ACANews SPRING 2024

ACA launches the principaldesigner.uk register for the industry

The Association of Consultant Architects has launched the Building Safety Act Principal Designer Register

Following the Grenfell Tower fire on 14th June 2017 where 72 people tragically lost their lives, and the subsequent public inquiry, the Government finally updated the Building Safety Regulations on 1st October 2023, requiring a ‘Principal Designer’ on all buildings. However, to create potential confusion, it gave the role the same name – ‘Principal Designer’ – as already exists for the role required under the CDM Regulations, despite these being completely different roles with different responsibilities.

Here at the ACA, we have reviewed and debated the competencies required to undertake the Building Safety Act (BSA) Principal Designer role and are in firm agreement that the Architect is best placed to carry out the role. The reason being is that the Principal Designer role should be carried out by the designer in control of the design phase of the project and this is therefore inherently suited for the Architect to perform. It also important to note that with increased responsibility comes increased risk for the Architect in question and our views are these should be reflected in i) the agreed

fee proposal and ii) ensuring Architects are fully protected within their Professional Indemnity Insurance.

We are also aware of Clients requesting evidence that their Architect managing their project has the required qualifications and competencies to fulfil the BSA Principal Designer Role and in support of this, we are launching the ACA BSA Principal Designer Register.

The register allows Architects to self certify themselves as having the experience and skills to take on the role.

The registration form is easy and simple to complete with Architects being directed to a content hub where they can download a certificate and logo to host on their own website as well as review guidance and industry developments.

Importantly, Clients will be able to search the register by practice name and post code.

To register or to find a registered Principal Designer go to

www.principaldesigner.uk

FROM THE PRESIDENT

NEW! PD Register and appointment subscription service

ACA President Patrick Inglis on exciting new initiatives from the ACA and he previews what’s in this newsletter

The changes brought in by the Building Safety Act continue to be a key theme for the profession this year and, following the end of the transition period on the 5th April, all new projects will be subject to the new Building Control regime.

The new regulations make the client responsible for appointing suitably qualified entities to the new roles of Principal Designer and Principal Contractor. I am therefore delighted that the ACA has launched a new Principal Designer Register (www.principaldesigner.uk) for architects, which will allow ACA members to register as a Principal Designer for Building Regulations and allow their clients and potential clients to search the register (more details on page 1).

The ACA is encouraging members to take on the new role where appropriate and indeed in most instances there is may be little choice since the role can only be performed by someone who is a “designer in control of the design phase” of the project–which in many cases will be the architect.

While the role of Principal Designer does involve a bit more paperwork and risk, largely the role is formalising many of the tasks that architects providing full services during Stages 4-6 will already be doing. The upside is that the requirement for the Principal Designer to sign a compliance declaration in order for a Building Regulations final certificate to be issued will give the role significant power to vet design changes both before and during construction-granting to architect more control over projects and the ability to charge more. What is not to like?

In addition in naming the role “Principal Designer”, the HSE is clearer signalling that they are envisaging that both the Building Regulations role and the CDM role will be carried out by the same person–the architect. The ACA will continue to keep members informed as the implications of these changes become clearly over the next few months.

I strongly recommend members have a look at the ACA’s new ground breaking subscription service providing unlimited use appointment documents, which provides a quick and simple single step process to agreeing an architect’s appointment all for a modest monthly

fee. More details can be found on page 17.

There have also been important developments in planning in the last few months with a large number of significant changes coming into force along side the announcement of further proposed changes. The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act was passed and an updated NPPF published. Planning fees have been increased significantly and Biodiversity Net Gain for all planning applications has come into force. A change that will catch some people out is the removal of the four-year rule granting immunity from enforcement for physical works and residential conversions. This is now 10 years in line with other breaches of planning such as changes of use and conditions and therefore some works that were potentially lawful on 24th April will now not be. Andy Rogers gives members details of all these changes starting on page 4.

In other topics covered in this issue, Robert Peake provides advice on Making strategy happen in architecture practice on page 11 while Daniel Leon argues that religious architecture can be a powerful tool for fostering unity in Interfaith understanding through design on page 34.

The ACA’s partnering contracts continue to expand their use and the FAC-1 now underpins London Construction Programme’s three new planned frameworks and mark a significant milestone towards a more sustainable, inclusive, and innovative construction industry. Lisa Bliss of LCP has written an article for us on page 37 with the details.

What does an architect do in retirement is a question all architects will ask themselves at some point. Handily Paul Davis – former ACA president – tells the story of who he is, how, why and what he changed in a new book, which is reviewed on page 48.

R&D tax relief for architects is an important topic, but many architecture practices rely on accountants to produce their R&D tax relief claims, with an architect only checking the finished draft. In his article on page 14 Andy Hastie explains why this process is back to front and how Invennt’s approach helps firms get more value from the scheme.

Until next time, Patrick

Patrick Inglis is a Director of Inglis Badrashi Loddo www.ibla.co.uk

launches the principaldesigner.uk register for the industry

ACAPAG planning report A new Act and a revised NPPF; Other recent government announcements; Street Votes consultation: The ACA response; The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 - key provisions; Four-year immunity period for enforcement removed; Permitted Development Rights consultation – our response; Brownfield Land consultation –our response

support for members – Robert Peake

R&D tax support for architects, Andy Hastie of Invennt

Howdens hosts seminar on our new role

This is not a quiz, but it is Quite Interesting… Andy Rogers

Launched: a ground breaking Architect Appointment subscription service

London Planning & Development Forum planning update conference

NPPF and development management reform – Mike Kiely and Dan Spade of the RTPI

The London Plan and house building – Ross Raftery of Lichfields and

– Prof Janice Morphet of UCL

Older peoples’ housing – Prof Les Mayhew

Transport planning - what’s new? – David Hart & Jolyon Drury

Planning under Labour – Prof Michael Edwards & John Walker

Interfaith understanding through design – Daniel Leon

Framework Agreement – Lisa Bliss of LCP

Howden, ACA’S preferred indemnity insurance broker

Collaborative Procurement: David Mosey

FAC-1 Framework Alliance Contract – A Handbook

overlay to the RIBA Plan of Work

Question Time: With David Mosey

BOOKS:

Home in London – The Mansion Block reviewed by Lee Mallett What does an architect do in retirement? – Paul Davis, ACA past president

Architectural appointments: New small and simple works appointment agreement out now!

Forms of Appointment

ACAPAG PLANNING REPORT

ACA excellence in practice

To keep up with ongoing changes in planning go to www.gov.uk and find Planning Practice Guidance, says Andy Rogers

A new Act and a revised NPPF

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) secured royal assent for the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act on 26 October 2023. A full summary of the act’s proposals, many of which require secondary legislation and therefore do not come into effect straight away, is included in the box.

Meanwhile, the NPPF is being reissued, with on-going minor changes such as relaxed planning rules for onshore wind production, clarifying that older people’s specialist housing need should be measured by local authorities (paragraph 62), and a redrafted Chapter 14 on climate change, renewable and low carbon energy. The NPPF continues to be revised and rewritten, supplemented by ministerial DLUHC directions and Chief Planner announcements, with a full update expected later this year.

So here is a timely reminder that all national planning policy guidance is available on line and is constantly being updated. Go to www.gov.uk and find Planning Practice Guidance. Recent changes have been made to advice on timescales for planning applications and deemed approvals, green belt, calculating local housing need, viability, Biodiversity Net Gain (see below) and the environment / Natural England.

Gain Plan (BGP) will be required for all applications and this should include a biodiversity metric calculation and habitat management and monitoring plans, carried out by a competent person (eg ecologist), although Defra has produced a template BGP (available online) for simpler proposals. Householder and permitted development rights applications are exempt, along with most self-build and custom build developments, and those that impact an area of less than 25 square metres or less than 5 metres of linear habitats such as hedgerows.

Other recent government announcements

• Amendment of Class MA of Part 3 (changes of use) of Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order to remove the requirement that a commercial, business or service building must have been vacant for at least three months prior to its change of use to residential, and now with no upper limit of floorspace area under the right (but subject to prior approval regarding other impacts, such as transport and access).

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

Fees are also included because the nationally-set planning application fees have been increased by 35 per cent for major applications and 25 per cent for all others, so that householder applications are now £258 with £578 per 0.1 hectare for new housing on smaller sites (less than 0.5 hectares). The increases came into force on 6th December 2023 and will not be ringfenced for planning purposes, even though this was supported by over 80% of the responses to a government consultation on planning fees. The “free go” on refusal has been withdrawn, but does remain in force for any applications made before 6th December, subject to some rather complex conditions. There are other exemptions and reductions, such as for certain works to listed buildings, but for a full list refer to The Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended) or the Planning Portal’s guide.

The 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Regulations came into force on 12 February 2024 for major applications (2 April 2024 for small sites - ie those with an area less than 0.5 hectare or with fewer than 10 dwellings and commercial sites below one hectare or with less than 1,000 square metres). A Biodiversity

• Introduction of a presumption in favour of sustainable development for all planning applications on brownfield land in the 20 largest cities and urban centres, where housing delivery has dropped below expected levels.

• Publication of Michael Gove’s review of the London Plan - a damning report that found 60,000 fewer homes had been built than the strategy planned for, with the number of homes granted each year still falling, while SME housebuilders (who are delivering 60 per cent of London’s homes) face specific challengesfor example around finance and recruiting labour - and are disproportionately impacted by delays or uncertainties in planning (overturned London appeal decisions have increased form 30 to 45 per cent in two years). Gove wrote to Sadiq Khan stating that he aims to cut through “some of the complexity of the existing London Plan which may currently be serving to thwart housing delivery”.

• A new use class and permitted development rights for short-term lets are likely to come into effect this summer: the introduction of a C5 short term let Class would allow local planning authorities to better control the use of dwellings with temporary sleeping accommodation for the purpose of holiday,

ANDREW ROGERS

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 includes the following key provisions

A - measures that have come into force already

• planning authorities can issue completion notices if a development is being built out ‘unreasonably slowly’ and can decline to determine applications in cases of earlier non-implementation of slow build-out

• special provisions relating to Environmental Outcome Reports and Nutrient Pollution Standards

B - commencement regulations brought in this February that allow for further legislation during 2024

• the introduction of National Development Management Policies (NDMPs) that will set out “general policies on issues that apply in most areas”, have regard to climate change, and have the same weight as Local Plans in decision making, but should not be duplicated in Local Plans

• development plans will include supplementary and minerals/waste as well as policies maps, which should not be separate, with decisions made in accordance with Local Plans and NDMPs unless material considerations strongly indicate otherwise

• the introduction of a system of “street votes” which sets up street vote development orders that aim to permit residents to propose development on their street and to vote on whether it should be given planning permission

• the introduction of a new duty for councils to grant sufficient permissions for self-build and custom build housing, with a requirement that only land explicitly given permission for such uses will qualify towards that duty

C

- changes that are expected in due course, but with no specified timescale

• streamlined Local Plan reforms include a production process timed at 30 months with pre-submission checks designed to reflect local needs and requirements for the Plan to be simpler, visionary and proportionate, digitally accessible, and subject to three “gateway” stages - and limited to ‘locally specific’ measures (see NDMP above)

• all Local Plans will have to incorporate an area-wide design code to act as a framework for detailed design codes

• supplementary plans must be part of the Local Plan with new regulations allowing specific additional policies to be added urgently

• provision for a new Infrastructure Levy that will eventually replace the present Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) system

• a requirement for local authorities to prepare infrastructure delivery strategies to outline how they intend to spend the levy, which will be given more weight if proposed by mayors or combined authorities

• various provisions relating to Community Land Auction pilots, Compulsory Purchase, and High Street Rental Auctions

• removal of the four-year period for exemption from enforcement action to be replaced by an across the board ten-year period

• more weight to be given to the new Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans, with the latter made simpler to prepare

• Introduction of changes that give designated heritage assets such as registered parks and gardens, World Heritage Sites, and registered battlefields the same statutory protection as listed buildings and conservation areas

• pre-application and community engagement procedures to be regularised and strengthened

leisure, recreation, business or other travel - possibly in the same way that Scottish authorities already can. BUT it will be interesting to see how the government does this - a change of use from residential to residential (short -term letting) could be argued as not being a material change and therefore would not need planning approval as set out in section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act (definition of development).

• Finally, two government consultations, on the strengthening of planning policy for brownfield sites and further changes to Permitted Development Rights (allowing yet greater flexibility), have been published, with submissions made as usual by the ACA Planning Action Group to the DLUHC. n

Street Votes consultation:

The ACA response

I have set out below a response from The

Association of Consultant Architects. As the only association that specifically represents architects in private practice, with a remit concentrating on the practicalities of running a business in the private sector, but with considerable experience in the operation of the planning system and appeals, we suggest that our comments provide a unique perspective.

