Aca news summer 2017

ACA News130

Summer 2017

Free membership boosts the ACA Message from the president I may be a bit of a retread but I’m pleased to serve as president for a second time, especially since the ACA seems to be going through something of a revival in energy and ambition.

It is perhaps symptomatic that we have been able to take a prominent role with the Construction Industry Council working party responding to the Grenfell Tower disaster – see page 3 – the cause of something approaching a nervous breakdown for the construction industry. I’m delighted that immediate past president Richard Harrison is taking the lead for us here.

As my interview on Talk Radio indicates, it is my belief that the ACA’s contribution should focus on the loss in the continuity of design intention from conception through to completion which has taken place over recent years. Our

Soapbox (page 5), hosted by Rab and Denise Bennetts, which preceded the Grenfell disaster, was on target, debating ‘Delivery is an essential part of design’.

On page 8 Andy Rogers gives us a full and up-to-date planning report – another movable feast and a challenging prospect for architects and their clients.

ACAPAG remains proactive and is consulted by government.

We have successfully argued that local planning authorities cannot charge any fee they want while remaining monopoly service providers. Government has now picked up the ACA’s 2006 planning manifesto policy of introducing competition in the processing of planning applications to undertake this service (by other local authorities or approved professionals, as with building control) and a pilot to try this out should be underway now. If you come

across this please let us know.

We are receiving very interesting results from our member survey on your experience with pre-application advice from planning authorities.

Details of the survey are on page 11; please click the link and add your experiences. We will report full results later in the year and to government, since policy is to amend the National Planning Policy Framework so as to give even greater importance to preapplication advice. Our view is likely to be that the government needs to review the operation of the process before they do this.

The AJ reported the results of our members’ survey on your experience with the new RIBA Plan of Work which we report on page 13, another mixed reaction.

Led by Stephen Yakeley we are planning to publish an ACA ‘overlay’ which both reconciles the old alphabetical stages with the new numerical stages >>>

INSIDE 03 Grenfell Tower 05 Soapbox 09 ACAPAG Planning Update 12 Pre-Apps survey 13 Meeting Lord Stunell 14 Feedback on the new Plan of Work 15 PII: Exclusive Scheme for ACA

Practices 15 The Contractual Approach to BIM 17 Reassessing Adjudication 19 Is there much call for models anymore?

21 Showcase, projects by: Jonathan Louth Architects,

IBLA, Assael, Sutters Partnership, BWCP 24 In memoriam: Rob Walker 25 Health & Safety Update 26 AGM 2016 27 Publications 28 Benefits of membership

www.acarchitects.co.uk

PRESIDENT’S COLUMN excellence in practice ACA News 130 >>>

and which should become a standard for conventional procurement.

Try as I may I can’t avoid mentioning Brexit! ACA Council met Lord Stunell who is advising the Government on the implications for the construction industry. We responded to his questions which are listed on page 12.

Responding to the ever rising cost of ARB registration and RIBA membership we have negotiated sponsorship of free ACA membership with Towergate PI together with an attractive and exclusive PII policy package for ACA member practices. Please contact Towergate for details – see page 14. You will find our summer quiz on that page as well.

The following pages of this bumper issue of ACA News cover adjudication, modelmaking, a summer sketch challenge for a new HQ, health and safety and the last AGM minutes. On page 23 you will find John Griffiths’ tribute to Rob Walker. And we showcase some projects by members on pages 20–22 and invite you to send us one of yours for the next ACA News.

Uploading your projects to our members directory is free and is increasingly of value to potential clients. If you prefer, please just email images with captions to Shona at the office and she will upload them for you.

In support of our committed volunteers on Council are Professor David Mosey of King’s College, London, author of our PPC Suite of contracts including the newly successful FAC1. Exciting that ACA forms of contract are in translation for use in Germany, Italy, Australia and Japan!

Alfred Munkenbeck is working on a new fee ‘scale’ which reflects the time necessary to meet code obligations and is informed by the recent survey (for which more input is always useful, please). This will assist clients and architects to establish the level of fee needed to resource a job properly.

Giles Dixon and our own Trevor Sutters are working hard to finalise their CDM suite of agreements for architect-led construction management which will make it easier for architects to ‘take back control’ (to coin a phrase).

Behind-the-scenes a lot has been going on. We have strengthened our management team with Alison Low, having held the fort for over seven years as Secretary General (Thank you Alison) handing over to council member Darya Bahram and taking on the new role of Director of Enterprise.

This means looking after the evergrowing band of PPC users and their user groups around the UK and our expanding publications activity..

ACA Council Members 2017

Alfred Munkenbeck Trevor Sutters Stephen Yakeley

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

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

2

Welcome to Darya who has extensive experience of practice, appointments, contracts and adjudication.

Above all, a big thank you to Shona Broughton for hosting and managing the office through difficult times and for emerging with strength, good humour and always keeping Council members motivated. Thanks also to her team of assistants.

Brian Waters

01959 928412 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

excellence in practice Summer 2017

Grenfell Tower fire - the ACA response ACA is part of the CIC taskforce set up to advise Government The ACA and its members wish to express our heartfelt sorrow at the dreadful loss of lives resulting from the horrific fire on 14 June 2017 and pay our respects to the residents of Grenfell Tower and their families. As architects we were deeply moved by the events as they unfolded through the night and in the aftermath and were appalled at the fact that a system of controls, that we had thought to be industry standard, seem to have failed so disastrously.

Secondly, we should say that Architects are not experts in fire prevention, but work with diligence and concern to apply with integrity all aspects of legislation with regard to the performance of buildings and fire precautions in particular.

Whatever emerges from the pending enquiry, it appears that there is a systemic problem in our industry that needs to be addressed, taking into account the design, regulation, procurement, construction, maintenance and management of high rise buildings, also highlighted less tragically by the Edinburgh schools. We pledge our commitment to participate with our particular expertise as architects, in the necessary analysis of the causes of this failure and in correcting and implementing a significantly safer future for all building occupants.

ACA is an Association that represents Architects Private Practices in the UK. We have a perspective on the overall coordination in the design,

procurement and construction of buildings for our Clients. Our expertise lies in overall design co-ordination broadly with a focus on the “Why” rather than the “How”.

While not being a specialist in any aspect of the construction of buildings, the architect is trained to understand the essentials of the functioning of buildings and take a holistic view of both the building and the process of construction. We believe that his role is being undervalued and disrupted by a fragmentation of responsibility through changes to the process of procurement with the multiplicity of decision makers involved in this process.

The independent role, standing sufficiently outside of the commercial pressures on a project, which was traditionally vested in the profession of architecture has all but been dismembered in many instances.

It is not certain that such a continuity and breadth of involvement would ensure that a disaster would never happen again, but we believe that it most certainly would substantially reduce the risk.

As publishers of Forms of Appointments and Building Contracts the ACA has a long and special interest in successful design, procurement and construction.

As Registered Architects we undertake to adhere to our Professional Code of Conduct.

The ACA putting forward Richard Harrison who is immediate past President of the ACA and who remains a Council Page 3

3

member, to participate in and observe the CIC proposed event on 6 July on behalf of the ACA. Richard does not attest to specific expertise on particular disciplines, but has worked in the private sector architectural profession since 1978, for both private and public sector clients.

We have ‘brainstormed’ some suggested areas for investigation in the wake of the fire, and in the context of the current status of our industry. We hope this is as helpful as intended.

The president gave this interview on Talk Radio a few days after the event Daisy McAndrew: You share my

view that we seem to have fewer answers and more questions as time goes on or do you think that’s entirely reasonable as you scratching the surface of something like this?

Brian Waters: Well I think its quite reasonable and there are some alarming issues at different levels that need to be thought about more carefully. But I have to say that I’m no great expert and I’m not an expert on this particular case, I’m an architect and I’m a town planner and I’ve followed the details to some extent but with >>> www.acarchitects.co.uk

grenfell tower excellence in practice ACA News 130 >>>

with that caveat in mind, I think I have a fairly clear picture of some the technical issues and the professional issues which seem to be arising although again one has to say there will be a thorough enquiry and again the truth will come out in the wash and unfortunately that takes a bit of time.

DMc: As we’ve been saying, a lot of people won’t feel that we have the luxury of that time if other lives are at risk which is obviously why today we have seen so many buildings be evacuated under very dramatic circumstances because clearly the council doesn’t believe, or is taking advice from the re service, that those buildings are safe.

So what do you think? Do you think we will see, obviously this cladding seems to be at the centre of the investigation, presumably that will go out of fashion after such a dreadful incident? What other long term effects do you think we’ll see in the world of planning, building and architecture?

BW: I’d like to step just one step back from being too close to trying to work out what went wrong and who was responsible which will obviously pan out in the future.The thing that seems to me is not clearly focused on is what is cladding and what is it for? Cladding in this context is all about energy, energy saving, insulation.The people who spent nearly £10m on this single building did it in order to upgrade the insulation. That’s why there are some ridiculous comments about it being done to make it look pretty or rubbish like that. It may have changed the look of the building and it may have improved it but wasn’t the motive.The motive was that these early ‘60s,‘70s designed buildings were to much lower insulation standards.They lost a lot of heat and also heated up a lot and therefore they needed to be upgraded to modern insulation standards and modern regulations and that is what drives this idea of doing a

‘tea cosy’ wrapping around the original building.

DMc: Wasn’t the issue to do with aesthetics as well as cladding on the inside for insulation and there was an extra level put on the outside for aesthetics? Was the wind tunnel effect between those two materials a contributing factor?

BW: It is certainly likely that there was an air gap which might not have been, and we are all speculating here, what we call re stopped at each floor, as it should have been. But I would absolutely disagree that the reason for what we call a rain screen (ie rain protection on the outside) was purely aesthetic. Obviously what it looks like mattered and there was a change of look, but the reality is it’s there to protect and enclose and secure the insulation for the flats.

At the same time, as I read it, they had new boilers and heating systems so the whole heating and cooling system was modernised for the budget and that was really the focus.

