ACANews AUTUMN 2023 by brianwaters1

News ACANews AUTUMN 2023

The end of design & build and ‘value engineering’?

The new mandatory role of Building Regulations Principal Designer page 15

The changes are not asking the construction industry to build to different standards, they are telling it to behave to different standards, says Hywel Davies On 17 August the government published new regulations for higher-risk buildings (HRBs) and major changes to the Building Regulations that will enable further parts of the Building Safety Act to be fully implemented in England on 1 October 2023. These changes, which implement what has previously been set out and consulted upon, will fundamentally reform the way that design and construction appointments are made. The Building Regulations (Amendments etc) (England) Regulations 2023 introduce new dutyholder and competence requirements for both practitioners and clients. Part 2A includes 17 new regulations covering the duties, competence and behaviour of clients, designers and contractors. Part 2A also creates the new roles and duties of the principal designer and contractor, which apply to all buildings and are distinct from existing construction design and management duties. For those responsible for managing an occupied HRB or for managing building work in, or to create, a new HRB, there are two new sets of regulations. The Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (England) Regulations 2023 set out the new buildingcontrol system for HRBs. Meanwhile, the Higher-Risk Buildings (Management of Safety Risks etc) (England) Regulations 2023 cover the operational management of all HRBs in occupation. The new rules require all parties working on HRBs to provide evidence that the installation meets the requirements of the fire and structural safety regulations. To do this, the Building Safety Act divides the

excellence in practice

lifecycle of a building into three ‘gateways’ (planning and design; construction; and completion), to ensure building safety is considered at every stage, and to ensure the original design intent is preserved and changes managed through a formal review process widely known as the ‘golden thread’.

What’s changed? The impact of these changes will be significant. For example, as of 1 October, it is a requirement that HRB designs will have to have been completed before construction can commence. It is no longer acceptable for schemes to be submitted with elements of the design incomplete or “contractor to finalise this design” notes. While this requirement is not quite an outright ban on design-and-build for HRB projects, it is very close to one because the complete design must be submitted for approval at the outset. Similarly, value engineering should largely disappear from the HRB lexicon, too. As often as not, this is the stage where design cohesion starts to disappear from the finished product. Between gateways two (construction) and three (completion), there will be mandatory change-control procedures. If a decision is made to change some component within the building, that change will have to be recorded and, depending on the type of change, the regulator too may need to be informed. What’s more, contractors need to be aware that if they, a client or the designer wants to make a major CONTINUES on page 10 >>>

QUIZ: Where were these pictures taken? page 16

Howden, ACA’S preferred indemnity insurance broker page 26

www.acarchitects.co.uk

FROM THE PRESIDENT

New responsibilities, new planning fees, no more ‘free go’, and more ACA President Patrick Inglis previews the contents of this newsletter

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

There have been a number of significant developments effecting architects that have come into force in the last few months. The most significant of these is a key part of the Building Safety Act 2022, which came into effect on 1 October 2023. From this date a new mandatory role of Building Regulations Principal Designer will be required for any construction projects, which are subject to building regulations approval. A new building control regime for higher risk buildings (HRBs) also came into effect. In the ACA’s view the new role of Building Regulations Principal Designer presents an opportunity for architects to earn additional fees and regain more control over construction projects. The role is intended to be carried out by the designer in control of the design phase of the project and is therefore most suited for architects to perform. More on this role can be found on page 15. For many architects already providing a full architectural service, the additional work to act as Building Regulations Principal Designer will not be significant as they will already be doing much of the co-ordination work anyway in their role as architect and lead designer. However, the changes may have significant impacts on certain areas of construction such as D&B as Hywel Davies discusses in his article The end of design & build and ‘value engineering’? on the front page. The Levelling-up and Regeneration bill has also received royal assent. This will increase planning fees significantly and also bring various changes to the planning system including removing the “free go” if a planning application is refused or withdrawn, shortening the period after which a council owes a refund of planning fees for failing to determine an application to 16 weeks and making extending the period for enforcement of planning breaches to 10 years in all cases and removing the 4 year rule that previously applied to some physical works and change of use to residential.

This last requires secondary legislations so there may be a window of opportunity to obtain a Certificate of Lawfulness if you act fast. Andy Rogers has more details along with commentary on Labour’s current promises from page 4. We are delighted to announce our new Research and Development Consultant partner Inventt. Invent specialise in providing advice to architects on claiming R&D tax credits and provide an overview of some of the benefits in an feature on page 16 - Turn problem solving into profit. Architects are always complaining about the quality of decision making at planning committees across the country. To address the problem, Ian Donaldson argues Architects should become Councillors themselves as he did and fill the skills gap with their expertise to give the planning system a boost. See page 5. The ACA has as ever been busy responding to government consultations on behalf of members and the profession more widely. As part of this work the ACA recently responded to a consultation on changes to permitted development rights. A summary of our response is on page 7. For members looking for management consultancy advice, Robert Peake of Management for Design offers his advice on successfully Leading an architectural practice on page 11. The government has been promoting the idea of “beauty” in the built environment and has been pushing National design codes to try and codify this idea. However as Paul Finch argues on page 22 Beauty can’t be planned. Lastly as the latest in a succession of governments continues to fail to hit their targets for house building LandSec’s Mike Hood says that with the right conditions there is enormous potential in brownfield sites in Brownfield bonus on page 23. Until next time.

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

CONTENTS

Page: 1 The end of design & build and ‘value engineering’? – Hywel Davies 2 from the President New responsibilities, new planning fees, no more ‘free go’, and more 4 ACAPAG planning report Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill enacted but awaits secondary legislation Architects should become Councillors – Ian T Donaldson Permitted Development Rights consultation: the ACA response Planning fees on the up! 11 Business support for members – Robert Peake Leading an architectural practice 15 Patrick Inglis explains the new mandatory role of Building Regulations Principal Designer 17 UK Construction Week returns with record visitors 16 QUIZ: Where were these pictures taken? 21 Launching a ground breaking Architect Appointment subscription service 22 London Planning & Development Forum 22 Beauty can’t be planned – Paul Finch 23 The brownfield bonus – Mike Hood of LandSec 26 Howden, ACA’S preferred indemnity insurance broker 28 Council and Officers 30 Collaborative Procurement: David Mosey The FAC-1 Framework Alliance Contract – A Handbook 31 Constructing the Gold Standard 32 New ACA overlay to the RIBA Plan of Work 33 Question Time: With John Assael 35 BOOKS: Modern Buildings in London, Ian Nairn 36 Architectural appointments: New small and simple works appointment agreement out now! 38 ACA CPD events 39 ACA Forms of Appointment 40 ACA publications 41 New members

www.allianceforms.co.uk

42 ARB’s consultation on a scheme for CPD

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

ACAPAG PLANNING REPORT ACA excellence in practice

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill enacted but awaits secondary legislation The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act became law on 26th

LURB gets Royal October. Most of the sections directly related to development management and plan-making have not yet comAssent but menced or don’t have a start date and will also require secmost planning ondary legislation. The Bill went through the final report stage in the House law needs of Lords, where several amendments were passed, notably secondary one that would allow local planning authorities to set their own planning application fees and several clauses in respect legislation to of tighter climate change and “healthy homes” regulations. come into At the same time the House of Lords rejected a government effect, reports amendment that would have meant authorities would be told to assume developments would not “adversely affect” areas Andy Rogers affected by Natural England’s nutrient neutrality advice: as a result the government stated that a “further announcement about next steps” would be made “in due course” - widely expected to be a stand-alone bill to clarify the situation. Please refer to the last Newsletter for a full summary of the bill’s proposals and changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). A detailed report on how the revised planning system should operate will be included in the next Newsletter, when the full text of the Act and timescales for implementation of its many clauses are eventually published. The Act contains an ambitious and far-reaching programme, but much of the detail will require secondary legislation and a great deal of further information.

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

NPPF reissued The NPPF has been reissued, with some minor changes, relaxed planning rules for onshore wind production, and a redrafted Chapter 14 on climate change, renewable and low carbon energy, and so on. It is expected that the NPPF will eventually be revised and/or rewritten more widely, but there is no timetable for this, although DLUHC has suggested that a draft update might be issued “in the autumn”.

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

Planning fees to rise Meanwhile, with regard to planning fees, draft regulations to raise nationally-set fees by 35 per cent for major applications and 25 per cent for all others have been laid before Parliament. The DLUHC recently confirmed that, subject only to relevant Parliamentary approvals, these fee increases will come into force “before the end of the year” with an expected activation date of 1st April 2024. But the increases will not be ring-fenced for planning purposes, even though this was supported by over 80% of the responses to this year’s earlier consultation on planning fees. BNG delayed Other government announcements include postponement of the requirement to deliver 10 per cent Biodiversity Net Gain regulations from this November to January 2024 (April 2024 for smaller sites), with fully detailed guidance and regulations to be in place before the beginning of December; and consultations on developments affecting ancient woodlands, the proposed new Infrastructure Levy, and National Development Management Policies proposals. However two major consultations, on revised arrangements for the production of Local Plans and a greater flexibility for many Permitted Development Rights (particularly with regard to agricultural land), have been published and as usual the ACA Planning Action Group has submitted comments on these to the government. The proposed 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. We believe that the reforms in general are well-considered and should operate as an improvement to the current system, but we are concerned that there is no mention of sanctions or any machinery for ensuring that individual authorities follow

www.acarchitects.co.uk

IAN DONALDSON

the new procedures in a timely way, which is a main reason why the existing system for plan-making has not functioned properly. We are also very concerned that the new procedures could be seen as more onerous than the existing, with no clear reference to resources which is another reason why the present system does not work well.

Exclude technical matters from planning We are also very concerned that local plans should not be required to include technical matters, such as compliance with building and environmental health regulations, unless these are to be raised from the national standards to satisfy specific local conditions. ACA believes that plans should concentrate on planning policy issues, with all detailed and measurable considerations relegated to later consideration once the principle of development with regard to local planning policies has been established. This will greatly reduce the technical inputs presently demanded for the validation of applications and focus planning officers on planning policy issues. Planning promises from Labour Upcoming changes to the planning system are more likely to derive from the promises of His Majesty’s Opposition than from the current government. A list of promises were made at the labour party conference. Of particular note is the several items backtracking from democracy and public consultation. This may seem odd if not ironical coming from the Labour Party but many in the profession feel the weight given both in the processing and the time taken and in the consequences of objections has gone too far. So, for example, labour are promising, new new towns. The fundamental aim of the still extant New Towns Act is to eliminate local democracy from the designated site of the town so as to proceed to compulsory purchase the land and carry out the development in accordance with its plan without the involvement, other than by diplomatic membership of its board, of the local planning authorities. Other examples are to fast-track planning for priority infrastructure projects, a return to more strategic planning, and above all, the promise to make NIMBY-ism a source of shame! The Labour leader vowed that in government he would “get tough with” local opponents to new development.