We have limited our response to more general observations, but with reference to some of the questions posed.

Our comments relate to how the system is likely to work with regard to stakeholders such as planning consultants and architects who would use the system. We believe that the proposed procedures are so complex that it is difficult to understand how or whether people with little or no experience of the planning world would be able to engage with the system as outlined.

We believe that the procedures in general are ill-considered and certainly too bureaucratic. To

achieve street improvements the current planning application system provides an equal, or even more, efficient way of gaining approval. The new procedures could be seen as more onerous than the existing planning application route, with no clear reference to resources which is another reason why the new system would be unlikely to work well.

How would the process be paid for?

We are also concerned that there is no mention of sanctions or any machinery for ensuring that individual authorities follow the new procedures in a timely way.

We are also concerned that local residents nearby and acknowledged planning policy issues are not able to be considered as part of the process.

Finally, it is known that Neighbourhood Planning procedures usually attract less that 30 per cent turnouts; aiming for a 60 per cent support (with complex restrictions) is unrealistic. n

UK CONSTRUCTION WEEK

ACA excellence in practice

Register now for UK’s largest built environment event as it returns to London

A host of new features, interactive demos, international pavilions from across the globe, and a charity Gumball Rally across the country have all been announced by the organisers of the UK’s largest event for the built environment, UK Construction Week (UKCW), which makes a welcome return to London’s ExCeL from 7-9 May 2024.

The multi award-winning show will see the debut of a new Live Demo Theatre; Skills and Training Hub; a construction-specific Recruitment Zone; new C-Suite Summits; a ‘Gumball Rally’ which finishes at UKCW London; a host of international exhibitors housed in pavilions from India, China, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Germany and France.

UKCW London is once again co-located with Concrete Expo and The Offsite Show, as well as the UK’s premier event for the self-build sector, Grand Designs Live.

New features at UKCW London include:

Live Demo Theatre

a showcase of the latest construction products, techniques and innovations from across the world, the Demo Theatre will bring them to life in

front of a live audience of industry professionals looking to be ahead of the curve.

C-suite Summits

an exclusive new area for the sector’s top decision makers, the C-suite Summits will see top execs offering their invaluable insights and forecasts to their peers. The new zone will also be a top-level networking forum for dialogue and debate.

Skills and Training Hub

a first-time collaboration with the CITB (Construction Industry Training Board), the new hub will address the Skills Shortage head-on with a three-day programme featuring a myriad talks and workshops to support skills development within the industry and ultimately, build better.

Careers and Recruitment Zone

another new area created in response to exhibitor and visitor feedback, this will not only be a focal point for all those working in recruitment, or simply looking for that next new role. Visitors will have face to face access to specialist recruiters from the construction sector, with discreet inter-

view rooms allowing candidates to have onsite consultations.

Construction Sport Gumball Rally spearheaded by UKCW regulars Construction Sport, a charity which supports construction workers’ mental and physical health through sport, the Gumball Rally will see teams of drivers navigate their way across the UK, stopping off at famous infrastructure projects - raising funds along the way. Two rallies will take place in 2024, each in the week prior to the UK Construction Week shows in London (May) and Birmingham (October). More details will follow in the coming months.

International Pavilions

the largest international representation of manufacturers to date at any UK construction event. Businesses from India, China, Turkey, Italy, Spain, Germany and France will take centre stage at UK Construction Week London, bringing together myriad innovations from across the world.

Sam Patel, UKCW event director, commented: “Construction is a fast-paced and evolving industry, and so our show needs to reflect that - hence the new areas which focus on skills, training and recruitment to address the skills gap which we all know has been affecting the sector for a number of years.”

Registration for UKCW London is now live (and free) through the new-look website. The London show is complemented by its sister event, UKCW Birmingham, which takes place at the NEC from October 1-3.

To find out more about both shows and to register for UKCW London for free, visit www.ukconstructionweek.com/ n

www.ukconstructionweek.comhttps://ukcw-london-2024.reg.buzz/vip-aca

From page 5 >>> Four-year immunity period for enforcement removed

The government has brought in (active from 25th April) several sections of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. These include removal of the 4-year period for immunity from enforcement of unauthorised householder works - all unauthorised work is now subject to a ten-year period, as from 25th April.

Other regulations increase temporary stop notices to 56 days, various amendments to enforcement and building preservation notice procedures, clarifying electronic (digital) application powers, and related transitional provisions.

Permitted Development Rights consultation – our response

Our response is prefaced by a request that the General Permitted Development Order should be consolidated (along with technical guidance) and reissued urgently - it is currently too complex and uncertain in some areas. Prior Approval has also become too complex and should only concern measurable issues - not those that are subjective.

Q.1 Do you agree that the maximum depth permitted for smaller single-storey rear extensions on detached homes should be increased from 4 metres to 5 metres? Yes.

Q.2 Do you agree that the maximum depth permitted for smaller single-storey rear extensions on all other homes that are not detached should be increased from 3 metres to 4 metres? Yes.

Q.3 Do you agree that the maximum depth permitted for two-storey rear extensions should be increased from 3 metres to 4 metres? Yes.

Q.4 Do you agree that the existing limitation requiring that extensions must be at least 7 metres from the rear boundary of the home should be amended so that it only applies if the adjacent use is residential? Don’t know: would be ambiguous - what happens if the adjacent use changes?

Q.5 Are there are any circumstances where it would not be appropriate to allow extensions up to the rear boundary where the adjacent use is non-residential? Yes - if the nonresidential use is likely to be changed to residential in the future.

ing the ground area of the original house) should be removed? No. Sometimes the space around a dwelling is important: if necessary a planning application can be made.

Q.7 Should the permitted development right be amended so that where a two-storey rear extension is not visible from the street, the highest part of the alternation can be as high as the highest part of the existing roof (excluding any chimney)?

Yes. This option already exists (the rules are too complicated) because Sch2, Part 1, Class A, A.1.(h) does allow a rear extension ‘of more than one storey’ with no limit on height unless within 2 metres of the boundary. See answer to Q.13

Q.8 Is the existing requirement for the materials used in any exterior work to be of a similar appearance to the existing exterior of the dwellinghouse fit for purpose? Yes. But it should be clear that there must be flexibility, for example when there are several different materials on the existing exterior (eg some render, some brickwork). A.2.(a) should not apply where any extension material matches one on the original house but is not on the list (i.e. it’s not brick).

Q.9 Do you agree that permitted development rights should enable the construction of single-storey wrap around Lshaped extensions to homes? Yes.

Q.10 Are there any limitations that should apply to a permitted development right for wrap around L-shaped extensions to limit potential impacts? No - other limits eg Building Regulations apply and heights at boundaries should be subject to the same restrictions as other side extensions.

Q.11 Do you have any views on the other existing limitations which apply to the permitted development right under Class A of Part 1 which could be amended to further support householders to undertake extensions and alterations? Yesprior notifications should be minimal and not applied to criteria that are in any way subjective or open to opinion/interpretation, ie only for measurable limitations and certainly not for matters that are dealt with under Building Regulations and/or Party Wall legislation. Prior Notification has become synonymous with planning permission.

Q.12 Do you agree that the existing limitation that any additional roof space created cannot exceed 40 cubic metres (in the case of a terrace house) and 50 cubic metres (in all other cases) should be removed? Yes.

www.ACArchitects.co.uk

www.ppc2000.co.uk

www.allianceforms.co.uk

Q.6 Do you agree that the existing limitation that the permitted development right does not apply if, as a result of the works, the total area of ground covered by buildings within the curtilage of the house (other than the original house) would exceed 50% of the total area of the curtilage (exclud-

Q.13 Do you agree that the existing limitation requiring that any enlargement must be set back at least 20 centimetres from the original eaves is amended to only apply where visible from the street, so that enlargements that are not visible from the street can extend up to the original eaves? Yes - but not further forward than the existing wall. We are worried about introducing the phrase ‘visible from the street’, that is not currently in the GPDO (which uses ‘elevation fronting the highway’), because in built-up areas many rear elevations will

be visible from side streets, especially when streets are shortlarge numbers of extensions will be ruled out completely.

Q.14 Should the limitation that the highest part of the alteration cannot be higher than the highest part of the original roof be replaced by a limitation that allows the ridge height of the roof to increase by up to 30 centimetres? Yes.

Q.15 Do you agree that the permitted development right, Class B of Part 1, should apply to flats?Yes - the same rules should apply to all dwellings.

Q.16 Should the permitted development right be amended so that where an alteration takes place on a roof slope that does not front a highway, it should be able to extend more than 0.15 metres beyond the plane of the roof and if so, what would be a suitable size limit? Yes - but this is surely already allowed for roof slopes that do not front a highway. (Is this a proposal for dormers, etc, to be allowed on front or principal elevations that do not front a highway?)

Q.17 Should the limitation that the highest part of the alteration cannot be higher than the highest part of the original roof be amended so that alterations can be as high as the highest part of the original roof (excluding any chimney)? Yes. This seems to be the same as Q.14 - i.e. no change proposed: ‘can be as high’ = ‘cannot be higher’?

Q.18 Do you agree that bin and bike stores should be permitted in front gardens? Yes.

Q.19 Do you agree that bin and bike stores should be permitted in front gardens in article 2(3) land (which includes conservation areas, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Broads, National Parks and World Heritage Sites)? Yes - again, the same rules for all.

Q.20 Do you agree that bin and bike stores in front gardens can be no more than 2 metres in width, 1 metre in depth and up to 1.5 metres in height? Yes.

Q.21 Are there any other planning matters that should be considered if bin and bike stores were permitted in front gardens? No.

Q.22 Should the existing limitation that in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Broads, National Parks and World Heritage Sites development situated more than 20 metres from any wall of the dwellinghouse is not permitted if the total area of ground covered by development would exceed 10 square metres be removed? Yes.

Q.23 Should the permitted development right be amended so that it does not apply where the dwellinghouse or land within its curtilage is designated as a scheduled monument? No.

Q.24 Do you think that any of the proposed changes in relation to the Class A, B C and E of Part 1 permitted development rights could impact on: a) businesses b) local planning authorities c) communities? Yes - everything impacts on someone.

Q.25 Do you agree that the limitation restricting upwards

extensions on buildings built before 1 July 1948 should be removed entirely or amended to an alternative date (e.g. 1930)? Yes – removed entirely. Buildings that need protection are usually already listed or in Conservation Areas: rights of light still apply.

Q.26 Do you think that the prior approvals for the building upwards permitted development rights could be streamlined or simplified? Yes - see answer to Q.11: prior approvals are too often used when unnecessary or when criteria are subjective. Permitted development rights should provide certainty and give automatic approval - planning applications can be made if the pd rights cannot be allowed.

Q.27 Do you have any views on the operation of the permitted development right that allows for the construction of new dwellinghouses on a freestanding block of flats (Class A of Part 20)? Yes - there is a glaring anomaly that allows new dwellings on large blocks but not on two-storey blocks.(As below, houses and the two left-hand blocks can be extended but blocks on the right cannot.)

Q.28 Do you agree that the existing limitations associated with the permitted development right for building upwards on a freestanding block of flats (Class A of Part 20) incorporates sufficient mitigation to limit impacts on leaseholders? Yes. Leases should provide such protections.

Q.29 Do you think that any of the proposed changes in relation to the Class AA of Part 1 and Class A, AA, AB, AC and AD of Part 20 permitted development rights could impact on: a) businesses b) local planning authorities c) communities? Yes - everything impacts on someone.

Q.30 Do you agree that the limitation restricting the permitted development right to buildings built on or before 31 December 1989 should be removed? Yes.

Q.31 If the permitted development right is amended to allow newer buildings to be demolished, are there are any other matters that should be considered? No.

Q.32 Do you agree that the permitted development right should be amended to introduce a limit on the maximum age of the original building that can be demolished? No.

Q.33 Do you agree that the Class ZA rebuild footprint for buildings that were originally in use as offices, research and development and industrial processes should be allowed to benefit from the Class A, Part 7 permitted development right at the time of redevelopment only? Yes.

Q.34 Do you think that prior approvals for the demolition and rebuild permitted development right could be streamlined or simplified? Yes - see previous answers (Q.11 and Q.26).

Q.35 Do you think that any of the proposed changes in relation to the Class ZA of Part 20 permitted development right could impact on: a) businesses b) local planning authorities c) communities? Yes - everything impacts on someone.

Q.36 Do you agree that the limitation that wall-mounted

ACAPAG PLANNING REPORT

ACA excellence in practice

outlets for EV charging cannot face onto and be within 2 metres of a highway should be removed? Yes.

Q.37 Do you agree that the limitation that electrical upstands for EV charging cannot be within 2 metres of a highway should be removed? Yes.