That may have been what lead to, possibly, some errors, in both the way it was organised as a building contract (which I could talk about a little bit) and the neglect – if that’s what turns out to be the case – for the implications of the protection for the building.

I think we all begin to understand from the press coverage, that the way in which the flats were protected in the original architecture, and people could be advised to stay in and the firee could be dealt with locally wherever it started.

It does look very much as though the cladding which was for insulation purposes, breached that protection somehow and it may well be gaps, lack of stopping at each oor level and other detailing issues will prove to have been the cause of the problem.

The cladding is something that bridged the protection that was built into the original buildings 4

(concrete and therefore not flammable) and that seems to have led to the outcome.

DMc: Brian, the reasons why these measure aren’t put into place is to save money, it’s not ignorance or maliciousness.

Presumably it’s thought we will save a bit here and there. Would that be fair?

BW: Well, that raises the question of how these building projects are organised and we have a general preference in the UK to go for Public Finance Initiatives (PFI) and other similar schemes which are essentially led by project managers and builders and supported by bankers and lawyers.

They are not led by the architects or engineers and I think that is a question the enquiry really has to get a serious grip on because, and again I absolutely do not know the detail on this case so I have to caveat anything I say, I do believe there was a firm of architects involved, but they were not employed by the Client.They were employed somehow or other by a project manager.

Project Managers are mainly concerned by budgets and timetables.Their priority is not quality, or the look or the convenience or the commodity of the people living there.They are there to talk to the client about how much it will cost and how long it will take. So if there were in the traditional process, an independent professional architect employed by the client, he has absolutely nothing to gain by specifying a cheaper or poorer performing material for the cladding or anything else. He’s got no incentive. On the contrary, the opposite of an incentive. If its run by builders and project managers, their priority is budget and time.

DMc: This has raised a whole new issue on the chain of command.

SOAPBOX excellence in practice Summer 2017

Delivery is an essential part of design The recent ACA Soapbox debate was hosted by Rab and Denise Bennetts Speakers opening the debate were: FOR: Rab Bennetts, Bennetts Associates AGAINST: Walter Meneth, Walter Meneth Architects MODERATOR: Alfred Munkenbeck, Munckenbeck & Partners Rab Bennetts (RB): With due deference to Monty Python.....

What have architects done for us?

• They gave us buildings.Yeh, but apart from that, what have they done?

• They gave us streets and parks and squares.Yeh, but apart from that, what have they done?

• They gave us facades Yeh,............

• They gave us light and space.

Yeh.......

• They gave us details, furniture, maybe even the fabrics and cutlery.Yeh....oh really?

• They gave us design.

But, like Monty Python’s preposterous attack on the Romans, there are many who would belittle the architect’s role too. This year it will be 40 years since Denise and I graduated and, in that time, the architect’s standing has continually been eroded.

The most recent and perhaps most threatening development is the emergence of delivery teams who execute the design of a concept architect to the instructions of those whose interests are not always benign.

The logical conclusion of this trend is that concept architects will be deskilled and thereby reduced to being mere stylists, which is not why I became an architect.

Why has this happened?

• Partly a failure to understand what an architect really does.

• Partly the failure of architects to perform • Combined with the profession’s sense of denial about the problem. In a bid to address this sense of denial here is the stereotypical architect as viewed by much of the property and construction industry: • Creative, undoubtedly • Self-absorbed, not always a team player • Designs for their peers rather than for their clients • Fails to deliver on time • Fails to deliver on budget • Fails to understand the needs of others, Page 5 5

especially contractors, including time, cost and technical performance.

There are many exceptions to this stereotype but the description is too common to be ignored.

Many clients and contractors are now saying that concept design and delivery cannot be found within the same mind and, therefore, within the same mind.

This is something I profoundly disagree with and we have built Bennetts Associates’ entire existence around the idea that designing and delivering has equal importance, as they are mutually interdependent.

The fact is, however, the failure of many architects to deliver is stripping all architects of the power to design beyond a stylistic concept.

What is delivery?

• Meeting and exceeding expectations • The fulfilment of the concept www.acarchitects.co.uk

>>>

SOAPBOX excellence in practice ACA News 130 >>>

design through to execution • Production of technically sound and at times beautiful detailed design • Managing the design process on time • Agreeing and meeting budgets • Chairing meetings and orchestrating the team properly • Not agreeing to crazy low fees Everyone in this room knows what good delivery means.

It’s not rocket science; it requires judgement, experience, collaboration, good communication, realism and professionalism - much of which is not taught at architecture schools or are regarded as core skills, which is one reason why they are not valued sufficiently.

My proposition, then, is: • Good delivery is the means by which we translate the architectural idea into fullyformed reality.

• Good delivery is the means by which we can reclaim respect and the central role of the architect.

• It is therefore vital for our survival to see delivery as an essential part of design.

You see, John Cleese’s rebellious rant at the Romans ignored how powerful they were at delivery, but eventually of course they declined, through being too self-absorbed and indulgent.Aren’t architects in a similar position today?

Walter Meneth (WM): Like Grayson Perry (does this explain WM’s dayglow pink wig? – see photo), who addresses the whole of society, delivery is not the only thing architects are involved with.

We fail to acknowledge plagiarism in society and ignore the different voices. Whilst I agree with RB, there is far more missing from the work of the architect: • There are problems with the culture and ethics of architecture and management has taken over.

• Service acquisition, work shortages, deskilling are all

prevalent and lead us to work on a non level playing eld and architects suffer.

• VAT being charged in heritage/ sustainability/ refurbishment issues • The housing crisis and the drive for social value and increased demand Issues with who we serve (client, contractor) and who we deliver to • Judiciary having no understanding of technical issues • Refurbishments which are poorly executed causing exposure to death and increased risk • Indecision and lack of confidence as a profession is failing the architect and the profession needs to tackle these issues.

Alfred Munkenbeck (AM): Do we have issues with deliverability?

WM:The trend has been to compartmentalise. Acceptance of position constrains thinking.

We fear putting the head above the parapet, so we need to encourage voices to be raised as we are highly respected.

RB: Latham, Morrell and Farmer’s reports all say design and particularly architects are not fully integrated with the industry and will not fully exert influence in the sector and that architects would get greater respect if they did. We are seen as frivolous designers and the RIBA has failed to engage with the various reports and we have therefore failed to reform.

AM: I had always thought UK architects had more power than US architects and that the client had to deal with cost overruns.

Some blame must go to the architect when processes go wrong. D&B was a method to attempt to solve this. Generally if architects were more disciplined with prepared drawings in advance, these problems might not happen.

RB: Industry has changed due to D&B 6

Brian Waters (BW): Where are the delivery architects? Are they respected?

RB:They are some cheaper architects recommended by contractors who get the building up at a reduced cost, but ignore the detail. Others supplant the original architect but some keep a bit more to the original concept.There was an issue with the previous ARB Code of Conduct on supplanting which has been removed from the current version.

WM: Severance has also been removed and we have no contractual payments relating to severance in D&B. BW: Severance compensation is a standard clause in my conditions.

Denise Bennetts(DB): We ensure we contractually have a top-up fee if we are not retained after planning. If projects get planning permission for their design the client is bound by copyright. Planners could enable the same architect to continue through the work stages or at least be retained to monitor and report on implementation. D&B is rampant with issues at lower value and that along with the dumbing down, lack of stake holding and continuity in design all give issues with delivering value.There are also issues with egos and implications for liability if you have many architects coming and going on a project.

RB: D&B is not entirely bad for design, provided the architect is novated.

AM: D&B is not design; it enables contractors not to think.

RB: D&B can be a quick and very efficient way of dealing with issues.

BW: However there are conflicts of interest with contracts.

RB: We need to ensure we use novation on the architects’ terms and at an agreed cost.

WM: D&B contracts should work better.They should use project bank accounts so there is less control by the contractor >>>

SOAPBOX excellence in practice Summer 2017 >>>

over payments and this is why D&B fails. Risk is a quantity to be considered contractually.

John Assael (JA): I support the proposition. Half of my work goes to other architectural practices. There are some firms who are good delivery architects. Concept architects can be hopeless as there are major issues with architects not detailing the building properly.

It is important that the buildings work and are delivered properly.

Architectural education on detailing is not encouraged at the schools and this is a significant discrepancy between the training of architects and other professions (eg lawyers).

Gordon Murrell (GM): We need to broaden the culture and concept of architecture.

WM: We have a professional remit to bring in support to achieve value engineering to deliver value at a lower price. We do not communicate outwards and that is not normal and we are losing track of what we are doing. We are not looking at who the building is for and why it is being built.Additionally there is a loss of skills in the work place due to fragmentation. Cyborg architects are ever present who disengage with production and building projects. However, we need to accept these risks and learn to engage with younger architects.

AM: We must accept pluralism and that we are not gods.The de- skilling problem is a great concern.

RB: Delivery is not a valued part of design.This includes something as elementary as chairing meetings. “Specialism is the fragmentation of knowledge”. Much as I would like the planners to engage architects to provide continued design it isn’t realistic, as clients can’t be forced to retain concept architects who can’t deliver.

DB: it is very important to be involved in the earlier stages/ concepts as these change during a project and feed into

future projects.

Alison Low (AL): We must ensure architects collaborate and develop teams to maintain this continuity. Partnering Contracts are the ideal vehicle to ensure we are involved in the entire process. Multivehicle contracts which allow collaboration are key to engaging early in a project and ensure everyone works to the same objective.

WM: “PPC2000 is a good idea, but a forced marriage”?

AM: So you can have total engagement on projects all the way through...

Trevor Sutters (TS): Architects are the best team players.The Construction Management approach is the method which puts architects in charge of delivery. CM sets up trades to deliver by tender and architects must stand outside the process to reinvent the mechanism.

BW: We cannot ignore fiscal power.Teams that just deliver planning, then delivery etc is a way for the house builders to maintain control on the project.