Architects should become Councillors Ian T Donaldson AADipl RIBA ACArch explains why Architects should become Councillors and assist with the formation of future planning policies I have heard many Architects complain about unreasonable decisions being made by Local Planning Authorities. If you don’t like it then you can do and, in my opinion, should do something to have some more direct influence on local planning decisions. Become a Councillor! Most Councils are short of Councillors and local political parties, particularly Residents Associations are usually delighted to accept new candidates for local election. Most Council meetings take place in the evenings so that working Councillors can attend. It is not that onerous and can at times be very rewarding. I was a Councillor for 12 years and sat on both the Main Planning Committee and Area planning sub-committee as well as other committees such as Community Affairs. During the time that I was a Councillor there were 4 Architects on the Council and I think that we had a positive influence on the outcome of certain planning decisions. One of the Architects had a great deal to do with the production of a revised Local Plan and he introduced various diagrams to illustrate planning policies that made it much easier to follow. Now, I understand, that there are no Architects on the Council and I believe that planning decisions have suffered as a result. There is now a plethora of SPD’s DM’s etc with very few meaningful diagrams and it is very time consuming trying to cross reference these documents to find the required information As a Councillor I soon learned that important planning decisions are being made by Planning Committees made up of Councillors who have little experience of the economics of various types of building developments and even less experience of building design or the evolutionary process of architectural design. Most minor Planning decisions such as private houses and extensions are made under delegated

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

powers by planning officers. Unfortunately there are very few qualified planning officers and so they tend to be guided by what has been considered to be acceptable before. Councillors are elected by their local residents and therefore mainly see themselves as the guardians of the Status Quo. Change is suspect. More of the same is usually the most acceptable path to tread. I remember that there was one particular Avenue where the residents had formed a Committee Their Avenue consisted almost entirely of rather non-descript bungalows that were sited in large plots of land and they objected on principle to every new application that was a house and not a bungalow and they often turned up in force at planning meetings. Woe be-tide any Developer or even worse one of their own residents that dare put forward an application for a house or even two houses on these very ample plots. Certain Estates were designated as special low-density areas but this particular avenue was not one of them. The Local Plan had a policy to generally increase housing density in order to meet Government targets. The Residents argued vociferously that allowing two storey houses at a greater density would ruin the character of the area and reduce their house values. I think that the Architects amongst us were able to point to neighbourhoods where welldesigned houses built at a reasonable density had a beneficial effect on the character of the area and so it turned out that after a number of good quality houses were permitted the whole neighbourhood became in great demand and bungalows were sold at a considerable increase in value. The aesthetic character of the area was also improved rather than diminished. Sometime later I happened to meet one of the most active residents and he said that he was now very happy with the design and appearance of the >>>

IAN DONALDSON ACA excellence in practice

>>> two storey houses that had been built. He even admitted that he himself had now bult two houses on his plot one for himself and the other was rented out. As a result he had been able to financially help his two children through University because of his increased income and the asset value of his land. A rather up-market girls school made an application to build a Performing Arts Centre on their land but local residents objected mainly because it was designated as being located in the green belt. I was able to convince the local planning committee that although I thoroughly supported the principle of the green belt policy this particular application had nothing to do with the main green belt parameters. 1. The site did not provide a buffer zone between communities, 2.It did not provide “green lungs” as the whole school site was heavily wooded and the site for the new Arts Centre was in an area that had been used for storage. 3. It was not available to the public. It was a private school in the middle of a wood and was not either visually or physically open to the public. I am pleased to say that the Planning committee agreed that the proposed Performing Arts Centre would provide a major asset to the school and to the community and that it did not conflict with the three main parameters of the green belt. Together with other architects we were able to make a similar argument for a housing development in a largely unused area within the boundary of Whitely Village. For those of you who do not know Whitely Village it is a remarkable example of a very benevolent gesture by William Whitely, the owner of the Whitely Department Store. He made a bequest of £1million pounds upon his death in 1907 (worth £120 million today) for the construction of a village to house those of limited financial means. This resulted in the development of 250 alms houses in a unique octagonal village configuration strongly influenced by the architect Reginald Blomfield and the Arts and crafts Movement Over a hundred years had passed since it’s original construction and the village now urgently needed repairs and modernisation. This would require a considerable amount of finance to be raised and although some moneys were available from the Borough and local charities they were nowhere

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

near sufficient and it was clear that the only way of raising the necessary funds was to sell a rather under-used corner of the site for housing development. Again we were able to show that the proposed site did not provide a buffer zone between communities, It did not provide green lungs and it was not open to the public either visually or physically. There were quite a number of privately owned estates nearby and I well remember that the expected siren call of the abominable no-men loudly raised their voices. It was in the green belt, It would conflict with the original concept of the village, it would affect traffic in the area, it would affect their house prices. With guidance from myself and other architects we were able to persuade the committee to permit this development and it has now been in existence for several years. The sale of the land raised the necessary finance and made a dramatic difference to the living conditions in Whitely Village. We had quite a fight on our hands to get it permitted at the time but now most people are totally unaware of the new housing development nestled in the wood. It has had no noticeable affect on traffic and has probable increased the value of local property. The Planning Committee was faced with a proposal for a new Town Centre Development. The new Shopping Mall meant that one end emerged into the High Street and a shop would have to be demolished. The residents and their local Councillors were outraged. They loved this shop because it had a mock Tudor half-timbered elevation. How dare they demolish this lovely shop for the construction of a commercial development that they did not really want. It became obvious that the planning committee also did not really like the idea and could not visualise what the new shopping Mall would look like and could not really see the advantage of a covered shopping street. Myself and other architects on the committee suggested that the Developer should temporarily withdraw the scheme and come back with 3D visuals of what the Mall and particularly the Main Entrance would look like. At a subsequent meeting the Developer’s Architect was able to demonstrate that the new shopping mall would become one of the principal streets in the Town and would provide an elegant and pleasant place that would greatly enhance the shopping experience. It would also attract more people to shop in the town and benefit other shops. He explained that the mock Tudor

frontage of the shop to be demolished was probably built in the 1920’s and had nothing to do with the historical context of Tudor England. He also explained that architectural design was at it’s best when it reflected the design aesthetic of the age when it was built. The constant evolution of building design was what made architectural design interesting. This Shopping Centre has now been built and is successful and well liked. People come to the town because it has good parking and a Shopping Centre where they can shop and browse in comfort. Looking back, I have to wonder whether it would have been built at all if we architects had not been able to contribute our thoughts and guidance to the planning process. In the 1960’s I worked for a while as an architect in Sweden. I was very impressed with the way that when a significant project was being considered then all of the people that were concerned including planners, highways, schools, hospitals, trains, busses even journalists got together around a table. They formed what was called a Steering Committee. That way they were able to identify possible problems at a very early stage when the architect and developer only had a sketch design. All of the participants got to know each other and formed a team so that they could thrash out many of the problems on the phone and come up with carefully considered designs that were realistic and planning permission would be granted usually as a matter of course. Why can’t we do this in the UK? It seems to me that this much more positive approach would save a great deal of everyone’s time and money. This is the modern way. The way that cars, ships and planes are already developed. Isn’t it time that buildings were treated in much the same way. I know that someone will say that buildings are a one-off unique design that has to be tailor made for their purpose. But now computers and 3D printing allow for one offs. I recently visited the Mini car production line near Oxford. Robots build electric and petrol cars of different designs all on the same production line. The Robots changed their “gloves” to deal with different parts. Just a thought! Quantum computing and AI is just around the corner. We need an entirely different and much more positive team approach to design and planning. if Architects don’t play a major part then someone else will and Architects could be as redundant as mock Tudor!!! n

www.acarchitects.co.uk

PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CONSULTATION

Permitted Development Rights consultation: the ACA response The ACA responded to the latest Government consultation on permitted development rights. Previous experience suggests it is very likely that the proposed changes will be implemented regardless of what consultees say. here’s a summary

We do not agree that prior approvals for design or external appearance in existing permitted development rights should be replaced by consideration of design codes where they are in place locally because good design codes are rare and when they exist they are used too rigidly and tend to squash inventive good design. Beauty cannot be codified or standardised. The permitted development right for the change of use from the Commercial, Business and Service use class (Use Class E) to residential (Class MA of Part 3), should be amended to remove the limit on the amount of floorspace that can change use. The whole point of permitted development is to widen the opportunity for new housing so any restrictions or limits should be kept to the absolute minimum. We don’t agree that permitted development rights should support the change of use of hotels, boarding houses or guest houses (Use Class C1) to dwellinghouses, but only because some local areas need more control over tourist uses. Safeguards that should be considered if this change of use is supported include the option of applying for planning permission that can be granted with a condition restricting short term lets. We believe that changes to Class MA will lead to the delivery of new homes that would not have been brought forward under a planning application: more flexibility and simplification helps. The right for the change of use from hot food takeaways, betting offices, pay day loan shops and launderettes (Class M of Part 3) should be amended to remove the limit on the amount of floorspace that can change use, because pd rights should be as wide as possible; and we agree that the existing right should be amended to no longer apply to launderettes, but only because some local areas need launderettes as a social benefit. The right for the change of use from amusement arcades and centres, and casinos (Class N of Part 3) should also be amended to remove the limit on the amount of floorspace that can change use. We agree that the right (Class M of Part 3) should be amended to replace the existing date on which the building must have been in use as a hot food takeaway, betting office, pay day loan shop or launderette instead to a two-year rolling requirement, and that the right (Class N of Part 3) should be amended to replace the existing date on which the building must have been in use as

an amusement arcade or centre, or casino instead to two-year rolling requirement, because simplification is key. We agree that changes to Class M and N will lead to the delivery of new homes that would not have been brought forward under a planning application, but not in great numbers. We agree that the right (Class G of Part 3) should be expanded to allow for mixed use residential above other existing uses and the right should apply to all uses to allow greater simplification. We also agree that the number of flats that may be delivered under this right should be doubled from two to four. We agree that the smaller and larger home size limits within the agricultural buildings to dwellinghouses right (Class Q of Part 3) should be replaced with a single maximum floorspace limit of 150 square metres per dwellinghouse, to allow for more family homes: and that an overall limit on the amount of floorspace that can change use, set at 1,000 square metres, should be introduced for the agricultural buildings to dwellinghouses. Also the five home limit within the agricultural buildings to dwellinghouses should be increased to allow up to a total of 10 homes to be delivered within an agricultural unit. We agree that the permitted development right for the change of use from agricultural buildings to residential use should be amended to allow for an extension to be erected as part of the change of use on previously developed land, to allow greater flexibility of design; and.that a prior approval be introduced, allowing for the consideration of the impacts of an extension on the amenity of neighbouring premises, including overlooking, privacy and light - if neighbours do not object then the pd right must apply. We further agree that buildings should have an existing floorspace of at least 37 square metres to benefit from this right; and that the right should be amended to apply to other buildings on agricultural units that may not have been solely used for agricultural purposes (including agricultural buildings that are no longer part of an agricultural unit). All uses should benefit from the right, which should be kept as open as possible. We don’t agree that any existing building must already have an existing suitable access to a public highway to benefit from the right means of access can be provided by upgrading the existing or if >>>

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

ACA PLANNING ACTION GROUP ACA excellence in practice

An example of a successful PD conversion of offices to homes Addington Capital, the developer, is underway with the conversion of Stockdale House which will provide 70 high quality apartments “with spectacular views across the City and will meet the growing need of today’s renters in Leeds”, they say. “The Stockdale House development completes the conversion of Headingley Park from an in-town office park to a 100% residential development. We believe that this is an exemplar for Permitted Development conversion of offices to residential and a road map for future schemes.” It was the last PD scheme of its kind in Leeds before the size of such conversions was limited to 1500sq m. Headingley Park is currently ranked “The best place to live in Leeds” by HomeViews.

>>> necessary applying for planning permission. Usually access through a shared farmyard will be sufficient. We agree that minor changes to the scope of the building operations permitted by the right, such as raising the ridge line by up to 200mm (for example to allow for proper insulation) should be permitted. Also the current planning practice guidance in respect of the change of use of agricultural buildings to residential use should be amended make it simpler. We agree that permitted development rights should support the change of use of buildings in other predominantly rural uses to residential (subject to a sensible definition of “rural uses” - which we assume includes everything that isn’t residential or business Class E). We agree that permitted development rights should support the change of use of other buildings in a predominantly rural land use to a flexible commercial use; and that the right be amended to allow for buildings and land within its curtilage to be used for outdoor sports, recreation or fitness. We also agree that the right be amended to allow buildings to change use to general industrial, limited to only allow the processing of raw goods produced on the site and which are to be sold on the site, excluding livestock; and to allow for

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

the change of uses to any other flexible commercial uses, including a mix of uses. Also the right should be amended to increase the total amount of floorspace that can change use to 1,000 square metres; and the ground area limit of new buildings or extensions erected under the right should be increased from 1,000 to 1,500 square metres, to provide greater flexibility. Also the right should be amended to allow extensions of up to 25% above the original building cubic content, and the ground area of any building extended should be allowed to reach 1,250 square metres. Finally, we agree that the maximum floorspace limit for the extension or alteration to a Commercial, Business and Service establishment on non-protected land should be increased to either 200 square metres or a 100% increase over the original building, whichever is lesser, and that the maximum floorspace of a new industrial and/or warehousing building on non-protected land permitted under the Part 7 Class H permitted development right should be amended to 400 square metres, with the maximum floorspace of a new industrial and/or warehousing extension on non-protected land increased to either 1,500 square metres or a 75% increase over the original building, whichever is lesser. n

www.acarchitects.co.uk

PLANNING APPLICATION FEES

Planning fees on the up! The Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 have been made

