Episode 205 - *Bonus* ARB's New Routes to Registration

This week is a bonus episode relating to further updates on the ARB’s intentions on the proposed new routes to registration. This episode content meets PC1 - Professionalism of the Part 3 Criteria.

Resources from today's episode:

Website:

• https://arb.org.uk/consultations/consultation-on-new-proposed-route-for-registration/?utm_source=ig&utm_medium=social&utm_content=link_in_bio
• https://arb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Registration-Rules.pdf

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 205:

Hello and Welcome to the Part3 with me podcast. 

The show designed to help Part 3 students kick-start their careers as qualified architects, while offering valuable refresher episodes for practising professionals.

If you’d like to support the podcast and help us keep creating great content, check out the link in the episode notes to subscribe. We also provide one-to-one mentoring to help you prepare for your submissions, exams, and interview, visit our website to learn more, connect with us on LinkedIn via the Part 3 With Me page, find us on Instagram at @part3withme, or email at part3withme@outlook.com.

I am your host Maria Skoutari and this week is a bonus episode relating to further updates on the ARB’s intentions on the proposed new routes to registration. Todays’ episode meets PC1 of the Part 3 Criteria.

So the ARB launched a Consultation on the proposed new routes to registration in October 2025 and has closed as of this month February 2026. 

The consultation is about how people get onto, or back onto, the UK Register of Architects, and how ARB can remove unnecessary barriers while still protecting the public. The ARB mentions that one of their strategic aims is to improve access to the Register for competent professionals by simplifying processes and removing unintended complexity and barriers. This consultation is one part of that wider agenda, alongside the new education framework, reforms to practical experience, and work on international routes to registration which we covered in previous episodes.

Now, the proposals we’re talking about today all sit under a new umbrella that ARB are calling the Registration Assurance Process.

So, what is the Registration Assurance Process:

At the moment, some “non‑standard” applicants, for example, people returning to the Register after a significant gap, are assessed by the ARB’s Competency Standards Group. Separately, ARB also uses CPD reviewers to look at compliance with its mandatory CPD scheme.

Now, ARB are proposing to retire that structure and replace it with a single Registration Assurance Process, supported by one pool of expert assessors. These assessors would take over work currently done by both the Competency Standards Group and the CPD reviewers, so instead of multiple overlapping panels you would have a consolidated team working to consistent guidance.

The ambition here is twofold:

• To simplify and streamline the process for applicants, especially those coming through less common routes.
• To maintain, and arguably strengthen, assurance of competence by using a more targeted and proportionate evidence base.

The key item to highlight here is that the Registration Assurance Process isn’t replacing the core qualification routes that most Part 3 listeners will recognise. The standard route which is the accredited Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3, plus the required practical experience, remains governed by the ARB’s General Rules and the existing Registration Rules. What the Registration Assurance Process does is manage three specific groups of applicants who need a tailored process.

These proposed routes include:

• Route R – relating to re‑entry or delayed entry to the Register for qualified architects.
• Route P – relating to partially qualified professionals with accredited Part 2 and Part 3 but no accredited Part 1.
• And Route C – where architects are removed from the Register for failing to comply with ARB’s CPD scheme.

So lets look at each route in more detail:

Starting with Route R – re‑entry or delayed entry - 

So Route R is aimed at qualified professionals who either left the Register more than two years ago, or who completed their final qualification, Part 3 or Practice Outcomes, more than two years ago but never actually joined the Register.

Under the current Registration Rules and guidance, if you’re in that position there’s already an expectation that you demonstrate “recent practical experience and training” so that ARB can be satisfied you’re still competent to practise. That’s rooted in the Architects Act requirement that ARB only admits people who meet its standard of competence for registration.

But, what ARB are now proposing through Route R is to make that review more focused and more proportionate. Meaning, instead of defaulting to formal assessment or requiring a bespoke course, the key evidence to be provided would be:

• A CV and written reference from a registered architect verifying that you have been working in the architecture sector on relevant work for at least the last two continuous years; or
• If that kind of reference isn’t available, a personal statement in which you self‑identify gaps in your knowledge or readiness to practise in the UK context, and explain how you’ve addressed those through CPD, backed up with reflective statements.

With this route, the ARB emphasise that the referee does not have to be your line manager or supervisor, but they do need to be a registered architect who can speak credibly about your work and experience. They also say they will produce guidance both for applicants and for assessors, to clarify what “reassurance of readiness to practise” looks like in practice.

For those of you thinking ahead to professional studies, the underlying principle here is that the ARB’s concern isn’t only whether you were competent at the point of Part 3, it’s whether you are ready to practice now, in the current UK regulatory and practice context. Which is why evidence of continuous, relevant work is very important with this route.