House builders have evolved the process to keep fiscal control over house- building architects by re-tendering at every stage, masterplan, concept and planning, then delivery.

RB: If architects understood the delivery principles, then for example Redrow would not be so tempted to use other architects for delivery.

DB: The main problem is the clients not understanding the project/product or the value an architect brings.

AM: So how do we ensure good value and engagement in the buildings of the future?

WM: We need to see the social value of construction and architecture. Social value is only delivered by largesse so we need founding principles before contracts are signed.The Government needs to be directly involved in the output.

James Burrell (JB): I had an 7

experience with a contractor extending my terms so I had to resign from a project.The major concern is that the profession is only 1 – 5 principal member sized. We must work with construction teams directly and modify contracts to make buildings work. Architect led construction management is a good way of getting engagement and delivering effectively.

TS: The new ADM (Architects Design & Management*) suite of contracts can be used on projects up to £16m.

WM: project insurance and project bank accounts need to be incorporated within all construction processes.

RB: Remember the difference between project managers and construction managers and the different issues that arise.

AM: So can you be paid as a construction manager and an architect? JB: Yes, double fees! [*to be published later this year by the ACA] WM: Another key issue is procurement. Practices in Germany earn their fee as a procurement specialist.The public procurement exercise is one fee earning stage followed by the role as project manager post procurement and many small practices are doing this.

Risk analysis is very significant.

Germany has axed fees under EU regulations enabling public tendering on quality and not price and this should be the same in the UK. However we have many defects which come to light post delivery which are scandalous.There are serious issues with bogus paybacks for incorrectly built houses and opportunities to take control.

RB: The culture of cheap pricing is causing issues with standards and excessive costs in the long term life of a building.

DB: We are not supervising!

Note the example of the >>> Scottish schools where the www.acarchitects.co.uk

SOAPBOX excellence in practice ACA News 130 >>>

architects Sam Webb and John Coles noted all the defects.

JA: Surely if people are injured due to defects, the entire industry must be responsible and there is a case for judicial review?

WM: Risk is passed down the supply chain and not assessed when compared to the primary pricing decisions. If control is squeezed too much delivery chains break and people don’t take responsibility for doing things properly. Risk ends with society and the issue of quality is not delivered.

GM: Can ACA and the RIBA do more for its members? JA: Unfortunately practice is being told what to do by RIBA Council and this is not effective.

WM: Architects continue to contribute well above their weigh but not via the RIBA. We need to look beyond.

RB: Perhaps the profession needs to engage more directly with contractors?!

Soapbox Debate, 25th April 2017 Noted by Shona Broughton.

Welcome to new ACA Members Christopher Bowes, McGregor Bowes John Capper Julie-Ann Clements, Inex Design Carol Costello, Cullinan Studio Stephen Crosland-Mills Dr John De Los Angeles Charles Dunnett, Dunnett Craven David Edwards, Place Make Paul Ginever, Plan A Ian Treleaven Fitzherbert Isabel Hankart, Atelier Habitat Rod Hughes, 2030 Architects John Kellett, KR.eativ Architects Kwok-Wai Lau, Studio EK Dr John de Los Angeles Shabnam Noor, Moor and Mills Alan McGowan Adetayo Ogunade, Archillion UK Mark Percival, Architecture M John T Pounder Christopher Procter, Procter-Rihl Phil Smith, Smith Evans Sherman Tang Grahame White, Owl Architecture Robert Wilson Have you updated your directory entry?

See your welcome pack for your username and password Benefits of membership are listed on page 28 and include: • 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 and Networking; • Use of the suffix ACArch to indicate membership; • Permission and encouragement to use the ACA Logo on all • marketing materials and your website.

8

ACAPAG PLANNING REPORT excellence in practice SUMMER 2017

New Government, new uncertainties Andy Rogers, chairman of the ACA’s Planning Action Group, brings us up-to-date The change of government leadership following David Cameron’s departure and the upheaval of the general election and its aftermath (including yet another new Planning Minister) has led to a distinct pause and changes in emphasis for planning. There is more support for rental housing in a shift away from the previous focus on home ownership, the London Mayor has published affordable housing planning guidance that is strong on economic viability, together with a wide-ranging Transport Strategy document - and there seems to be really serious consideration being given on how to supply muchneeded new homes.

The Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017, pushed out before the dissolution of parliament, became law on 27 April. It contains new powers to strengthen and simplify neighbourhood planning; for the government to direct local authorities to develop joint plans; for County Councils to prepare local plans where Districts do not have them; for LPAs to keep a planning register of all prior approval and pd decisions; for pre-commencement conditions to be unenforceable unless agreed beforehand in writing*; for further technical changes to the Compulsory Purchase procedures; and (by separate Order) to remove the permitted development rights that allowed the demolition of Class A4 ‘drinking establishments’ (clubs/ pubs that don’t sell food).

While we await secondary legislation and a government analysis of responses to the Housing White Paper (see box), the High Court has sent down three key decisions: first, in Palmer v Herefordshire Council & Another, it was held that the proper and full consideration of the effect of development on heritage assets (here a listed building) and possible mitigation were sufficient to safeguard a decision; second, Riki Shasha and others v Westminster CC, reinstated the requirement for all planning permissions to include reasons for granting; and third, Eatherley v Camden LBC, ruled that the creation of a basement extension beneath an existing dwelling may not, contrary to what has been generally accepted up to now, be permitted development if significant engineering works (ie deep excavations and underpinning, classified as engineering works and therefore not pd) are required “as a separate activity of substance” in order to create the space to build the extension.

In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled that the absence of a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites renders out of date only those policies dealing with the numbers and distribution of housing and not those which seek to restrict housing - this effectively means that if an authority has an up-to-date plan it can rely on adopted restrictive policies even if it can’t demonstrate a real 5-year Page 9

9

ANDREW ROGERS housing land supply.

The following summary of planning issues in 2016 was presented to London Build at Olympia by me and Brian last October.

HOUSING AND PLANNING ACT 2016 Subject to secondary legislation, still awaited Starter Homes - must be new; available for “qualifying first time buyers’; sold at a discount of 20% below market cap (£450k in London and £250k outside but with SoS power to amend figures and areas); LPAs have a duty to promote their supply; they may be counted as affordable housing; details will follow current consultation and could apply to all sites of +10 units / 5 ha with possible joint purchasing and various exemptions being considered (including CIL nonpayment).

Permission in Principle (PiP) - for housing / housing-led development; will be granted in outline automatically either as Qualifying Development if on a brownfield site / other (eg Neighbourhood Forum) register or by application to the LPA; valid for 5 yrs (QD) or 3 yrs (LPA); subject to approval of technical details (ie ‘reserved matters’; only 5 weeks for determination of approval and 5-10 weeks for technical details; only granted if EIA either (i) screened out or (ii) completed; much further detail is absent from the Act, but secondary legislation is now >>> imminent and it is clear from first www.acarchitects.co.uk

ACAPAG PLANNING REPORT excellence in practice ACA News 130 >>>

drafts as issued that the intention is to reinstate proper outline planning permission subject only to location (red-line site), quantity and use.

Alternative Providers - proposed introduction of competition for processing planning applications, to be tested with pilot schemes, decision remains in the hands of the local authority, opens up likely variable application fees.

Other General Provisions powers for the SoS to intervene in the production of Local Plans, proposals for mandatory section 106 dispute resolution process (ie mediation), extension of right to buy to housing associations, proposals for the recovery of abandoned premises, reductions in security of tenure, etc.

PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT (GPDO) CHANGES Came into force 6th April 2016 Previous temporary change of use from office to residential made permanent.

• Exempt areas to cease operation on 30th May 2019.

• Noise impacts allowed to be considered (along with traffic, flood risk, etc).

• Launderettes now allowed to change to residential use as well as shops.

• Right to change light industrial use to residential, with time and other restrictions.

• Applications for lawful change of use certificate must include unit increase details.

• Minerals exploration (incl. fracking) and other detailed/ wording clarifications.

HERITAGE PROTECTION REFORM Historic Environment Forum recommendations Proposals to improve listed building and conservation area applications including • fees for listed buildings applications

• •

accredited agents to provide heritage assessment and possibly approvals better guidance on heritage/ design/conservation statements

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY Peace Review due March 2016, issued Feb. 2017 Government review to assess the effect/efficiency of CIL led

by Liz Peace, who said: “…it most certainly hasn’t provided a faster, simpler, more transparent system.”

The government response is now expected before the end of 2017, probably together with proposed amendments to the National Planning Policy Framework.

PLANNING WHITE PAPER Promised before the end of 2016, published February: see box Sajid Javid (Communities Secretary) had threatened a “coherent strategy for how we can get this country building the homes we need”. Gavin Barwell (once Planning Minister, ousted in the election) suggested a policy shift away from focus on home ownership and towards support for a range of housing tenures, including rental, with £1.3 billion allocated in the 2016 Autumn Statement for 10

‘alternative’ providers to develop affordable housing.

This was something of a damp squib, compared with the RTPI’s 16 Ways to Address the Housing Crisis, such as a fiscal regime that would encourage buildto- rent housing, innovative new ways to fund affordable housing, making housing plans a central plank of devolution deals and aligning transport infrastructure with housing delivery.

Finally, with the AJ we’ve produced a questionnaire in an attempt to find out how pre-application procedures are being dealt with in the planning system, with a view to alerting >>> government to perceived abuses, inconsistencies and other failings. See next article

* Conditions, particularly those that are onerous, disproportionate or unreasonable and (of-ten) unnecessarily imposed as having to be discharged prior to any commencement of the development approved, are set to be further outlawed following a comprehensive consulta-tion by the DCLG which the ACA supported in its response. We wait to hear exactly how far the government is prepared

ACAPAG PLANNING REPORT excellence in practice Summer 2017 >>>

to go to stop the proliferation of conditions that has been evi-dent in recent times, but it’s encouraging that a recent consultation document with strong proposals has been almost completely accepted (against some LPA misgivings) and the Act has outlawed precommencement conditions unless agreed by the applicant.