Q.38 Do you agree that the maximum height of electric upstands for EV recharging should be increased from 2.3 metres to 2.7 metres where they would be installed in cases not within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse or a block of flats? Yes.

Q.39 Do you agree that permitted development rights should allow for the installation of a unit for equipment housing or storage cabinets needed to support non-domestic upstands for EV recharging? Yes.

Q.40 Do you agree that the permitted development right should allow one unit of equipment housing in a non-domestic car park? Yes.

Q.41 Do you agree with the other proposed limitations set out at paragraph 60 for units for equipment housing or storage cabinets, including the size limit of up to 29 cubic metres? Yes..

Q.42 Do you have any feedback on how permitted development rights can further support the installation of EV charging infrastructure? No - but it needs to be simple to do.

Q.43 Do you think that any of the proposed changes in relation to the Class D and E of Part 2 permitted development right could impact on: a) businesses b) local planning authorities c) communities? Yes - everything impacts on someone.

Q.44 Do you agree that the limitation that an air source heat pump must be at least 1 metre from the property boundary should be removed? Yes - but it must face away from the boundary.

Q.45 Do you agree that the current volume limit of 0.6 cubic metres for an air source heat pump should be increased? Yes.

Q.46 Are there any other matters that should be considered if the size threshold is increased? No.

Q.47 Do you agree that detached dwellinghouses should be permitted to install a maximum of two air source heat pumps? Yes.

Q.48 Do you agree that stand-alone blocks of flats should be permitted to install more than one air source heat pump? Yes - but omit the words stand alone because many blocks of flats touch their neighbours but still have space at the rear, etc..

Q.49 Do you agree that the permitted development right should be amended so that, where the development would result in more than one air source heat pump on or within the curtilage of a block flats, it is subject to a prior approval with regard to siting? No - prior approval is unnecessary because landlord and/or other leaseholder permissions are sufficient.

Q.50 Are there any safeguards or specific matters that should

be considered if the installation of more than one air source heat pump on or within the curtilage of a block of flats was supported through permitted development rights? No.

Q.51 Do you have any views on the other existing limitations which apply to this permitted development right that could be amended to further support the deployment of air source heat pumps? Yes - remove all prior approvals and other limitations.

Q.52 Do you think that any of the proposed changes in relation to the Class G of Part 14 permitted development right could impact on: a) businesses b) local planning authorities c) communities? Yes - everything impacts on someone.

Brownfield Land consultation

– our response

Q1. Do you agree we should change national planning policy to make clear local planning authorities should give significant weight to the benefits of delivering as many homes as possible? YES

Q2. Do you agree we should change national planning policy to make clear local planning authorities should take a flexible approach in applying planning policies or guidance relating to the internal layout of development YES, but subject to national space standards and other requirements of Building Regulations, Rights of Light, etc which do not need to be part of planning permissions.

Q3. If we were to make the change set out in question 2, do you agree this change should only apply to local policies or guidance concerned with the internal layout of developments? YES

Q4. In addition to the challenges outlined in paragraph 13, are there any other planning barriers in relation to developing on brownfield land? The proper identification and updating of brownfield registers, etc. by local planning authorities (for example the majority of sites registered in Richmond upon Thames are either already developed or have current planning permissions). And realistic economic viability assessment by the LPA.

Q7. Do you agree we should make a change to the Housing Delivery Test threshold for the application of the Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development on previously developed land? NO - it should not be the responsibility of local authorities to provide housing in this way. Housing development should not be taxed.

Q13. Do you think the current threshold of 150 residential units for referral of a planning application of potential strategic importance to the Mayor of London is the right level? NO - 150 units is not that important enough for the Mayor to be involved - not sure that the Mayor should be involved at all. n

Robert

Peake of Management for Design identifies key considerations for the leadership

Making strategy happen in architecture practice

In the dynamic and competitive landscape of architecture, the ability to effectively implement strategic plans is crucial for sustained success and growth. However, many firms struggle to turn their strategic visions into tangible outcomes. We'll explore the key considerations for practices looking to make strategy happen effectively.

1. Aligning Vision with Execution:

It's essential for architecture firms to align their strategic vision with day-to-day execution. This involves clearly communicating the strategic objectives to all team members and ensuring that everyone understands how their individual roles contribute to the overall goals of the firm. Regular check-ins and performance reviews can help monitor progress and make any necessary adjustments to ensure alignment.

2. Establishing Clear Goals and Metrics:

Setting clear and measurable goals is essential for tracking progress and evaluating the success of strategic initiatives. Whether it's increasing market share, expanding into new geographical areas, or diversifying service offerings, Practices need to define specific objectives and establish key performance indicators (KPIs) to gauge their achievement.

3. Empowering Leadership and Accountability:

Strong leadership is crucial for driving strategy implementation within architecture practices. Leaders need to inspire and motivate their teams, provide clear direction, and remove any barriers to success. Additionally, establishing accountability mechanisms ensures that individuals and teams take ownership of their responsibilities and deliver results in line with the strategic plan.

4. Investing in Talent and Resources:

A skilled and motivated workforce is essential for executing strategic initiatives effectively. Architecture firms should invest in talent development, providing training and professional development opportunities to enhance employees' skills and capabilities. Additionally, allocating sufficient resources, whether it's financial, technological, or human, is critical for supporting strategic projects and initiatives.

5. Embracing Innovation and Adaptability:

In today's rapidly evolving industry, Practices must be agile and adaptable to changes in the market environment. Embracing innovation and leveraging new technologies can help firms stay ahead of the competition and capitalize on emerging opportunities. Furthermore, being open to feedback and continuously evaluating and adjusting the strategic plan ensures relevance and effectiveness over time.

6. Cultivating a Collaborative Culture:

Collaboration is key to successful strategy implementation in architecture practice. Fostering a culture of collaboration encourages open communication, idea sharing, and teamwork, enabling employees to work together towards common goals. By leveraging the collective expertise and creativity of their teams, firms can overcome challenges more effectively and drive innovation.

7. Monitoring and Evaluation:

Finally, ongoing monitoring and evaluation are essential for ensuring that strategy implementation stays on track and delivers the desired outcomes. Regular reviews of progress against KPIs, identifying any obstacles or issues, and adjusting as necessary are critical for staying focused and achieving long-term success.

In conclusion, making strategy happen in a practice requires a combination of strategic vision, effective leadership, investment in talent and resources, adaptability, collaboration, and rigorous monitoring and evaluation. By following these key considerations, firms can increase their chances of successfully implementing their strategic plans and achieving their desired goals. n

Robert Peake is principal at Management for Design

BUSINESS SUPPORT FOR MEMBERS

ACA has a partnership with Management for Design to provide financial and business management support services to members

if you were to publish a book on architecture, you’d want a publisher on board, but you wouldn’t want the commissioning editor to write the chapter on computational design. The same holds true for R&D tax credits.If you want someone to write cogently about architecture, it’s best to ask an architect.

R

R&D

&D tax relief for

tax relief for architects, by architects. architects, by architects.

Is your practice putting the cart before the horse?

Many architecture practices rely on accountants to produce their R&D tax relief claims, with an architect only checking the 昀nished draft. In this article Andy Hastie explains why this process is back to front and how Invennt’s approach helps 昀rms get more value from the scheme.

The Government’s R&D tax relief schemes (R&D tax credits and R&D expenditure credit) 昀nancially support businesses which develop innovative solutions to technical challenges or advance knowledge through research. As a central pilar of Britain’s knowledge economy, architecture is fertile ground for qualifying activity and practices of all sizes and specialisms have taken advantage of the scheme, granting them the 昀nancial 昀exibility to push the envelope and forge ahead with innovative new designs.

Despite this, many 昀rms 昀nd the process arduous, overlook qualifying expenditure and submit supporting information to HMRC that raises more questions than it answers. This is partly because the R&D guidance needs to cover the full spectrum of the British economy, including everything from pharmaceuticals to video games. But it’s also because 昀rms put the cart before the horse, preparing claims with accountants and asking a professional with relevant knowledge of the discipline to check them afterwards.

But when preparing an R&D tax credit claim, the toughest nut to crack is demonstrating beyond doubt that the work undertaken is eligible under HMRC’s rules. Naturally, there is a science to quantifying the costs, but in knowledge industries where most of the eligible expenditure is people’s time (and especially in industries where sta昀 record billable hours) this is a relatively straightforward exercise.

What really makes the di昀erence to an R&D tax relief claim is professional expertise in the 昀eld, and an understanding of the nuances of the sector. A claim produced without expert knowledge frequently becomes an unwelcome distraction to prepare, overlooks qualifying expenditure and triggers lengthy enquiries from HMRC. Whereas all else being equal, a claim prepared by a professional architect will be stress-free, forensically assessed and result in a report that passes muster with the tax inspectors.

The analogy I use is that if you were to publish a book on architecture, you’d want a publisher on board, but you wouldn’t necessarily want the commissioning editor to write the chapter on computational design. The same holds true for R&D tax credits, because if you want someone to write cogently about architecture, it’s probably best to ask an architect. Of course, it’s still important to have tax and accounting expertise but it should support an architect producing the claim, not the other way around. Our resident architects, Shahd and Lama have studied at some of the UK’s best architecture schools and have practiced at the cutting edge of the industry for years. This experience means they understand the technical detail and nuances of the industry, making communication smooth and ensuring they can ask all the right questions to draw out areas of qualifying expenditure. The result is a robust report that delivers maximum value with minimum hassle.

This unrivalled industry knowledge, alongside the specialist tax expertise of our wider team is a winning formula. Especially when paired with our proprietary thematic analysis and eDiscovery technology, which allows our clients to provide project documentation in bulk, without having to trawl through it for relevant supporting evidence.

The result is a claim that is well-evidenced, robustly prepared and leaves nothing on the table. But don’t just take our word for it, Mark White, Practice Manager at Adam Architecture said this of our approach, “Invennt guided us through their well organised process to deliver the output we needed in a very ecient manner. I would strongly recommend their services.” So, if you need an R&D tax credit claim done properly, ask an architect. Don’t put the cart before the horse.

Next Steps

If you’re already claiming, I encourage you to contact me to explore whether we can improve the process or result. If your practice isn’t claiming, please contact me to book a free exploratory review. Our fee is contingent on the bene昀t you receive, so the only risk from starting the process is a few hours of your team’s time.

+44(0)7948 281571

andy.hastie@invennt.com

Andy Hastie Invennt

The new mandatory role of Building Regulations Principal Designer was explored

PRINCIPAL DESIGNER

Howdens hosts seminar on our new role

To support our members with regard the newly introduced role, the ACA in conjunction with our Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) partner, Howden, recently held an event where the impact of the new role of BSA Principal Designer was discussed.

The afternoon saw insights from experts at Howden’s in terms of how the BSA Principal Designer role would affect PII and President, Patrick Inglis and Immediate Past President, Andrew Catto discussed a number of issues surrounding the role:

• Importance of Golden Thread of Information

• New Building Control Regime - Building Safety Regulator

• High Risk Buildings over 18m

• Principal Designer for CDM vs Principal Designer for BSA

• Who can be Principal Designer? - PAS 8671

• What is the role? - SI 2023/911

• When did it come in?

• Transition arrangements - April 2024

• What services do architects need to provide? What are the risks / the rewards?

We are delighted the event saw great attendance and participation from members; we are also very keen to hear about member’s experiences in approaching and adopting the BSA Principal Designer role with your clients so do drop us a line at office@acarchitects.co.uk

The ACA would also like to thank Howden for their kind hospitality on day and providing our networking drinks!

For further guidance, please see the following link published recently by the Government:https://www.gov.uk/guidance/design-and-buildingwork-meeting-buildingrequirements?utm_source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=bsr&utm_term=icymi1&utm_content=bsr-10-apr-24

See Jack Pringle’s RIBAJ article on the topic here: https://tinyurl.com/453kex6b n

NOT A QUIZ

This is not a quiz, but it

is Quite Interesting…

I came across this photograph taken on my last trip to New York and realised I didn’t know what the amazingly thin building that I had seen actually was.

So here is the result of my research….

It’s known as 432 Park Avenue (not to be confused with the nearby Steinway Tower) and is located in midtown Manhattan overlooking Central Park. It is 425 metres (a quarter of a mile) high and was designed by Rafael Vinõly.

It has 84 numbered storeys and incorporates five two-storey windbreaks, spaced every 12 floors, which are unenclosed to reduce the tower’s wind load, but do contain plant. It was completed at the end of 2015 and is (at 2023) the third-tallest residential building in the world.