The increase to planning fees applies from 6 December 2023. Fee levels will be reviewed no later than three years following implementation and raised in line with inflation each April1. This means applications submitted on or after 6 December 2023 will use the new fee regime, subject to transitional and savings provisions2. The headlines are as follows: • A 35% initial increase in planning application fees for major applications; • A 25% increase for all other applications which include prior approval applications, minor and householder applications; • Fees to rise yearly with inflation from 1 April 2025 (capped at 10%, measured by the Consumer Price Index from the preceding September); • Removal of the 'free go' for repeat applications; • A reduction in the 'planning guarantee period' for nonmajor applications from 26 weeks to 16 weeks, unless extended in exceptional circumstances; and • No ringfencing of planning fees. Lichfields have listed the new fees and commented on the changes. Extracts follow. Find their paper here: https://tinyurl.com/y6hrfzn3 All repeat applications will soon incur a fee – the free go is (almost) gone The ‘free go’ for repeat applications is coming to an end, from 6 December 2023 – subject to savings provisions. Currently, for many application, where applicants reapply within 12 months of submitting an application for development of the same character or description on the same site, subject to certain conditions, they can do so without paying a fee. Repeat applications submitted and found valid on 5 December 2023 or sooner will continue to benefit from the free go, if they meet the necessary conditions. The ability to do so will start to disappear from 6 December 2023. Free go applications will only start to disappear, rather than immediately stop, because the saving provisions mean that applicants can continue to benefit from the free go, after 6 December 2023, where the necessary conditions are met,

notably that the 12 month potential resubmission period for a repeat application on a given site is still running. Therefore, it is our understanding that it will take a year for this amendment to have full effect, because the free go provision will be available to certain applications determined up to and including 5 December 2023. Government guidance will likely provide clarity on this point. The removal of the free go is designed to “encourage applicants to engage in pre-application discussions and support the submission of high-quality applications first time round”. However, this viewpoint fails to acknowledge the political nature of planning that can lead to officer recommendations being overturned and the desire of applicants to resubmit and re-engage locally rather than proceeding to appeal. Late last year, the Planning Inspectorate encouraged such re-engagement. In (Lichfield’s) view, the ‘free go’ recognises that schemes evolve for market reasons and in response to concerns raised by consultees, officers, members and/or the community. It is too simplistic to say that removal of the free go will lead to better use of pre-application advice services (which are not always available) or the submission of higher quality applications. Some LPAs might also be incentivised to reject applications within the statutory time limits, regardless of the suitability of the application, to receive a second set of planning fees. A common concern throughout the consultation was that the removal of the free-go could lead to more appeals, for which there is no fee, with a consequential unfunded resource pressure on local authorities. As a result of this proposal, there is certainly potential for the number of appeals to increase rather than a greater uptake of pre-application services, which remain stretched. FOOTNOTES 1 The Government initially laid the Regulations before Parliament in draft on 20 July, alongside a response to the February 2023 consultation “Stronger performance of local planning authorities supported through an increase in planning fees”, stating its intention to increase fees over summer, which was delayed. The Consultation response stated that fees will be reviewed by the Secretary of State no later than three years from when they come into force. 2 Savings provisions to the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 (legislation.gov.uk)

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

FROM PAGE 1 ACA excellence in practice

From page 1 >>> change once construction is underway, then work will have to halt until the regulator approves the change – and the regulator will have weeks, not days, to review. Further, the onus will be on those proposing the change to show that the proposed change is Building Regulations-compliant – it is not up to the regulator to pick apart the design to find out whether the change can be applied. The intention of all of this is, in some ways, very similar to the intentions of Egan and Latham, both of whom were looking for practices to change in the industry. The difference now is that these changes are covered by legislation; they are not guidance or recommendations – they are the law. No surprises Before people start to raise their hands and complain that these regulations are far too complicated to implement in such a short time, the changes should hardly have come as a surprise to anyone in the industry. They were first called for by Dame Judith Hackitt’s review more than five years ago, then confirmed when the government accepted all her recommendations at the end of 2018. Further indications were contained in the consultation on implementing the report in 2019 before the passage of the Building Safety Act introduced the enabling powers for these procedures in 2022. In any case, they are largely procedural changes because

schemes were always meant to have complied with the Building Regulations. All that these changes set out to do is to implement a much more rigorous process for demonstrating the compliance that should always have been achieved. Will the deadline be met? Not immediately, because the way it works for many in construction is to wait for the regulations to come into effect and then play catch-up. All HRBs, for example, have to be registered by the end of September. At the end of July it was reported that 20 per cent had started the process and only around 1,500, or one in 10, had completed it. Professional bodies such as CIBSE are working together with the Construction Leadership Council and its constituent bodies to provide further industry guidance on these regulations. This is to help clients, principal designers and contractors, and accountable persons to meet the new obligations in a safe, reasonable and proportionate manner. The changes are not asking the construction industry to build to different standards, they are telling it to behave to different standards. The industry has an opportunity to demonstrate a willingness to embrace these reforms and rebuild public trust in what we do. It will not be easy or quick, but it needs to be done. Hywel Davies is chief technical officer of the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE). This was first published in Construction News, with kind consent

The Orion - now Citadînes - opposite Golden Lane housing in the Barbican An example of a successful D&B project, the UK’s first apart-hotel. The French client to architects BWCP retained the architect through the job from inception to handover with authority over the contractor and the certification of payments. To make an early start on site BWCP provided interior design as work proceeded for all common parts, lobby etc against provisional sums. Guests were in occupation on the completion date and the job came in on budget. The French client had not built in the UK before and was insistent that his architect have full authority over what was built, having to approve drawings produced for the contractor, though the engineers were appointed by the contractor and ‘made available’ under a reibursement agreement for early design stages before the contract was signed.

Hywel Davies is chief technical officer of the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE)

www.ACArchitects.co.uk www.ppc2000.co.uk www.allianceforms.co.uk

ACA Secretariat office@acarchitects.co.uk

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

Director of Enterprise Alison Low Chief Operating Officer Melanie Hern

@ArchitectureACA @ppc2000

LinkedIn: The Association of Consultant Architects

www.acarchitects.co.uk

BUSINESS SUPPORT FOR MEMBERS

Leading an architectural practice Robert Peake of Management for Design says Your business can be the vehicle that enables you to shape and control your destiny – both in life and your career

Robert Peake is principal at Management for Design

In architectural practices, it’s common for leaders to be the face of the business, to nurture existing and future clients, as well as be the key initiators of design. But it’s often also the case that leaders have a challenging time separating themselves from the day to day activities of the business—allowing for time and energy to focus on building the business, improving the operations, surrounding themselves with great people, and nurturing the future leaders. This approach often results in profitability taking a back seat to producing brilliant design, which is great for the clients, but not so great for the Architectural Practice. As a leader of a Architectural Practice you are confronted by a set of circumstances (challenges) that are somewhat unique: • Often the leader is the face of the business • Leaders are typically the key initiator of design and client relationships • Leaders have a difficult time separating themselves from the day to day activities of the business • Leaders often don’t share financials • Effective business management is considered secondary to other considerations, including design capability, client relationships, and delivering projects • Profit and profitability can take a back seat to producing great design • The entrepreneurial drive of the founders is usually not found in the second generation • Client relationships tend to be deeper, stronger, and more personalised How important are sound business principles in your business? How do you demonstrate and drive this? Do you have a culture of empowerment? It’s incumbent on business leaders to lead by example and set the tone. Not only that, entrepreneurial vision and drive are often not inherent in the next tier of management, so enthusiasm for your vision, clear strategic objectives that filter through to every aspect of the business, and empowering your people are key to driving your business forward. What are the priorities for your business and how do you communicate these to your team? Do you pursue a culture of trust, sharing, collaboration, empowerment, performance, and

profit? Talk about what you believe in, be open, and address those values in the everyday conversations that you’re having with your people. Use phrases that are inclusive of the collective whole of your business, using the tone and language that reinforces ‘this is important to us’

Successful leaders, more often than not, exhibit the following personal qualities: • Have a clear purpose • Keep to clear and actionable goals and priorities • Are relationship builders • Understand and challenge their people • Understand the true value of their time • Constantly ask themselves ‘am I the right person to be doing this’ • Focus on what will make a difference • Accept and embrace performance criteria • Are realistic (self-assessment) • Follow up and create energy • Effectively balance life and work • Let go of design decisions and client relationships • Mentor others • Actively pursue professional development In most architectural practices there are critical elements of the business that the leaders need to drive and ensure they contribute to continuously – the ‘business drivers’. In a design business, these are typically to generate work, to nurture client relationships and to design and deliver great work. But what about all the areas of the business? For an architectural practice to be truly successful, the leaders’ attention is needed across strategy, communications, design, delivery, innovation, operations, human resources, and finan- >>>

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

BUSINESS SUPPORT FOR MEMBERS

>>> cial control. Having said that, And if they don’t have the most architecture, engineering, necessary (or desired) capabiliand design leaders that are elework with them to develop a Your challenge as a design leader is ty, vated to senior roles or direcplan to make it happen. to balance the creative and tors’ positions don’t have the Motivate your team by driving necessary business managecommercial aspects of what you a culture of leadership and ment expertise to manage, ownership succession. Articulate direct, and drive a successful do. Successful and effective leaders and provide an opportunity for business that performs across today, more often than not, are future leaders and be clear these key business drivers. about what it takes to become doing less and achieving more As a leader, you need to be a leader in your practice. By clear about your expectations providing a transparent path to around client outcomes, project and financial performance, and leadership you will set the standard for future growth. managing deliverables. None of this comes overnight and it typically requires small Here are some steps to create a culture steps. It comes through a well-constructed plan, time and experi- of leadership among your key people: ence, and the assistance of your team—the team of experts you • Involve your people in articulating and clarifying your busisurround yourself with. It goes without saying that what’s ness ‘drivers’ and desired business outcomes e.g. strategy, required is a balance between the time you spend ‘in the busi- rainmaking, design, innovation project delivery etc. ness’ and ‘on the business’. You need the time out from project- • Define, articulate and measure the performance criteria related activities to make this happen. across these business ‘drivers’ Be clear about where the business is heading and be prepared • Ensure your key people are working in their core capability to engage your key people in why, where and how you will get (set them up to succeed) there. Ideally, you will be able to empower your staff, hand over • Understand and nurture their inherent personal control and give some of the responsibility and accountability for strengths/weaknesses, temperament, and abilities achieving your business objectives to others. • Include measurable criteria in your executive agreements Your objective as a leader should be to empower your key • Provide individual (and team) contribution requirements and people to take on responsibility for project and design delivery, link these to the profit/bonus pool project performance, client relationships, and business systems. • Provide regular (and expert) feedback on performance on a Set them up to succeed and flow responsibility for decision mak- quarterly or 6 monthly basis ing through the business. Your business can be the vehicle that enables you to shape and control your destiny – both in life and your career. Your chalAsk yourself the following questions of your key people lenge as a design leader is to balance the creative and commer(and future leaders): cial aspects of what you do. Successful and effective leaders • Are they trained? today, more often than not, are doing less and achieving more. • Do they have the necessary skills? To borrow from Mies Van Der Rohe ‘less is more’. n • How much responsibility and accountability do they have? • Are they responsible for performance (project deliverables)? • Do they have the information and tools they need? • Are they financially literate? • Do they embrace technology? • Do they delegate effectively?

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

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

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

www.acarchitects.co.uk

PRINCIPAL DESIGNER

New mandatory role Patrick Inglis explains the new mandatory role of Building Regulations Principal Designer

A key part of the Building Safety Act 2022 came into effect on 1 October 2023. From this date a new mandatory role of Building Regulations Principal Designer (not to be confused with the separate role of principal designer under the CDM regulations), will be required for any construction projects which are subject to building regulations approval. A new regime for higher risk buildings (HRBs) will also come into effect. The legislation also creates additional roles for Principal Contractors and Clients and imposes new duties on designers in general. This means that almost all construction projects involving an architect will require a Building Regulations Principal Designer. The role should be carried out by the designer in control of the design phase of the project and is therefore inherently suited for architects to perform. The role has a competency test that restricts the role to suitably qualified people or businesses, which means that generally the role can only be performed by regulated professionals such as architects, engineers or surveyors. The competency test for acting as Principal Design is set out in PAS 8671:2022 Built environment – Framework for competence of individual Principal Designers. Building Regulations Principal Designer role The main duties of Principal Designers are to plan, manage and oversee design work during the design stage and to co-ordinate design work to ensure that the designs if built would comply with the building regulations. There are also duties in regards to co-ordination and communication with the client and Principal Contractor. The role was defined in government legislation that was published in August and it is recommended that members read the actual legislation to ensure they fully understand the role: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/ 2023/911/regulation/6/made Principal Designers must be appointed at the point that a application for Building Regulations approval is made, but it would be sensible in most cases to try and make this appointment well in advance of this point in order to ensure that the designs are compliant. Opportunities and Pitfalls The overall intention of the new regulations is to improve the quality of construction and to do this by making key stakeholders in the process more account-

able. This should be welcomed by the profession and in the ACA’s view the role of Principal Designer (BSA) presents an opportunity for architects to earn additional fees and regain more control over construction projects. Many architects will already be preforming many of these functions in the course of their existing roles as architect and lead designer. However, the new role will potentially require new systems and processes to demonstrate compliance. Principal Designers will also be required to sign a compliance statement before a building regulations final certificate will be issued. For nonHRBs this will only relate to the project as designed rather than as built but for HRB projects this will be a joint statement with the Client and Principal Contractor confirming the project as constructed complies with Building Regulations. Increased potential liability The role therefore does increase architects’ potential liability and this increased risk should be reflected in fees agreements. Architects should therefore be careful to make sure that it is clear who is acting as Principal Designer and if it is them that they are properly appointed. architects are advised to check that they’re PI cover includes assuming this role. In the event that an architect only provides partial services or stops work part way through a project, it is essential to make sure that your appointment is correctly terminated. Architects should be particularly wary of accidentally assuming the role as HSE advice states that "If a domestic client does not appoint either a Principal Designer or Principal Contractor, then the designer in control of the design phase of the project is the principal designer.” n

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

Turn problem solving into pro昀t Many of the complex projects architects undertake contain elements that qualify for R&D tax credits but due to uncertainty over who and what quali昀es, the relief is frequently overlooked by eligible practices. Invennt want to change the status quo and ensure ACA members receive the government support they are entitled to by revealing some of the areas of qualifying expenditure that architects should explore to leverage this important tax inventive.

