[ad_1]
On June 14, 2017, 72 people tragically lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower fire.
After watching the public inquiry, many would conclude that some indefensible behavior in the construction industry played a significant role in this tragedy. What’s different about Grenfell is how all of these actions are brought together in one project.
Unfortunately, it took six years and three months to force change through legislation that would apply to all buildings. On October 1 last year, the government updated the “Statutory Instruments of Building Regulations” to require that all buildings must have a “chief designer”.
The government wisely gave this role the same name as the role required by the CDM regulations – “Chief Designer” – even though they are completely different roles with different responsibilities.
At Space Architects, we have reviewed the capabilities of a lead designer and concluded that an architect is best suited for this role. For us, these capabilities formalize much of the role of lead designer on a project.
Over the past 20 years, the role of the lead designer has been diminished, primarily due to the use of design and build procurement. D&B contracts are designed to transfer risks away from the client and allow the contractor to assume and manage those risks. Unfortunately, D&B often reduces costs at the expense of value. The new lead designer role provides architects with the opportunity to help solve this problem, develop their skills and experience, and demonstrate the value they can bring to projects through the competencies required in the role.
However, in recent weeks our clients have asked us to register on the RIBA’s new Principal Designer Register to demonstrate that they have considered the capabilities of a Principal Designer. I can’t blame our customers. They have seen the register promoted by our professional bodies indicating that this is a requirement.
However, after 7 years of university study and almost 30 years of work experience, I find it hard to believe that the RIBA would suggest that I must demonstrate my abilities on another roster. I think that’s what it means to be a member of a professional body. Currently, the fee to become a registered architect with the ARB is £199 and to become a member of the RIBA is £448. On top of this we also spend thousands of pounds being a registered practice. The registration fee for a Principal Designer is £420 and the annual registration fee is £360. It now costs £1,007 a year to prove you are a competent architect.
RIBA sees the lead designer role as an opportunity to generate revenue
As part of the Construction Safety Act, architects now have a legal duty to carry out ongoing CPD and record it to the ARB or RIBA. I think that’s a real positive and have no problem with it. My question is that RIBA sees the role of principal designer as an opportunity to generate revenue by creating another register.
After seven years of studying to be a registered architect, and accumulating huge debts, how many young architects will be able to become lead designers on their projects once they gain experience?
My impression is that the RIBA is there to represent its members and all members should be capable of fulfilling the role of lead designer. Instead, it saw an opportunity to generate revenue to cover rising overhead costs. As a Newcastle member I am getting no value from it and over the last few weeks I have found that the RIBA are increasing my costs. The real question is: what value can the RIBA provide when it misses out on the most important career development opportunity in a generation?
Rob Charlton is CEO of Space Group Architects
[ad_2]
Source link