WHITE PAPER Somewhere between its original conception in August/ September 2016 and its eventual publication on 7th February 2017, the government’s PLANNING WHITE PAPER morphed into a (watered down) HOUSING WHITE PAPER. This is likely to be because government’s perennial intention to (yet again) reform the planning system in an effort to improve the supply of new homes came up against the implacable opposition to actual change of those in power (and specifically number 10) change such as more control over housing supply, review (let alone possible adjustment) of the Green Belt, much greater densities both in town and country, wider and/or more effective permitted development, and so on: you know what is needed…

Simultaneously the government published the long-awaited CIL review (more on this later in the year); the results of several consultations to which ACAPAG has previously made submissions - including NPPF changes, Building Up, Starter Homes Regulations, and the Housing and Planning Act Secondary Legislation; and further consultations, on Build for Rent and the White Paper proposals.

This flurry of planning and housing policy change needed careful consideration and ACA’s planning group met in the Spring to discuss and formulate our responses, which were submitted at the beginning of May.

These are the White Paper’s main points, mostly related to housing not planning: • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

Encouragement for local authorities to release land and to build housing Support for build-to-rent and a range of housing tenures over home ownership Support for the development of small ‘windfall’ sites Mandatory local authority housing delivery test with penalties New/stricter rules for assessing the five-year housing land supply Multi-authority / more flexible local development plans Strengthened applicant/ local authority/community pre-application discussions 20% increase in planning fees to improve planning departments Possible additional 20% increase for authorities delivering more new homes Consultation on the introduction of a fee for making an appeal [watch this space] Extra central government funds for areas of high housing need Intensification of housing (higher densities and taller buildings) in central locations Changes to allow housing associations to be more like private sector bodies Reduced life for residential planning permissions (from three years to two) Increased transparency of land ownership and housing land availability Innovative partnering with small and medium sized builders for public sector sites Further funding and improvements to neighbourhood planning Possible introduction of local pattern-books, 3D models, etc Tweaking Green Belt rules Page 11 11

in respect of brownfield/ underused land and density • Examination of present ‘developer contribution’ systems (see Autumn budget 2017) Many of these aspirations are qualified by the government’s intention to amend the NPPF and PPG, so maybe there will be more on that front later (but see my final thoughts below).

Generally, comments from across the planning and construction world expressed disappointment that there is little to indicate that the government is able (or even willing) to take really strong measures that will properly address the housing crisis. Much like the confirmation that “brexit means brexit”, we now know from Theresa May’s introduction to this White Paper that “building more homes means building more homes”. Whether it achieves this goal remains to be seen, especially following the general election which has resulted in a new planning Minister and effectively kicked the White Paper into the long grass, with nothing about planning in the Queen’s speech. I for one am not holding my breath.

www.acarchitects.co.uk

acapag planning report excellence in practice ACA News130

The ACA Pre-App Survey We would like your help with a quick survey on Pre-Apps.

It can be found here: http://eSurv.org/onlinesurvey.php?survey_ ID=MIMIMJ_920c2d40 The survey asks these questions: 1) Have you used a local planning authority preapplication service in the last two years?

2) Have you used the preapplication services of more than one local planning authority?

3) If yes to question 2, would you say your experiences are similar or did they vary?

4) Would you agree that the main point of the pre-application process is to provide timely advice, to agreed deadlines, that covers all issues which might affect the plan-ning decision?

5) Regarding timing: would you say that in your experience authorities meet the timetables that they have offered for their service?

6) If an authority has missed its deadlines in submitting its promised report on preapplication advice, has it offered to refund the fee paid for that advice?

7) Regarding advice given: in your experience has the advice provided covered all rel-evant issues including those that may not be planning policy matters [such as traffic]?

8) Have you ever found that a new issue which could (or did) lead to a refusal has been raised following the pre-application advice? Or that key specific advice (such as the accessibility of a proposal in principle) has been changed subsequently?

9) In your experience is the level of pre-application fee demanded proportionate and reasonable? (Please give examples below) 10) Do you think the Government should set limits on the level of fee for specific types of pre-application service?

11) Given that pre-application services are offered on a contractual basis, do you think that fees should be refundable when the service fails to either meet its deadline or the other criteria promised by a local authority?

12) Do you think that the Government should regulate/ monitor the pre-application pro-cess as presently operated by planning departments in England/Wales/Scotland (say which please)? Or

12

13) Are you happy with the service and feel that authorities should continue to be al-lowed to provide it on the terms currently available?

14) Do planning authorities you deal with offer a free informal preliminary discussion with a duty planning officer? If so, have you found this service useful?

15) Do you as a general rule encourage clients to make use of formal pre-application services when available? If not why not?

16) Please add additional comments.

Below: From Planning in London, Issue 101.. One view of pre-apps

council news excellence in practice Summer 2017

ACA Council meets Lord Stunell, the Brexit review chief The Government would like to know more from the Construction Industry Lord Stunell joined Council at a recent away-day to help answer his questions about Brexit and our industry. His questions were: 1.

What should the final deal look like?

2. What elements are outstanding? What should or should not be included?

3. Does the sequence of transition to the final stage need to be detailed further? EG do the visa requirements need changing?

4. Generally, what should a sensible government do to give the UK a healthy Construction Industry?

The RIBA recent survey says 25% of architects in London are from the EU and Barratts say 59% of their workers in London are from the EU. • The Architects Council of Europe (ACE) it is likely that the UK will still remain members in a post Brexit UK. The Commonwealth Institute of Architects (CIA) membership and position is likely to grow and the UK should meet to discuss involvement for UK architects in the future.

Is it possible for the UK to remain a members of ACE post Brexit? Will this preclude membership of the CIA? • Mutual recognition of qualifications/ disciplinary proceedings – perhaps via the ACE/CIA? Consider the case for recognition of

•

the architecture courses as essential skills subject to fee review Arrangements to be made to ensure the free movement of goods and services between the UK

and EU. Some implications on overlapping regulatory systems? Ensure tariffs are regulated to limit VAT on non EU products • Consider retaining the Public Contract Regulations

ACA at London Build The ACA will be curating three

solutions, and technology across the sector.

150 top level speakers will be delivering exclusive content in what is the most diverse and sessions at London Build on progressive programme in the October 25th & 26th which industry, covering topics such as will include an ACAPAG Planning session, a session on BIM & Digital Construction, OffSite Construction, Sustainability, collaborative contracts and Skills, the Future of London’s a debate on the future of the Construction Industry and much architect more.

London Build features over The Department for 100 hours of CPD accredited International Trade, will also content, to allow you to be on hand to provide expert develop your own skills, one-to-one advice to help your including exclusive contract company take a step towards and tender announcements from the largest projects within growing your business abroad in our Export Hub. London from the residential, commercial and infrastructure But more importantly, the ACA sectors. Gain access to endless will be at Olympia and want to networking opportunities, talk with you so please register hundreds of facilitated onefor your free ticket and find us at on-one meetings to create the event. new business, and live To register for tickets visit: www. entertainment to ensure that londonbuildexpo.com you’re having a great day outside the office.

Across the two days, London Build will see thousands of construction professionals, contractors, architects, developers, government representatives come to Olympia London to meet with over 250 exhibitors showcasing the very latest products, 13 13 Page

www.acarchitects.co.uk

council news excellence in practice ACA News 130

Feedback on the new Plan of Work RIBA’s new Plan of Work ‘unhelpful’ says ACA, writes Ella Braidwood reporting in the AJ More than half of the 73 respondents to a survey by the Association of Consultant Architects (ACA) said they found the RIBA’s 2013 Plan of Work ‘unhelpful’ In 2013, the RIBA replaced the alphabetical A to L stages of its Plan of Work, with a new, seven-point numerical version.

The move marked the most significant changes to the Plan of Work since its introduction more than 50 years ago.

However, 52 per cent of the 73 respondents to the ACA’s survey said they had more problems using the new numerical format than the former, now-abandoned alphabetical format.

Two-fifths (41 per cent) also found the RIBA Plan of Work ‘unhelpful’ in relation to the appointment of contractors.

Nearly half (47 per cent) said they still use the alphabetical Plan of Work.

Nearly two thirds (61 per cent) of respondents reported the Plan of Work was not helpful in relation to the scope of work needed for full planning applications.

And more than half (52 per cent) said a published ‘overlay’, reconciling the numerical Plan of Work with the alphabetical one, would be useful to their practice.

Brian Waters, president of the ACA, said: ‘With half the respondents looking for a compatible way of continuing to use the well-established structure of the alphabetical plan of work, the ACA will be publishing an overlay to the 2013 Plan of Work,

mainly geared for traditional procurement methods, later this year.

‘This will make it easier to discuss projects in terms of concept, design development, technical design, production information, tender action and so forth. It will also make clear the established fee charging points, most particularly the achievement of a full planning permission.’

Many practices have serious concerns about the inflexibility of the RIBA Plan of Work John Assael, founder of Assael Architecture, said the results showed that ‘many practices do indeed have serious concerns about the inflexibility of RIBA Plan of Work’.

He added: ‘The RIBA should have commissioned this survey themselves, but they seemed to be very complacent about the feedback from practices and I am delighted that we now have a well-researched paper that unequivocally confirms the concerns of those of us in practice.

‘How difficult is it for the RIBA to act and produce a simple overlay now? I am told by the RIBA that this will take some time and this is disappointing.’

The ACA said it carried out the survey to see how the 2013 Plan of Work was faring, following ‘rumblings of dissatisfaction and concern from members’.

In 2013, the AJ revealed that more than half (54 per cent) of architects, developers, engineers 14

and consultants had not made the transition to the institute’s Plan of Work 2013 six months after it was introduced.

Responding to the results RIBA executive director of members Adrian Dobson said: ‘We keep the RIBA Plan of Work under regular review; our recently published RIBA Plan of Work for Small Projects, for example, was developed in response to feedback from the profession.