– Andy Rogers

Launched: a ground breaking Architect Appointment subscription service

We are delighted to announce the launch of the ACA Subscription Service for the ACA PSA22 appointment agreement. Targeted at Architects; it provides

• A cost effective solution for an appointment agreement subscription service - pricing will be £12.50 per month (minimum 12 month subscription contract)

• An unlimited supply of appointment agreements

• Save time and hassle in negating the need to purchase and

download a separate appointment agreement every time one is needed

• A 20% discount to ACA Members; £10 per month

The ACA Professional Services Agreement PSA22 is the refreshed contract for small and domestic works by the Association of Consultant Architects. With many standard form building related agreements becoming ever more lengthy and complex, the ACA PSA22 seeks in its concise format to provide a fair basis for an agreement between a client and an Architect when it comes to building projects of a simple nature.  The Agreement is suitable for both Consumer and Commercial entity Clients.

Single copies can also be purchased at £36.00 plus VAT, and

ACA Members are entitled to an exclusive 25% discount; £27.00 plus VAT by emailing office@acarchitects.co.uk

New NPPF, more homes, transport planning and what might change under Labour

Selective account of Forum Annual Planning Up-Date on Tuesday 19th March 2024 hosted by Dentons

Given the range and depth of presentations and discussions we can only publish a selection of the contributions based on presenters’ notes and slides.

Joanna Averly’s opening keynote was partly ‘off the record’. The full programme is shown on the next page.

THE NEW NPPF & DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REFORM

Mike Kiely, Chair Planning Officers Society

2023 NPPF – the main changes – what was included | what was not | what’s new:

• Throughout the Framework “beauty” is inserted wherever possible.

• The overall purpose of the framework has been boosted from providing a framework within which “locally-prepared plans for housing and other development can be produced” to one where “locally-prepared plans can provide for sufficient housing and other development in a sustainable manner”. Plus preparing up-to-date plans is now seen as a priority in meeting this objective. This new emphasis is added in several places throughout the Framework.

• At the end of the introduction, the WMS on Affordable Homes Update (24 May 2021) which contains policy on First Homes is specifically mentioned – this was not in the consultation.

• The changes in para 11 to building at densities significantly out of character with the existing area and evidence of and allowance for past over-delivery have not been included in the final version.

• Footnote 8 to para 11 introduces the new 4YHLS test which is set out in para 226.

• Para 14 extends the period within which Neighbourhood Plans carry weight from two to five years after being Made where they contain policies and allocations to meet the NP’s identified housing requirement.

• The changes in para 35 to plans being positively prepared and the deletion of the Justified requirement have not been included in the final version.

• Surprise, surprise – lots of changes in Chapter 5 (Delivering a sufficient supply of housing):

• Makes it clear that the aim is to meet as much of an area’s housing need as possible – with an appropriate mix.

• It states clearly that the outcome of the Standard Method is “an advisory starting point” but it is only if there are exceptional demographic [inserted post ConDoc] circumstances that justify it – so it’s not the easy “get out of jail card” most people (rural councillors) think.

• The Urban Uplift is now in the NPPF, but they’ve added a piece about cross boundary redistribution agreements. The exception “conflict with the policies in this Framework” remains but “and legal agreements” is deleted – I assume that this was an imprecise reference to cross-boundary redistribution agreements.

• The elderly housing additions to potential mixes are retained.

• The addition to para 67, “The requirement may be higher than the identified housing need, if it includes provision for neighbouring areas, or reflects growth ambitions linked to economic development or infrastructure investment” is retained.

• A new bullet under para 70 (relating to small site) encouraging community-led development for housing and self-build and custom- build housing.

• Using tools such as Permission in Principle is added.

• Further changes (in para 73) to encourage community led exceptions developments – not in the ConDoc.

• Para 75 has changed since the ConDoc and now sets out that a 5YHLS supply no longer needs to be calculated until the plan is more than 5 years old provided it did identify a 5YHLS. 5 & 10 % buffers no longer apply, only a 20% where there is a HDT failure. Operation of the HDT is also tweaked with a new 85% delivery failure consequence, so it’s now 95% - action plan, 85% - 20% buffer, and 75% - presumption.

• Further encouragement of community-led hous-

ing in rural areas.

• Everyone will be pleased that the vital encouragement of mansard roofs is still there in para 124.

• Paragraph now added at the end of Chapter 11 (Making effective use of land) on not having to meet housing need with “significant uplifts in the average density … if the resulting built form would be wholly out of character with the existing area” provided it is “evidenced through an authoritywide design code which is adopted or will be adopted as part of the development plan” – so not an easy get out of jail card!

• Chapter 12 (Achieving well-designed AND BEAUTIFUL places): further promotes the use of design codes and requires good quality submissions (especially around details and materials so compliance and, if necessary, enforcement is facilitated.

• Chapter 13 (Protecting GB Land): the wording is changed from the ConDoc, but no real change in policy despite the politics – just clarification that you only have to do a GB review if there are exceptional circumstances.

• Chapter 14 (Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change): when dealing with renewable and low carbon energy and heat, plans, we now need to consider future replacement and maintenance and there is greater support for these developments.

• Transitional arrangements are in Annex 1

• Only material changes to the Glossary are a definition of community-led developments and the deletion of Entry-Level Exceptions Sites plus –thankfully because it wasn’t in the ConDoc – a definition of a Mansard Roof – all praise the Govemiester!

• In its response to the consultation on changes to the NPPF, DLUHC said it will bring forward “additional Planning Practice Guidance” to set out exactly how councils will be able to account for past oversupply in calculating their housing land supply – something they have not previously been able to do but no clues yet on what it will say!

Other DM related changes announced by Santa (AKA Gove) on 19/12/23:

• EoTs and new League Tables

• The Super Squad is on its way!

• Residential extensions – 4-5 Det | 3-4 S&T | 2st 3-4 | roof vol – 40/50m3

• Building upwards – scrap 1 July 48 – 1930 or none

• Demolition & rebuild

• EV charging points – now up to 3m

• Air source heat pumps – 2 and closer to boundary (now 1m)

• Poss new agricultural PD (Richie announced at NFU Conference) the Diddly Squat rules?

• 2024 NPPF & NDMP + a review of NPPF that might cover:

• An emphasis on social rent

• Definition of affordable rent

• Promoting community led housing

• Promoting small scale development

• Climate change and adaption

• Safety for women and girls

• Free ports

• EV charging points

• Local plans & the 30-month target – DLUHC wants to bring in by Autumn 2024 – 3 Gateways

• Environmental Outcome Reports – but not until 2025

• Will we see the IL – let’s hope not!

• Proposals to encourage faster build-out of PPs –the “use-it-or-lose-it” proposals!

• Kit Kat’s London Plan Review: tilted balance to apply to all brownfield land development in 20 largest cities if scoring < 95% on HDT plus a general requirement to be flexible on granting PP on brownfield land but no specifics as to what they mean – we will have to cram them in (maximum amount of housing) and make them beautiful!

• Consultation on above + GLA referrals thresholds to increase – from 150 units to ? – it was 500 but consultation asking what it should be

• CPO amendments – inc “no hope Value” for public interest schemes – 31/01/25

• An accelerated planning system consultation (6 March 2024)

- Accelerated Planning Service – 10-week guaranteed service or money back

- Planning performance and extensions of time

- Extension of simplified Written Reps to nearly all appeals

- S73b – varying overlapping planning permissions. !"

THE NEW NPPF & DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REFORM

Dr Dan Slade, Policy Manager, RTPI

Dan followed Mike with the following slide presentation:

THE LONDON PLAN AND HOUSE BUILDING

Ross Raftery tgAssociate Director with Lichfields Hashi Mohamed, Landmark Chambers

Prof Janice Morphet, UCL – building by local authorities

Prof Les Mayhew, Bayes Business School & the Older Peoples Housing Task Force

Ross Raftery’s slideshow follows on the next page:

THE LONDON PLAN AND HOUSE BUILDING

Prof Janice Morphet, UCL Building by local authorities

What did we do?

The research follows the same approach we took in our 2017, 2019 and 2021 reports and comprises of:

1.Desk survey of public information on activity by each LA in England, undertaken spring 2023

2.Direct questionnaire survey to officers in each LA in England, undertaken summer 2023. 231 responses from 159 different authorities

3.7 roundtable discussions held across England in spring and summer 2023

4.6 case study interviews with officers volunteering via the direct survey

Who Paid? Savills, Willmott Dixon; National Planning Forum and POS

Key desk survey findings

•Overall, there has been a steady increase in the level of housing activity across English local authorities in comparison with 2017

•94% of local authorities are engaging with housing provision through at least one method and the range used by councils is gradually increasing

• 76% local authorities have affordable housing as a council corporate priority

•14% of local authorities are Registered Providers

Key desk survey findings

•Programmes of development are increasing in some areas but may be reduced or extended in others by inflationary costs in construction

•There is a growth in housing acquisition

•Councils are still active in the use of their own companies and joint ventures with housing associations, developers and, in some cases other councils, to provide a range of housing

•The number of joint ventures and companies have reduced as an absolute number since 2021 although for some activity has increased.

Key direct survey findings

•79% of local authorities self-reported that they were directly delivering housing, compared to 65% in our 2017 survey, 69% in 2019 and 80% in 2021

•Only 7% of local authorities responded that the recent S.114 notices had impacted their plans around direct delivery of housing

•53% of authorities (81 answering – presumably all stock owning authorities) reported that increased costs of retrofitting existing housing (for example in relation to fire safety, damp and/or mould) were impacting plans to deliver new housing.

•68% of authorities had a strategy beyond just

relying on S.106 for affordable housing delivery:

- having housing strategies with specific housing delivery action plans

- actively supporting housing association or other registered provider partners,

developments planned on council-owned sites (including small sites and garage sites)

- buying back former RTB properties

- taking on S.106 properties a Registered Providers are not interested

- use of the council’s housing company

- having a housing company which is a RP (and can access Homes England grants)

- use of council-owned sites in partnership (e.g. working with RPs on vacant land)

- an empty homes purchase scheme and direct purchase of existing housing

- building under the Housing Revenue Account (HRA)

- using the Public Works Loans Board

- building out rural exception sites

- proactively targeting stalled sites

- working directly as an authority on land purchase and assembly.

•Despite higher costs and pressures on land availability, London Boroughs, supported by the Mayor of London’s application of the Affordable Housing Programme are still delivering more homes than other parts of England

•In London, the Boroughs can apply for funding for five year programmes, whereas elsewhere in England affordable housing funding is made available on a scheme-by-scheme basis through Homes England (some mayors of Combined Authorities are now starting to provide housing programme support)

What are LBs doing to provide housing?

•Developing municipal campuses (eg H and F; WF; Lambeth)

•Using own companies to develop (eg B and D; Barnet, Brent, Hounslow)

•Building for sale (eg Ealing; Enfield)

•JVs with developers (eg Kingston-upon Thames; Ealing; Havering)

•JVs with HAs (eg Southwark)

•Extending HRA programmes for social rent (most)

•Acquiring from developers (eg Brent)

•Acquiring land to build homes (eg Barnet)

•Undertaking estate regeneration (eg Harrow, Havering; Islington)

•Regeneration (eg Bexley; Brent; Lewisham; Hounslow)

•Redeveloping council land in current other uses (eg Ealing; Haringey; Lewisham; Redbridge)

•Providing homes for key workers (eg Brent)

•Develop small sites for TA (Bromley)

•Providing student accomodation (eg Camden;

Enfield)

•Providing special needs housing (eg City of London)

•Using MMC to provide homes (eg Croydon. Enfield, Greenwich)

•Providing safe and secure homes (eg Ealing)

•Establish housing investment fund (eg Merton)

•Acquiring street properties (eg Ealing)

•Acquiring former RTBs (eg Barnet; K and C; Sutton; TH)

•Building on former warehouse land and retail land (eg H and F; Kingston upon Thames)

•Using SME builders on small sites (eg Enfield)

•Building to high environmental standards (eg Greenwich; Hounslow; Newham)

•Using housing to promote town centres (eg Hackney; Hillingdon; KuT; )

•Building larger accomodation (eg H and F)

•Providing homes for rough sleepers (eg Sutton)

•Council company acquiring s106 (eg TH)

•Working with TfL (eg Hounslow)

•Operating as a registered provider (eg Lambeth; Westminster)

•Working with HAs (eg Merton)

•Providing shared ownership homes (eg Richmond upon Thames)

•Providing funding to HAs (eg Waltham Forest)

•Redeveloping housing estate land eg garages (eg Wandsworth)

•Building extra care homes for the elderly (eg Westminster)

•Converting existing property into new homes (eg Tower Hamlets). !

Report available here:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/planning/news/202 4/jan/fourth-report-local-authority-housebuilding-launched

Prof Les Mayhew, Bayes Business School & the Older Peoples Housing Task Force International Longevity Centre UK

Older

peoples

housing –Time for change

OPHTF looking at options for the provision of greater choice, quality and security of housing for older people.