Qualifying Expenditure Architects thrive on innovation and every design that a practice produces will have evolved through an iterative process aimed at solving problems and overcoming technical challenges in order to meet client needs or design aspirations. You may not realise it, but this is precisely what HMRC de昀ne as R&D. Speci昀c examples of eligible activity include:

• • • • • •

Design of complex bespoke features such as cantilevers, staircases and façades Projects involving trialling for performance,昀nish, thermal or structural properties Development of designs, processes or systems to make buildings more cost, labour or material e cient Development of designs that maximise space properties and user 昀ow Development of modular, prefabricates or o昀site manufactured design Projects involving software testing such as structural, thermal or wind modelling

• • • • • • •

Projects involving testing or prototyping (e.g. water ingress or wind resistance) Projects with sustainable certi昀cation such as BREEAM, Passivhaus or LEED Integration of sustainable systems or materials (e.g. timber, GRC, CLC, recycled or recovered materials Projects demanding acoustic, natural light or thermal requirements that a昀ect the building fabric Consideration of complex energy performance and carbon impact Designs for sensitive and secure environments Designs and research for heritage or listed structures

Why Invennt?

Case Study

Thanks to professionally chartered architects completing claims and robust processes that leave no stone unturned in the search for qualifying expenditure, Invennt can maximise claims while minimising the likelihood of an HMRC investigation. Invennt’s fee is entirely contingent on the success and scale of the claim and we can o昀er highly competitive rates to ACA members.

Commercial Architect | Qualifying cost 12% of turnover | Over £280k in bene昀t We were able to demonstrate that solving complex site constraints involved signi昀cant R&D. Computational design was a signi昀cant contributor to the claim and the claim process has revolutionised the way the business thinks about itself and lifted the morale of the business.

Scan the QR code to book a complimentary exploratory review

UK CONSTRUCTION WEEK

UKCW returns with record visitors ACA partners with another successful trade show

The UK’s largest event for the built environment, UK Construction Week (UKCW) Birmingham, made a welcome return to the NEC last month with attendance up 8% year on year, attracting 24,377 visitors to the three-day show. Opened by Channel 4 presenter George Clarke, UKCW Birmingham attracted visitors and exhibitors from across the globe, including China, Czech Republic, India, Latvia and Turkey. The multi award-winning show featured over 6,000 products and services, and over 150 CPD hours during sessions led by 400 thought leaders and keynote speakers. This year’s high profile speakers and seminar agenda fea-

tured industry leaders including Ian Courts, Leader of Solihull Borough Council and Lead Member of Business and the Economy for Solihull, and Marsha Ramroop, Executive Director - Equity, Diversity & Inclusion - Building People. Topics discussed included culture change, sustainability, mental health and HS2. Across a range of dedicated sectors, visitors were able to discover the latest innovations and technologies in robotics, digital construction, Net Zero, offsite construction and infrastructure. Alongside UKCW Birmingham, the co-located event Timber Expo, the UK’s largest showcase event for wood and timber in construction, brought together award-winning architects, clients and contractors to show all that timber has to offer. Barbara Akinkunmi, founder of Girls Under Construction, was named UKCW Role Model 2023; as a young black woman in construction, Barbara strives to be a visible leader who actively helps other young women to navigate their career journeys in the construction industry. The winning exhibitors of this year’s Stand Awards included: Sustainability Initiative - Munro EV; Best Shell Scheme Stand - KBI; Most Interactive Stand - Easy Trim; Construction Start-Up of the Year - Cavity Tray Cleaner; Best Marketing Campaign - NEBOSH; Best Space Only - Biffa. Jamie Govier, Managing Director, Easy Trim commented: “Absolutely outstanding. We’ve exhibited at UK Construction Week since it began, and this is the best footfall I’ve seen in five years. It’s a credit to the organisers.” Fiona Macdonald, Impact Manager, BE-ST, said: “We attended Birmingham with The National Robotarium to demonstrate to the wider construction industry the benefits of robotics and AI; we chose UKCW because of its scale, and its reputation to attract people who have a curiosity about what the future might look like. Next year UKCW London will take place from 7-9 May 2024 at ExCeL; UKCW Birmingham will run from 1-3 October 2024 at the NEC. n

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

QUIZ: WHERE WERE THESE PICTURES TAKEN? ACA excellence in practice

Andy Rogers has found some more holiday snaps. Where did he take these pictures? Answers overleaf

3 18

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

www.acarchitects.co.uk

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

QUIZ ANSWER ACA excellence in practice

Here is the answer... They are all the same Paris building. Institute du Monde Arab: architect Jean Nouvel. The south elevation (5) comprises both a nod to traditional Arab architecture and presents a wall of giant camera lenses (1 & 3). It was the first of Mitterand’s grands projets, and was completed in 1987 when Nouvel was in his mid-40s, and was his first major solo commission. Located on the south side of the Seine, the main facade of the building faces away from the river. Each window features a central star-shaped aperture surrounded by smaller satellites (1 & 2); and as the day wears on these photo-sensitive irises squeeze tighter against the sun, automatically reducing the building’s heat gain while allowing natural light to filter into the reading rooms, exhibition spaces, meeting halls and public galleries inside (4). n

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

www.acarchitects.co.uk

ARCHITECT APPOINTMENT SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE

Launching a ground breaking Architect Appointment subscription service The ACA is launching the ACA Subscription Service for the ACA PSA22 appointment agreement this month. Targeted at Architects; it will provide:• 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 newly published 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 For more information, contact the ACA at office@acarchitects.co.uk

Look out for the ACA email announcing the launch of our Subscription Service which will be available at

https://acarchitects.co. uk/shop/

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

FROM PLANNING IN LONDON ACA excellence in practice

Beauty can’t be planned Nor can it be defined, says Paul Finch The strange death of rational planning is best illustrated by the introduction of the word ‘beauty’ into government aspiration, faux-technical guidance, and assertions/presumptions based on nothing at all. The give-away is the fact that none of this policy or guidance ever defines what ‘beauty’ actually is. Roger Scruton, the philosopher, promoted the notion that if designs were beautiful, they would immediately win planning permission and thus ‘solve’ the shortage of housing in the UK. He was too sophisticated to believe that he (or anyone else) could provide a definition of beauty that would be susceptible to, say, cross-examination at public inquiry. His acolytes, and panel members of the clumsily named ‘Building Better Building Beautiful Commission’, have confidently endorsed the idea that anything requiring planning permission should indeed be beautiful, without troubling themselves in respect of definition. Resulting policies and guidance are therefore based on an abuse of language, because an absence of agreed meaning is just as bad as using language wrongly or deceptively. The National Planning Policy Framework, the cornerstone of government planning policy, now embraces the notion of beauty as a prerequisite for planning permission courtesy of the following sentence which appears in Chapter 12, ‘Achieving well-designed places’: ‘The creation of high-quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve.’ It is no longer enough to design high-quality and sustainable buildings and places. They need to be ‘beautiful’ as well. There is plenty of stuff about what constitutes quality and sustainability, but nothing in the document about how to achieve beauty. Save this: ‘Design guides and codes provide a local framework for creating beautiful and distinctive places

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

with a consistent and high-quality standard of design.’ To which one can only say What guides? What codes? The Essex Design Guide of yesteryear? Where is the evidence that they result in beautiful places? This is assertion and presumption writ large – a fantasy utopia generated by Whitehall apparatchiks swaying in politicians’ windy spouting of half-digested notions about aesthetics. As with all government policies, especially those of an aspirational nature, there is small print which means it is not enough to review the primary document. The NPPF’s fundamental aspirations say nothing at all about aesthetics or beauty. But its chapter 12 needs to be considered in light of at least one other document, the National Design Guide, whose motto or subheading reads: ‘Planning practice guidance for beautiful, enduring and successful places’. You will not be surprised to hear that this document does not define beauty either. It is an amalgam of statements of the obvious and photography which supposedly supports the textual cliches. In respect of the text, you scarcely know whether to laugh or cry. Take this: ‘Well-designed places can last for many years.’. What about badly designed places? Can’t they last a long time too? Another assertion, as a statement of fact rather than proposition, runs thus: ‘This National Design Guide, and the National Model Design Code and Guidance Notes for Design Codes, illustrate how well-designed places that are beautiful, healthy, greener, enduring and successful can be achieved in practice.’ How can a new government design guide guarantee any such outcome? The words ‘enduring’ and ‘successful’ suggest an insight into the future worthy of Nostradamus. You will also notice that, once again, reading the core document is not enough: there is another one to which you must refer, that is to say the one covering the preparation of design codes, which have yet to become part and parcel of the planning process, despite the claims about their

Paul Finch is programme director of the World Festival of Architecture and joint publishing editor of Planning in London

achieved effect outlined above. The National Design Guide does make a specific reference to how we might think about beauty in relation to places: ‘Beauty in a place may range from a long view down to the detail of a building or landscape’. I wish I were making this up, but there it is. Can the detail of a building make a place beautiful? No it can’t. No wonder that the guidance rapidly moves on, declaring that: ‘Specific, detailed and measurable criteria for good design are most appropriately set out at the local level.’ This seems to mean that self-appointed worthies (sorry ‘community’) will be able to impose their notion of beauty in planning codes, which will bypass any form of democratic scrutiny. But hang on a moment – according to the National Design Guide section on how to achieve ‘identity’, proposals must ‘cater for a diverse range of residents and other users’. Suppose they can’t agree? Incidentally, the same section of the guide asserts that: ‘All design approaches and architectural styles are visually attractive when designed well.’ Visually attractive seems to mean beautiful, though alas this phrase is not defined either. Is this a defence of Brutalism? It is a relief to be reminded of John Constable’s wise words on these matters: ‘There is nothing ugly; I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object be what it may – light, shade, and perspective will always make it beautiful.’ Trying to plan beauty is about as helpful as trying to impose compulsory fun. n

www.acarchitects.co.uk

OPINION: BROWNFIELD DEVELOPMENT | MIKE HOOD

The brownfield bonus Creating the right conditions for the redevelopment of brownfield urban sites has enormous potential, says Mike Hood At the heart of great property development has to be inclusive growth. This should be the principle that guides all of us as we plan even the smallest intervention in our towns and cities. How are we creating the conditions in which people and their communities can thrive sustainably? The greatest opportunity we have to do this is to re-purpose land that already has a track record – when one use ceases to deliver, we have to create another. In the mission to improve our great towns and cities, brownfield land in urban areas is our greatest asset. Our own research, conducted by Development Economics, has found that where housing densities are increased in line with the government’s proposed uplift in housing targets, it would be possible to deliver over 1.3 million new homes on brownfield land in the UK, with 385,000 of them in London. Our capital is a living case study of how urban brownfield development can be truly transformative – just look at the regeneration of Stratford, driven by the Olympic Park redevelopment, and the rejuvenation of King’s Cross into a hugely popular mixed-use commercial, retail, leisure and residential destination. The formula is relatively simple. Clear planning policy, rooted in a deep understanding of the community and consistently applied provides the basis on which sound investment decisions can be made

by those with an appetite to risk their capital. But there is a problem here. Our planning system is currently a huge block on delivering these kinds of projects. It’s both overburdensome and overburdened. We need to find ways of unblocking it. Innovative programmes like Public Practice and the Government’s recent announcement of a Planning Skills Delivery Fund to increase the number and quality of planning officers in local authorities across the country will help. Where the system is functioning effectively, with good co-ordination between local and regional leadership, even more could be done with subregional frameworks, local delivery partnerships and locally-led development corporations (as in the Olympic Park). Where there is not a well-functioning local framework of governance with vision and bravery to unlock opportunities for all then we should be considering greater intervention from government to accelerate opportunities through our existing support networks like Homes England, all supported by a better-defined brownfield-first approach in the NPPF. There is no shortage of institutional capital in the market looking for the opportunities that brownfield development offers - capital that is quite prepared to take well-managed risk. But it’s become all too common for capital providers to see too much risk in large brownfield regeneration schemes, looking to the public sector to invest upfront in infrastructure funding as a pre-condition to development. But, of course, there’s only so much public money to go around. Whilst there will always be a role for public funding or guarantees to enable brownfield development, we should not be relying on these to solve all our problems. Rather we should be looking at ways in which we can create the circumstances where institutional capital can invest from inception. Could we lower risk by making planning more predictable and providing incentives for long term ownership commitment through the taxation system? Could we create a process where the ability to pay for community benefits in a scheme could be stretched over a longer term and not linked to implementation of planning?