‘The new RIBA Plan of Work has been downloaded more than 50,000 times, is widely adopted in the construction industry and features regularly in client briefs and tender invitations. The next revision of the RIBA Plan of Work will address key issues including the sequencing of planning and development control activities in relation to various procurement scenarios.’

New partnership with the CIOB

We are working to share access to CIOB and ACA events to members of each organisation.

Learn more from the CIOB team and about their events at https://www.ciob.org/

professional indemnity insurance excellence in practice Summer 2017

ACA’s Exclusive PII scheme Introducing our exclusive PII policy for ACA Members The ACA are pleased to announce a sponsorship arrangement with Towergate Professional Indemnity allowing us to offer free membership to all new members.

Towergate Professional Indemnity (TPI) is the specialist division within Towergate Insurance.

With a team of over 30 specialists across offices in Manchester and London they have established a significant presence in the construction sector acting for a wide range of construction professions including Architects, Consulting Engineers, Project Managers, Quantity Surveyors and Design & Build Contractors across the UK. In conjunction with TPI, The ACA are giving all members exclusive access to a new and specifically designed Professional Indemnity Product. By working very closely with underwriters the ACA have provided feedback to develop a policy that addresses the needs of professional practices.

This policy is underwritten by A Rated Insurers at Lloyds and contains a number of enhanced feature over standard PI Policies.

Benefits of this scheme include: • Civil liability coverage • Disputed fees coverage • Collateral warranty coverage without limitation on assignments.

• Mitigation costs • Automatic full pollution coverage • Subsidiary creation and

TOWERGATE PI NOW SPONSOR FREE MEMBERSHIP TO THE ACA FOR ALL ELIGIBLE UK ARCHITECTURE PRACTICES RECONFIRM YOUR MEMBERSHIP AT: WWW.ACARCHITECTS.CO.UK

acquisition cover Run off coverage (subject to claims experience and premium cost) • Full asbestos coverage When purchasing through Towergate, ACA members will also benefit from Towergate’s additional services which include:

Educational Support Towergate frequently provide clients with internal briefings in relation to emerging risk, changes to legislation and claims examples. They can also undertake internal seminars for clients educating staff on managing risk, how professional indemnity works and the claims process.

Contract Review Services Access to a team of Insurance Brokers providing advice to our clients (from a Professional Indemnity coverage perspective) on all forms of Construction Appointments, Duty of Care Warranties, Novation Agreements etc. We recognise that for this service to operate effectively we must provide our clients with a quick turnaround of documents to enable them to operate their business efficiently.

If you require any further information or would like a quotation, please contact Tony Stevenson

•

Claims support TPI have a highly experienced in house claims department who are committed to making the claims process as simple as possible. This will provide you with peace of mind and the time to get on with your day job.

With over 30 years of experience of key individuals. Our claims team manage claims and circumstances from the point of notification onwards.

As part of their service they will provide the support you need in negotiating, mediating and working with insurers and lawyers to achieve the best outcome.

Page 15

15

tony.stevenson@towergate. co.uk 0344 892 1789

Considering the contractual approach to BIM 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 www.acarchitects.co.uk

TOWERGATE COLUMN excellence in practice ACA News 130 >>>

player. However on any project when BIM is used, it is important to understand how it is reflected contractually.

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 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 as to the effect of the CIC Protocol and obligations in relation to BIM. 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.

3 1 1

2 Andy Roger’s Summer Quiz What do these buildings have in common? Solution on the final page 16

reassessing adjudication

Summer 2017

Stephen Woodward of Resolex says compulsory adjudication is adversarial and pulling against the industry drive towards collaborative ways of working The time is ripe for the culture change needed to foster collaboration, leaving adjudication as a true last resort.

Collaboration is the lifeblood of the construction industry, yet compulsory adjudication mandates the opposite.

What can be done?

The principal thrust of project management in recent years has been to empower disparate disciplines to work together to deliver projects of the required quality on time and on budget.

Dispute resolution, by contrast, appears to have different, perhaps opposing, aspirations.

Compulsory adjudication is 20 years old and shows no sign of going away, and though relatively quick, it is binary (there’s a winner and a loser) and therefore divisive. We can, and should, do better.

At a recent industry RADAR roundtable – Building Collaboration Within Frameworks led by David Mosey (Professor of Construction Law and Dispute Resolution, King’s College London) on 6 October 2016

– there was an unchallenged view that compulsory adjudication is not alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

Compulsory adjudication, like litigation, is about rights and remedies; ADR is about commercial needs and wants.

At the same roundtable, there was an unchallenged call to project participants to resolve differences before initiating adjudication proceedings.

A change in culture, it seems, is both desired within the industry and long overdue. October 2016 saw the publication of Modernise or Die – Time to Decide the Industry’s Future (the Farmer Review of the UK Construction Labour Model, researched and written by Mark Farmer, Founding Director and CEO of Cast Consultancy (the Farmer Review)). It has been seen in the industry as a wake-up call.

Commenting on the report, Andrew Wolstenholme chair of the Construction Leadership Council (and also chief executive of Crossrail) admitted that it does not make for comfortable reading, adding

5

that, ‘We simply cannot go on as we are’. The list of shortcomings highlighted in the Farmer Review will likely be familiar: lack of collaboration and improvement culture, and testament to adversarial relationships.

While the problems seem acute, practical solutions already exist.

The Dispute Resolution Service of the RICS, for example, has developed its Conflict Avoidance Panel process for early resolution of conflict. It has gone further in also entering a collaborative alliance on 3 October 2016 with a commercial organisation (ResoLex: www.resolex.com) offering project horizon scanning.

Project horizon scanning is an early warning system which identifies potential conflict before it can damage the project. In doing so, the projectcritical path is sustained rather than subverted into matters unrelated to the project process.

Need for speed While such a methodology seems indisputably better in tune with industry goals concerning collaboration, adjudication remains the cultural norm.

Adjudication has received justified praise for the speed with which it tackles disputes.

Not only can parties receive an award in a short timescale, but court procedures exist for quick enforcement. The fact that adjudication has almost entirely superseded domestic arbitration is to its broad acceptance in the >>>

6

4 17

www.acarchitects.co.uk

reassessing adjudication excellence in practice ACA News 130 >>>

market.

What, then, is the problem?

The problem is that adjudication is adversarial. That means all parties state (or frequently overstate) their positions in order to influence the tribunal. It means exaggerating the strengths of one party’s position, while exaggerating the weaknesses of the other. It means treating a colleague in the context of a project like an adversary, an opponent. Needless to say, this is plainly antithetical both to the spirit of collaboration and to the smooth functioning of project teams.

But so what? Everyone accepts that construction is a tough business; companies fall out on one dispute, but might be working together on another half dozen. Matthew Rushton, deputy managing director of ADR provider JAMS International, says: ‘We hear this all the time in mediations: “This is just business, no-one getting upset over this.”

It’s nonsense. People are, by their very nature, emotionally engaged with their work. They don’t like criticism and they don’t readily take responsibility for mistakes. And in that agitated, adversarial state all the evidence is that they make poor decisions.

Their only objective is attacking the other side, and practical, workable, valuable solutions fall by the wayside.’

Collaboration comes from shared goals and shared successes. It does not mean there will be no conflict that needs early identification and resolution. The resolution process chosen to support collaboration should do all possible to preserve hard won relationships rather than destroying them by adversarial means.

Furthermore, to preserve relationships, dispute resolution needs to focus on the project parties’ needs communicated between the parties themselves rather than from a positional stance set by a dispute rather

than a project agenda.

Matthew Rushton says: ‘Mediation starts by separating the people from the problem.

Personal enmity forbids real progress on the issues … The next phase involves a detailed exploration of underlying interests – the needs and wants of the parties – then parties can begin identifying options for mutual gain.

The mediator’s role is to keep parties focused on the issues, focused on using objective criteria and on maintaining ownership and control of the dispute. It’s spectacularly quick, and spectacularly successful.’

Culture club In considering the attributes of mediation one can see a complimentary culture with collaboration, and in the final analysis it is culture that decides just how effective collaboration is. To survive, the construction industry needs a change in culture from that of adversarial to collaborative relationships where goals and outcomes of project teams align to help the whole team achieve a share in the upside generated.

Someone who has led research in this area is Professor David Mosey in developing a new collaborative contract form: ‘Culture change comes from the top and flows down. It depends on personal leadership, an integrated procurement strategy and contractual commitments to improved value. These links have been demonstrated in case studies testing the new FAC-1 standard form framework alliance contract, where potential disputes have been averted through joint working under a collaborative governance structure.’

Collaboration expert Tony Llewellyn in his book Performance Coaching for Complex Projects – Influencing Human Behaviour and Enabling Change also recognises the need for collaborative teamwork to make a mindset shift beyond transactional thinking. He 18

recommends recognising the distinction between task-based and relationshipbased conflict distinguishing ‘soft’ risks and technical risks. Soft risks are behavioural and arise because people deliver projects.

Where does this leave the industry?

So, where does this leave us in the construction industry?

Early identification and a mediated solution is the last chance saloon for those interested in delivering projects collaboratively. To support the culture change called for in the Farmer Review, and to save the construction industry from further decline, innovative ways of identifying conflict risk and resolving disputes early are urgently needed.

Adjudication needn’t derail and damage commercial relationships if alternatives are built into projects from the outset. By way of example, provisions can be introduced into contracts by which parties agree, without being legally bound, to refrain from compulsory adjudication until mediation has been attempted.

And the mediator can be mandated to make (nonbinding) recommendations if a mediation is unsuccessful.

This is the surest way to keep compulsory adjudication as the process of last resort, and to support the culture change necessary to save the construction industry. Secrecy, fear, mistrust, and adversarial relationships can become openness, transparency and trust.

As per the Farmer Review, the time to act is now. Maybe as a start it is time to include ‘adjudication ambush’ as a standard risk on the project risk register. In so doing positive risk mitigation plans can be put forward that support rather than hinder the culture necessary for successful project delivery that benefits all project participants.

model making

Summer 2017

Is there much call for models anymore?