Recommendations covering:

•the appropriate level of older people’s housing

•the enablers and barriers to growth of supply and •options to increase the range and choice of specialised housing available to older people

•Due to report in May 2024 and led by Prof. Julienne Meyer with a wide range of support across multiple professions and backgrounds https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/olderpeoples-housing-taskforce

Topics

•How demographic ageing is fuelling the housing crisis

• Older peoples living arrangements

• Current rates of building of OP homes

• Barriers to downsizing and investment

•Simplifying typologies

• Emerging themes

Why don’t more people downsize?

•Cost barriers to moving into private sector housing:

- High cost of specialist housing per sq meterage versus mainstream

- High transaction costs viz estate agent fees, stamp duty and legal

- High on-going costs such as service charges and event fees, rents

•The general complexity of buying and selling especially for older people unless it is a forced sale

•A wide range of tenure ships including social and private renting, shared ownerships leasehold which consumers find confusing

OP’s specialist Housing

•Simplifying the typology and types of specialist housing (sheltered, alms housing, retirement housing, IRC, retirement villages are some examples)

•The main types boil down to unsupported (mainstream homes), supported (e.g., with warden), supported with care (e.g., Extra care), supported with care and nursing (e.g., integrated care communities)

•Higher profiles by advertising more widely e.g., in estate agent windows and on-line

•Simple A,B,C categorization of homes based on attributes such as thermal efficiency, step free

access, close to local amenities, number of beds.

Supply-side measures

On the supply side

- more government focus on the sector

- investment in failing town centers and using brownfield sites

- changes to the planning system

- possible use of targets

- develop age friendlier areas by improving access to services people use and need

-greater use of financial incentives and disincentives

-Financial advice and help

Areas of focus

•Viability of the sector

•Consumer protection

•Design

•Age friendly areas or placemaking

•Health benefits of specialist housing

•Developing, and embedding research, development, and innovation in planning, construction and design

•Investment !

Mayhew review: https://ilcuk.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2022/10/ILC-FP-RetirementXSUM_final_oct_24.pdf

lesmayhew@googlemail.com

TRANSPORT PLANNING, what’s new?

David Hart, director of Momentum Transport Consultancy

!"#$%&'(")%*+*%*',*"+&%"&++-.$%**$"/*012*%1*.3" !"4++-.$%**$"0&5/1'(",5'"6*")%&21/*/"71$81'"5"2*81,905%" 65.*:*'$3 !"#$$%&&"'()*&"5'/"+%,-$.%".-/0&"5%*"5":*5'."&+" +5,101$5$1'("65.*:*'$"0&5/1'(3

ACCOMMODATING BUILDING DELIVERIES GROUND FLOOR LOADING !"#$%&'(%&) '*& +&)' $,'($-

2.3

REDUCING THE IMPACT OF DELIVERIES CARGO BIKES

3.1 IMPORTANCE OF SIL LAND BROWNFIELD LAND DEVELOPMENT

3.2 IMPORTANCE OF SIL LAND

!" #$%$&#$%' ()*+,-./01 10)* /) 23)*3) .4140,4* -5.44 -/64,

Kerbside challenges

Freight, distribution and kerbside conflicts

Jolyon Drury FCILT

Chartered Institute of Logistics & Transport

Central London Freight Quality Partnership

The size of delivery drives economics. For example the Brewery Logistics Group reports a figure of 20% loss of productivity which has resulted in the uplift of Dray numbers to around 73 vehicles at the last count at the end of 2023 since the Streetspace schemes were introduced.

That figure is expected to rise in 2024 with the introduction of more cycle lane schemes and kerbside restrictions. Some of the increase is also down to working practice with brewery logistics operators using smaller vehicle due to on street and kerbside access issues. This increases fleet sizes and a reduction in consolidated loads which in turn increases deliveries e.g. where a consolidated load is delivered once a week a smaller fragmented load will need to be delivered between 3 & 5 days a week.

Permitted delivery using marked timed kerbside bays still works. A consolidated load can take about 40 minutes.

Long tramming as a result of restricted and unavailable unloading provision is becoming the norm in busy replenishment areas such as Soho. Concerns about operator safety and load security, especially in the chilled supply chain.

Provision for service vehicles is as important as loading access: often with longer dwell times. These pallets of kegs were trammed for some distance as a result of the service vans occupying the bay.

Alfresco dining hung over from Covid block delivery opportunities. Here in Charlotte Street they have been subject to waste abuse.

For consolidated developments, off street loading bays prevent delivery and waste abuse. The closely managed St Pancras station loading bay houses two compaction skips and accommodates deliveries for replenishing the concourse retail outlets.

Uncoordinated construction blocks scheduled deliveries. Here a scaffolding team, but it might as well be deliveries or collection of construction materials, concrete pumps, cranes which require developers’ site managers to coordinate in real time across a zone.

Parking controls must be enforced. However worthy, unstructured cycle drops result in kerbside anarchy

PLANNING UNDER LABOUR –WHAT MIGHT AND WHAT SHOULD CHANGE?

Professor Michael Edwards, UCL

John Walker, CT Group formerly Westminster City Council

The Labour party offer

Michael Edwards

The major issue I want to press upon the Labour leadership is this:

As a society we need urgently to find ways to live in our profoundly unequal, unbalanced, scattered, energy-wasteful settlements, to deal with crises of inequality and environment without rebuilding everything.

There is a lot for planning to do so don’t dismantle it.

I had hoped to see Labour offering an intelligent critique of the Think Tank theory of housing affordability – that supply-demand relations for land and housing are similar to those for produced commodities where a boost to supply will bring prices down; furthermore the key supply constraint is alleged to be the freedom for stroppy DM committees to refuse permissions against officer advice and plan allocations.

But…

1 The market for new homes is not a competitive perfect market. Landowners and housebuilders act as cartels, constraining the land supply, trickling out their completions slowly so they don’t have to give discounts. Good to see that the Competition and Markets Authority has been probing this. Housebuilders also take options on land which prevents community initiatives and other builders (especially smaller ones) from getting it and these options are not recorded in the Land Registry so cannot be scrutinised.

2 The nation’s stock of council housing has been decimated, mainly by the Right to Buy, so more and more people are now dependent on the private rental market. With inequality of income and wealth on today’s scale it is unrealistic to imagine ANY market sector – rental or sale – that could house everyone decently.

3 Government schemes ostensibly designed to increase output, like Help to Buy, turn out to have inflated prices and developer profits rather than increasing output.1

4 There is convincing evidence that any national strategy of building massively (hundreds of thousands of homes per year) would be impossible without transgressing environmental limits.2

5 House prices and rents are determined across the whole local or regional stock of homes so the

impact of new building on prices is heavily diluted. “Estimates of the sensitivity of UK house prices to increases in housing stock consistently show that a 1% increase in housing stock per household delivers a 1–2% reduction in house prices. This is minimal in the context of a 181% increase in mean English house prices from 2000 to 2020 (£84,620–£253,561).” 3

6 As people get richer their housing expenditure grows. So when the housing stock in the market grows, richer people obtain more of it – as extra floorspace or as garden space or as proximity to better schools, or as second homes, leaving less for those with low market power4. In an unequal society this is both an important consequence of inequality, and something which reinforces, the inequality.

7 The escalation of house prices has been fuelled or facilitated by the huge growth of credit and –until recently – by negligible interest rates.

8 Much of the research literature concerns itself with national data but the significance and power of land ownership varies from place to place and a national target for output is almost meaningless.

9 International demand for housing in London appears to be, in part, a quest for what are perceived as safe havens for money, including the laundering of ill-gotten gains from corrupt regimes. Overlapping parts of the demand from abroad are in pursuit of current returns from renting and/or the prospect of capital gains. This demand comes on top of demand generated by the national economy and helps to inflate prices. In some places the corresponding homes are not even occupied, though estimating and controlling the extent of vacancy are controversial.

10 A part of the housing stock is devoted to short-term letting via online platforms and control of this phenomenon is very weak compared with many places in the world. It removes a very great deal of housing from normal use by the permanent population and also undercuts the relatively wellregulated hotel sector.

11 Finally, the thrust of planning policy and practice by national, regional and local governments have inadvertently contributed to strengthening the stranglehold of landed and development interests in our society. The resulting settlement pattern is environmentally inefficient as well as socially unjust, but reducing the discretion of local councillors could not conceivably solve our problems.

Perhaps it’s too much to hope that any political party will announce that it’s planning to lower or even stabilise house prices! But we should be able to expect that Labour would prepare the ground for decommodification – e.g. by developing savings media and tax reforms which could attract our savings away from just adding to demand on housing and head off inflows from abroad;

The scaling down of the promised £28bn fund to mitigate climate impacts is a major loss. The Labour commitment to growth of GDP looks bad too since GDP growth here produces so much poverty alongside wealth and seemingly can’t be de-coupled from carbon emissions. We have to console ourselves with the fact that Labour’s quite unnecessary commitment to continued austerity means there won’t be much GDP growth to worry about. !

1 Chris Foye and Edward Shepherd, 2023, Why have the volume housebuilders been so profitable? CACHE, https://housingevidence.ac.uk/project/why-have-the-volume-housebuildersbeen-so-profitable/

2 Sophus O S E zu Ermgassen, M P Drewniok, J W Bull, C M Corlet Walker, M Mancini, J Ryan-Collins and A Cabrera Serrenho (2022) "A home for all within planetary boundaries: Pathways for meeting England's housing needs without transgressing national climate and biodiversity goals" Ecological Economics 201: 107562

3 The quotation is from zu Ermgassen and others (above). They quote Auterson, T, 2014, Forecasting House Prices (Working Paper No 6) Office for Budget Responsibility; Oxford Economics, 2016, Forecasting UK House Prices and Home Ownership (Report for the Redfern Review); MHCLG, 2018, Analysis of the Determinants of House Price Changes, Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, London; HMLR, 2022. UK House Price Index - UK Land Registry

4 The work of Paul Cheshire on the income elasticity of demand for housing is the source of this statement.

FROM PLANNING IN LONDON

Interfaith understanding through design

Daniel Leon says religious architecture

can be a powerful tool for fostering unity

The Brighton and Hove Reform Synagogue, designed by Derek Sharp in 1967, is a modestly handsome building, tucked away in one of the city’s leafier suburbs. The building makes no great architectural statement. Elegant arches frame some fairly standard postwar brick masonry. This structure has a shy mien. The windows, at least the ones that face the street, are small and tinted. The whole building seems turned inwards, secreted away behind the trees that surround it.

Head inside and the mood changes abruptly. You’re hit square in the face by an enormous set of stained-glass windows, which dominate the interior. The windows were designed by the Welsh artist John Petts. They depict a scene from Revelations, but many have since taken it as an allegory for the Holocaust, and the Imperial War Museum has indeed designated it as an official memorial.

What the Brighton and Hove synagogue shows is that religious structures, even humble ones, have a unique power and force. World religions have for millennia used various design principles to inspire awe, contemplation, and self-reflection. Go to a London mosque and see its spare and elegant simplicity, both within and without. Go to your local Gothic revival church, a commonplace in each of the city’s boroughs, and see how the ornament and twisting tracery can evoke a feeling that the universe is beyond our own mortal understanding. Buildings like these speak to us in a profound way – even if we are not believers ourselves.

The current approach: Beautiful husks

In Britain, there is now something like a consensus that these buildings are valuable – in an architectural sense at least. There is a feeling that, even in an increasingly secular age, these buildings should be kept around in some form for sentimental reasons. The previous decade has seen a spate of conversions in London, where old churches were turned into houses, flats, or secular cultural centres. The conventional wisdom seems to say that these buildings are to be appreciated on aesthetic grounds – not so much on cultural or social ones.

It's a consensus that Brighton and Hove Reform Synagogue has ended up on the wrong side. Its modernist design is – to put it mildly – out of style, and because of this, it’s now slated for demolition. It is due to be replaced with a block of flats, alongside a smaller new synagogue. A 2017 bid to have the building listed failed – though another one lodged by the Twentieth Century Society (which aims to preserve structures from this era) is now in the works1

The unfortunate fate of this building shows how wrong-

headed our attitude to religious architecture still is – both in London and elsewhere in the UK. By any definition, the Brighton and Hove Reform Synagogue is an important cultural sight. It is both a memorial and a place for Jewish worship in a part of the country that has fairly few of them. We are making a profound mistake when we judge these buildings merely as pretty shells for developers.

Abiding importance

Recent events show the poverty of this approach. Events in the Middle East have ignited communal tensions in London, and the 2021 census has revealed a city that is only becoming more religiously diverse, with over a quarter of residents belonging to non-Christian faiths2. In times like these, it is vital that every faith community in the city has visible and physical symbols of itself, as well as meeting places for its members. This can be accomplished with a new approach to religious architecture in London, one which recognises them not merely as aesthetic objects, but as important cultural and social sites. As we chart the future of the built environment in London, we should bear this in mind. Sites for development are

Daniel Leon is founder and director of Square Feet Architects

of course scarce, but we should resist the temptation to treat our city’s religious architecture merely as so many plum opportunities for retrofitting.

