIM Protocol” first edition, a bolt-on document which requires to be “appended to” each project team member’s “Agreement”– be it a professional services agreement or a construction contract. It is good to see that many of the King’s recommendations have been reflected in the new 2018 edition.

Yet one key issue remains a concern, which is that the CIC BIM Protocol still operates as an addendum to a series of two party agreements between the employer and each project team member independently. Adding a protocol in this way does not create the direct working bond between team members, which is essential if they and their project are to take full advantage of what the BIM processes can offer. Only a direct working bond can create a natural alliance among the team, encouraging collective decision-making and alleviating concerns as to abuse of intellectual property rights and mis-use of shared data.

Recent research and report suggests that the uptake of BIM has been somewhat slow and so there is still an opportunity to re-examine the approach at grass roots level. This requires us to move away from the quick fix mind-set and to start using BIM to support the proven success of partnering and alliancing through “multi-party contracts to discourage legal disputes and costly litigations”.

Multi-party partnering contracts published by the ACA have already demonstrated their significance in delivering reduced risks, agreed cost savings and improved designs on BIM level 2 projects, for example 7

on the reported Ministry of Justice pilot schemes. However, in the short term it will be difficult to ask the industry to move away from bilateral contracts overnight.

Another solution suggested in the King’s report would be to create an overarching “umbrella” that brings the project team members under one collaborative roof while leaving their separate appointments intact.

An umbrella contract can use BIM to underpin collaborative links between team members. It can set out who works with whom and at what level of responsibility; what are the agreed objectives, success measures, targets and incentives; what can collectively be done to create value, with timescales and actions required to de-risk obstacles.

In these ways the contributions to BIM under bilateral contracts can be drawn together to provide unanimity as the hallmark of a collaborative working ethos. In fact, an informative and authoritative umbrella contract already exists and has been successfully applied in a number of major projects.

The “FAC-1” framework alliance contract is published by the Association of Consultant Architects and is designed to create mechanisms that ensure stronger commitment to shared objectives and collectively self-regulation as well as improved transparency and efficiency through an ability to share BIM data. Early adopters have reported success, and maybe the time is right to present FAC-1 as an alternative BIM protocol.

Darya Bahram is ACA Secretary General and Research Associate at King’s College.

www.acarchitects.co.uk

ACA RESPONSE: HACKITT excellence in practice ACA News 132

ACA’s response to Building a Safer Future: Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety: Final Report Dame Judith Hackitt’s report has been greeted with a simplistic outcry criticising her failure to demand a blanket ban on inflammable cladding on high rise buildings. The responsible minister has bowed to public and media pressure to look into this proposition.

This is to disown the thoughtful nature of her inquiry and her more fundamental scrutiny of the issues which go to the heart of the failures of government procurement processes in the construction industry.

Government inquiries, despite their length and cost, rarely result in holistic responses. It is always easier to grasp for a big knee-jerk reaction, run with that and assume the job is done.

This would be just a cop-out and it is disappointing that the RIBA has gone along with it. Of course the inappropriate use of flammable materials in the insulation and upgrading of tall buildings has to be addressed through the building regulations, though in the case of Grenfell Tower it seems that the original specification was simply not followed and that the building regulations as they stand were not complied with.

The key issue is the examination of the process which has allowed this to happen. Amongst Dame Hackitt’s report conclusions: “Creating a golden thread of information by: • Obligating the creation of a digital record for new multi-occupancy higher risk residential buildings from initial design intent through to construction and including any changes that occur throughout occupation. This package of building information will be used by the dutyholders to demonstrate to the

regulator the safety of the building throughout its life cycle.

And in addition: • Tackling poor procurement practices including through the roles and responsibilities set out above, to drive the right behaviours to make sure that high-safety, low-risk options are prioritised and full life cycle cost is considered when a building is procured.”

ACA Council member Alfred Munkenbeck comments: “I have worked with RBK&C and can fully understand the background that allowed that poor quality refurbishment to take place. There is no-one in that council controlling building works with a modicum of wisdom or qualification… and of course, one suspects the same with many other councils and public bodies. They are obsessed with demonstrably saving money and following the book letter by letter... but to do no more. They are deeply suspicious of architects and a major way to save money is to limit their involvement.

They stand in a long queue of current ‘project manager’ types who now assume 2% fees for architects (just do the planning drawings… slightly enhanced if you are lucky), whilst architects’ construction stage usefulness has been ignored for many years. This both saves fee money and avoids the inevitable pressure for quality control that architects apply.

Recent governments are right behind this as a form of ‘de-regulation’ as they have been demonising professionals and experts in general.

With this model of Design & Build, independent professional quality control is ignored. Many contractors treat design requirements as a wilful 8

extravagance. Builders can NEVER be trusted to police themselves – it is a contradiction in terms. Economic motivation needs surveillance and whoever is designated for quality control has to be trained in design, independent, and embedded throughout the process. No-one is more naturally motivated to maintain standards than the original architect.’’

Traditional contracts put the architect in what used to be termed a ‘quasi judicial’ role, standing between the owner and the builder. Given the complexity of modern construction and procurement, especially for larger public works, collaborative arrangements established through the ACA’s PPC forms of partnering and Alliance contracts can maintain the architect’s independent role alongside other members of the team.

Either way, Dame Judith’s golden thread of responsibility can be achieved without having to introduce a whole new layer of process and bureaucracy. And it does not need to be limited to just ‘new multioccupancy higher risk residential buildings’.

The CIC response to the Hackitt Review can be found at: http://cic.org.uk/admin/ resources/cic-hackitt-reviewresponse-31.07.2018.pdf

ACA NEW MEMBERS excellence in practice Spring 2018

Remember, membership of the ACA is Free So do invite colleagues to join via our homepage www.

ACArchitects. co.uk

Welcome to a selection of new ACA Members Shane Santry Gudjon Erlendsson Heritage Architecture David Black Graham Pearce Tara Thomas Holland & Brown Sam Coe Robert Adams Paul Dean John Corbey Huat Lim Matthew Wintersgill Paul Mitchell John Lawson John Ahern Peter Tigg Stefan Black Robin Bigger Ian Potts Paul Johnston Paul Miele Jon Boon Dominic Kramer Sonny Karanjia Christopher Nash Michael Rushe Andrew Morris David McBain Paul Walker Ian Donaldson Monica Knight Alex Macgregor Jon Ignatowicz Graham Willis Julia Weeks Anil Barnes Robin Haddow Richard Crooks

Page 9

9

Bob Hunt Roger Latham Francis Mudford Ali Rashid David Tonkinson Peter Deakins Peter Dickeson Bernard Humphrey-Gaskin Peter Jackson Graeme Jennings Paul Birch Robert Parkingson Robert Wilson Harshad Patel John Hickley Danny Sullivan Arthur Hendry Alexander Hobbs Richard Francis David Lees Vincent Wang Alan Baker Richard Haig Robert Evans Morris Richards Penny Pope Clive Jones Richard Young David Kent Stuart King Stephen Barter Gareth Webb Jean Hanna Mark Kubaczka Kennedy O’Callagham Jonathan Freegard Frances Holliss Peter Sennitt Justin Gallaher Simon Gillespie Mel Dearing Graham Molden Richard Dean Cezary Bednarski G Gillam Paul Harding Mark Wenman

www.acarchitects.co.uk

RAYNSFORD REVIEW excellence in practice ACA News 132

Interim report of the Raynsford Reivew of planning in England Report by Andy Rogers On 15th May, Nicholas Raynsford, President of the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), launched his interim review of the planning system at the House of Lords and later at the TCPA, along with Hugh Ellis (Director of Policy). The reason for an interim review - the full report is expected to be ready at the end of 2018 - is apparently to flush out the wide variations of opinion and aspiration for a better planning system in England.

