Episode 198 - New Year, New Role: Rethinking what it means to be an architect

This week we will be talking about the latest shake‑up around how the UK regulates architects. This episode content meets PC1 - Professionalism of the Part 3 Criteria.

Resources from today's episode:

Website:

• https://www.riba.org/work/insights-and-resources/professional-features/do-you-have-to-be-a-registered-architect-to-be-a-riba-chartered-member/
• https://www.riba.org/news/changes-to-architects-regulation/

Thank you for listening! Please follow me on Instagram @part3withme for weekly content and updates or contact me via email me at part3withme@outlook.com or on LinkedIn. 

Website: www.part3withme.com

Join me next week for more Part3 With Me time.

If you liked this episode please give it a rating to help reach more fellow Part3er's!

Transcript

Episode 198:

Hello and Welcome to the Part3 with me podcast. 

The show that helps part 3 students jump-start into their careers as qualified architects and also provides refresher episodes for practising architects. If you would like to show your support for the podcast and help us continue making amazing content, click on the link in the episode notes to sign up to our subscription. I also offer one to one mentoring services to help you with your submissions, exams and interview, head over to our website to learn more or reach out to me on LinkedIn through the Part3 With Me page, or instagram my handle is @part3withme or email me at part3withme@outlook.com. 

I am your host Maria Skoutari and starting off the new year with a bang this week we will be talking about the latest shake‑up around how the UK regulates architects. Not just the title, but the very functions architects perform in the built environment. Todays’ episode meets PC1 of the Part 3 Criteria.

So what does this shake up mean for current registered professionals and students undertaking their Part 3:

For years, the UK system has revolved around a protected title whereby legally, you cannot call yourself an “architect” in business or practice unless you are on the Architects Registration Board (ARB) register. But there has never been broad legal protection of the activities architects undertake, things like leading design, coordinating complex projects, or taking on life‑safety‑critical roles can legally be carried out by a wide range of people, regardless of whether they are registered architects.

So recent moves, including RIBA’s policy work, the RIBA presidents decision not to renew his ARB registration and the government’s past and current reviews of architect regulation, have re‑opened an old but fundamental question: should the UK continue to protect only the title, or should it protect the function of architects in law?

Let’s start by looking at how regulation works now:

To understand what is being challenged, it helps to sketch the current regulatory landscape in simple terms. At the centre of this is the Architects Registration Board, the statutory regulator set up under the Architects Act 1997 to maintain the UK Register, set standards of education and training, and regulate conduct and competence. ARB’s core job is public protection and making sure that anyone using the title architect meets minimum standards and can be held to account.

Crucially, UK law protects the title “architect” but not the entire domain of architectural services. That means:

• Only someone on the ARB Register can call themselves an “architect” in the course of business in the UK.
• Many of the services clients think of as “architectural”, such as planning drawings, basic design, even some coordination roles can be lawfully provided by people who are not architects at all, as long as they don’t misuse the title. 

Alongside ARB sits RIBA, which is not a statutory regulator but a professional body offering chartered membership, practice accreditation, contracts, guidance, and advocacy. RIBA has its own eligibility criteria and code for chartered members and practices, but joining RIBA is voluntary and legally separate from ARB registration.

This distinction matters as you can be an ARB‑registered architect without being a RIBA Chartered Member, and you can, in some circumstances, be a RIBA Chartered Member without currently appearing on the ARB Register, depending on your route to membership and status. That separation between statutory registration and professional membership is one of the tensions that recent debates have brought into the spotlight.

So let’s look at the protection of title vs protection of function more closely:

At the heart of the current shake‑up is the difference between protecting the “title” architect and protecting the “function”. As mentioned, the protection of title, which the UK currently has, is essentially about who may legally use the word “architect” in a professional or commercial context. Protection of function, which exists in some other jurisdictions, is about reserving certain activities typically safety‑critical or complex design functions to regulated professionals who meet defined standards.