We should instead aim to keep as many of London’s religious buildings consecrated as possible. The social and cultural benefits of this would be considerable – far in advance of any marginal gain in housing stock we’d get by converting them. Even if these buildings are little used in some cases, their very existence serves as a powerful means to build interfaith understanding in a more diverse society.

By preserving our stock of religious buildings, Londoners of all backgrounds and creeds will be able to see and appreciate the architectural, cultural, and aesthetic traditions of different faiths. Visiting or even passing a religious building from a different faith reminds us that all of the world’s different peoples have been moved by the same basic impulses. A Christian, Jewish, or Muslim Londoner will be able to see how other cultures have – through their buildings – approached the human condition, life and death, and our relationship with the spiritual world. These buildings are a powerful way to build empathy and fellow feeling.

Religious structures are also socially important in a more practical sense. Much of the modern effort at interfaith dialogue takes place in religious buildings. These sites are also important for the religious education of children and young people. And, perhaps most importantly, these buildings provide a physical meeting place for London’s different faiths. Preserving them intact will ensure that every faith community feels as if it has a spiritual home in the city in which they live.

Interfaith understanding through design

For my part, I have grappled with these questions throughout my career. We know that religious architecture can inspire feelings of awe and devotion – but I contend that architecture can also inspire interfaith understanding. To this end, I collaborated with Matthew Lloyd (an architect and expert in church design) and Shahed Saleem (an architect and the author of The British Mosque: An Architectural and Social History) to design the ‘FridaySaturdaySunday’ building — a conceptual project that aims to foster interfaith unity. This innovative structure is designed as a meeting point for the three Abrahamic faiths: serving as a mosque on Fridays, a synagogue on Saturdays, and a church on Sundays.

Our motivation for this project was to build up mutual respect and understanding, to break down barriers and, in the words of Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks, “heal a fractured world” –especially in light of recent events in London and elsewhere.

1

https://c20society.org.uk/news/t he-guernica-of-brighton-listingbid-to-save-modernist-synagogue-and-holocaust-memorialwindows#dismiss-cookie-notice

2

https://www.ons.gov.uk/datasets /TS030/editions/2021/versions/1 /filter-outputs/8f748994-2bd6407c-b7f8-7f9d7fafbe6f

I’d venture that this project is what a twenty-first century approach to religious architecture in London might look like in practice. Driven by the lack of places to build in the capital, and the underuse of existing religious buildings, as well as considerations of cost and land use demands, this project explores the potential of shared worship to help us transcend cultural divides. In this project, we hoped to provide a physical symbol of the unity between the faiths – and a physical space to build inter-confessional fellow feeling.

We aimed to achieve this through design. In the project, we made use of design elements like natural light, beauty, washing, and water to celebrate the shared feelings and impulses that drive each of the Abrahamic faiths. Myself, Matthew, and Saleem’s respective Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths were an integral part of the design – we worked together collaboratively to include each of our own faith requirements in the concept. As we manage what is an increasingly diverse city, religious architecture can be a powerful tool for fostering unity. Let’s recognise the aesthetic richness and utility of this stock of buildings, preserving and repurposing these structures – and even constructing new ones - to build bridges between faiths in twenty-first century London. !

LCP's three new planned frameworks mark a significant milestone towards a more sustainable, inclusive, and innovative construction industry, writes Lisa Bliss

Net Zero, Mental Health, and EDI: Meeting the Challenges Head-On

Lisa Bliss wants to change the construction industry so that mental health and suicide is taken just as seriously as health and safety is now. At a recent promotional webinar, Lisa stated that her vision is: “To achieve consistency in good practices across different contractors and their supply chains and raise the awareness of mental health issues.”

While there has been a commendable decrease in construction fatalities over the last twenty years, the industry still grapples with the hidden impact of poor mental health. Factors such as reliance on temporary labour, fragmented workforces, squeezed project timelines, and skill shortages contribute to this issue. The LCP recognises these challenges and is committed to addressing them proactively.

The LCP is proud to announce its plans to launch three transformative construction frameworks in 2024 and 2025. These frameworks represent a bold step towards addressing pressing challenges and driving positive change within the sector.

In a recent webinar presentation, Lisa Bliss highlighted the significant challenges facing the construction industry today, including the growing skills shortage, the imperative to achieve net zero emissions, improve mental health support, and advance equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). These challenges are not only pressing but interconnected, impacting everything from rising costs to project delivery, to safety on site.

In June 2023 LCP welcomed Shona Snow as Programme Lead to spearhead the re-design of its frameworks. Shona has played a pivotal role in recommending the FAC-1 to underpin all three of its frameworks and will implement the collaborative structures it sets out. Shona says: “Without wellestablished contractual mechanisms, it would be very difficult to achieve the outcomes LCP seeks”. She has initiated the process of aligning the new frameworks with Professor Mosey 's Constructing the Gold Standard recommendations.

Commitment to Excellence and Best Practices

Professor David Mosey once said at a conference in 2023, “We have a climate emergency: we don’t

have time for solutions to be kept secret, or to worry about competitive advantage. We need suppliers to be sharing information and innovation and learning.”

COP26 echoed this sentiment, stating “in order to address climate change we need radical collaboration throughout the construction supply chain”.

LCP has recognised the consistent messaging in

ACA’s FAC-1 is to underpin all three LCP frameworks

both Professor David Mosey's independent review, Constructing the Gold Standard, and in the best practice guidance the Construction Playbook. Both underscore the need for frameworks and construction schemes to

• Prioritise and promote net zero and sustainability

• Identify the strengths SMEs can bring

• Establish long term, sustainable relationships with suppliers

• Create shared objectives and a collaborative approach

Shared Framework Objectives

LCP’s approach stands out for its comprehensive objectives, informed by market engagement sessions in 2023, during which they took feedback, adjusted their strategy, and then re-shared with the market again. During this phase they engaged with a number of Tier 1 as well as SME contractors. They learned that the industry is not making the progress it needs to in the areas of mental health, diversity, sustainability and the skills shortage. There seem to be pockets of good work being done and some contractors have made great strides with their own employee workforce, but many just don’t know where to start. They also discovered that no matter how good contractors were at looking after their own employees, they seemed to believe they had limited ability to influence their own supply chain. And yet the supply chain is where the change actually needs to happen.

This is why LCP have developed a flexible action plan behind the objectives that aim to drive measurable change through the supply chain and increase permanently employed staff.

The LCP, like Mosey, believe that frameworks are in a unique position in the market to improve standards, drive change and provide value to clients. Taking this, the FAC-1, and their desire to see real progress, LCP developed four objectives: supporting public sector authorities to deliver on their net zero commitments, the commitment to drive positive change in mental health and equality, diversity and inclusion in the construction sector and unlock innovation and work collaboratively with Clients and the Supply Chain.

Furthermore, the frameworks have other interesting features such as “reserved spaces” for SMEs, ensuring a mixed economy of suppliers for LCP’s clients, in recognition of the fact that SMEs offer advantages that larger contractors might not, and vice versa.

The new frameworks will be built on the solid foundation of shared contractual objectives, key performance indicators, an action plan and a timetable, and a Core Group to monitor progress against objectives. By establishing contractors’ “starting point” when the framework commences, and then monitoring progress through the Core Group over the five years of the framework, LCP look forward to presenting industry exemplars to inspire change.

Navigating Challenges with Best Practices

LCP's three new planned frameworks mark a significant milestone in the journey towards a more sustainable, inclusive, and innovative construction industry. With a focus on addressing challenges, embracing best practices, and fostering collaboration, LCP is poised to lead the way towards a brighter future for construction in London and beyond. n

Lisa Bliss, Head of London Construction Programme (LCP) and Dynamic Markets

The

ACA’s preferred supplier of professional indemnity insurance

We were delighted to host an exclusive ACA member event at our London office in February.

The event provided a valuable platform for industry professionals to convene, exchange insights and foster collaboration.

The conference focused on the new regulatory regime for the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) which came into force in England on 1st October 2023. One area of particular interest throughout the day was the new role of the Principal Designer. Our recent article on this topic may be of interest and can be read in full here.

We extend our sincere thanks to all attendees and hope you enjoyed it as much as we did.

As a partner of the ACA we have a responsibility to support ACA members with more than just an insurance policy.

And with over 28 years of experience within the construction and property sectors, and more than 1,500 architect clients, we are positioned 昀rmly to do this.

Our team are here to work with the members of the ACA in o昀ering advice, support and access to our insurance knowledge. Whether that be responding to a question in relation to the products we o昀er or o昀ering risk management advice, we are more than happy to help.

To 昀nd out more and to understand how we can help you, contact us today.

COUNCIL AND OFFICERS

Council Members

ACA COUNCIL MEMBERS

John Assael DipArch GradDip AA MSc RIBA FRSA, ACArch –Assael Architecture Ltd johnassael@assael.co.uk Tel:  020 7736 7744

Andrew Catto  AADip ACArch HON

SECRETARY & IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT

Andrew Catto Architects Ltd

Email:  ac@andrewcatto.co.uk Tel:  020 8785 0077

Richard Harrison  Dipl Arch Poly ACArch HON TREASURER richardlharrison@icloud.com Tel:  07973 213426

Patrick Inglis MA(Cantab) DipArch ARB RIBA ACArch PRESIDENT

Inglis Badrashi Loddo Email:  patrick@ibla.co.uk Tel:  020 7580 8808

Alfred Munkenbeck RIBA ACArch Munkenbeck & Partners Architects

Email: alfred@mandp.uk.com Tel: 020 7739 3300

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

Andrew Rogers  AADip ACArch DipTP MRTPI DipEnv&Dev (open)

Andrew Rogers: Planning Email:  AR@awrogers.com Tel:  07841 538869

Shane Santry BA (Hons) Arch., Dip. Arch, MRIAI, RIAI Conservation

Grade III

Email: shane@ssa.ie

Tel: 01 668 7939

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

The Boisot Waters Cohen Partnership

Email:  brian@bwcp.co.uk

Tel:  07957871477

Francis Brown BA(Hons) Dip.Arch

RIBA ARB ACArch MAPM

Email: francisb201@btinternet.com Tel:  07985 960933

Jonathan Louth  BAHons DipArchM.St(Cantab) ACArch

Jonathan Louth Architects

STUDENT representative

Miles Elliott (Post-graduate, RCA)

OFFICERS

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

Alison Low  MA DipArch ACArch DIRECTOR OF ENTERPRISE and Vice President

Alison Low Architect alisonlowarchitect@gmail.com 07947 320298

The

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

Our Journal is distributed on a controlled circulation and subscription basis quarterly to key decision makers in organisations in the world of Conservation, Heritage and Ecclesiastical matters. Conservation & Heritage Journal keeps abreast of what's happening in this important sector of our culture with the latest news and a wide range of informative features written by well respected individuals and organisations in their specialised field of expertise.

With a readership of over 22,000 and growing to a highly targeted audience, Conservation & Heritage Journal is an A4 perfect bound full colour journal published quarterly, this makes it a unique vehicle to advertise specialist skills, products and services so essential to this sector.

Please email for a complimentary copy.

Our website has all our latest news and articles, it also has a 'Search' function where you can search for tradesman, craftsmen and suppliers. In this search you can obtain contact details, examples of work and company history.

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

Rebecca Rees, partner

Trowers & Hamlins

The FAC-1 Handbook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To purchase visit the ACA shop:

https://acarchitects.co.uk/ product/fac-1-handbook/

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

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

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

Constructing Excellence and KCL launch

‘Gold Standard’ to improve value and achieve net zero in construction procurement

CONSTRUCTING

Constructing the Gold Standard

In November 2023 Constructing Excellence, in collaboration with Kings College London launched an independent verification scheme called ‘Constructing the Gold Standard’, to ensure that Government and the wider public sector adopt urgent recommendations for improved value, reduced risks and achievement of net zero on all their construction projects.

‘Constructing the Gold Standard’ outlines an integrated and collaborative approach to framework procurement, contracting and management. The Government has already started implementing all its recommendations and the Gold Standard was endorsed in the September 2022 update of the ‘Construction Playbook’.

In 2021, Professor David Mosey CBE was asked by Cabinet Office to carry out an Independent Review of Public Sector Construction Frameworks. He consulted 120 organisations and ‘Constructing the Gold Standard’ is the result of his work.