Indeed, as Nick Raynsford explained, the review has found a plethora of conundrums, problems and challenges, with very little in the way of solutions. The only common ground identified by the review is a wide dissatisfaction with the present system as voiced by all those concerned with its operation and effects. His presentation identified the core finding that there is no legal definition of the planning system or proper explanation of its purpose.

This was underlined by many of the questions and comments formulated by those present at the launch. The English planning system, in summary, desperately needs a sensible and wellarticulated USP. The interim report itself is an excellent publication that sets out very clearly not only the disparate nature of the planning system, but also the reasons why it has got into such a muddle that most people believe it is no longer fit for purpose - whatever that purpose is. The document summarises the post-war history of planning in this country with chapters on its evolution, what

is meant by planning, lessons from previous reviews of the system, and a description of how it is actually supposed to work today. Clear key diagrams explain the relationship of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to the planning system and how it differs from the principles of the 1947 Planning Act. Having established that planning law is one of the most complex sets of Acts and Orders in the whole English legislative system, the review formulated nine simple propositions for a new planning system. These range from planning in the public interest and with a purpose to encouraging creative and visionary planners.

It is on these propositions that Nick Raynsford is calling for further comments and responses: this is an interim report and is flagged up The interim review can be found at: primarily as a consultation document, https://www.tcpa.org.uk/raynsfordwhich the Planning Action Group will review respond to as a follow-up the ACA’s original submission.

But the nub of the launch was a last question that concerned what standing the final report will have with government and the powers that be. The TCPA is a small organisation, albeit with considerable influence and the launch was evidently very well received at the House of Lords.

However, there is a body of opinion that questions whether planning should be democratic at all, or whether it would be better as a technocratic system, and also those who feel that the system is already too centralised so that they are simply dealing with ‘planning by surrender’. All these issues, along with the many problems identified by the review, await further analysis and the final report will have to be somewhat a judgment of Solomon.

10

BUILDING MEMORIES THROUGH INFRASTRUCTURE excellence in practice Autumn2018

Building Memories Through Infrastructure : why it matters

John McNeil

Have you ever experienced that feeling when you had to stop and take a mental picture of your surroundings, taking in every second, every moment you had in that place? Those moments when buildings became monuments, when a bridge became the place you met, and arches become childhood landmarks that welcome you home.

Regardless of whether you want to preserve that memory or not, you just know, then and there, that a piece of this place will always be a part of your life, no matter what.

For Londoners who survived the Blitz in World War II, one of these places is the Underground. Back then, air raid sirens screamed as families rushed to take refuge underground.

Crowds of people piled in and pushed tightly together, panicked eyes darting around. Parents clutched children; children clutched teddy bears. An immense droning magnified the destruction above, as people waited in the corridors of sanctuary beneath the city.

Since that moment, the Underground had a new profound meaning for Londoners. The tube is not just a modern day metro system for England’s WWII survivors; it formed an integral part of people’s lives, letting the memories that transpired back then live on.

Spaces have stories, and it’s our job to capture them. The Stari Most, Sydney Opera House and the Te Rewa Rewa Bridge all have similar historical meaning; inspiring users and visitors alike. How can today’s engineers impart significance through design and create structures that are more than functional pieces of engineering, reflecting the past and shaping cities people want to live in?

Engineering is evolving Engineers have traditionally been trained with a specific set of skills.

Projects involve research, calculation, design, and construction to produce something useful, practical, and problem-solving. What has been overlooked in training is the consideration of the social impact a project may have on a population. It seems that following the plan, ticking a box, and moving on is no longer accepted as ‘job done’.

Page 11

11

Today, our engineers must ask ‘Why?’ and ‘How will people respond?’ to seek understanding about where the surface problem lies and uncover the underlying needs of the community.

The ultimate question is: how do we define success in a project? By identifying how people will use and respond to this infrastructure, engineers can address wider issues and design to accommodate the needs of a community.

Leading academic Professor Roberto Verganti puts it this way: if all of London was on fire, which part of the city would you save? An entire generation might choose to save the very construct that saved their lives: the Underground. It has served above and beyond its initial intent; to say that the tube was a successful project would be an understatement.

Don’t underestimate the power of sentimentality to forge value and galvanise community support around spaces. When you think design, he argues, think beyond the commercial value of a project to include its >>> historical significance. www.acarchitects.co.uk

BUILDING MEMORIES THROUGH INFRASTRUCTIRE excellence in practice ACA News132 >>>

The power of projects to pick up the pieces When designing, look for opportunities to rewrite and redeem a broken story. Projects can be platforms for healing and restoration . That’s what Bosnia’s Stari Most Bridge project has illustrated over time. For centuries, the iconic bridge was a proud symbol of its city but, in 1993, Croat military forces deliberately destroyed this pedestrian walkway as nothing other than an apparent act of ‘killing memory’. It was a “tremendous blow to morale and a strategic victory for the Croats”, which left a cultural heritage and 16th-century bridge in shambles at the bottom of the Neretva River.

Fast forward one decade to a postwar Bosnia, utterly determined to pick up the pieces of their splintered past. After huge demand for the heritage and meaning to be restored, the bridge was rebuilt in 2004 with the same materials and technology as before. Parts of the original bridge were fished out of the river and grafted into the tenelia stone as a statement of resilience and patriotism.

Today, the Stari Most Bridge is one of the country’s most recognisable landmarks and a symbol of what can rise from ruins when a nation works together.

A city icon reconnects with indigenous cultural meaning The Sydney Opera House is undoubtedly one of the great architectural masterpieces of the 20th century. Its iconic sails are a meaningful feature of Sydney city’s skyline. Danish architect Jorn Utzon blew architectural expectations, advancing technology ahead of its time, and generating passionate community debate in the process.

Upon completion in 1973, the long history of the site of Bennelong Point was changed as Australia raced to define itself as a new land with this innovative building. The fact that a Wangal man, Woollarawarre Bennelong, was given the land in 1790 to build a hut was overlooked.

But the Opera House, in time, and as necessary, grew to involve Aboriginal culture and give the once-forgotten Bennelong history a new platform.