www.planninginlondon.com

Mike Hood is CEO of Landsec’s urban, mixed-use regeneration arm

The best kind of capital is that which looks to the long term – great places don’t happen overnight. Investors who understand that long term partnership creates truly sustainable value will share in the benefits. The only way we can create a step change in the system is to work together as an industry. Recently we joined forces with British Land to publish a paper on how we can change the planning system to help make brownfield urban regeneration more successful. We came up with a number of practical recommendations for policymakers low-hanging fruit that can be delivered quickly and without significant taxpayer funding. First, we think that brownfield urban regeneration should be defined as its own category in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). At the moment, all previously developed land is lumped in under one definition and treated the same regardless of how suitable it is for development. This approach fails to take into account that some forms of brownfield development are inherently more complex than others – particularly those sites, like our own at Mayfield in Manchester, that have strong existing connections with local transport infrastructure and are consequently best placed to house new communities and deliver economic growth. Introducing the new definition for brownfield urban regeneration will help unlock the potential of these sites. Government and local authorities will be able to focus on brownfield urban sites specifically and exclude more contentious sites that aren’t connected to urban infrastructure. We are currently re-developing the O2 Centre on Finchley Road in the London Borough of Camden. A great location, but the space is currently poorly used: there is an ageing shopping centre at

Issue 127 October-December 2023

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

15 23

>>>

>>> risk of decline and a huge car park next to it. Our masterplan will transform the centre and its surrounding land into a new and inclusive place that works better for the community, delivering 1,800 new homes (35% affordable), two new public parks and 180,000 sq ft of new commercial space. The site is surrounded by no fewer than five rail/underground stations and has plenty of local bus stops, meaning that all the transport infrastructure will continue to operate within capacity, even with a large addition of residents and workers. To make all this work better, we need to develop richer partnerships with the communities where we’re building. In Camden, we’ve done a great deal of consultation and the feedback we got meant we could deliver a scheme that directly responds to the priorities of the people who live and work there. Sometimes, though, the current planning system gets in the way. Its complexity deters people from engaging in the process. Here, everyone loses. It undermines the mutual trust that is needed to shape successful places that are supported and championed by local people. We think a fast-track planning system to prioritise applications where developers commit to and deliver a properly inclusive programme of community consultation could help. If we work together, we can deliver a virtuous circle. Long-term investment from companies like ours delivers value for everyone, makes good on promises to communities and builds trust. This means lower risk with community support and strong partnerships based on trust, which in turn encourages further long-term low risk capital investment. We have seen this happen before in places where we have built. In many other towns and cities, we can see the opposite - low trust, high risk, no institutional investment - no inclusive growth. Creating the right conditions for the redevelopment of brownfield urban sites has enormous potential to deliver places that are successful for those who live and work in them, and for our shareholders who risk their capital to fund them. When we make good places, everyone wins. You can read the full report More growth, more homes, more jobs. here: https://tinyurl.com/37wjrtpc!"

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

Appendix - Investigating the opportunity of brownfield urban regeneration In 2019, U+I (now part of Landsec) commissioned Development Economics to research the ability of brownfield land in urban areas to accommodate housing and jobs growth. The study examined the brownfield land register in a number of urban areas to estimate its ability to accommodate housing and employment land need. The conservative assumptions based on 2019 figures are captured in the data tables below.

Table 1: Housing accommodated on previously developed land, 2017-2030 Area

PDL developed for Housing (Ha)

Publicly owned Housing units PDL developed developed on for housing PDL (‘000s) (Ha)

Housing units developed on publicly owned PDL (‘000s)

Proportion of 2017-2030 housing requirement met on PDL land (%)

Greater London

3,083

1,047

197.8

70.6

25.3%

Proportion of 2017-2030 housing requirement met on publicly owned PDL land (%) 9.0%

Greater Manchester

1,615

638

54.2

21.4

28.2%

11.1%

West Midlands CA

1,786

574

63.8

21.1

40.5%

13.4%

Cambridge

4.1

1.9

96.3%

45.3%

Source: Development Economics estimates

Table 2: Additional employment land required in selected areas, 2017-2030 Area

B1 Land for offices (ha)

B2 Land for industry (ha)

B8 Land for logistics (ha)

Overall employment land required (ha)

Average land required p.a. (ha)

London

244

411

29.4

Greater Manchester

128

231

16.5

West Midlands CA

149

10.6

Cambridge

0.4

www.acarchitects.co.uk

6. Create better incentives to unlock urban regeneration The potential benefits of brownfield urban regeneration are significant, but we need to face the reality of what it costs to deliver these schemes, if we are to unlock them and deliver the economic growth and public benefits local authorities expect.

Recommendation: •

Creating tax incentives to invest in urban regeneration, modelled on Capital Allowances. The recent Budget confirmed tax incentives for investment in plant and machinery, as it is understood to drive growth. A similar model could be adopted for investment in local infrastructure and remediation of contaminated land to catalyse urban regeneration. This would make urban regeneration schemes more viable and maximise the potential benefits that can be realised for local authorities and communities.

ABOVE: A page from the report BELOW: Case study from the report

Canada Water Dock

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

The ACA’s preferred supplier of professional indemnity insurance

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 firmly 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. info@howdengroup.com

For those of you who have come across Howden before, you may have noticed we look a bit different. And you’d be exactly right, we’ve rebranded. We know that we’re di昀erent to the rest of the insurance market. We take a di昀erent approach to doing business, a di昀erent approach to our people, and a di昀erent approach to insurance, and we wanted to look and sound di昀erent too, and that’s exactly what we’ve done. Although we have changed the way we look, that’s the only thing that’s changing. The people that look after our clients, and everything that is important to them, will continue to do so – it is still business as usual.

howdenbroking.com

COUNCIL AND OFFICERS ACA excellence in practice

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

OFFICERS 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

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

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

Alfred Munkenbeck RIBA ACArch Jonathan Louth BAHons Munkenbeck & Partners Architects DipArchM.St(Cantab) ACArch Email: alfred@mandp.uk.com Jonathan Louth Architects Tel: 020 7739 3300 Stephen Yakeley Barch RIBA AIA ACArch

Members interested in STUDENT representative Miles Elliott (Post-graduate, RCA) joining Council should please contact the President at office@acarchitects.co.uk

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

www.acarchitects.co.uk

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.

Visit our website at: www.consandheritage.co.uk or Email: nigel@consandheritage.com

COLLABORATIVE PROCUREMENT ACA excellence in practice

The FAC-1 Handbook The FAC-1 Framework Alliance Contract: ‘the best friend of everyone, in every sector of the construction industry, who wants to make a real difference.’ – John Welch of Crown Commercial Service To purchase visit the ACA shop: https://acarchitec ts.co.uk/product/f ac-1-handbook/

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

Last Spring saw the publication of ‘The FAC-1 Framework Alliance Contract-: A Handbook’, written by FAC-1 author Professor David Mosey and described by John Welch of Crown Commercial Service as ‘the best friend of everyone, in every sector of the construction industry, who wants to make a real difference.’ FAC-1 has been used to integrate and enhance procurements ranging from £5 million to £30 billion across several jurisdictions, and the new Handbook is designed to provide an introduction for those who are new to this form and a refresher for current users. It includes 30 case studies and 46 practice notes to illustrate how FAC-1 can be used by architects and their teams who are engaged on projects and programmes of works, services or supplies in any sector. FAC-1 has its origins in research by the King’s College London Centre of Construction Law & Dispute Resolution with the Association of Consultant Architects, exploring with over 100 organisations the potential for a new standard form framework alliance contract to integrate a programme of multiple projects or to integrate the components of one or more complex projects. As a multi-party umbrella, FAC-1 connects any range of consultant appointments and JCT, NEC or PPC forms through collaborative systems which can achieve value improvement, risk management and net zero carbon targets. The UK ‘Construction Playbook’, published in 2020 and updated in 2022, promotes frameworks as an efficient method to procure public works, goods and services and states that a ‘successful framework contract should be based around principles that align objectives, success measures, targets and incentives so as to enable joint work on improving value and reducing risk’. It recognises FAC-1 as ‘a good example of a standard form framework contract that can achieve many of the ambitions set out in this Playbook.’ A contract that only allocates risks and responsibilities does not recognise the value of contractual connections between architects, engineers and the many specialist contributors to construction and engineering projects. FAC-1 makes these connections, and the Handbook examines notable FAC-1 successes such as: • Integration of a community of micro-SME architects and engineers to share innovations drawn from community knowledge and experience • Environmental improvements and integration of architects, engineers, contractors and suppliers using modern methods of construction and BIM on the Ministry of Justice New Prisons programme • 7 per cent cost savings, 48 per cent time savings, BIM inte-

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

gration and collaborative risk management by designers and contractors on a new school and civic centre project. For example, the Handbook describes how FAC-1 supports a drive for net zero carbon by including in its definition of improved value ‘measures intended to reduce carbon emissions, to reduce use of energy and or natural and manmade resources, to improve waste management, to improve employment and training opportunities, and otherwise to protect or improve the condition of the Environment or the well-being of people.’ The Ministry of Justice New Prisons alliance used FAC-1 to ensure that the design for the four new prisons would target BREEAM 2018 Outstanding ratings and to establish routes to net zero carbon, for example by achieving a significant reduction in operational energy consumption from the national grid and an 85% reduction in operational carbon emissions. The purpose of the Handbook is to guide all parties involved in delivering projects or programmes of works, services or supplies through the FAC-1 contractual relationships and systems. It is designed for use by framework providers, clients, designers, managers, contractors, specialists, operators and legal advisers. An FAC-1 framework alliance creates the foundations for the integrated working practices such as early supply chain involvement, modern methods of construction and BIM that are essential to the modernisation of the construction industry. The Handbook helps clients, advisers and industry to make clear: • How an FAC-1 alliance is created, between which alliance members and how additional members can be added • Why the FAC-1 alliance is created, what are the measures and targets for its success and how it is brought to an end if it does not succeed • How FAC-1 alliance members are rewarded for their work • How each stage of the agreed scope of FAC-1 works, services and supplies is authorised, in what stages and among which alliance members • What FAC-1 alliance members should do together or individually in order to improve economic, environmental and social value, by means of what contributions and by what deadlines • How the FAC-1 alliance members reach decisions, manage risks and avoid disputes. The Handbook also tracks how FAC-1 brings to life the 24 recommendations for framework contracts that are set out in ‘Constructing the Gold Standard’, Professor Mosey’s independent review of public sector construction frameworks which was endorsed by government and 49 industry bodies in the 2022 version of the Construction Playbook. n

www.acarchitects.co.uk

CONSTRUCTING THE GOLD STANDARD

Constructing the Gold Standard Constructing Excellence and KCL launch ‘Gold Standard’ to improve value and achieve net zero in construction procurement

On 1st November 2023 Constructing Excellence, in collaboration with Kings College London, is launching 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

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

PLAN OF WORK ACA excellence in practice

New ACA overlay to the RIBA Plan of Work Our survey of members, much reported in BD and AJ, showed a high level of dissatisfaction with the ‘new’ PoW. Writing in the AJ on 8th March 2017 under the headline “Why the RIBA Plan of work could undermine the profession” Design Engine director John Ridgett wrote: “The 2013 plan lacks clarity, other consultants don’t like it, and if we’re not careful another profession will usurp it”. ACA members are concerned that the new stages fail to recognise standard fee-claiming points, the nature of town planning applications and permissions and wrongly groups technical design tasks.