Professor Mosey found that over 2,000 public sector construction frameworks are currently active, some of which deliver improved value and enable excellent project outcomes, while many others are less ambitious and less successful. ‘Constructing the Gold Standard’ sets out 24 recommendations to help clients identify what questions they should ask when creating and implementing construction frameworks and alliances, what answers they should expect and guidance on how they can make informed decisions.

The Constructing Excellence verification scheme is an objective system for recognising and supporting those framework providers and clients who adopt Gold Standard frameworks, framework contracts and action plans. Seven clients and framework providers are currently piloting the scheme – Ministry of Justice, Environment Agency, SCAPE, CHIC, LHC, Places for People and Crown Commercial Service.  The scheme verifies the claims made by framework providers and clients who procure their own frameworks and alliances. It also provides a measure of quality for clients who use frameworks and for suppliers who bid for frameworks.

Constructing Excellence has established a Task Group drawn framework providers, clients, advisers, suppliers and government stakeholders to explore how to improve value, reduce risk and achieve net zero through Gold Standard construction frameworks and framework alliances.  The governance of Constructing the Gold Standard Verification resides with the

Task Group.

All public sector providers of construction frameworks and all public sector clients who procure their own frameworks and alliances are eligible to apply to the scheme. A framework or framework alliance creates a strategic arrangement with suppliers governing multiple project contracts.

• Constructing the Gold Standard (publishing.service.gov.uk)

• The Construction Playbook – September 2022 (publishing.service.gov.uk)

Professor David Mosey CBE, King’s College London, said: In order for public sector construction to make best use of limited funds, to deliver safe and high-quality outcomes and to tackle the climate crisis, all clients and supply chain members should adopt the Gold Standard recommendations. Integrated framework alliance contracts, the application of digital information management and the implementation of urgent action plans under existing long term contracts are among the recommendations that the construction sector and its clients should implement to achieve the Gold Standard.

Alison Nicholl at Constructing Excellence, said:

Constructing Excellence have long been advocates for better procurement as an enabler of better outcomes. We are delighted to be working with Professor Mosey on supporting the implementation of the Gold Standard and helping drive continuous improvements in construction frameworks. n

Professor David Mosey, CBE, Centre of Construction Law, King’s College London

Melanie

Hern talks to John

Assael

QUESTION TIME

...with David Mosey

1. You have an outstanding professional background; what keeps you motivated?

The pleasure of working with interesting people and of helping to improve value through collaborative techniques.

2. Quite a controversial subject matter; what are your thoughts on the Marks & Spencer Oxford Street site?  Will there be more damage to the environment with a redevelopment of the site or is a retrofit more aligned with net zero targets?

In my view, a retrofit would definitely be the right solution.

3. Do you envisage Artificial Intelligence playing a significant role in the construction industry?

A.I. offers us new tools but we need to work how to use them. The limited take-up of BIM suggests that many people still shy away from the solutions available in the digital world.

4.In your opinion, what are the USPs of our Alliance and Partnering contracts?

- Early involvement of tier 1 and 2 contractors to ensure practical and cost-effective solutions without reducing the creative powers of architects and engineers.

- A strategic approach that joins up the dots between multiple projects to drive improved efficiency and sustainability.

- An extraordinary track record of dispute avoidance through joint risk management.

5. Can / Should ACA Members (Architects in private practice) be using these contracts or ensuring they engage with Architectural Forms of Appointment?

All ACA members will benefit from using PPC2000 and FAC-1, because these forms integrate teams in ways that reduce risks for architects and help them achieve better project outcomes.

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

The power to stop social media stoking the fires of extremism.

7. You’ve recently been honoured with a CBE; can you describe that experience?

HRH Princess Anne's first question was 'Which came first, construction or the law?' She then gave me her full attention for so long that even my sons thought I was not boring her.

Professor David Mosey CBE leads procurement research at the King's College London Centre of Construction Law & Dispute Resolution where he was Director from 2013 to 2020. David was formerly head of Projects and Construction at law firm Trowers & Hamlins from 1991 to 2013. David was appointed by the UK Government in 2021 to lead an “Independent Review of Public Sector Construction Frameworks” His recommendations for improving value, improving safety, managing risk and achieving net zero carbon are set out in “Constructing the Gold Standard” and were endorsed by Government and industry in the 2022 “Construction Playbook”. David also co-authored "Guidance on Collaborative Procurement for Design and Construction to Support Building Safety", working with Russell Poynter-Brown and a Task Group drawn from CIoB, CIPS, RIBA, RICS and others to demonstrate how collaborative systems such as balanced evaluation, early supply chain involvement, multi-party contracts and BIM are essential to avoid another Grenfell Tower disaster. This guidance was published in January 2022 by the Department for Levelling Up Housing and Communities and is being used by the Building Safety Regulator as a measure of compliance.

David received the 2021 TECSA Clare Edwards Award for “professional excellence and an outstanding contribution to the legal profession serving the construction and infrastructure industry”. He is principal author of the “PPC2000” collaborative contract and the “FAC-1” and “TAC-1” alliance contracts, adopted on procurements worth over £100 billion, and he was awarded a CBE in the 2023 New Year Honours List for “services to the construction industry”.

8. Are you an early bird or night owl?

An early bird these days - it's an age thing.

9. I know you have a real passion for music, if you’d not entered the legal profession, is this something you would have explored?

Yes, definitely, so the musical world has had a narrow escape.

10. Is there a person you admire the most? Any why?  (Can be from any any circle of life)

My friend Bayard who is paralysed from the neck down by MS, but who is such hilarious company that he cheers me up every week. n

>>>

At Home in London The Mansion Block

In the context of London’s housing shortage, the mansion block might be a strong contributor to a planning-led solution writes Lee Mallett in his review

By Karin Templin, published by MACK and the Architecture Foundation

160pp £50

A sumptuous tome from art publisher MACK in partnership with the Architecture Foundation, as part of a promised series looking at London housing types – and where better to start than with the most salubrious of residences, the mansion block?

Author Karin Templin, is a seasoned academic hailing from UCL and the University of Cambridge shares, she shares her interest with husband Alfredo Caraballo, Allies & Morrison director and designer of A&M’s modern mansion blocks in Victoria. These feature in the book among 27 fine examples ranging from the 1850s to the present day.

Why a review in Planning in London? Because, in the context of London’s housing shortage and the need to densify, and much dislike of towers, the mansion block might be a stronger contributor to a planning-led solution.

Templin’s opening essay refers to the potential of the mansion block as an antidote to character-depleting towers, and a way of creating more affordable housing. It’s an ambition worth exploring in more detail, which this book doesn’t really offer, but it is an interesting examination of how the mansion block evolved as a distinct London typology.

Mansion blocks were the answer to socio-economic necessities and drove three main periods of building. 1852-1903, when we were awash with ill-gotten gains from Empire before WW1 put paid to development; 1930-1937 when industrialisation and expansion demanded inner city homes for a burgeoning middle class, and latterly, from 2010 to date, when the mansion block has to a limited extent been revived and updated in the effort to achieve a more ‘gentle’ densification of London while emptying overseas investors’ piggybanks. ‘Gentle density’, you may recall, is the Government’s official preferred approach. And London’s population is not getting smaller.

Nine exemplars illustrate each era of building, central and suburban. But the forces that produced them were driven by very different economic models.

The earliest, grandest blocks were for rent. To produce an income stream for their developer-investors. The concept of widespread home-ownership, no mortgage market in a modern sense, the absence of an evolved long-leasehold system, meant developers did not sell the apartments they created. But they offered nice amenities to attract tenants.

Apartments produced in blocks more recently, however, were and are for sale, because the faster capital receipts produced from sales, rather than long term rental income, produces better returns on the capital employed to create them. And that in turn bolsters the price developers will pay for a site, which cuts into the budget for quality and shared amenity.

This is particularly the case for short-term developers, who will usually include an element of ‘other people’s money’ to build. The newish Build to Rent model, fuelled by institutional

money, has yet to fully demonstrate a superior cash flow, lacking the big bang of bucks up front in the appraisal, so competition for suitable sites still favours speculative developers. But their short-termism has stripped most apartment blocks of the civilising elements we love the mansion block for. Maybe that is changing, or greater civic and aesthetic virtue might be encouraged by the planning process.

In this uneven battleground for acquiring land, the spec’ developer of the private-for-sale block has found viability progressively eroded by social or affordable housing quotas, by increased interest rates and inflation recently. This drove the race for towers. Build higher, sell more.

If this wasn’t intended as a book primarily for architects, it would have been interesting to explore the economic models and planning conditions that created each era of mansion block development. What appeals to architects is that mansion blocks require their input to a greater extent than the traditional terraced house, or indeed today’s housebuilder product. In the 19th century the Architectural Association and the RIBA hosted lectures about the proliferating mansion block, while there was widespread press coverage because of public interest. But if architects do believe in mansion blocks, and planners want more of them, they have to engage with the market in understanding the forces that produce them.

Then there’s the question of opportunity. Most mansion blocks were produced in the pre-planning era. As with towers, mansion blocks today have to jump the hurdles strewn across the existing built environment. It’s not easy assembling the kind of sites they require. Yet the parts of London we like most, Kensington say, or St John’s Wood, would be virtually impossible to repeat east of the River Lea (outside the Olympic Park of course) where most development is now set in the aspic of two to three storey terraces, or semi-detached/detached estates. It seems impossible today to densify existing built up areas, although that might be desirable if we want to tackle climate change.

Perhaps this book is most important for bringing to our attention a favourite housing type that is slowly reviving. That needs nurturing in policy and in public. We like them. We need more homes. Why not let planning encourage their development?

Curiously the book does not focus much on the lifestyles that made mansion blocks so appealing. More interiors, with people, and detailed apartment plans at a larger scale, and the clear delineation of apartments within blocks, would have made it more persuasive. And despite being sponsored by Lend Lease and residential investor Dorrington, if the book had been targeted more at developers and planners, and included some opinions from them, it would be even better than it is. n SEE leader on mansion blocks in our last issue no 127

Lee Mallett is a founder editor/publisher of PiL and urban regeneration consultant/writer

Paul Davis tells the story of who he is, how, why and what he changed

A large format 300gsm cover, thread sewn paperback with 250 pages. 194 drawings, paintings and photographs are embedded within the text. £30 from mrchelsea.co.uk

What does an architect do in retirement?

Paul founded two practices (Davis & Bayne 1976 -94 & Paul Davis + Partners 1994-2013) which were responsible for regenerating much of Sloane Street and the King’s Road through three decades, culminating in Duke of York Square and the new the Saatchi Gallery as well as Cadogan Hall for the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra.

Paul worked for seven of the central London landed estates as well as developers and private clients in Westminster and RBK&C, notching up almost 300 projects in the two boroughs. Other major projects include award-winning towers in Hong Kong and Tokyo as well as restoration and new build at Sir Christopher Wren’s Royal Hospital Chelsea and a hotel for The Dorchester at 45 Park Lane. Sequential projects along Sloane Street on behalf of the Cadogan Estate led to a creative understanding and interpretation of conservation policies.

Working over almost 30 years, his practices reinvented multiple buildings whist retaining the memory of place. Thereby transforming the street, its uses and activity.

This is a memoir of a life in design and architecture. It begins with a small boy being made to stand in a corner by his teacher because he was partially deaf. Aged 10, an operation restored his hearing and from there he went from strength to strength. Teenaged years were spent learning to draw at school at Alleyn’s in South London while being inspired by live performances by Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, David Bowie and the Rolling Stones, often at intimate local venues such as the Bromley Court Hotel or Chislehurst Caves.

Never a mere spectator, he created some of the first 1960s lightshows for bands including Pink Floyd and The Who. This would lead on to designing innovative recording studios for Roxy Music in the UK, then New York, Oslo and Paris. Houses for members of Roxy Music and four of Duran Duran in the 80s was fun and the source of entertaining anecdotes. Strong relationships led to commissions for touring stage sets for Supertramp, Roxy Music, the Moody Blues and Duran Duran. Collaborating with Nicky Haslam, he restored a major country house for Beatle Ringo Star and his wife, Barbara Bach.

Whilst studying at Nottingham and Kingston, Paul set out on adventures across North Africa and Iran in the early 70s in search of sustainable indigenous architecture. Journeys almost impossible to experience today.

He deals frankly with both the pride of success as well as the difficulties and frustrations of being a practising architect, including fights with planning officers, work with difficult clients, and projects that go awry, including major ones at Cliveden in Berkshire and Chelsea Barracks (where he worked with Thomas Heatherwick).

Inspiration and insight into the specific skills and approach to residential design were gleaned from student-day pilgrimage visits to Charles Rennie Macintosh’s famous Hill House on Loch Gare and Frank Lloyd Wright’s Falling Water in Pennsylvania. More than 30 private house designs for different families and characters lead on to inform major speculative residential projects in London, Hong Kong and Tokyo.