The opera’s sails were reinvented

in July 2017 as sky-bound canvases to celebrate the rich and vibrant heritage of Australia’s indigenous community. During the week of the National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observance Committee (NAIDOC) ‒ exactly 50 years since indigenous peoples were included in the census ‒ the stark white facades were illuminated in extraordinary indigenous artwork known as ‘Badu Gili.’

So powerful a presentation, Sydneysiders have been enjoying the show ever since. For seven minutes every evening, the Opera House is emblazoned in colour and light, a palette on which to write the story of Bennelong and his people into the Australian narrative.

Inclusive design to create significance With the higher level of education and wider understanding of today, engineers should celebrate rich cultural histories in their progression of projects and achieve inclusivity from the beginning.

In 2010, the Te Rewa Rewa Bridge in New Plymouth, New Zealand, was thoughtfully and sensitively designed from the start, taking in the history and culture of the land and its people.

On the Northern side is a historic pā and burial ground, and the arch hangers are curved lightly at this end to honour the deceased. Entering the bridge from this side, the elegant white ribs of the structure frame the magnificent Mount Taranaki in the background, positioning the mountain

12

in perfect view for people leaving the sacred ground.

This extension to the Coastal Walkway was made possible by a special agreement between the New Plymouth District Council and Ngāti Tawhirikura hapū; with the social impact of the bridge understood and considered at the design stage, and the history of the site respected and integrated. While this Bridge is a popular destination recognised for its design and picturesque appeal, it’s the meaning behind it that has created a huge impact on all visitors.

Can we design meaning into projects?

It’s true, it’s difficult to predict (or contrive) the meaning a building could have at the design stage; sometimes it takes generations, cultural events, disasters or even war to shape the meaning of infrastructure. A brand new shiny skyscraper isn’t going to cut it as a historical masterpiece overnight.

But engineers can broaden their thinking; embrace a humanities-sociocultural approach: begin to ask ‘how will people respond?’ and consider the many facets of communities before putting pencil to paper.

Imagine a future where the design process is led by the who and not by the what’s of our briefs. The more ‘human’ our solutions to tomorrow’s problems, the greater chance we’ll be building monuments that become meaningful parts of people’s lives and not just monoliths.

LONDON BUILD : ACA CPD DAY excellence in practice Autumn 2018

23 October 2018 10.30- 20.45

London Build, Olympia, London

ACA CPD Day, AGM and Soapbox Join us for a full day of CPD with leading architects industry speakers at our London Build 14.45 Legal issues with architects’ appointments Colin Jones, Managing event.

Partner, Hewitson’s CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY 15.15 Q&A/panel moderated by Alfred 10.30am welcome + intro to the ACA by Munkenbeck, ACA 15.45 TEA BREAK/networking Brian Waters, President 10.40 Whatever happened to Egan’s Moderated by Darya Bahram, ACA ‘Rethinking Construction’? Graham Secretary General Watts CIC Chief Executive 16.00 RISK 1: PI insurance: current 11.15 The new world of collaborative concerns following Grenfell and and Alliance contracts Professor David Mosey, Kings College London Carillion Alan Eyre, Chairman, Towergate PI 11.45 ACA’s response to the Hackitt 16.20 RISK 2: Employment Law: current Report on Grenfell Brian Waters, ACA concerns Max Winthrop, Partner, Short 12.15 Q&A/panel moderated by Dr John De los Angeles past president ACA Richardson & Forth 16.40 The status of the profession 12.45 BREAK/LUNCH/NETWORKING Nabila Zulifqar, Chair ARB 17.00 The role of Technologists in FOR THE PROFESSIONS moderated by Alfred Munkenbeck, ACA architectural practices Eddie Weir, CIAT 17.20 Q&A/panel moderated by Darya Council Bahram, ACA Secretary General 13.45 The business of architecture and design practice Robert Peake, past 17.40 NETWORKING, cash bar president Australian Association of Consultant Architects, M4D CPD Certificates available on request 18.00 ACA AGM 14.15 What’s the right fee for the job? Time for a new fee scale? Alfred Munkenbeck, Munkenbeck & partners,

18.45 SOAPBOX DEBATE: Motion: “Architects can restore Hackitt’s ‘Golden Thread’ Moderator: Alfred Munkenbeck, Munkenbeck & partners, architects Speakers for the motion: Jane Duncan, Past President RIBA Darya Bahram, ACA Secretary General Speakers against the motion: Geoff Wilkinson, Approved Inspector, Wilkinson Construction Consultants Nick Sterling, Alliance Steering Group

FREE TO ATTEND: Register at https://www.londonbuildexpo.com/register-your-tickets

BOOKING FORM Name: Job Title Organisation Address

Telephone

Email

Please return to: office@acarchitects.co.uk Membership is now free! Join us at: www.ACArchitects.co.uk 13 13 Page

www.acarchitects.co.uk

HEWITSONS COLUMN excellence in practice ACA News 132

A House or Flats?

The first column from Accountants Simmons Gainsford although significantly, five had been Barbara built in breach of the restriction that there be no more than two houses per Judkins plot thus creating a precedent for sub division. discusses Mrs Pamela Theodossiades had obtained planning permission (on options appeal) in 2012 to demolish Gaisgill The recently reported decision of the Upper Tribunal Re Theodossiades (2017) UKUT 461 LC provides useful insight as to when the tribunal may exercise its discretion to modify a restrictive covenant application under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 on the basis that the covenant impedes a reasonable user of land.

If the application succeeds, a planned development will not be in breach of covenant. A modification is permitted where the tribunal is satisfied that the person entitled to the benefit of the restriction does not secure any practical benefits of substantial value from it or that the restriction is contrary to the public interest.

Under section 84(1)A the tribunal must also consider whether money is adequate compensation for the loss or disadvantage to the beneficiary if it decides to modify the restriction.

Mrs Theodossiades owned a large seven bedroomed property in Elstree Hertfordshire known as Gaisgill.

Gaisgill occupied the southern part of the original plot with another property Copperfields owned by a Mr and Mrs Smith occupying the northern part. The properties were first sold in 1896 and 1900 and were subject to restrictive covenants restricting the purchaser to the erection of no more than two private dwelling houses. This had resulted in a neighbourhood of 15 prestigious, low density properties

and erect a two storey building consisting of six two-bedroomed apartments with roof and basement accommodation and underground parking. Mrs Theodossiades’ application was opposed by the owners of three neighbouring properties as well as Mr and Mrs Smith of Copperfields.

The tribunal reviewed the history of the covenants, their integrity including doubts as to their enforceability and the character of the neighbourhood with consideration to how it had changed since the imposition of the covenants. It noted that new building would be a symmetrical building which would give the impression of a single large dwelling house rather than a conventional block of flats. It also noted that there was no enforceable restriction on the size or appearance of any development within Gaisgill.

The tribunal accepted the expert evidence from the objectors’ expert that six families living in the flats were likely to cause more noise and light pollution than even a large number of occupants living in Gaisgill and that this provided some modest practical benefit to the objectors.