The ACA Overlay reconciles the familiar alphabetical stages with the more recent numerical ones 3K3 5/ RVDWQFP6RTVRT<W (?.3R5/ RHFPURVBR%VQA

5 KVUNWJTR=WSOIU

9SQXNSTFWTVUSTRMXLQS<WNVXLQSNKQWGWTV

GTPIW CPSAS

GTPIW

15/ 0

17*)40

/ GTQPTWIONR=WBOUOTOVU 6WDJH 2XWFRPH

KVQWR7DVNS

&RUH VWDWXWRU\ 3URFHVVHV

HQVNLQWMWUT 5RXWH

?UBVQMPTOVU ([FKDQJHV

&RUH 7DVNV

&RUH VWDWXWRU\ 3URFHVVHV

3URFXUHPHQW 5RXWH

?UBVQMPTOVU ([FKDQJHV

3 &RUH 7DVNV

E 7OWTVUJCXAMUWTV"PX6KPUTWPPXARPW>X=VQRVWIUNX6QUWJXRTOXSVHWQ NSQWXLQS<WNVXQW4KUQWGWTVPD E :PPUPVXVHWXAMUWTVXUTXUOWTVUJCUTIXPKUVRBMWXPUVW2P1>XNSMMWNVXPUVW UTJSQGRVUST>XFUPUVXPUVW2P1XRTOXNRQQCXSKVXUTUVURMXPUVW RLLQRUPRM2P1D E ;WFUW?X?UVHXVHWXAMUWTVXRMVWQTRVUFWXLQS<WNVXSLVUSTPD E ASTPUOWQXRLLQSLQURVWXOWPUITXVWRGXOUPNULMUTWPD E 3PVRBMUPHX@QWMUGUTRQCX5WPUITX@QSIQRGGWD E 3PVRBMUPHX@QWMUGUTRQCXASTPVQKNVUSTX@QSIQRGGWXRTO 6KOIWVD E ASTOKNVXLQW.RLLMUNRVUSTXOUPNKPPUSTPX?UVHXLMRTTUTI RKVHSQUVCXRPXTWNWPPRQCXVSXVWPVXVHWXQSBKPVTWPPXSJXVHW =VQRVWIUNX6QUWJD E ;WFUW?X9WWOBRN8XJQSGXLQWFUSKPXLQS<WNVPXRTOXAMUWTV"P SVHWQXLQS<WNVPD E ASTOKNVX=VQRVWIUNX=KPVRUTRBUMUVCX;WFUW?XSJXAMUWTVXTWWOP RTOXLSVWTVURMXPUVWPD E @QWLRQWXRTOXUPPKWX=VQRVWIUNX6QUWJD

7 HQWJPQPTOVURPU;R.QOWB 6WDJH 2XWFRPH

6WDJH 2XWFRPH

&RUH VWVWXWRU\ 3URFHVVHV

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

3URFXUHPHQW 5RXWH

?UBVQMPTOVU ([FKDQJHV

427 =WDWFVJW;R=WSOIU 6WDJH 2XWFRPH

KVQWR7DVNS

&RUH VWDWXWRU\ 3URFHVVHV

HQVNLQWMWUT 5RXWH

?UBVQMPTOVU ([FKDQJHV

https://tinyurl.com/4vrzwpue

6WDJH 2XWFRPH

KVQWR7DVNS

&RUH VWDWXWRU\ 3URFHVVHV

?UBVQMPTOVU ([FKDQJHV

E ASTOKNVXTWISVURVUSTPX?UVHXLMRTTUTIXRKVHSQUVC E AS.SQOUTRVWXPVRVWGWTV2P1XJQSGXSVHWQPXVSXRNNSGLRTC LMRTTUTIXRLLMUNRVUST2P1D FETIVTUUNTOUVTMMRURQPTKVJSSG E /R8WXQWFUPUSTPXVSXOWPUITXRPXTWNWPPRQCXRTOXRPXRIQWWO ?UVHXAMUWTVXVSXOWRMX?UVHXQW4KUQWGWTVPXSJXLMRTTUTIXRKVHSQUVCH FETIVTUUNTOUVTMMRURQPTKVJSSG E @QWLRQWXPVRVWGWTV2P1XVSXRNNSGLRTCXRTCXLMRTTUTI RLLMUNRVUST2P1H FETIVTUUNTOUVTMMRURQPTKVJSSG E @QWLRQWXRTOXPKBGUVXRXJKMMXLMRTTUTIXRLLMUNRVUSTXUJ RLLQSLQURVWD E ;WLSQVXVSXAMUWTVXSTXLMRTTUTIXOWNUPUST2P1XRTOXRTC NSTOUVUSTPXUGLSPWOD E @QWLRQWXJSQXLMRTTUTIXRLLWRM2P1H FETIVTUUNTOUVTMMRURQPTK JSSG

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

-27 CWN<UONPFR=WSOIU 6WDJH 2XWFRPH

KVQWR7DVNS

&RUH VWDWXWRU\ 3URFHVVHV

HQVNLQWMWUT 5RXWH

?UBVQMPTOVU ([FKDQJHV

6WDJH 2XWFRPH

KVQWR7DVNS

&RUH VWDWXWRU\ 3URFHVVHV

HQVNLQWMWUT 5RXWH

?UBVQMPTOVU ([FKDQJHV

KVQWR7DVNS

&RUH VWDWXWRU\ 3URFHVVHV

HQVNLQWMWUT 5RXWH

?UBVQMPTOVU ([FKDQJHV

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

$ "VEOFOSPTOVURPU;RKVUSTQLNTOVU

6WDJH 2XWFRPH

KVQWR7DVNS

&RUH VWDWXWRU\ 3URFHVVHV

E @QWLRQWX@QSOKNVUSTX7TJSQGRVUSTXUTXRNNSQORTNWX?UVH 5WPUITX;WPLSTPUBUMUVCX/RVQU0XRTOX@QS<WNVX=VQRVWIUWPXVS UTNMKOWXRMMXRQNHUVWNVKQRM>XPVQKNVKQRMXRTOXBKUMOUTIXPWQFUNWP UTJSQGRVUST>XPLWNURMUPVXPKBNSTVQRNVSQXOWPUITXRTO PLWNUJUNRVUSTP>XUTXPKJJUNUWTVXOWVRUMXVSXWTRBMWXVWTOWQ2P1XVSXBW SBVRUTWOXRTOXUTXRNNSQORTNWX?UVHX5WPUITX@QSIQRGGWXRTO PKBGUVXVSXVHWXAMUWTVXJSQXRLLQSFRM E @QSFUOWXUTJSQGRVUSTXVS>XOUPNKPPXLQSLSPRMPX?UVHXRTO UTNSQLSQRVWXOWVRUMWOXUTLKVXSJXSVHWQXASTPKMVRTVPXUTVSXVHW OWPUITD E ASSQOUTRVWXUGLKVXSJXSVHWQXNSTPKMVRTVPD E @QSFUOWXUTJSQGRVUSTXJSQXVHWXLQWLRQRVUSTXSJXBUMMPXSJ 4KRTVUVUWPXRTO)SQXPNHWOKMWPXSJX?SQ8PXSQXLQWLRQWXPNHWOKMWP SJX?SQ8PXJSQXVWTOWQUTIXLKQLSPWPD E @QSFUOWXUTJSQGRVUSTXJSQXVHWXQWFUPUSTXSJXVHWXWPVUGRVWXSJXVHW ASTPVQKNVUSTXLQSIQRGGWXRTOXBKOIWVD E =KBGUVXLMRTPXJSQXLQSLSPWOXBKUMOUTIX?SQ8PXJSQXRLLQSFRMXSJ MRTOMSQOP>XJKTOWQP>XJQWW.HSMOWQP>XVWTRTVPXSQXSVHWQPXRP QW4KWPVWOXBCXVHWXAMUWTVDXFETIVTUUNTOUVTMMRURQPTKVJSSG E @QSNKQWX99-3 STXBWHRMJXSJXVHWXAMUWTVD E 7PPKWXRLLQSFWOX@QSOKNVUSTX7TJSQGRVUSTXUTNMKOUTIXOWVRUMWO PVQKNVKQRMXRTOXBKUMOUTIXPWQFUNWPXOWPUIT>XRPPSNURVWOX@QS<WNV =VQRVWIUWPD E 7PPKWXBUMMPXSJX4KRTVUVUWPXRTO)SQXPNHWOKMWPXSJX?SQ8PXJSQ AMUWTVXRLLQSFRMD E 7PPKWXQWFUPWOXWPVUGRVWPXSJX@QSIQRGGWXRTOX6KOIWVXJSQ AMUWTVXRLLQSFRMD

-24 CWU;WQR=VNLMWUTPTOVURPU;R3NTOVU

6WDJH 2XWFRPH

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

-25 HQV;LNTOVUROUBVQMPTOVUR

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

425 =WDWFVJW;R=WSOIUR1+LFFRHFPUUOUI0

DOWNLOAD the .pdf here:

E :IQWWXRMVWQRVUSTPXVSXBQUWJXRTOXUPPKWX9UTRMX@QS<WNVX6QUWJD E @QWLRQWXASTNWLVX5WPUIT>XUGLMWGWTVUTIX9UTRMX@QS<WNV 6QUWJXUTNMKOUTIXROOUVUSTRMXORVRXUJXRLLQSLQURVW>XWI>XSKVMUTW LQSLSPRMPXJSQXPVQKNVKQRMXOWPUIT>XBKUMOUTIXPWQFUNWPXPCPVWGP> SKVMUTWXPLWNUJUNRVUSTP>XMSNRVUSTXSJXGR<SQXJKQTUVKQWXJUVVUTIP RTOXW4KULGWTVX299-31>XLQWMUGUTRQCXNSPVXLMRT>XWVN>XRMSTI ?UVHXQWMWFRTVX@QS<WNVX=VQRVWIUWPXUTXRNNSQORTNWX?UVHXVHW RIQWWOX5WPUITX@QSIQRGGWXRTOXPKBGUVXVSXVHWXAMUWTVXJSQ RLLQSFRMD E ;WFUW?XVHWXLQSLSPWOXLQSNKQWGWTVXQSKVWD E @QSFUOWXUTJSQGRVUSTXJSQXVHWXLQWLRQRVUSTXSJXRT RLLQS0UGRVUSTXSJXVHWXASTPVQKNVUSTX@QSIQRGGWXRTO ASTPVQKNVUSTXASPVD E 5WFWMSLX,WRMVHXRTOX=RJWVCX=VQRVWICD E :OFUPWXAMUWTVXSJXHUP)HWQXQWPLSTPUBUMUVUWPXKTOWQXVHW ;WIKMRVUSTPD E @QWLRQWXRTOXPKBGUVXRTXSKVMUTWXLMRTTUTIXRLLMUNRVUSTXUJ RLLQSLQURVWD E ARQQCXSKVXTWISVURVUSTPX?UVHXMRTOMSQO>XVWTRTVPXRTO)SQ SVHWQPXUOWTVUJUWOXBCXVHWXAMUWTVXRTOXMURUPWX?UVHXLRQVCX?RMM PKQFWCSQXRPXTWNWPPRQCD FETIVTUUNTOUVTMMRURQPTKVJSSG E @QWLRQWX=KPVRUTRBUMUVCX=VQRVWIC>X/RUTVWTRTNWXRTO +LWQRVUSTRMX=VQRVWICXRTOXQWFUW?X,RTOSFWQX=VQRVWICXRTO ;UP8X:PPWPPGWTVPD E &TOWQVR8WXVHUQOXLRQVCXNSTPKMVRVUSTPXRPXQW4KUQWOXRTOXRTC ;WPWRQNHXRTOX5WFWMSLGWTVXRPLWNVPD E ;WFUW?XRTOXKLORVWX@QS<WNVX30WNKVUSTX@MRTD E ASTPUOWQXASTPVQKNVUSTX=VQRVWIC>XUTNMKOUTIXSJJPUVW JRBQUNRVUSTD E @QWLRQWXRPXTWNWPPRQCXPLWNURMXLQWPWTVRVUSTXOQR?UTIP> BQSNHKQWP>XGSOWMPXSQXVWNHTUNRMXUTJSQGRVUSTXJSQXKPWXSJXVHW AMUWTVXSQXSVHWQPD FETIVTUUNTOUVTMMRURQPTKVJSSG E ASTJUQGXVHRVXJSQGRMXPKPVRUTRBUMUVCXLQW.RPPWPPGWTVXRTO UOWTVUJUNRVUSTXSJX8WCXRQWRPXSJXOWPUITXJSNKPXHRFWXBWWT KTOWQVR8WTXRTOXVHRVXRTCXOWFURVUSTXJQSGXVHWX=KPVRUTRBUMUVC :PLUQRVUSTPXHRPXBWWTXQWLSQVWOXRTOXRIQWWOD E ARQQCXSKVXRTXUTUVURMX6KUMOUTIX;WIKMRVUSTPX@RQVX$ RPPWPPGWTVD E @QWLRQWX LMRUTX3TIMUPH*XOWPNQULVUSTPXSJXUTVWQTRM WTFUQSTGWTVRMXNSTOUVUSTPXRTOXPWRPSTRMXNSTVQSMXPVQRVWIUWP RTOXPCPVWGPD E ASTPUOWQXVHWXWTFUQSTGWTVRMXUGLRNVXSJX8WCXGRVWQURMPXRTO VHWXASTPVQKNVUSTX=VQRVWICD E ASTPUOWQXQWPUMUWTNWXVSXJKVKQWXNHRTIWPXUTXNMUGRVWD E 7PPKWXRLLQSFWOXASTNWLVX5WPUITXUTNMKOUTIXSKVMUTW PVQKNVKQRMXRTOXBKUMOUTIXPWQFUNWPXOWPUIT>XRPPSNURVWOX@QS<WNV =VQRVWIUWPD E 7PPKWXRLLQS0UGRVWX@QSIQRGGWXRTOX6KOIWVXJSQXAMUWTV RLLQSFRMD

The Association of Consultant Architects’ Stephen Yakeley, author of the ACA SFA, produced this overlay in order to make the PoW more useful for conventionally procured projects. In particular, new work stage 4 is divided into three parts (corresponding to old stages e, f, g and h) in order to provide more interim invoicing and client review points. Also, as many architects carry out interior design, the tasks of procuring ff+e are shown. We have now updated the headings to align with the RIBA 2020 PoW.