Themes of placemaking are discussed in short essays about the Alhambra and London’s Inner Temple, both of which underline his core philosophy of ‘place’ being of more fundamental value to people’s lives than icons.

The aim of the book is to provide a lavishly illustrated account of the hands-on difficulties of being an architect, whilst maintaining passion and vision. This book will hopefully be of use and inspirational to students and practising architects whilst its diverse episodes in the world of rock n’ roll will entertain a wider audience. Paul’s contribution to changing Chelsea will no doubt focus and broaden its appeal and market.

“Mr Chelsea” is a memoir of a life well lived written with honesty and humanity. !"

LEFT: 1 Hans Street RIGHT:

Duke of York Square, King’s Road Chelsea

BELOW: Cadogan Hall

New small and simple works appointment agreement out now!

The ACA Professional Services Agreement PSA22 is the refreshed contract for small and domestic works by The Association of Consultant Architects and drafted in collaboration with HCR Hewitsons. With many standard form building related agreements becoming ever more lengthy and complex, the ACA PSA22 seeks in its concise format to provide a fair basis for an agreement between a client and an Architect when it comes to building projects of a simple nature.  The Agreement is suitable for both Consumer and Commercial entity Clients.

This contract provides:-

1. An agenda for parties to agree on the core terms of any such arrangement including to clarify the responsibilities of both parties particularly the scope of services to be undertaken

2. The arrangements for managing the Architect’s fees and expenses

3. How the contract can be brought to an end and ultimately how disputes are to be managed.

The cost is £36.00 plus VAT and can be purchased here:https://acarchitects.co.uk/product/professional-servicesagreement-aca-psa22-digital-multi-use/ And ACA Members are entitled to an exclusive 25% discount; £27.00 plus VAT by emailing office@acarchitects.co.uk

Upon receipt of your ACA PSA22 contract order and payment, the ACA will contact you to request the ‘Site Address’ for inclusion within the Agreement and this will be used to generate your PDF ACA PSA22 contract. The ACA PSA22 contract will be a locked, watermarked PDF, the watermark being the ‘Site Address’ and you will not be able to modify this; as per the How To Use Guide PDF which you will also receive upon order confirmation, the only digitally modifiable elements are in Section 3.

ISB Number 978-1-8382857-3-9

if you were to publish a book on architecture, you’d want a publisher on board, but you wouldn’t want the commissioning editor to write the chapter on computational design. The same holds true for R&D tax credits.If you want someone to write cogently about architecture, it’s best to ask an architect.

R&D ta

lief for R&D tax relief for

x re

architects, by architects. architects, by architects.

Is your practice putting the cart before the horse?

Many architecture practices rely on accountants to produce their R&D tax relief claims, with an architect only checking the 昀nished draft. In this article Andy Hastie explains why this process is back to front and how Invennt’s approach helps 昀rms get more value from the scheme.

The Government’s R&D tax relief schemes (R&D tax credits and R&D expenditure credit) 昀nancially support businesses which develop innovative solutions to technical challenges or advance knowledge through research. As a central pilar of Britain’s knowledge economy, architecture is fertile ground for qualifying activity and practices of all sizes and specialisms have taken advantage of the scheme, granting them the 昀nancial 昀exibility to push the envelope and forge ahead with innovative new designs.

Despite this, many 昀rms 昀nd the process arduous, overlook qualifying expenditure and submit supporting information to HMRC that raises more questions than it answers. This is partly because the R&D guidance needs to cover the full spectrum of the British economy, including everything from pharmaceuticals to video games. But it’s also because 昀rms put the cart before the horse, preparing claims with accountants and asking a professional with relevant knowledge of the discipline to check them afterwards.

But when preparing an R&D tax credit claim, the toughest nut to crack is demonstrating beyond doubt that the work undertaken is eligible under HMRC’s rules. Naturally, there is a science to quantifying the costs, but in knowledge industries where most of the eligible expenditure is people’s time (and especially in industries where sta昀 record billable hours) this is a relatively straightforward exercise.

What really makes the di昀erence to an R&D tax relief claim is professional expertise in the 昀eld, and an understanding of the nuances of the sector. A claim produced without expert knowledge frequently becomes an unwelcome distraction to prepare, overlooks qualifying expenditure and triggers lengthy enquiries from HMRC. Whereas all else being equal, a claim prepared by a professional architect will be stress-free, forensically assessed and result in a report that passes muster with the tax inspectors.

The analogy I use is that if you were to publish a book on architecture, you’d want a publisher on board, but you wouldn’t necessarily want the commissioning editor to write the chapter on computational design. The same holds true for R&D tax credits, because if you want someone to write cogently about architecture, it’s probably best to ask an architect. Of course, it’s still important to have tax and accounting expertise but it should support an architect producing the claim, not the other way around. Our resident architects, Shahd and Lama have studied at some of the UK’s best architecture schools and have practiced at the cutting edge of the industry for years. This experience means they understand the technical detail and nuances of the industry, making communication smooth and ensuring they can ask all the right questions to draw out areas of qualifying expenditure. The result is a robust report that delivers maximum value with minimum hassle.

This unrivalled industry knowledge, alongside the specialist tax expertise of our wider team is a winning formula. Especially when paired with our proprietary thematic analysis and eDiscovery technology, which allows our clients to provide project documentation in bulk, without having to trawl through it for relevant supporting evidence.

The result is a claim that is well-evidenced, robustly prepared and leaves nothing on the table. But don’t just take our word for it, Mark White, Practice Manager at Adam Architecture said this of our approach, “Invennt guided us through their well organised process to deliver the output we needed in a very ecient manner. I would strongly recommend their services.” So, if you need an R&D tax credit claim done properly, ask an architect. Don’t put the cart before the horse.

Next Steps

If you’re already claiming, I encourage you to contact me to explore whether we can improve the process or result. If your practice isn’t claiming, please contact me to book a free exploratory review. Our fee is contingent on the bene昀t you receive, so the only risk from starting the process is a few hours of your team’s time.

+44(0)7948 281571

andy.hastie@invennt.com

Andy Hastie Invennt

ACA CPD EVENTS

ACA CPD events

May

ACA Drinks Networking Event

Tuesday 21st May at 6pm

The Horseshoe Inn Pub, 21 Melior Street, London SE1 3QP

UK Construction Week - London

7th - 9th May - Excel London

September

ACA Annual General Meeting

4th September at 6pm over Zoom

October

UK Construction Week - Birmingham

1st - 3rd October - NEC Birmingham

November

London Build 2024 Expo

20th - 21st November - London

Olympia

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

ACA Forms of Appointment

The ACA produces two architectural appointments.

The highly successful ACA SFA 2012 - Standard Form of Agreement for the Appointment of an Architect which is being refreshed and due to be published Spring 2024 and secondly, our refreshed contract of architectural appointment; the ACA PSA22 which is for small and domestic works.

Download the worked example of SFA 2012 edition (with updates) as a ‘taster’ from here: https://tinyurl.com/ 1mt7tuf6

ACA PUBLICATIONS

GO TO: https://acarchitects.co.uk/shop/ and http://allianceforms.co.uk

The ACA publishes a number of key documents used extensively by the building professions and within the industry. They are divided into the general sections below for clarity.

The ACA recommends the following as best practice guidance: incorporation of terms by reference

1. Ensure you complete and sign an appropriate and current Standard Form of Agreement / Contract at the outset. This should prevent misunderstandings on what has been agreed.

2. Agree the scope of services within the Agreement / Contract with the Client. Clarify what is included and the cost. This should avoid the risk of unlimited liability

3. Consider the effect of any proposed amendments to the Standard Form

ACA Suite of Partnering Contracts, PPC2000, TPC2005 and SPC2000 and related Guidance

The current publications are:

PPC2000 (Amended 2013) – ACA Standard Form of Contract for Project Partnering

TPC2005 (Amended 2008) – ACA Standard Form of Contract for Term Partnering

SPC2000 (Amended 2008) – ACA Standard Form of Specialist Contract for Project Partnering

SPC2000 Short From (Issued 2010) – ACA Standard Form of Specialist Contract for Project Partnering

STPC2005 (Issued 2010) – ACA Standard Form of Specialist Contract for Term Partnering Guide to ACA Project Partnering Contracts

PPC2000 and SPC2000

Guide to ACA Term Partnering Contracts

TPC2005 and STPC2005

Introduction to Pricing Under PPC2000

Introduction to Pricing Under TPC2005

PPC(S) – Scottish Supplement to PPC2000

If you are starting a new building project, you should use the latest versions of each contract which contain incorporated amendments.

There is a PPC2000 dedicated website at www.ppc2000.co.uk for further information on ACA/ACE suite of partnering contracts. To learn more about the range of projects that have been procured using PPC2000 and TPC2005 you can download the free publication which features 28 case studies: 10 Years of PPC2000

ACA Suite of Alliance Contracts

FAC-1 and TAC-1

and ensure you take appropriate legal advice. Avoid jeopardising good working relationships.

4. Ensure all terms of any agreement / contract are clearly set out and that none are “incorporated by reference” as these will not appear within what you sign. If necessary ensure terms of agreement are signed separately. Don’t waste time and avoid costly disputes

The entire publications catalogue is available to view on the PPublications Shop page at https://acarchitects.co.uk/shop/with a short description of each, costs and their ISBN numbers.

The current publications are:

FAC-1 - Framework Alliance Contract

TAC-1 – Term Alliance Contract

Visit the dedicated website at www.allianceforms.co.uk for further information and detailed guidance.

ACA Forms of Architectural Appointment

The ACA produces two architectural appointments.

The highly successful ACA SFA 2012 - Standard Form of Agreement for the Appointment of an Architect which is being refreshed and due to be published in the Spring and secondly, our refreshed contract of architectural appointment; the ACA PSA22 which is for small and domestic works.  Available only in a digital format £36 plus VAT, however, pricing includes cover copies for both parts of the agreement.

Now available in unlimited copies on subscription: see article in this ACAnews.

ACA SFA 2012 has been updated and a refreshed SFA24 contract will be published in the Spring. The English version is now available at £22 per copy or £20 per copy when two or more copies are purchased.

A full sample ‘worked’ copy of the ACA SFA 2008 edition (with updates) appointment document is available to view free on the Taster pages.

Other building related Contracts and documents

The ACA produces other documents including: ACA Form of Building Agreement

ACA form of Subcontract

ACA Certificates for use with ACA Building Agreements.

Architects, Chartered Architects and Architectural Derivatives – A guide to who should help with your building project: To help your clients understand the difference between architects, architectural technicians, architectural technologists and other classifications of design professionals, the ACA in collaboration with the ARB, CIAT and RIAS have produced an information leaflet which can be downloaded from Consumer information leaflet DOWNLOAD version.

Tasters

More complete descriptions and some ‘Tasters’ of the main ACA documents may be viewed on the ‘Tasters’ pages. Order documents via the website on the Order Form at https://acarchitects.co.uk/shop/

If you are ordering more than five copies of any publications, or are ordering from overseas, please contact us at office@acarchitects.co.uk to arrange for a bespoke shipping quote and discounted costs on the publications.

Please see our terms and conditions of trading ACA Publication purchase T & Cs n

Tim Hoskins - Turner & Hoskins Architects

Keith Brannan - Mason Brannan Architects

Rachel Hurley - studioHA Ltd

Philip Benton - Vellow Wood Architecture

Richard Claridge - Richard Claridge Architect

Christopher Hill - Chris Hill Architects

Jacobus Lombard

Deon Lombard Architects

Pierre Saunal - Airc.design

James Smith – Smith Architects Ltd

Sarah Ekanda / SME Architecture Ltd

Arminas Panavas / MJ Architects

Welcome to new members ACA is growing

Alan McBeth / McBeth Design Ltd

John Mahoney / J Mahoney Architects Ltd

Nigel Waumsley / Radius Associates Ltd

Tony Day / Alpha Design Studio Ltd

Padraic Gorman/ Northern Architects

Ali Rashid / Ali Rashid Architect

Jonathan Woodcock

Composition Design Ltd

Martin Saluzzo / Wave Architects

Jeremy Humphries

Modus Architects Limited

Amal Dias Weerasinha / Z.ARC Limited

In order for the ACA to have more of an effective voice and representation when providing Government consultations and lobbying parliament, we are always looking for new members.

Membership is FREE so do spread the word to colleagues. and be sure to follow us on (NEW!): ACA@groups.io and

LinkedIn The Association of Consultant Architects

Twitter/X @ArchitectureACA

SCANNING SERVICES

Digitise your old and new records, whether its for archiving purposes or photocopying. We collect, scan and return your originals back.

OUR

PRODUCTS

Visit our website for the full list of products

Standard Business Cards

A4 Perfect Bound Brochure Notepads

A4 Stapled Bound Brochure

A4 Wire Brochure Foam Boards