Mark Gynn says yes Since leaving university 14 years ago with a modelmaking degree, I’ve worked as a commercial modelmaker – initially freelance, but in more recent years as a director of my own company, Bennett Gynn Modelmaking. Over the years I’ve lost count of the number of people who’ve asked ‘is there much call for models anymore?’ or told me ‘modelmaking is a dying art’. Well I am pleased to report that the industry is as strong as ever with the appetite for architectural models ostensibly growing.

Models can be produced in a variety of scales and finishes.

They’re used throughout the design process, from sketch studies to explore a concept to fully detailed models to present a finished project. Scale and finish is determined early in the project, depending on the message that needs to be delivered. For a planning model the scale is normally smaller, encompassing a larger area to show context and the overall impact of a proposed scheme – these types of models are typically plain white or produced in timber. A model intended for marketing or investment purposes would usually be produced to a larger scale, showing just the scheme and immediate surroundings.

Marketing models are normally finished in full colour and high detail, showing an accurate representation of the finished development. Some clients also choose to include complex

lighting schemes – to add realism or simply highlight particular sections of a scheme.

A model produced at any stage of the design process has the ability to communicate important information in an inclusive way. Imagine a meeting – with architect, client, investor and contractors present, a multi-million pound scheme is on the table and there are only drawings or CGI available to convey your concept. Drawings and CGI can only go so far.

People are struggling to visualise the building and how the space will work, although you’re passionate about your ideas, others are not buying into it. Now introduce a model. Immediately everyone is up to speed on the project. The form is apparent, the context clear, the fact that the model exists adds an additional sense of reality to the project. If a model is put in a room alongside CGI visualisation images on the wall, I can guarantee that people would be crowded around the model.

It’s sometimes felt that models are an expensive addition to a project, but consider the potential savings from their use and the benefits are all too apparent. It’s well established that models greatly benefit the marketing process, always increasing off-plan sales. But often less considered are the cost savings that can be made during construction, through the early identification of design problems using the model.

Frequently designs are amended 19

during the modelling process as potential issues become clear when all the aspects of a project are physically pulled together for the first time. The model should be viewed as a mini construction site. In the context of the overall budget for a project, a model is a tiny percentage considering the advantages it brings.

With the advance of laser cutting and the advent of 3D printing, the processes involved in commercial modelmaking have changed in recent years.

These changes have certainly benefitted our clients through reduced build time, but there’s still an important balance between modern processes and traditional craftsmanship.

Currently, 3D printers are fantastic for creating complex forms but are unable to replicate the finest quality finish, so a combination of the component parts coupled with skilled hand-finishing and colouring will produce the best finished pieces. Timber models are still entirely handmade and are the preferred solution for many clients as they result in a tactile quality not easily replicated though other methods.

So what about CGI? It’s sometimes felt that CGI can be used instead of a tangible model. In reality I’ve seen an increasing trend of combining the two techniques, which can create a fantastic solution. Many clients now demand interactive elements within a model, either through plot lighting controlled via a tablet device where further www.acarchitects.co.uk

model making/ fun competition excellence in practice ACA News 130 >>>

information can be displayed on the tablet including CGI; or by combining projected artwork onto the surface of the model to change mood or surface finish.

It’s important to embrace these new processes alongside tried and tested methods to continue providing the best possible solution for clients.

The skills required to be a modelmaker are wide-reaching and often underestimated. The ability to solve complex design problems is as important as the knowledge and use of materials and processes. A single project could easily require the use of multiple disciplines. For instance, the use of CAD software to draw items for laser cutting and 3D printing; machine skills for cutting and shaping intricate wooden parts; mould-making for casting in resin and colour matching and paint spraying to apply finishes. There’s also the important stage of applying finishing details to fully bring a model to life, by adding figures, vehicles and soft landscaping.

Not only does this add a sense of realism but also one of scale.

Most modelmakers have a real desire to create and realise a clients visions – our triggers for job satisfaction are the same as those for architects and designers. Much of our current work is directly with housing developers and when we are engaged the design process is all but complete, but we relish the opportunity to work directly with architects. Modelmakers can play an important supporting role during the development of a concept and the modelling process works best when used as an aid to design and problem solve. A model is an honest representation; it shows a building in its raw state, there is nowhere to hide. Apart from the finished construction a model is the purest expression of the architects’ vision.

These few paragraphs only offer a brief insight into the modelmaking industry, but I hope the continued value of

architectural modelmaking can be appreciated. If you’d like any further information or would like to discuss options for an upcoming project, please get in touch.

Mark Gynn – Director Bennett Gynn Modelmaking T.01634 566595 W. www.bennettgynn.co.uk.

Design a new sutainable HQ for the ACA The ACA is looking to build a new HQ building, and is looking for Members’ help in a quick design competition.

Entries should be quick sketches /concepts created as fun 5 minute ‘back of an envelope’ type submissions.

There will be no fees and all submissions will be featured in ACA Newsletters/ Website.

The Brief: 1. The building must be able to be built by a self builder and at a reasonable cost.

2. The building to be single storey, within PD as an outbuilding in the garden of the main house.

3. Interior to contain office/ desk space plus storage.

4. Roof - can be a bought in product eg zinc but again must comply with PD for height requirements.

Page 20 20

5. The house is located on the North Downs. It is within the realms of Tandridge District Council.

6. The house dates to 1936 and occupies approximately 1/3 acre in a quiet and secluded location. It is arts and crafts styled with wooden external feature beams and feature brickwork. The house is being slowly updated.

Submission Requirements Just concept drawings/sketches required and so there is no need for detailed drawings and costings/elevations/ perspectives/ digital ‘passthrough’. Guidance notes on concepts would be helpful for future newsletter.

Submissions by end-September to ACA HQ on: office@ acarchitects.co.uk

Email the office with pictures and captions of past, current and new projects for the

showcase

next ACA News and remember to upload your images to the ACA online directory

Summer 2017

ACA News showcases your work Jonathan Louth Architects St George’s Roman Catholic Metropolitan Cathedral, Southwark Grant Funded works to parapets and roof St George’s had fallen victim to the polluted environment suffering a sulphate attack: both rain and mains water were impure. The deterioration in the masonry reflected contamination that, most probably, had got into the mortar when it was being mixed on site in the 1950s.

Getting at this conclusion has involved extensive detective work. Twenty three mortar samples from different parts of the building were subjected to chemical analysis by Rose of Jericho, the lime plaster specialists working with a testing company. Owing to leaching, it was not clear what binder had been used in the post-war work.

So samples were sent to WHD Microanalysis Consulting for scanning electron microscopy.

Bricks were also examined to investigate, and rule out, the possibility that they were the source of the sulphates.

The findings meant the repointing specification could be fine-tuned, since the 1950s cementitious bed mortars had become as flexible as lime mortars. In all parts of the building St Astier lime, which is low in aluminates and so should reduce the risk of sulphate attack from existing material, has been worked into the mortar. The mixes used in the post-war areas,

though different from those applied to the original structure, are a match to the present day mortar characteristics. A similarly differential approach has been taken with the mortar hues.

Rose of Jericho identified two aggregate colours that could be mixed on site, in six varying combinations, and this has been the basis for matching facework carried out by Universal Stone, the masonry contractors.

The search for a longterm solution also informed a parallel project: the creation of inspection access to all parts of the roof. The most inaccessible areas were two flat rooves covering the north bay of the north transept and the west bay of the baptistry: water ingress showed they needed regular inspection. Two new access doors have been added to the external walls which also allow people to move between the two rooves, an internal steel balcony has been inserted into the stonework in a corner of the north transept.

To make the new features blend into the building, the detailing on the oak doors meticulously matches that seen elsewhere in the building. The new interior balcony has been painted in silver to match the Lady Chapel chancel screen and its cruciform stainless steel balusters echo Louth’s design of other twenty first century interventions for new metalwork fixtures. The result is a light, elegant structure that is at one with its surroundings. The metal 21

work installed for the balcony cost some £10,000. One could, instead, pay a few thousand every few years to get at the rooves from a cherry picker with a road closure. But this process is investing in a long future.

www.acarchitects.co.uk

showcase excellence in practice ACA News 130

Inglis Badrashi Loddo Architects Velehrad London Velehrad’s trustees commissioned Inglis Badrashi Loddo Architects to refurbish and reconfigure the premises for the charity, to include spaces for functions, performances, meetings and other community events, as well as classrooms and prayer rooms.

Discussions with the clients about the requirements for their varied activities segued into conversations about the importance of history, its presence and one’s place within it. An understanding of the site as made up of three distinct built forms - the original 1870’s villa, an 1880’s coach house and a single-storey 1930’s studio - had been confused over time and the desire to re-present this was developed as an explicit design intent.

Since the 1930’s, the coach house had been enveloped by poor quality single-storey extensions to the north and west.

These were demolished, and the original façade restored. Plaster finishes were stripped away, and the spaces reconfigured to allow the existing openings (lined in new grey-painted timber) to lead through into new cloakrooms, a kitchen and an apartment above for visiting priests.

The front façade and metal roof trusses of the studio block were retained and a new function hall opening out to the large garden beyond was built on the same footprint.

An entrance space to serve community events was added in front of the coach house and green rooms and ancillary spaces for performances tucked into the basement of the main house.

Woolborough House itself was fully refurbished and upgraded to accommodate classrooms, reading rooms and a space for Catholic masses. A new lift to allow disabled access, new stairs, handrails, painted panelling

and a rear balcony were also incorporated.

Where the original fabric was found to be in good condition, this was carefully repaired and restored; where it was in poor condition, it has been improved with new construction.

Newly built elements are understood as a continuation of the history of the building; a seamless synthesis of old and new, which simultaneously respects, preserves and reframes the existing context in a new light. Viewed from the garden at the back, or from the front of the site, this can be ‘read’ in the varied tonal range of the brickwork across the facade.