However the tribunal decided that the practical benefits including the thin edge of the wedge argument were not of substantial value or advantage to the objectors. As a result the tribunal allowed modification of the restrictive covenant so as to permit the development.

14

By way of compensation, the tribunal found that only one of the objectors’ properties, Red Roofs, would be adversely affected. It proposed a 10% reduction of the rental value for the entire 18 month construction period. This amounted to £8,100. After considering submissions from both sides, the tribunal determined that the objectors’ conduct had not been unreasonable and that the applicant should bear her own costs.

PREPARE NOW FOR OXBRIDGE CORRIDOR GROWTH With major growth planned for the Oxbridge Corridor, businesses in the region need to be ready for the substantial projects that are on the horizon . Over the coming years, the government plans to spend billions on housing and infrastructure within the 130-mile line of towns and cities linking Cambridge and Oxford. The aim is to make this region a new powerhouse among the world’s knowledge economies.

The plans include building up to one million new homes along the corridor by 2050 and spending up to £3.5billion on a road linking Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Oxford – the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway. A railway connecting East Anglia with central, southern and western England – the East West Rail – is also in the offing.

All this will present huge opportunities for the region’s businesses and developers.

ACA QUIZ

Autumn 2018

ACA Quiz What do the following have in common? and which is the odd one out??

15

www.acarchitects.co.uk

LONDON BUILD excellence in practice ACA News 132

16

SIMMONS GAINSFORD COLUMN

Autumn 2018

Non-residents & UK property

Our first column from accountants Simmons Gainsford A number of changes to the way non-residents that hold UK land and property are taxed have been included in the draft legislation for Finance Bill 2018-19 and some of these are due to come into force in April 2019.

This article provides a brief overview of these changes and highlights some key points to consider, together with a reminder of key IHT changes that were recently brought in.

1. Extension of scope of NonResident Capital Gains tax Since April 2015, all non-UK resident individuals, closely held companies (i.e. broadly under the control of five or fewer investors), trustees, personal representatives and funds have been subject to non-resident capital gains tax (‘NRCGT’) when disposing of UK residential property.

With effect from April 2019, the scope of NRCGT will be expanded to also cover disposals of: • Non-residential (i.e. commercial) UK property; and • ‘Substantial’ interests in ‘UK property rich entities’ – referred to as ‘indirect disposals’.

Non-resident diversely held companies, widely held funds and life assurance companies will also be brought into the scope of NRCGT for the first time from April 2019. All non-UK resident companies, including close companies, will be charged to corporation tax rather than capital gains tax on their gains.

Where an asset is brought into NRCGT for the first time as a result of these changes, it can be rebased to its April 2019 market value, ensuring no gain arising prior to that date is subject to UK tax. Assets already in the scope of NRCGT (e.g. UK residential property) will continue to be rebased to April 2015.

In light of these changes, the Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings (‘ATED’) related CGT will be abolished from April 2019, which provides a welcome simplification, however please note that the ATED charge will continue to apply.

2. Indirect disposals and NRCGT The provisions for indirect disposals are intended to catch, for example, the situation where a non-resident sells shares in a company which holds UK land as an investment.

For an indirect disposal to be subject to NRCGT, the following conditions have to be met: • The disposal has to be of a right or interest in a ‘property rich’ company – broadly one which, at the time of disposal, derives at least 75% of the total gross market value of its assets from interests in UK land; and • The non-resident investor must have a ‘substantial indirect interest’ in the UK land – broadly at any time in the two years prior to disposal they (together with certain connected parties) had at least a 25% investment 17 17

either directly, or indirectly, in the ‘property rich’ company.

However, if there are overseas property assets or other UK nonproperty assets then the ‘75% property rich’ test may not be met and the exemption for investment gains on indirect disposal should continue to apply.

3. Payments on account for residential property gains This proposed change will affect both UK residents and non-residents who own residential property.

From April 2020, UK residents will be required to make CGT payments on account and file returns within 30 days of disposing of a residential property in a similar way as for NRCGT. The change will not apply where the gain is not subject to CGT (e.g. because it is covered by private residence relief ).

For non-UK residents, the existing NRCGT 30-day filing and payment on account requirement will be extended: • To apply to all companies from 6 April 2019; and • To remove the exception for making a payment on account where a self-assessment return is filed for disposals on or after 6 April 2020.

4. Non-UK resident companies carrying on a UK property business From April 2020, non-UK resident companies carrying on a UK property business will become subject to corporation tax rather than income >>> www.acarchitects.co.uk www.acarchitects.co.uk

SIMMONS GAINSFORD COLUMN excellence in practice ACA News 132 tax.

This raises several practical issues: • The corporation tax rules, including in particular the corporate interest restriction and other anti-avoidance provisions will apply, which could limit interest deductions to 30% of EBITDA. There is a carve out from these rules where properties are let to third parties and the borrowings are from a third-party bank.

• It is hoped that existing income tax losses will be can be set off against future property business profits chargeable to corporation tax, but will not be available for group relief or use against other profits and will have to be tracked separately.

• Non-resident companies will have to comply with the different filing and payment regime of corporation tax – including the requirement to submit returns and computations online in iXBRL format.

5. IHT and non-resident property investors To extent to which Inheritance Tax (IHT) may be payable is determined by reference to the domicile of a taxpayer and not their residence, although long term UK residents may become deemed domiciled for UK tax purposes regardless of their actual domicile.

The Estate of anyone who is UK domiciled will be liable for IHT on worldwide assets. Until 5 April 2017 non-UK domiciled individuals were liable to IHT only on directly held UK assets. This was one of the primary reasons why non-domiciled investors acquired UK real estate through corporate entities, as the asset held was, for IHT purposes, the shares in the corporate entity and not its underlying assets.

This remains the case for investors in commercial property, and we

understand that there are no current proposals to change this as part of the other changes highlighted in this note.

However, this is no longer the case for UK residential property, and associated financing arrangements.

From 6 April 2017 the following assets are now also within the scope of IHT. • the value of shares in offshore companies to the extent that the value is represented by UK residential property • loans (wherever made) to acquire or re-finance UK residential property; and • security given for such loans.

The rules for determining the extent to which assets are now liable are complex, and new anti-avoidance legislation has been introduced to prevent restructuring aimed at defeating these rules.

However, some practical steps can be taken to mitigate the impact of these rules and structuring new acquisitions of residential property may need more considered thought than may previously have been the case.

6. Action required In view of the above changes it is important to consider whether existing offshore structures continue to be ‘optimal’ in terms of on-going running costs or whether either deenveloping and holding the property directly or bringing the entities ‘on-shore’ to the UK would be more beneficial.

For further information, please speak to Bas Kundu, Head of Property Tax at Simmons Gainsford, bas.kundu@sgllp. co.uk tel: 07545 300 334.