?UBVQMPTOVU ([FKDQJHV

E :PPUPVXSVHWQXASTPKMVRTVPXUTXLQWLRQUTIXVHWXBKUMOUTI NSTVQRNVXRTOXRQQRTIUTIXJSQXUVXVSXBWXPUITWOXSQXLQWLRQWXVHW BKUMOUTIXNSTVQRNVXRTOXRQQRTIWXJSQXUVXVSXBWXPUITWOD E :OFUPWXVHWXAMUWTVXSTXVHWXRLLSUTVGWTVXSJXVHWXASTVQRNVSQ RTOXSTXVHWXQWPLSTPUBUMUVUWPXSJXVHWXLRQVUWPXRTOXVHWX:QNHUVWNV KTOWQXVHWXBKUMOUTIXNSTVQRNVD E @QSFUOWXNSTPVQKNVUSTXUTJSQGRVUSTX2UTNMKOUTIXPKJJUNUWTV OWVRUMWOXOQR?UTIXRTOXPLWNUJUNRVUSTXUTJSQGRVUSTXJSQXVHW NSTPVQKNVUSTXSJXVHWX@QS<WNV1XVSXVHWXASTVQRNVSQD E +BVRUTXNSLUWPXSJXQWMWFRTVXASTVQRNVSQ*PXUTPKQRTNWXLSMUNUWP RTOXPKBGUVXVHWGXVSXAMUWTV*PXUTPKQWQPXJSQXWFRMKRVUSTD E @QSFUOWXPWQFUNWPXUTXNSTTWNVUSTX?UVHXOWGSMUVUSTPH FETI TUUNTOUVTMMRURQPTKVJSSG , #UPUVXVHWXPUVWXVSXGSTUVSQXVHWXLQSIQWPPXRTOXSFWQRMMX4KRMUVC SJXVHWX?SQ8PXRVXUTVWQFRMPXRLLQSLQURVWXVSXVHWXPVRIWXSJ NSTPVQKNVUSTD FETIVTUUNTOUVTMMRURQPTKVJSS RJVUDSVPC@.SNVQJ LRUSV<RLRULVS*OSSMLVUDQLSVRPOKCMSMVRPVTVBSNOSPUT?SVQNVKC@B LC@VJSSVRPVUDSVTNODRUSOU/LVOQPUNTOUG E #UPUVXVHWXPUVWPXSJXSJJPUVWX99-3 JRBQUNRVUSTXVSXGSTUVSQX4KRMUVC RTOXLQSIQWPPD E ;WPSMFWXNSTVQRNVSQ*PX5WPUITX KWQUWPXRPXVHWCXRQUPWD E ASTOKNVXPUVWXGWWVUTIPXRVXRXJQW4KWTNCXRLLQSLQURVWXVSXVHW LQSIQWPPXSJXNSTPVQKNVUSTD E ;WNWUFWXQWLSQVPXJQSGXRTCX=UVWX7TPLWNVSQ2P1D E :VXUTVWQFRMPXOWVWQGUTWOXBCXVHWXBKUMOUTIXNSTVQRNVXUPPKW NWQVUJUNRVWPXSJXLRCGWTVD E :PXRLLQSLQURVW>XUPPKWXNWQVUJUNRVW2P1XSJXLQRNVUNRM NSGLMWVUSTD E 7TPLWNVX%SQ8PXRTOXLQWLRQWXRXPNHWOKMWXSJX5WJWNVPD E /STUVSQXNSTVQRNVSQ*PXGR8UTIXISSOXOWJWNVPXRTOXRP RLLQSLQURVWXUPPKWXRXAWQVUJUNRVWXSJX/R8UTIX!SSOX5WJWNVPD E :JVWQXRIQWWGWTVXSJXVHWXJUTRMXRNNSKTV>XUPPKWXRX9UTRM AWQVUJUNRVWD E :OGUTUPVWQXVHWXBKUMOUTIXNSTVQRNVXRTOXQWFUW?XLQSIQWPPD E :VXUTVWQFRMPXRLLQSLQURVWXVS>XRTOXUTXMUIHVXSJ>XVHWXLQSIQWPPXSJ VHWX?SQ8P>XLQSFUOWXUTJSQGRVUSTXJSQXVHWXQWFUPUSTXSJXVHW WPVUGRVWXSJXVHWXASTPVQKNVUSTXLQSIQRGGWXRTOXBKOIWVD E :VXUTVWQFRMPXOWVWQGUTWOXBCXVHWXBKUMOUTIXNSTVQRNVXLQSFUOW UTJSQGRVUSTXVSXSVHWQXASTPKMVRTVPXJSQXVHWXLQWLRQRVUSTXSJ FRMKRVUSTPXSJX?SQ8XNRQQUWOXSKVXSQXLQWLRQWXFRMKRVUSTPXSJ ?SQ8XNRQQUWOXSKVD E #UPUVXVHWXPUVWPXSJXJRBQUNRVUSTXSJX99-3 RPXTWNWPPRQCD E /STUVSQXOWMUFWQCXRTOXUTPVRMMRVUSTXSJXJU0WOX99-3D

) ,PU;VDWQRPU;RKFVSWR@LT 6WDJH 2XWFRPH

KVQWR7DVNS

&RUH VWDWXWRU\ 3URFHVVHV

?UBVQMPTOVU ([FKDQJHV

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

# ?UR&SWR1HVST'@NNLJPUN6R>DPFLPTOVU0 6WDJH 2XWFRPH KVQWR7DVNS &RUH VWDWXWRU\ 3URFHVVHV HQVNLQWMWUT 5RXWH ?UBVQMPTOVU ([FKDQJHV

E /STUVSQXOWMUFWQCXRTOXUTPVRMMRVUSTXSJXMSSPWX99-3D E !UFWXIWTWQRMXROFUNWXSTXGRUTVWTRTNWXSJX99-3D E +BPWQFWXVHWXBKUMOUTIXSLWQRVUSTXUTXKPWXRTOXRPPUPVX?UVHXJUTW VKTUTI XLQSFUOWXIKUORTNWXJSQXSNNKLRTVPH FETIVTUUNTOU TMMRURQPTKVJSSG E /STUVSQXVHWXWTWQIC)NRQBSTXLWQJSQGRTNWH FETIVTUUNTOU TMMRURQPTKVJSSG

'DSVALLQORTURQPVQJV:QPLCKUTPUVANODRUSOUL/V7USBDSPV4T=SKSI; The Association of Consultant Architects with Stephen Yakeley, author of ACA SFA – A:A 79A Standard FormTCUDQNVQJV of Agreement for;VDTLVBNQMCOSMVUDRLVQ<SNKTIVRPVQNMSNVUQ the Appointment of an Architect 2012 – has produced this @QNSVCLSJCKVJQNVOQP<SPURQPTKKIVBNQOCNSM overlay in order@T=SVUDSV to make &#( the Plan of Work more useful for conventionally procured BNQ)SOULHV PVBTNUROCKTN;VPS>V>QN=VLUT?SV3VRLVMR<RMSMVRPUQ projects. This edition takes account of task changes in the RIBA PoW 2020 and has been prepared by Richard Harrison. UDNSSVBTNULVFOQNNSLBQPMRP?VUQVQKMVLUT?SLV 1;V9;V TPM GVRP In particular, QNMSNVUQVBNQ<RMSV@QNSVRPUSNR@VRP<QRORP?VTPMVOKRSPUVNS<RS> Stage D indicates the point at which planning permission is granted by D+ and Stage 4 is divided into three parts (corresponding to stages introducing sub-stage BQRPULHVAKLQ;VTLV@TPIVTNODRUSOULVOTNNIVQCUVRPUSNRQNVMSLR?P; E, F, G and H) UDSVUTL=LVQJVBNQOCNRP?V in order to provide more interim invoicing and client review points. 99+1 TNSVLDQ>PHV4QCNVOQ@@SPUL The scope of the work by the architect and the agreement as to its remuneration will be TPMVLC??SLURQPLVJQNVRULVOQPUSPUVTPMVCLSV>RKKV.SV>SKOQ@S" established separately and may be for partial services. This chart is an illustrative guide QJJROS2TOTNODRUSOULHOQHC=H only. Since many architects carry out interior design work, the tasks of procuring FF+E are A:AGV shown but are ALLQORTURQPVQJV:QPLCKUTPUVANODRUSOULV!UMVF optional as set out in the architect’s appointment agreement (SFA). 2020 Plan of058%8V86$356 Work tasks are 2020©RIBA; Alphabetical stages originate from RIBA Plan of Work 1963. QJJROS2TOTNODRUSOULHOQHC=V >>>HTOTNODRUSOULHOQHC= This edition based on the 2019 original ©2019 Stephen Yakeley and Association of Consultant Architects. This edition©ACA 2023. Your comments and suggestions for content and use are welcome: office@acarchitects.co.uk. -60 V7USBDSPV4T=SKSIVTPMVUDSVALLQORTURQPVQJV:QPLCKUTPU ANODRUSOUL

www.acarchitects.co.uk

QUESTION TIME

With John Assael Melanie Hern talks to John Assael In 1994 John founded Assael Architecture along with co-founder Russell Pedley. His practice was named Architect of the Year in 2016 at The Sunday Times British Homes Awards. In 2019 he was made a Fellow of the RIBA. In 2014 he was elected a national member of the RIBA Council and was later appointed Honorary Treasurer. He had been Vice President for Professional Services and was a trustee of the RIBA Board. He is a former chairman of the RIBA Journal. He was an elected member to ARB where he has sat on the Prescription Committee. He is a member of the Council of the Association of Consultant Architects. He sits on the Executive Committee and has been a trustee of the Architects Benevolent Society since 2004 and was a judge for the annual WAN Awards.

1. You run the award winning practice Assael Architecture; why did you become and Architect? I wasn't born wanting to be an architect but its grown on me! I always wanted to be a pilot - but my brother and all my friends were off to university and I didn’t want to be the only one missing out - so architecture seemed a good choice for my A levels in Maths and Art. 2. If you hadn’t become an Architect; what career would you have chosen? Fighter pilot. 3. Describe the culture at Assael Architecture. Work hard play hard. Giving something back is also a huge part of our DNA as is caring for and supporting students. 4. Is there a particular project or milestone you are most proud of? My most complex project is Riverside Studios in Hammersmith as it incorporates affordable and private housing on top of recording studios, a cinema, dance studio and restaurant. My most important milestone was acknowledging the contribution of all our staff to the business and changing the ownership of the firm into an Employee Ownership Trust. 5. What do you see as the greatest challenge for the next generation of Architects? Trying to comply with ever onerous policies and regulations against diminishing fees. 6. Describe your typical day. I'm in the office most days. Typically, I will spend some time mentoring students and others and generally dealing with staff matters. As Chair, I have several people reporting to me every day on matters as diverse as training sign offs, recruitment, finances and appointments as well as reviewing whether to pitch for work or not. Also, I still interview every potential member of staff and engage on the early stages of some designs – implementation however is not my area. 7. If you had a super power; what would it be? Make everybody tolerant.