RIBA’s recent policy work has explicitly argued that the UK’s title‑only model is no longer sufficient if the goal is genuine public protection in a post‑Grenfell, Building Safety Act world. The Institute has been campaigning for a new regulatory model based on “reserved activities”, where specific tasks in the design and delivery of buildings, rather than just a word on a business card, are regulated.

Examples of the kind of activities that could, in theory, be reserved include:

• Acting as the lead designer on higher‑risk buildings.
• Carrying out, or signing off, life‑safety‑critical elements of design.
• Taking responsibility for principal designer duties under building regulations, particularly on complex or higher‑risk projects. 

In parallel, to the RIBA, the government’s call for evidence on the regulation of architects explicitly recognised that the current model might need to change to better align with wider reforms in building safety, competence, and oversight. That wider regulatory context is now combining with professional pressure, including high‑profile public statements from within RIBA, to push the question of function back onto the agenda.

Another highly visible strand in this debate has been the relationship between RIBA and ARB, and the way the title “architect” is being used as a campaigning tool. RIBA’s own explanation of chartered membership makes clear that “RIBA Chartered Member” is a distinct professional recognition, with its own eligibility criteria based on qualifications and experience. That recognition can apply in the UK and overseas, and not every chartered member will necessarily be on the UK ARB Register at every point in their career.

Recent commentary has highlighted a more confrontational stance, whereby the RIBA president has used his own registration decision to draw attention to what they see as shortcomings in the current ARB‑led system. This has raised uncomfortable but important questions for the profession:

• How meaningful is the protected title if highly experienced practitioners can willingly step off the ARB Register yet remain influential in the profession?
• What does it signal to the public if the President or senior figures in the professional body choose not to hold the statutory title “architect”? 

At the same time, RIBA’s policy note on the regulation of architects and its wider campaign material stress that the Institute wants a more coherent, risk‑based regulatory system where public protection is central, and where professional bodies, including RIBA, sit within a clearer framework of reserved activities. That inevitably invites scrutiny of how RIBA uses the term “chartered architect” and how this sits alongside ARB’s control of the legal title.

So, the push towards protecting the function of architects rests on several arguments that will be familiar to anyone following post‑Grenfell reform and the Building Safety Act.

Supporters of stronger function protection often emphasise:

• Public safety on complex buildings, particularly higher‑risk residential schemes, that require competent, accountable design leadership. Therefore reserving critical design functions to regulated professionals is seen as a way to reduce the risk of catastrophic failure. 
• Offers transparency for clients, whereby in a crowded marketplace of “architectural designers” and similar titles, clearer rules about who can do what are argued to help clients understand the level of assurance they are buying. 
• Aligning with other regulated sectors. Sectors such as medicine and engineering reserve certain functions to those on statutory registers. Advocates argue that architecture should be no different given the potential life‑safety implications of design decisions. 
• Providing consistency with building safety reform. The creation of the new dutyholder roles and gateway controls under building safety legislation already points towards a more function‑based view of competence and accountability. 

RIBA’s campaign materials on regulation underline that the Institute wants government to move towards a model in which reserved activities protect the public by ensuring that high‑risk tasks are performed only by demonstrably competent professionals, of which architects would be a central part.

Now, on the other side, there are well‑reasoned concerns that an expansive approach to protecting function could have unintended consequences. These concerns come from within the profession and from adjacent disciplines that also work in the built environment. Common worries include:

• Over‑restriction and barriers to entry. If too many activities are reserved, there is a risk of narrowing the range of providers, increasing costs, and making it harder for smaller practices or emerging professionals to operate, especially in niche or low‑risk sectors. 
• Inter‑professional tension whereby many non‑architect professionals, such as technologists, engineers, and surveyors, carry out design functions. If the function is poorly defined, a reserved‑activity model could create conflict or duplication between professions. 
• Administrative complexity, meaning defining, monitoring, and enforcing reserved functions could add layers of bureaucracy to a system already grappling with new building safety requirements. 
• Risk of complacency. Some critics worry that a formal reservation of function could lead to a “badge of safety” mentality, where clients assume that appointment of a regulated professional automatically guarantees quality and safety, regardless of how the role is actually discharged. 