For further details specifically on residence and domicile please contact Darren Hersey, Head of Tax, at darren. hersey@sgllp.co.uk tel: 020 7291 5620 18

Bill Pack We are sorry to announce that ACA member Bill passed away last month.

Our thoughts are with Ed and family

ACA AJ COLUMN excellence in practice Autumn 2018

The pre-application process is being milked The Government’s new draft NPPF emphasises the benefits of pre-application consultation.

“Early engagement has significant potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning application system for all parties.” It rightly claims.

In 2014 the Local Government Association published a paper endorsing this approach with 10 commitments for effective preapplication engagement. These include: 1. Pre-application engagement should enable sustainable development to proceed quickly and smoothly from proposal to completion. This is a co-operative process that requires a positive, proactive commitment from all participants to achieve this goal.

2. Those providing pre-application services should offer a range of timely, effective services proportionate to the scale and complexity of proposed development. The process, timescales, costs and outputs should all be clearly set out.

3. Pre-application services should be delivered in a timely manner and demonstrate good value for money, irrespective of whether the provider of pre-application services makes a charge for them.

4. Pre-application discussions should bring together the right people to address all of the development issues.

Local planning authorities have been offering pre-app consultation services with different levels and charges. Feedback from ACA members has been mixed so we carried out a survey.

It turns out that pre-application planning services offered by local authorities are so unreliable and expensive that some architects have stopped using them altogether. Many architects say they would rather submit a full planning application and use that as the sounding board.

Many said the guidance they received was nothing more than a regurgitation of the council’s policies or was given by a junior officer whose advice was later over-ruled by a manager.

Two-thirds said the advice given did not cover all relevant issues and more than half said they had experienced cases where an entirely new issue which could, or did, lead to refusal had emerged after the preapp process.

More than 85 per cent said they were not happy with the system.

And 80 per cent said councils failed to provide their advice within the Page 19

19

agreed timeframe – sometimes taking as much as a year. None had ever received a refund for a missed deadline despite the service involving a contractual agreement.

Two-thirds said planning authorities no longer offer a free informal preliminary discussion with a duty planning officer.

The pre-app process has gone “badly wrong” in some local planning authorities and is increasingly used as a way of generating income for under-funded departments.

Given the stretched resources of these departments, burdened also by constant new demands and legislative changes, there is room for some sympathy. However, milking the pre-app process for disproportionate income, as is increasingly the case, should be prevented rather than encouraged.

‘Pre-application services should be delivered in a timely manner and demonstrate good value for money’ says the LGA, which goes further than the draft NPPF, which should make this a requirement.

In authorities where the pre-app report or advice consists mainly of trotting out a précis of related policies, which a competent agent can do perfectly well for herself, it makes perfect sense for the applicant

>>>

www.acarchitects.co.uk

ACA AJ COLUMN excellence in practice ACA News 131 >>>

not to bother, knowing that on an appeal the authority will say to the inspector ‘we told them so’. Avoiding this kind of pre-application trap does not always solve the problem, however, because among the reasons for refusal there will often be the statement that the applicant had ‘failed to seek out pre- application advice’. Many architects had a trust relationship with planning officers and could sound them out informally on proposals but the pre-app process has formalised this almost out of existence.

Before endorsing the system further the government should examine how it is working and come up with some safeguards to ensure it does what it says on the tin. Readers who share this poor experience of the system should respond to the consultation on the NPPF. NPPF extracts: Draft National Planning Policy Guidance 4.0 Decision-making

41. Local planning authorities have a key role to play in encouraging other parties to take maximum advantage of the pre-application stage. They cannot require that a developer engages with them before submitting a planning application, but they should encourage take-up of any preapplication services they do offer….

42. The more issues that can be resolved at pre-application stage… the greater the benefits. … statutory planning consultees will need to take the same early, pro-active approach, and provide advice in a timely manner throughout the development process…

43. Local planning authorities should publish a list of their information requirements for applications for planning permission. These requirements should be kept to the minimum needed to make decisions, and should be reviewed at least every two years. Local planning authorities

should only request supporting information that is relevant, necessary and material to the application in question.

Quotes from architects who responded to the ACA survey: Atrocious; the time to respond is often longer than the planning application itself, the advice is generic and in some cases more expensive than the full application.

A London borough charged £990 for 2 hours of a junior officer, whose advice was overruled post application by his team leader.

This is a crazy system that needs urgent reform. Informal discussions with an officer must be made mandatory.

We paid £2,000 for a single meeting in which we were told that what we wanted to build was not possible without adequate reasons and without any written feedback.

39. Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. …

Pre-application engagement and front loading 40. Early engagement has significant potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning application system for all parties.

Good quality pre-application discussion enables better coordination between public and private resources and improved outcomes for the community.

>>> 20

ACA AJ COLUMN

Autumn 2018 >>>

I discourage clients from the use of pre-apps as a formal application provides better value for money as well as getting a decision within a shorter space of time.

REMINDER: ACA SOAPBOX DEBATE

The pre-app system has potential to be a very useful planning tool but at present it is inconsistent, often disproportionate and often poorly administered.

18.45 SOAPBOX DEBATE:

Injecting competition with external consultants will vastly improve the LPA performances as happened with LA Building Control departments who are now generally better than private ones.

Although there are still some excellent and dedicated planning officers these are very much in the minority. The whole development control function is now dysfunctional. It needs to be privatised like Building Control was a few years ago with approved officers preparing reports to be submitted to individual chief planners/reg board committees for determination with the chief planners/committees closely monitored to ensure an even handling of applications.

The reply could not have taken more than two hours to concoct. All pre-app advice is caveated with the phrase that the views shown are the officer’s and therefore cannot be absolutely relied on. With one council in the south-east it was cheaper to submit a full application than to seek preapp advice: and at least the response carries with it the credibility of the LA’s position.

23 October, Olympia

Motion: “Architects can restore Hackitt’s ‘Golden Thread’ Moderator: Alfred Munkenbeck, Munkenbeck & partners, architects Speakers for the motion: Jane Duncan, Past President RIBA Darya Bahram, ACA Secretary General Speakers against the motion: Geoff Wilkinson, Approved Inspector, Wilkinson Construction Consultants Nick Sterling, Alliance Steering Group

Register for admission to the debate at: https://oliverkinross.circdatasolutions.co.uk/rfg/publish/ LONDONBUILD18/

21

www.acarchitects.co.uk

ARB CONSULTATION excellence in practice ACA News 132

Comments welcomed Consultation on proposed changes to the Investigation and PCC rules by 26 October Consultation on proposed changes to the Investigation and Professional Conduct Committee Rules Consultation paper 2018/01 Closing date: 26 October 2018 Introduction The Architects Registration Board (“ARB”) was established by Parliament in 1997 to regulate the architects’ profession in the UK. We are an independent public interest body, and our work in regulating architects ensures that good standards within the profession are consistently maintained for the benefit of the public and architects alike.