8. Describe an interesting or fun fact about yourself. I am an identical twin. 9. What's one item you would take with you to a deserted island? Please can I take my dog Nancy? If not then my Leatherman multi tool knife. 10. Tea or coffee? Tea first thing then coffee. 11. Which architect do you most admire? I admire many architects especially my friends in the UK who are doing their best against all odds to make the world a better place in spite of all the obstacles. However, I am most inspired by Sir David Attenborough and his TV programmes to make us understand the beauty of our living planet and how >>> precarious this all is. n

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

FROM: BOOKS: MODERN BUILDINGS IN LONDON | IAN NAIRN

Nairn’s London Modern Buildings in London Ian Nairn Introduced by Travis Elborough Price: £16.99, Publication date: 5 September 2023 176 pages, Notting Hill Editions

Without any doubt, London is one of the best cities in the world for modern architecture. But it is also one of the biggest cities in the world, and it does not make a display of its best things.' lan Nairn, from the Foreword. First published in 1964, Modern Buildings in London is a celebration of the city's post-war architecture that was immediately recognisable as 'modern' at the time. Written 'by a layman for laymen', Nairn's take on 250 buildings includes classic buildings such as the Barbican, the former BBC Television Centre and the Penguin Pool at Regent's Park Zoo as well as schools, old timber yards, ambulance stations, car parks and even care homes. The succinct descriptions bring buildings to life and will you make you look anew at London and its surrounding areas: - Hilton Hotel, Park Lane - 'this white buffalo has turned out a bit better than feared'. - Royal Festival Hall, South Bank - 'An extraordinary building. It nonplussed evervone when it was first built' - Chelsea Barracks -'an outstanding exposition of the fact that very big buildings can keep their scale without becoming inhuman.' - Fairlawn Primary School, Forest Hill - 'Some buildings get into this book through architectural elegance, more - not enough - through being humane and friendly places to be in. A very few are both, and this is one of them ... so easy, yet so rare.' - London Transport Bus Garage, Stockwell - 'Probably the noblest modern building in London.' - Gatwick Airport - 'It is not only ingenious; it can be seen to be ingenious, and it gives a cerebral thrill rather like seeing a perfectly played hand of cards.' Forty years since his death in 1983, lan Nairn's timeless books on modern urban cities are still hailed as some of the most significant writing about contemporary Britain, while also being praised as alternative 'guidebooks' for curious travellers. 'To call lan Nairn a great architectural writer is too restrictive; he was a great writer who happened to write about buildings and places.' - Irish Times 'Once you discover [Nairn] you want to read everything he's written.' - Daily Telegraph. The FT comments: A visitor looking for new buildings in the City and the West End might well be justified in turning away with a shudder. Yet delightful things may be waiting for him in Lewisham or St. Albans.' – Ian Nairn, from the 'Foreword' to Modern Buildings in London. As one of the few architectural critics to eschew purely aesthetic modes of analysis, Ian Nairn's timeless books on modern urban cities have been hailed as some of the most significant writing about contemporary Britain, while also being praised as alternative 'guidebooks' for curious travellers.

www.planninginlondon.com

(The author) celebrates the character of buildings that were immediately recognisable as 'modern' in 1964, many of which were not the part of the well-known landscape of London but instead were gems that Nairn stumbled across. … Nairn's take on modern design includes classic buildings such as the Barbican, the former BBC Television Centre and the Penguin Pool at Regent's Park Zoo as well as schools, old timber yards, ambulance stations, car parks and even care homes. !

Issue 127 October-December 2023

67 35

ARCHITECTURAL APPOINTMENTS ACA excellence in practice

New small and simple works appointment agreement out now! The ACA Professional Services Agreement PSA22 is the newly published 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-psa-22/ 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

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

www.acarchitects.co.uk

• • • • • •

• • • • • • •

Why Invennt?

Case Study

Scan the QR code to book a complimentary exploratory review

ACA CPD EVENTS ACA excellence in practice

ACA CPD events NOVEMBER ACA Networking event Tuesday 7th November at The Queens Head, 13 Brook Green, Hammersmith, London, W6 7BL – see emails from office@acarchitects.co.uk

London Build 2023 Expo 15th - 16th November Grand Hall, Olympia, London

Independent Planning Consultants’ Conference 16th-17th November Leeds BOOK: Independent Planning Consultants’ Conference 2023 or email akn@alynnicholls.com

DECEMBER London Planning & Development Forum Monday 4th December 2pm at ASSAEL Agenda at www.planninginlondon.com

CHRISTMAS ACA Office closed from Monday 25th December to Tuesday 2nd January 2024 2024 FEBRUARY ACA / Howden Group Event on PII Save the Date - Tuesday 6th February London

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

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

www.acarchitects.co.uk

ACA FORMS OF APPOINTMENT

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 early 2024 and secondly, our newly published 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 Regulars Regulars

The Journal of the London Planning & Development Forum The Journal of the London Planning & Development Forum www.planninginlondon.com www.planninginlondon.com

IssueJ125 APRIL JUNE 2023

Issue 124 JANUARY-MARCH 2023 Issue 125 APRIL-JUNE 2023

LEADERS page 5 LEADERS page 5 FINCH page 7 FINCH page 7 ¡PILLO! page 29 ¡PILLO! page 25 PLANNING PERFORMANCE p30 PLANNING PERFORMANCE 26 ROGERS page 53 ROGERS page 49 BRIEFING page 23 BRIEFING page 21

Regulars

The Journal of the London Planning & Development Forum www.planninginlondon.com

Issue 125 APRIL JUNE 2023

Issue 125 APRIL-JUNE 2023

LEADERS page 5 FINCH page 7 ¡PILLO! page 25 PLANNING PERFORMANCE 26 ROGERS page 49 BRIEFING page 21

Take your PiL Keep up with Planning in London

WHERE IGNORANCE IS BELIEVED TO BE BLISS: 15-minute cities – or back to the ghetto, Paul

REVISED NPPF - The Government gives up, Zack Simons page 14; Leader - The strange Cheshire page 13; 15-minute principles help neighbourhoods, but don’t make cities LEADER death of Conservative housing, page 5; No rush to respond, Simon Ricketts page 17; page 5; Farrells’ Alankrita Amarnath: Looking through the lens of data on page 67; Build greener Flexible design for a sustainable future, Spencer de Grey page 54; Towards a net zero and build less, Johannes Novy page 8; Proposed changes to the NPPF, Matthew Robinson p 17 carbon building standard, David Partridge page 58; Senior living, Les Mayhew page 81 THE ESSENTIAL ESSENTIAL GUIDE THE GUIDE TO TO DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT IN INTHE THECAPITAL CAPITAL

Regulars

Please Pleasesubscribe: subscribe:page page6680

The Journal of the London Planning & Development Forum Issue 127 OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2023

www.planninginlondon.com

LEADERS page 5 FINCH page 7 MALLETT page 8 ¡PILLO! page 29 PLANNING PERFORMANCE 30 ROGERS page 51 PARKYN’S PIECES page 52

Planning sets the context within which architects have to work and deliver for their clients PiL has been published quarterly since 1992. SEE www.planninginlondon.com

WHERE IGNORANCE IS BELIEVED TO BE BLISS: 15-minute cities – or back to the ghetto, Paul Cheshire page 13; 15-minute principles help neighbourhoods, but don’t make cities LEADER page 5; Farrells’ Alankrita Amarnath: Looking through the lens of data on page 67; Build greener and build less, Johannes Novy page 8; Proposed changes to the NPPF, Matthew Robinson p 17 THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE CAPITAL

Please subscribe: page 66

ACA members can subscribe at half price: just £50 pa. Email planninginlondon@mac.com for details.

THE BROWNFIELD BONUS Mike Hood of LandSec page 15; WHERE TO BUILD NEXT AS BROWNFIELD SITES DRY UP Leader page 5; BROWNFIELD AND BIODIVERSITY Simon Ricketts page 19; LONDON'S OFFICE MARKET Tom Petryshen page 54; UNSPENT SECTION106 CONTRIBUTIONS Chris Gaunt page 58; WORLD CAR FREE DAY Gina Bugten Dinesen page 60 THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE CAPITAL

Please subscribe: page 74

international building press MAGAZINE OF THE YEAR (non-weekly) WINNER 2007, FINALIST 2006–2010 & 2016+2017+2018

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

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

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

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.

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

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

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

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.

FAC-1 and TAC-1 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.

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.

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. It has been updated and a refreshed SFA24 contract will published early in 2024 and secondly, our newly published 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.

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.

ACA SFA 2012 is the current version of the ACA SFA which was originally published in September 2008. It has been updated. 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.

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

www.acarchitects.co.uk

NEW MEMBERS

Welcome to new members Richard Diaz Lopez Gary Stanesby Jamal Uddin Conrad Till Daniela Favero Lorna Ryan Adrian Jess David Hepburn Jeffrey Bell Matthew Hollingsworth Annemarie Krijbolder Philip Waddy Nicolas Tye

FREEFORM ARCHITECTS Stanesby Architecture The Seven Dials Trust JMP Architects Daniela Favero Architecture | Interiors Shaping Spaces Junction Architects Ltd. Hepburn Daoudi Architects Jeffrey Bell Architects Limited Spirit Architecture Annemarie K Interiors West Waddy Archadia Tye Architects

ACA is growing 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

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

ARB’S SCHEME FOR CPD ACA excellence in practice

ARB’s consultation on a scheme for CPD ARB reports the results and its intended next steps

As the regulator for architects, ARB ensures only those who are suitably competent are allowed to practise as architects. We do this by approving the qualifications required to join the UK Register of Architects, and setting the standards of conduct and practice the profession must meet. The Building Safety Act 2022 gives ARB the power to monitor the training and development architects carry out throughout their careers. We will do this by implementing a new and mandatory CPD scheme. The scheme will be underpinned by guidance to help architects understand what will be required of them to meet the terms of the scheme to maintain their registration. From September 2022 to January 2023, we consulted to invite views on a draft of the guidance before it is finalised. The consultation asked for feedback on key parts of the guidance, including the activity-based nature of the scheme, suggestions on mandatory topics, views on the reflective statement, as well as the inclusivity of the scheme and further recommendations. We received 1,350 unique responses in total. Most responses (96%) were from registered architects (1,302) including registered architects who are also academics (65). We received responses from people across the country and the profession, with responses from different sized practices and architects at various stages in their career. A majority (58%) of respondents agreed that recording activities is a good way of measuring CPD that has been undertaken. Sixteen percent of respondents strongly agreed and 42% agreed with this draft proposal. Twelve percent disagreed, 19% strongly disagreed and the remainder neither agreed nor disagreed. Learn more. Minimum activity requirements ARB recommended that architects carry out a minimum of eight CPD activities over the year (which will include activities carried out in respect of mandatory topics). Views on this proposal were split, with slightly more respondents agreeing (44%) than disagreeing (41%). Learn more. Fifty-five percent of respondents made recommendations for mandatory topics, with the most popular recommended topics from respondents being regulatory changes (24%), sustainability (22%) and safety (21%). These topics have also been raised with ARB through previous engagement and research

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

exercises. Learn more. Overall, respondents did not support the proposal for a reflective statement (68%), wherein an architect would need to discuss how their chosen activities supported their development. The most common concerns around the requirement of reflective practice were that it was too bureaucratic (32%) and took time away from fee-earning work (18%). Respondents also made suggestions on how to make the reflective statement element less onerous. These included a word limit, publication of examples to show how to complete it, and encouraging employers of architects to allow time to complete reflection during business hours. Learn more. Two-hundred and eight (15%) respondents were recorded expressing a concern about the scheme relating to money, disabilities, caregiving responsibilities, online access, location or gender. Affordability and the exclusion of those on lower incomes was the most common concern, raised by 65 (5%) respondents. Concerns around disability and the online format of the portal mean we will need to ensure the portal is accessible and offer reasonable adjustments. One hundred and thirty-four respondents (10%) included other considerations in their response. These points included protected characteristics, retired people, part time workers, mental health and anxiety, language and international issues. Learn more.

Concerns and misconceptions Eighteen percent of respondents raised what they thought were concerns about the scheme but were in fact misconceptions about our plans. These included the view that architects should be exempt from the scheme on the basis they already take part in other CPD schemes, or they are registered but do not practice. We will continue to communicate the requirements of the scheme as clearly as possible. Learn more. There will be no minimum number of activities that an architect must complete. ARB will suggest, not but mandate, that architects undertake eight activities a year. Following feedback on the equality, diversity and inclusion implications of the scheme, we will develop and test the online portal so that it is accessible and we will offer reasonable adjustments. Basing the scheme on activities and giving architects the flexibility to define their own activities makes the

www.acarchitects.co.uk

>>> scheme inclusive; architects can opt for activities based on the best learning style for their needs and their practice, and that need not cost money. ARB will finalise the scheme based on the conclusions above and feedback we have received from our pilot study. We will

publish updated, final guidance by the end of 2023. The scheme is expected to be launched in 2024, becoming mandatory for registered architects from January 2025. We will share further information on the detail of the scheme and the result of the pilot is planned for later in 2023. n

ACANews AUTUMN 2023

SERVICEPRINT T: +44 (0)20 3176 6878 E: info@serviceprint.net

FULL COLOUR PRINTING Fast, high quality printing service on your doorstep!

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

A4 Wire Brochure

A4 Perfect Bound Brochure

Foam Boards

A4 Stapled Bound Brochure

Standard Business Cards

Notepads

Visit: www.serviceprint.net

SERVICEPRINT