Emerging from the Espinosa room in the main house after a mass, one can descend from the balcony and process around the planted garden. A gently winding path circumnavigates the site from east to west, past a small statue of Saint Methodius hidden amongst a grove of multi-stemmed silver birch trees, commonly found across much of Moravia. The path ends at a paved patio outside the function hall, where the sculpture of Palach is now relocated.

22

It is framed by golden yellow roses, like the one bestowed on the Basilica of Velehrad by Pope John Paul II in 1985, and surrounded by long grasses.

This ‘Rosa Zlate Jubileum’ has a pink tint which references the blood of Christ and in winter will disappear behind the grasses and reappear each spring.

showcase

Summer 2017

Assael

BWCP

Queens Wharf unites two disparate sites along the Thames to create a new waterfront destination in the setting of the Grade II listed Hammersmith Bridge. The development follows the curve of the River and wraps around the iconic Riverside Studios, which is being demolished and rebuilt to provide stateof-the-art TV studios, cinema and ancillary spaces,165 new homes benefiting from sweeping views along the Thames and sheltered private gardens at the heart of the scheme. An on-site restaurant, bar and cafĂŠ and a new riverside walkway, which connects Hammersmith Bridge and the Thames Path for the first time, complete this dynamic mixed-use development.

Sutters Partners

SPA provided architecture, planning and landscape design services for these two, twinned, 6,000sqft houses which gained consent in January 2017. Contemporary interiors/ exteriors matched by Passivhaus principles promote a holistic, low energy development.

Battery back up will feed back surplus power to grid. Integrated landscape design will dress the scheme into the locality and rejuvenate a neglected site close Putney town centre.

River Control Room and City HQ for the Port of London Authority: BWPC and Avery Associates Architects BWCP appointed by the PLA to develop a scheme for the relocation of the city HQ for the upper Thames. The site is the redundant but recently re-engineered timber structure of the Sugar Quay jetty over the Thames. Access is from the public River walk. The scheme incorporates a pocket park and a teaching/exhibition/ events room and a cafe with the best view in Europe. Selected for MiPiM London, the AJ Tomorrow exhibition at Olympia. Brian Waters and the late Bryan Avery.

23

www.acarchitects.co.uk

in memoriam: rob Walker excellence in practice ACA News 130

A very personal view John Griffiths remembers Rob Walker I first met Rob some 30 years ago when we both became members of ACA Council. It became clear very quickly that we both shared an interest in the business of architecture and indeed in all the years that followed,I don’t ever remember ever us ever discussing design matters per se. In fact we talked about virtually everything else from fishing to families to what sort of car to buy. Most importantly we laughed and that is what I will remember most about our friendship.

Rob was a New Zealander whose ancestors made the long voyage across the world from the small town of Lesmahagow to the south of Glasgow. He came to England via Australia where for a time he worked in an battoir that he eventually ended up running, an achievement that will come as little surprise to those who knew him well. Once he reached Blighty, his career blossomed and he eventually came to be Senior Partner at Frederick Gibberd and Partners.

Rob’s natural position in life was always to be at the top.

During his years on the council of ACA, Rob’s contributions were always down to earth and pertinent. His business acumen made him an excellent Treasurer and both he and his wife Marilyn became well-known faces on the ACA tours that Fiona revived when she became ACA Secretary General. It was all enormous fun.

Rob above all was an expert fly fisherman. My Scots father-in-

law, no mean caster of the rod himself, rated Rob as one of the finest he had ever known. When Rob discovered that I was also a keen, but ineffective, fisherman, he took me under his wing and patiently guided me in how to read a river and properly cast a fly during the many times he took me down to the beat he shared on the River Test. It was during one of these ventures, some 12 years ago, that he confided in me that he had recently undergone major surgery for prostate cancer, but that all now seemed to be well. In typical Rob style, this tale was embellished with all the amusing things that had happened in hospital, including one unprintable discussion with his doctor about what exactly would still be working once he had recovered.

Rob wanted to fish the lochs of Argyll, so partly to repay him for his patient teaching but mostly because I wanted to do it anyway, we arranged to take a party up to Loch Melfort where my parents-in-law lived. Part of the deal was that we would attend the Oban Ball whereupon it was necessary that Fiona and I would teach everyone how to do Scottish Reels. Honesty compels me to say that Rob was not as good a dancer as he was a fisherman. He said I fished like a gnome on a toadstool, I said he danced like a horse on a trampoline.

Several other fishing trips to the Highlands materialised (hot sunshine, thunderstorms, rain and snow all in the space of 24

Rob Walker 10 minutes come to mind), but Rob’s retirement, followed a few years later by my own, sadly meant that our lives somewhat diverged. Rob enthusiastically developed his olive plantations at the family’s place in France, whilst Fiona and I went north to the Hebrides. Nevertheless, we all made a determined effort to meet for lunch in London last year. Rob had lost weight, which he put down to a bug he had caught in South America, but otherwise he and Marilyn looked well. We swore to meet up again and talked about a fishing visit to our cottage on Colonsay, but sadly this was not to be. The cancer we all thought was in abeyance had returned with a vengeance.

Just back from the North, I had arranged to go and see Rob in the Hospice on Monday, but he died on the Sunday evening. As things are, I shall therefore have to remember him as I knew him best, Hardy rod in right hand, net in the other, focussed on that large brown trout hiding under the little stone bridge on the Broadlands Estate.

Goodbye, Rob, and may your lines be forever tight.

health and safety excellence in practice SUMMER 2017

Health and Safety update CITB CDM Wizard The CITB have published new guidance that links with the HSE via a CDM Wizard smartphone app. It is based upon the HSE’s own busy builder sheet and provides an easy and accessible way to produce a Construction Phase Plan (CPP).

The app is designed to help small project dutyholders with the key requirement of their duties as PDs and helps highlight the health and safety consequences of design decisions whilst it is not too late to change them. Download from: http://www.citb.co.uk/ health-safety-and-other-topics/ health-safety/constructiondesign-and-managementregulations/cdm-wizard-app/ The HSE Construction Phase Plan (CPP) template can be downloaded from: http://www. hse.gov.uk/pubns/cis80.pdf however some critics think the template is too short and misses critical information such as fire management and first aid.

Self Build and CDM 2015 H&S legislation now applies to domestic building projects. So, self and custom builders now become responsible for their own safety when working on their own projects. Although, depending on how much of the project work you take on yourself, you could fall into one, or more, of the following categories, listed here under the term ‘dutyholders’: CLIENTS - organisations or individuals for whom a construction project is carried out. What do I need to know?

Make suitable arrangements for managing a project. This includes making sure other dutyholders are appointed; sufficient time and resources are allocated. Make sure relevant information is prepared and provided to other dutyholders; the principal designer and principal contractor carry out their duties; welfare facilities are

provided.

DOMESTIC CLIENTS - people who have construction work carried out on their own home, or the home of a family member that is not done as part of a business, whether for profit or not. What do I need to know? Domestic clients are in scope of CDM 2015, but their duties as a client are normally transferred to the contractor, on a single contractor project; or, the principal contractor, on a project involving more than one contractor..However, the domestic client can choose to have a written agreement with the principal designer to carry out the client duties.

DESIGNERS - those, who as part of a business, prepare or modify designs for a building, product or system relating to construction work. What do I need to know?

When preparing or modifying designs, to eliminate, reduce or control foreseeable risks that may arise during construction; and the maintenance and use of a building once it is built.

Provide information to other members of the project team to help them fulfil their duties.

PRINCIPAL DESIGNERS designers appointed by the client in projects involving more than one contractor. They can be an organisation or an individual with sufficient knowledge, experience and ability to carry out the role. What do I need to know? Plan, manage, monitor and coordinate health and safety in the pre-construction phase of a project. This includes: • identifying, eliminating or controlling foreseeable risks; ensuring designers carry out their duties.

• Prepare and provide relevant information to other dutyholders.

• Provide relevant information to the principal contractor to help them plan, manage, monitor and coordinate 25

health and safety in the construction phase.

PRINCIPAL CONTRACTORS - contractors appointed by the client to coordinate the construction phase of a project where it involves more than one contractor. What do I need to know? Plan, manage, monitor and coordinate health and safety in the construction phase of a project. This includes liaising with the client and principal designer; preparing the construction phase plan; organising cooperation between contractors and coordinating their work. Ensure: suitable site inductions are provided; reasonable steps are taken to prevent unauthorised access; workers are consulted and engaged in securing their health and safety; and, welfare facilities are provided.

CONTRACTORS - those who do the actual construction work and can be either an individual or a company. What do I need to know? Plan, manage and monitor construction work under their control so that it is carried out without risks to health and safety. For projects involving more than one contractor, coordinate their activities with others in the project team – in particular, comply with directions given to them by the principal designer or principal contractor. For singlecontractor projects, prepare a construction phase plan.

WORKERS – people who work for or under the control of contractors on a construction site. What do I need to know?

Workers must be consulted about matters which affect their health, safety and welfare; take care of their own health and safety and others who may be affected by their actions.

Building Better Places House of Lords Report https://www. publications.parliament. >>> uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ ldbuilt/100/100.pdf www.acarchitects.co.uk

2016 agm excellence in practice ACA News 130

Minutes of the forty first annual general meeting of the ACA Minutes of THE FORTY FIRST ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING of the Association of Consultant Architects Ltd held at Charlton House, Charlton Road, Charlton, London. SE7 8RE on Monday 19th September 2016 Those Present: Chaired by Richard Harrison – President (retiring) Members Present: Darya Bahram, Francis Brown, Andrew Catto, Alison Low, Jonathan Louth, Trevor Sutters, Andy Rogers, Brian Waters, Stephen Yakeley.

Present by Proxy: Colin Brock, Patrick Inglis, Alfred Munkenbeck, Derek Salter (Hon Sec).