Background to consultation The ARB has agreed to hold a consultation exercise following its proposals to amend the Investigation and Professional Conduct Committee Rules (“the Rules”). The consultation will comply with ARB’s Consultations Code of Practice(5) Purpose of consultation The Architects Act 1997 (“the Act”) requires ARB to investigate allegations of unacceptable

professional conduct and serious professional incompetence made against architects on the Register of Architects. Where those investigations conclude that the architect has a case to answer to the allegation(s), they must be referred to the Professional Conduct Committee (“PCC”) for it to decide whether they are guilty, and if so whether they should have a disciplinary sanction imposed against them. Aside from the Act, the framework for how ARB investigates complaints is set out in the Rules.

In 2017 ARB ran a pre-consultation seeking feedback on its existing Rules, the responses from which were shared with the Board. Following that process the Board has proposed a number of changes to the way in which investigations are undertaken and the way in which the PCC operates. These are reflected in proposed changes to the Rules, a copy of which is attached to this consultation pack.

The key changes to the Rules are summarised as follows: 1. Allow for expert advisors to assist with the investigation of complaints about architects at all stages of the investigation process.

2. Allow the Investigations Panel the 22

discretion to issue a preliminary or final decision in accordance with developed guidance.

3. Allow ARB staff to prepare reports for the PCC in suitable cases.

Remove the requirement for a Clerk to the PCC, and transfer the necessary powers to the legally qualified PCC Chair.

4. Extend the period of notice given to architects before a PCC hearing from 42 to 49 days.

5. Extend the period for receiving the respondent’s defence from 14 to 21 days prior to the hearing.

6. Allow for the PCC Chair to require the parties to engage in a prehearing, case-management meeting.

7. Allow both the ARB and the architect the opportunity to make closing submissions at the conclusion of the evidence at a PCC hearing.

Before deciding on any course of action in relation to the above proposed changes, it is important that we have as wide a range of views as possible.

Full details available at: http:// www.arb.org.uk/consultations/ investigation-and-professionalconduct-committee-rules/ Please email comments to us on office@acarchitects.co.uk

SHOWCASE excellence in practice Autumn 2018

ACA News showcases your work

to budget in a timely fashion.

Heveske Architects Weaver’s Cottage A couple commissioned Heveske to design and build a two-storey double height extension to an existing stone weaver’s cottage in the attractive upper Calder Valley.

The work overhauled the existing structure, updating and extending their home with an eye-catching contemporary extension.

The extension used a combination of different offsite manufactured components including closed panel timber frame wall, floor and roof panels, light-weight steel frame and hybridised aluminium / timber glazed curtain wall system.

Both Heveske and their client deployed a hands-on approach to the management of the project to keep a tight control of both the budget and the programme while ensuring the proposed design was not deviated from.

Heveske chose to procure the project using the ACA’s PPC 2000 standard form of contract for project partnering and fulfilled the role of constructor during the build of the project.

We were able to overcome weather downtime issues to erect the project’s steel frame during the extreme cold snap that gripped the UK in early 2018.

Our no-nonsense collaborative approach with our project partners ensured the project was delivered Page 23 23

HELVESKE SHOWCASE excellence in practice ACA News 132

24

SHOWCASE excellence in practice Autumn 2018

Page 25 25

CULS EVENT excellence in practice ACA News 132

APEC Forum

Tuesday 27th November 2018 5.30pm for 6pm c/o Trowers & Hamlins 3 Bunhill Row London EC1Y 8YZ

Procurement Post Grenfell and Carillion Professor David Mosey, Kings College London Professor David Mosey PhD is Director of the Centre of Construction Law and Dispute Resolution at King's College London, a position which he took up in May 2013 after 21 years leading the Projects and Construction team at solicitors Trowers and Hamlins LLP where he remains a consultant. He is an experienced adviser on UK and international construction and engineering projects. Currently, he is leading research at KCL into the impact of new models of project procurement and supply chain collaboration on improving value of public sector construction projects, also on the legal issues arising from BIM.

Kindly sponsored by:

Partnered by

Price including drinks reception: Members £42 – Non-members £50 – Concession £21

Book online at http://www.culandsoc.com/ The Cambridge University Land Society actively supports the Department of Land Economy, and the Department of Architecture at the University of Cambridge.

Surplus proceeds are used to support research, travel grants and teaching fellowships.

The Society also supports students with prizes, mentoring and discounted tickets.

26

TOWERGATE COLUMN excellence in practice Autumn 2018

Considering BIM The contractual approach

TOWERGATE PI NOW SPONSOR FREE MEMBERSHIP TO THE ACA FOR ALL ELIGIBLE UK ARCHITECTURE PRACTICES

The UK Government’s BIM mandate took effect on 4 April 2016 when all centrally procured government projects in England and Wales will be required to use collaborative BIM (generally understood to be “Level 2” BIM). Since the mandate was announced in 2011 the UK construction industry has taken significant steps in relation to BIM so that now the UK is considered a construction industry international leading player. However on any project when BIM is used, it is important to understand how it is reflected contractually.

produced and the key procedures applicable on the project). Failure to complete and append the appendices along with the CIC Protocol to your appointment, may create further uncertainty as to the effect of the CIC Protocol and obligations in relation to BIM.

Progress in relation to BIM BIM is being used increasingly on projects in the UK. Whilst many clients are still getting up to speed with BIM the industry is very much driving its use due to the efficiency it can bring.

Projects are therefore increasingly being undertaken in accordance with PAS 1192-2 (Publically Available Specification 1192:2) – a ‘Specification for information management for the capital/delivery phase of construction projects using building information modelling’. Amongst other things, this envisages the provision of the ‘Employer’s Information Requirements’ (EIR) at the outset, setting out what the client requires from the project team in relation to BIM to which the project team responds by submitting a ‘BIM Execution Plan’ showing how it will meet the EIRs. PAS 1192-2 also sets out a clear process for the use of BIM going forward.

Reflecting BIM Contractually Whilst significant progress has been made, the industry is still adapting to the use of BIM. For example, often the client and the project team do not dully consider BIM at the outset of a Project and it is very common that the client will not define exactly what they

want from BIM (i.e. will not provide an EIRs). Similarly, BIM is seldom fully reflected in appointments and often not at all.

The CIC Protocol was published by the BIM Task Group which can be incorporated into a contract, to include additional provisions to reflect the usage of BIM. If properly completed and incorporated the CIC Protocol should set out the project team’s responsibilities for the production of Models (Appendix 1, the Model Production and Delivery Table) and the procedures applicable to the use of BIM on the project (Appendix 2, Information Requirements). The CIC Protocol is currently being used on Level 2 BIM projects. As it is intended to create a consistent framework for the project team to collaborate, it should be incorporated into the contracts of all those responsible for the production or use of Models.

Incorporating the CIC Protocol In order to incorporate the CIC Protocol, an “enabling clause” must be included in the contract. Often, despite the intentions of the project team to use the CIC Protocol, the enabling clause is not included in the contract and so the CIC Protocol may not have contractual effect. For example, the scope may refer to the CIC Protocol but the contract fails to include an enabling clause, which leads to ambiguity as to the contractual effect of the CIC Protocol.