There is also a more philosophical concern about professional identity. If the function of the architect is carved into narrow, reserved technical activities, does that diminish the broader cultural and civic role of architects as shapers of the built environment? That question sits uncomfortably alongside more immediate regulatory debates, but it matters for how future architects see their own professional horizon.

So if you are a Part 3 students, why does this matters for you:

For Part 3 candidates and newly qualified architects, this debate goes beyond theory. The regulatory status of the function “architect” affects how responsibility is allocated on projects, what competence you are expected to demonstrate, and how clients and the public understand your role.

There are three immediate implications to draw out:

• First, the bar on competence and ongoing learning is rising, regardless of title. ARB has already introduced a statutory CPD scheme, with mandatory topics in fire and life safety and environmental sustainability, responding to the Building Safety Act and expectations around professional accountability. RIBA similarly expects chartered members to engage in structured CPD and to demonstrate competence across design, professional practice, and ethics.
• Second, the duties attached to specific roles, such as Building Regulations Principal Designer under the new Building Safety Act regime, are increasingly being defined in law, and these duties are often taken on by architects or architecture‑led practices. Whether or not those functions become formally reserved in future, the regulatory environment already assumes a level of competence and professional infrastructure that not all “designers” outside the regulated professions may have.
• And thirdly, the narrative around architects’ duties is shifting from serving the client to serving society more broadly. ARB’s recent consultation on a new Code of Conduct emphasises the responsibility to protect the health and safety of those who construct, maintain, and use buildings and places, moving beyond a narrow contractual view of duty. For Part 3 candidates, that means learning to articulate and navigate a professional role that is as much about public interest, safety, and environmental responsibility as it is about aesthetics or client service.

So what might this look like in the future:

So, where might all of this be heading, and how should Part 3 candidates mentally prepare? Government and ARB have already been through one major call for evidence on the regulation of architects, and RIBA has responded by calling for a model that focuses less on symbolic protection of title and more on protecting the public through reserved activities. The direction of travel in building safety, CPD, and codes of conduct also points towards a more demanding, competence‑led regime for those who design and deliver buildings.

A future model might include:

• Clear, legally defined “reserved activities” linked to building risk and complexity, with architects and other defined professionals authorised to undertake them. 
• Stronger, outcomes‑focused competence requirements, both at the point of registration and through mandatory CPD, anchored in public safety and sustainability. 
• A more integrated relationship between ARB and professional bodies such as RIBA, with better alignment between chartered status and regulatory expectations. 
• More explicit recognition of multi‑disciplinary practice, clarifying how different professions share or divide reserved functions on real projects. 

For architects, that could elevate the perceived value of their skills and give clearer statutory backing to their role, but it would also bring increased scrutiny, accountability, and potential liability if those reserved functions are performed poorly. For Part 3 candidates, this is a reminder that qualification is not the end point but the start of a career in which regulation and expectations are likely to keep evolving.

As this process unfolds, I will keeping you updated with the latest, so stay tuned! 

Let’s sum up what I discussed today:

• The RIBA is calling for a major reform of architect regulation in the UK, shifting from simply protecting the job title “architect” towards protecting specific high‑risk architectural activities as legally reserved functions to improve public safety. 
• Under current UK law, only those registered with the Architects Registration Board (ARB) can legally use the title “architect” in business, but this does not stop non‑architects or unregistered designers (including some RIBA Chartered Members) from offering many architectural services, provided they do not misuse the protected title. 
• RIBA Chartered Membership is a voluntary professional accreditation with its own eligibility criteria, often based on RIBA‑recognised Parts 1–3 or equivalent international qualifications, and it is separate from statutory ARB registration and the legal right to use the title “architect” in the UK. 
• Both RIBA and ARB are tightening expectations around competence, CPD, and ethical conduct, with RIBA using its membership regulations and CPD policy and ARB using its education reforms and statutory CPD scheme, signalling a more demanding, accountability‑focused environment for architects and those performing architectural functions.
• At the moment there no clear direction on the next steps but I will keep you updated as things unfold.