In Attendance: Alison Low, Shona Broughton - ACA

1. The Notice of the Meeting was confirmed as having been circulated on 5 Sept 2016.

2. Apologies for absence were received from: John Assael, Terry Brown.

3. Minutes of the Thirty Ninth Annual General Meeting held on 28th September 2015, which had been circulated in the ACA News and were available at the meeting were approved unanimously. Proposed Brian Waters, seconded Francis Brown.

4. The President read The Report of Council.

5. Statement of Accounts and Report of the Auditors.

Accounts for the year ended 31st December 2015 will be circulated with these minutes.

It was unanimously agreed that the draft Accounts be adopted.

Proposed Jonathan Louth, seconded Richard Harrison A record copy will be signed by the Hon. Treasurer and Hon. Sec.

6. Election of President.

Richard Harrison having been elected in 2014 has completed his two year term and resigned as President. He remains on Council as Immediate Past President.

There being only one candidate, Brian Waters was unanimously elected as President for 20162018.

The meeting thanked Richard Harrison for his excellent work as President 7. Election of Council Members.

Under Rule 41, at least four ordinary members of Council must retire each year, but can stand for re-election unless they have completed a six year term on Council.

Those retiring at this meeting are Francis Brown & Paul Davis (retiring), Brian Waters & Alfred Munkenbeck (eligible for reelection).

There being more vacancies than candidates, Alfred Munkenbeck was re-elected along with Terry Brown & Patrick Inglis, and new councillor Darya Bahram.

The remaining elected members of Council are Andrew Catto & Trevor Sutters.

The new President asked all members to come forward to help on Council or encourage others to do so. We could do with someone with knowledge of architectural education.

Those present offered a vote of thanks to Francis Brown & Paul Davis for time and considerable help in promoting the ACA over many years on Council.

The Officers of the Association will be appointed by Council at its next meeting as is required by the Constitution of the Association.

8. Any Other Business.

Brian Waters, the new president 26

set out his plans for the ACA over the next year: • •Agreement with Towergate being signed today will allow free membership of the Association, intended to lead to expanded numbers.

• The Fee survey will be revived, leading to guidance on fee levels.

• The ACA will seek feedback on the Plan of Work, possibly leading to an overlay for traditionally procured projects • ACA members to be promoted through Architects Search • There will be a new ACA ADM contract suite for architect led construction • ACA is representing the profession at London Build in October.

There being no other resolutions or any other business the Members present were thanked for their attendance and the meeting was closed at 6.30pm.

Derek Salter, Hon. Secretary 20 September 2016

PRESIDENTS CALENDAR 20152016 16 September 2015 Attended Jane Duncan’s Inauguration Event at the RIBA. She is in office until 31 August 2017 when Ben Derbyshire who became President-Elect in August 2016, formally takes office.

15 October 2015 PPC/ TPC Annual Conference themed “Back to the Future” : Construction 2025 held at Bicester Oxfordshire. The Keynote speech was delivered by Caspar Berry on the subject of taking risks. Closing Speech by Wayne Hemmingway followed by Presented David Mosey with the >>> sixth ACA Medal.

2016 agm excellence in practice SUMMER 2017 >>>

PPC Awards given as follows: • Outstanding Collaboration – Winner: Mulalley • Highly Commended – Vinci • Innovation – Winner – A2 Dominono./ MITIE • Highly Commended – Golding Homes /MITIE/ Wellbeing People • Exceptional Value – Winner – AmicusHorizon • Highly Commended – Osborne/ Dacorum/ Cameron Consulting Many thanks to Alison and Shona and with the PPC Steering Group for putting on such a fantastic and brilliantly organised Conference. This was a spectacular example of what can be achieved with hard work.

16 November 2016 Attended Meeting with Nelson Ogunshakin on ACA/ACE Joint Venture with Secretary General. Expressed misgivings about meeting ACA’a expectations for the JV. 5 April 2016 Attended ACA/ ACE JV Termination Meeting with Nelson Ogunshakin, Dwight Patten, and Alison Low. The JV was agreed to be terminated and this have been negotiated and agreement to be signed imminently.

6 May 2016 BIM Conference at The Great Hall, Kings College in the Strand. An event to share experiences internationally on PPC and other collaborative contracts and their application in BIM. 17 May 2016 JCT Construction Industry Parliamentary Reception at House of Lords.

21 July 2016 Landscape Institute President’s Reception, with retirement of Noel Farrer and Inauguration of Merrick Denton-Thompson and incoming President for 2 years.

22 September 2016 FAC-1 Launch Event at Trowers & Hamlins Offices ARCHITECTS REGISTRATIONS BOARD There are no ACA Members elected to the ARB this year.

SUBSCRIPTIONS Following the gradual decline in subscription receipts and shrinking membership since the 2008 Financial Crisis, Council have taken the decision to pursue alternative methods to membership and financial support for the Association.

A Sponsorship agreement with Towergate Insurance to replace the ACA Subscriptions scheme has been agreed and documentation for signatures is being issued today.

This will enable us in time to offer free membership of the ACA to all eligible Architects Practices in the UK, increase membership, increase financial resources, expand our activities, increase ACA Council Membership, and refine and advance the Association’s relevance to its members.

FUTURE ROLES OF ACA ACA as a ‘think tank’ organization / research body; Manage and generate Events, seminars and Soapbox meetings; Review Architects Plan of Work; Professional Indemnity Insurance – To include Regional Seminars and Events; Instigate Networking with members and the wider community; Issue Publications relevant to Practice; Prepare Practice Updates; Develop PPC Role and participate in PPC Conferences; Prepare and Publish new and updated contracts; Support and assist in developing Project Insurance; Develop Legal Helplines; Promote the contract checking service; Continue publishing the ACA Newsletter.

Develop an Architects BLOG on ACA Website – Issues could include: Planning, Plan of Work; Education; Appointments; Fees; Regulation of Function; BIM; Practice Issues; PI; PPC/ Alliance Forms and ADM; Human Resources; Training and CPD;Students Participation PPC SUITE The PPC Suite 27

continues to be a successful ‘arm’ of ACA activities. The recent Alliance Consultation was hugely successful in terms of response and heralds a and new direction for the PPC ‘Brand’.

Looking Forward ACA Tours – Alison trip to Norfolk and possibly Basel. New ADM Construction Management Contract authored

by Trevor Sutters and Giles Dixon.

Joint Venture with Kings’ College on PPC Suite and Publishing Venture for PPC2000 and FAC-1 in Germany with Wolfgang Bryer Notable Deaths March 2016 It was with great sadness that we announced John Partridge passed away on the 20th July.

John was one of the founder members of the ACA and one of the 5 recipients of the ACA Medal, receiving his in 2005. The Award was given in recognition of John Partridge’s contribution to the practice and profession of Architecture and to the work of the ACA for whom he is a founder member and past President. John also made a considerable commitment to the RIBA throughout his career; he was elected to the Royal Academy in 1980 and received a CBE in 1981.

John was the founder partner of architects Howell Killick Partridge & Amis (HKPA), one of the top design practices in the 1950’s and 60’s.

Thanks to PDP, Brian Waters and Richard Harrison London for use of their offices for Council meetings.

Derek Salter as Hon Secretary; Patrick Inglis as Hon Treasurer; Brian Waters as Press Officer; Francis Brown as PPC Steering Group Link David Mosey, Shane Hughes and PPC Steering Group for help with PPC/TPC . Thanks also for Savills and Trowers & Hamlins and Cameron Consulting for hosting meetings throughout the year.

Alison Low as her 7th year as Secretary General

Richard Harrison, President www.acarchitects.co.uk

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 … 3.00 † [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 †

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

… 7.00

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)

… 6.50

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:

Email:

To order, complete this form and post, telephone, fax or email details to:ACA, 60 Godwin Road, Bromley, Kent BR2 9LQ, U.K. t/f: +44 (0)20 8466 9079 Order on line via the ACA Website: www.ACArchitects.co.uk/orderform.htm

e: office@acarchitects.co.uk

28

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 • Business Factsheet and guidance • 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 An ACA Fact Sheet is available in hard copy and 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’s PI Scheme Towergate Professional Indemnity 1 Portland Street Manchester M1 3BE Contact: Tony Stevenson T 0844 892 1789 Email:tony.stevenson@towergate. co.uk ACA Legal Helplines Chris Lagar, Davies Wallis Foyster Centurian House, 129 Deansgate Manchester M3 3AA T 0161-228 3702 Email: cml@dwflaw.com Colin Jones, Hewitsons LLP Shakespeare House 42 Newmarket Road Cambridge. CB5 8EP T: 01223 461155 Email: colinjones@hewitsons.com ACA Website: www.

ACArchitects.co.uk The members’ only area is accessed by a special password. If you have forgotten this contact the ACA office.

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

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

Alliance Forms: www.allianceforms.co.uk for all information on the new FAC-1 29

and TAC-1 forms of contract

Quiz They are all part of 2016’s Summer Pavilion installation at the Serpentine Gallery in Kensington Gardens, Hyde Park.

Number 1: Summer house

by Kunle Adeyemi. Designed to frame the romantic Queen Caroline’s Temple behind it, as an inverse replica of its classical proportions.

Number 2: Timber pavilion by Barkow Leibinger. Inspired by William Kent’s mechanical-lyrotated viewing pavilion (long since demolished) that was once sited nearby.

Number 3: Pavilion by Asif Kahn. Also related to William Kent’s design, it is a peeled-open circular structure that marks out the direction of the sunrise and specific views.

Number 4: Open framework pavilion by Yona Friedman.

Designed to be reassembled in endless compositions, it relates to his Spatial City project of the late Fifties.

Number 5: The Serpentine Pavilion by Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG). Made up of 1,300 giant open boxes stacked up to form an ‘unzipped wall’ enclosing a tea bar and seating.

Number 6: Queen Caroline’s Temple (1734-5, restored 1976) attributed to William Kent and designed for Queen Caroline to overlook the Long Water, which was dedicated to her.

Number 7: The Serpentine Gallery, a Grade II listed former tea room opened as an art gallery by the Arts Council in May 1970 and renovated in 1998. www.acarchitects.co.uk