Another area of ambiguity concerning the contractual effect of the CIC Protocol can arise if the appendices to the CIC Protocol (the Model Production and Delivery Table and the Information Requirements, as mentioned above) are not properly completed. The appendices are key to the CIC Protocol as they set out obligations of the project team in relation to BIM (e.g. the Models to be 27

Reducing the Risk of Ambiguity As of yet there are no reported court cases in the UK regarding BIM, however inconsistencies between the contractual documents and the approach “on the ground” in relation to BIM may increase the likelihood of a dispute arising. These are most likely “teething problems” which should not undermine the progress made so far.

Clearly setting out your contractual obligations in relation to BIM by incorporating a properly completed CIC Protocol into your appointment should help mitigate the risk of a dispute arising.

www.acarchitects.co.uk

DWF COLUMN excellence in practice ACA News 132

Trusts, pensions and the pension regulator In Court Financial Ombudsman Service rules against adviser for not fully explaining options to individual seeking to transfer out of DB scheme The FOS upheld a complaint by Mr C that the advice he received from his adviser was unsuitable. Mr C sought to transfer his benefits out of an occupational pension scheme (OPS) to a self-invested personal pension but was advised by his financial adviser in 2011 that it would be against his interests to do so.

Mr C was described by the Ombudsman as “adamant” about transferring and his adviser completed the transfer after Mr C signed documents confirming that he was an “insistent customer”.

The insistent customer form which he signed said: “I am aware that transferring my guaranteed [OPS] is against the advice of [the firm] and I understand that I will be worse off in retirement, I still wish to proceed with taking my benefits now”.

Notwithstanding this the FOS found that the financial adviser did not fully set out the options available to Mr C through his OPS in an understandable manner. The FOS considered it was more likely than not that Mr C would not still have insisted on the transfer had he been fully apprised of all his options and been in a position to make an informed decision. It ordered that the financial advisory company

provide redress to put Mr C into the position he would now be in if he had not transferred.

New Law Master Trusts – new regulations New regulations coming into force on 1st October have now been published and flesh out some of the aspects of the regime introduced by the Pension Schemes Act 2017.

In particular these provide detail on: • The test for assessing whether employers are “connected” for the purposes of the definition of “master trust scheme” which includes some exemptions including for some former state-run industry schemes.

• The different aspects of a scheme’s implementation strategy.

• Matters tPR will take into account in assessing a “fit and proper person”.

• tPR’s requirements for considering that a master trust is “financially sustainable”.

PPF levy 2019/20 The PPF has announced its levy estimate and launched consultation on the draft levy rules for 2019/20.

Commenting that last year saw the highest level of claims in PPF history, with further large claims expected in the near future the PPF has nonetheless confirmed that the levy estimate is £500 million for the next levy year, down from £550 million in 2018/19.

28

The consultation also includes a reminder that, as we reported in our Insights last month, schemes with Type A and Type B Contingent Assets that operate either solely by reference to a fixed cap or by reference to s.179/s.75 liabilities subject to a fixed cap in place will require to be re-executed on new standard form documentation. tPR publishes Master Trust Supervision and Enforcement policy tPr’s new Policy confirms that it takes account of the ‘TPR Future’ initiative which is driving a shift in the way tPR work to a more proactive oversight in defining how tPR will respond to supervision of master trusts and that it will take a risk based approach to supervision. It makes clear that it expects those responsible for running master trusts to be proactive, honest, open and transparent in their interaction with tPR. The policy sets out general aims in connection with supervision and enforcement as follows: Supervision aims to ensure: • tPR remains satisfied that, over time, the master trust continues to meet the authorisation criteria • master trusts also meet the wider range of obligations to which they are subject, including other relevant legislation and codes of practice • tPR’s over-arching objective to >>> improve the way that workplace

DWF COLUMN excellence in practice Autumn 2018 >>>

pension schemes are run is met, and • early identification and management of material risks and issues, with tPR intervening where necessary.

Enforcement aims to: • compel actions required from master trusts • deter and remedy non-compliance of master trusts, and • in appropriate cases, penalise those persons that are non-compliant by tPR exercising a range of powers.

Where tPR is no longer satisfied that the master trust meets the authorisation criteria or its wider obligations, it makes clear that this could lead to exercise of its powers (with a reminder of the potential financial and criminal penalties available in the context of a failure by a master trust to provide information requested) and ultimately withdrawal of authorisation. tPR has published s89 regulatory intervention report on the Martin Currie Retirement and Death Benefits Plan.

A company and the scheme’s trustees have entered into a second flexible apportionment arrangement (FAA) after tPR concluded that an earlier FAA, under which the scheme’s principal employer was replaced with a non-UK registered company, was materially detrimental.

As outlined in tPR’s s89 report the principal employer Martin Currie Investment Management Ltd (MCIM) and trustees, agreed to enter into an FAA in September 2014. This was in response to changes to capital requirements affecting regulated financial businesses whereby employers were required to make

reserves for the full accounting deficit of any defined benefit scheme they sponsored. Under the FAA, the group’s parent company replaced MCIM as principal employer. It was however based offshore in Bermuda and not subject to the same capital requirements.

On being notified of a notifiable event, tPR initiated an investigation and held that the FAA was materially detrimental and absent any mitigating factors, it would seek to use its anti-avoidance powers and issue a contribution notice. Notably, substituting the scheme’s principal employer with a non-UK registered company was listed in the material detriment code of practice as a circumstance

in which tPR would consider that the material detriment test was met.

Furthermore, whilst the trustees had obtained a guarantee from MCIM of up to the lesser of £26 million or 110% of PPF benefits, the level of protection afforded by this guarantee was inadequate compared to the scheme’s former position.

The Martin Currie Group agreed to put in place a series of measures to address tPR’s concerns. These included moving the scheme back to the UK, giving a section 75 guarantee from MCIM and the appointment of an independent trustee in place of the existing trustees. Accordingly, tPR granted clearance and decided not to impose a contribution notice in relation to the first FAA.

Heatherwick Studio interpretation for Olympia

REMINDER: ACA AGM 23 October, Olympia 18.00-18.30

29

www.acarchitects.co.uk

QUIZ ANSWER excellence in practice ACA News 132

Quiz solution

PS: The ‘Out of Order sculpture

by David March (1989) needs a bit of renovation - the holes aren’t original,

Andy Rogers

They are all telephone boxes. The odd one out is the last, which does not have a telephone, being part of the sculpture ‘Out of Order’ by David Mach (1989) in Kingston on Thames pictured below.

Relevance to architecture/ planning: All those pictured (with two exceptions) also include advertisements, of varying quality.

Public call boxes - more often these days open kiosks rather than boxes have permitted development rights under class A, part 16, schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development (England) Order 2015. But the Planning Inspectorate has blamed the current major delays to appeals on having to deal with at least a thousand current appeals against multiple refusals by local planning authorities across the country, on the grounds that the licensed electronic communications code operators that

install telephone kiosks - these days often with access to free calls, WIFI and ATMs - are exploiting the pd planning rules to install advertising space.

Permitted development rights can be rejected on design, appearance and location grounds, hence the multiple appeals. But the examples in our quiz surely demonstrate not only a benefit to the public when modern kiosks are installed, but also that older boxes are very often in poor condition or downright derelict.

And then I ask myself - what about the advertising on bus shelters?

30

and it was apparently meanto to have a telephone in the almost upright box at the end.

ACA PUBLICATIONS

ACA Project Partnering Agreements and related Guidance

PPC2000 (Amended 2013) - STANDARD FORM of CONTRACT FOR PROJECT PARTNERING

… 26.00 †

SPC2000 SHORT FORM (Issued 2010) - STANDARD FORM OF SPECIALIST CONTRACT FOR

… 22.00 †

PROJECT PARTNERING PPC INTERNATIONAL - STANDARD FORM of CONTRACT FOR PROJECT PARTNERING

… 22.00 †

SCOTTISH SUPPLEMENT PPC(S)2000 to PPC2000 Standard Form of Contract for Project Partnering [used for partnered projects in Scotland to be purchased together with a copy of PPC2000 as above - not stand alone]

…

SPC2000 (Amended 2008) - STANDARD FORM of SPECIALIST CONTRACT FOR PROJECT

… 22.00 †

3.00 †

PARTNERING

ACA Standard Building Agreements, Appointment Documents + related Certificates

SPC INTERNATIONAL - STANDARD FORM of SPECIALIST CONTRACT FOR PROJECT PARTNERING

… 22.00 †

STPC2005 (Issued 2010) - STANDARD FORM OF SPECIALIST CONTRACT FOR TERM PARTNERING TPC2005 (Amended 2008) - STANDARD FORM OF CONTRACT FOR TERM PARTNERING

… 22.00 † … 22.00 †

GUIDE to ACA PROJECT PARTNERING CONTRACTS TPC2005 & STPC2005

… 27.00

GUIDE to ACA PROJECT PARTNERING CONTRACTS PPC2000 & SPC2000

… 27.00

INTRODUCTION TO PRICING UNDER PPC2000

…

INTRODUCTION TO PRICING UNDER TPC2005

… 17.00

FAC-1 - FRAME ALLIANCE CONTRACT

… 35.00 †

TAC-1 - TERM ALLIANCE CONTRACT

… 35.00 †

ACA SFA/2012 - ACA STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ARCHITECT

… 22.00 †

ACA FORM OF BUILDING AGREEMENT 1982, 3rd Edition 1998 (2003 Revision)

… 14.00 †

ACA FORM OF SUB-CONTRACT 1982, 3rd Edition 1998 (2003 Revision)

… 10.00 †

GUIDE TO ACA FORM OF BUILDING AGREEMENT 1982, 3rd Edition 1998 (2003 Revision)

… 12.00

ACA98 THE APPOINTMENT OF A CONSULTANT ARCHITECT for Small Works, Works of Simple Content and Specialist Services (2004 Revision)

…

ACA CERTIFICATE - Agreeing Extended Period for the Consideration of a Planning Application

… 12.00 †

ACA ARCHITECT’S INSTRUCTION (Pad of 100) (this price includes p & p)

… 14.00 †

ACA INTERIM CERTIFICATE (for 2003 Revision) (Pad of 100)

… 14.00 †

ACA TAKING-OVER CERTIFICATE (Pad of 50)

… 10.00 †

ACA FINAL CERTIFICATE (Pad of 50)

… 10.00 †

PUBLICATION ORDER DETAILS Discounts available: ACA Members 25%. Please send me the publications indicated above and invoice me for their cost. Postage & Packing will be added at 10% UK, 20% Europe, 30% Overseas (maximum £13.50/ minimum £2.50 or covering costs for the UK). VAT @ 20.0% will be added to those items marked with an † and will include any p & p costs. Terms and conditions of sale and return can be found on the ACA website.

Contact Name Company Address Tel:

Fax:

To order, complete this form and post, telephone, fax or email details to:ACA, Charlscot, Cudham Road, Tatsfield. TN16 2NJ t/f: +44 (0)1959 928412 Order on line via the ACA Website: www.ACArchitects.co.uk/orderform.htm

Email: e: office@acarchitects.co.uk

31

7.00

6.50

BENEFITS OF MEMBERSHIP

The opportunity to collaborate with an organisation dedicated to excellence in practice and thus to influence its activities and policies, reinforcing a strong voice within the industry through consultations and the media to benefit from lobbying for the profession; Representation on national and government bodies and on the Construction Industry Council; Professional Development Events, Networking Other Services • Legal Helplines – Davis Wallis Foyster and Hewitsons • The ACA Towergate Insurance Scheme and Towergate Contract checking service • Discounts on ACA Publications at 25% including the PPC Suite • Discounts on ACA Events and other construction organisation events including SPACES, CIAT, BIID, CIOB • Discounts on other publications via our industry partners • A regular newsletter by email keeping members updated with matters relating specifically to practice • Access to the Members Only area of the website for specific items and downloads.

• Regular updates on what we are doing and other issues of concern through ACA e-News • Principal Members are entitled and encouraged to use the suffix ACArch to indicate their membership • Active encouragement and permission to use the ACA Logo on all marketing materials and your website • Your profile in the directory area of the ACA website, where clients search for architect professionals.

• The opportunity to highlight your projects in ACA publications and with partner organisations • Use of an ACA Site board, which is available to download in the Members’ Area of the website.

• ACA Business Information Sources

The ACA Fact Sheet is available on line (see members area of the ACA website), which points to various information sources for business practice queries, such as: Employment; Copyright issues; VAT; H&S; Data Protection and skills/ training.

ACA Website: www.ACArchitects.co.uk The members’ only area is accessed by a special password. If you have forgotten this contact us.

ACA Member Directory: Is your directory entry up to date? If you need reminding of your username and password, contact the office.

ACA’s PI Scheme Towergate Professional Indemnity 1 Portland Street Manchester M1 3BE Contact: 0844 892 1789

PPC2000 Website: www.ppc2000.co.uk Information as to ACA’s project partnering contracts PPC2000, case studies, news, users etc.

ACA Legal Helplines Chris Lagar, Davies Wallis Foyster T 0161-228 3702 Email: cml@dwflaw.com

Alliance Forms: www.allianceforms.co.uk for all information on the new FAC-1 and TAC1 forms of contract

Colin Jones, Hewitsons LLP T: 01223 461155 Email: colinjones@hewitsons.com

MEMBER

Peterson Williams Johnson & Richard Sulivan Telephone: 01234 567765

Email: info@pwjrs.com

Remember, membership of the ACA is free.

So do invite colleagues to join via our homepage: www.ACArchitects.co.uk 32

www.acarchitects.co.uk