There’s also a specific note about individuals who have been erased from the Register by the Professional Conduct Committee. They will, by definition, have been off the Register for more than two years, so they too would come through Route R, but any decision about re‑entry would separately involve the Board looking at the original disciplinary findings under the existing disciplinary and erasure provisions in the Registration Rules.

So in summary, Route R takes the existing expectation of recent experience, which already appears in the Registration Rules and General Rules, and codifies a clearer, more streamlined evidence base around it.

Moving onto Route P – relating to partially qualified professionals:

Route P is the one that will catch the eye of a lot of Part 3 listeners, particularly those who have taken a non‑traditional academic path.

This new route is designed for people who hold ARB‑accredited Part 2 and Part 3 qualifications, but who do not have an ARB‑accredited Part 1. Under the current framework, anyone in that position has typically been required to go through ARB’s Part 1 Prescribed Exam, which involves a portfolio submission, a mapping document to demonstrate coverage of the ARB Criteria, and an interview.

ARB are is now proposing under Route P that, for a limited transitional period linked to the move to the new education framework, this cohort should instead be able to use Route P and avoid the Part 1 Prescribed Exam. The idea is to recognise that these individuals have already had their competence demonstrated at a higher level through successfully obtaining accredited Part 2 and Part 3 even if their first degree wasn’t an accredited Part 1 in the UK.

To get to this conclusion, ARB say they have analysed the Graduate Attributes associated with the current, outgoing Criteria, comparing what is expected at Part 1 and Part 2. And their view is that while applicants in this group might not have the same cumulative duration of academic study, or the same foundational teaching in some Part 1‑style concepts, they have nonetheless demonstrated the same competencies at a more demanding level in achieving an accredited Part 2.

So that’s the educational side under Route P. On the practice side, they propose to mitigate any residual risk in a very similar way to Route R by focusing on recent, continuous work in the UK architecture sector. So under Route P, the evidence base is expected to include:

• A CV and written reference from a registered architect confirming that the applicant has been working in the architecture sector on relevant work for at least the last two continuous years.

For candidates taking this route, again, the ARB intend to issue guidance explaining what counts as relevant work, what assessors should look for, and how to judge whether someone is ready to practise safely and knowledgeably from “Day One”.

Bu, there are two important caveats to highlight:

• First, Route P is described as a temporary route, part of the transition to the new education framework. If someone is eligible but does not use the route while it is open, ARB’s position is that candidates will need to apply for the Prescribed Exam instead once the transitional period has ended.
• And second, the ARB still plan to introduce a new Prescribed Exam and a UK Adaptation Assessment in 2027, aligned with the wider education reforms, with a separate consultation on implementation scheduled for 2026.

For Part 3 students and graduates, considering this route the message here is quite specific. If you already hold, or are on track to hold, ARB‑accredited Part 2 and Part 3 qualifications, but your Bachelors degree wasn’t accredited as a Part 1 ARB accredited course, you will want to look carefully at whether you can make use of Route P during the transitional window, rather than relying on the existing Prescribed Exam route later on.

And now lets move on to the final and third route, Route C – relevant for architects removed from the Register for failing to comply with the ARB’s CPD scheme:

The third route in the proposed Registration Assurance Process is Route C, which deals with architects who have been removed from the Register because they did not comply with ARB’s CPD scheme.

Under the ARB’s current Registration Rules, anyone wishing to remain on the Register must comply with the Scheme for Continuing Professional Development, record their CPD on MyARB or another system recognised by the Board, and make declarations when requested. Where CPD records are missing or inadequate, the ARB can decide not to retain, or to remove, a registrant under section 9(1)(b) of the Architects Act.

Route C focuses on what happens when someone in that position wants to return to the Register but does not have an up‑to‑date CPD record for the previous year. ARB’s principle here is explicit, an architect should not be able to avoid complying with the CPD scheme by leaving the Register and then simply re‑joining later.

Therefore, the proposed evidence requirement is for architects seeking to re-enter to provide:

• A Personal Development Plan (PDP) on MyARB, setting out the CPD topics the applicant plans to address over the next 12 months, including ARB’s mandatory CPD topics.

The ARB Registration staff would then check that the Personal Development Plan meets the minimum requirements, and then carry out a further review before the next registration renewal period to see whether the planned CPD, or equivalent learning, has actually been completed by the applicant.

From a Part 3 perspective, this reinforces the idea that competence isn’t a one‑off hurdle at the point of qualification. It’s a continuing obligation that is embedded in the CPD scheme and in the Registration Rules, and non‑compliance can affect both your presence on the Register and the conditions attached to your return.

Now, how does this fit into the existing Registration Rules:

To understand how significant these proposals are, it’s helpful to place them against ARB’s existing Registration Rules, which were most recently updated in October 2024.

Those Rules set out:

• The qualifications and practical experience required for standard registration with UK qualifications, that is, accredited Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3, plus at least 24 months’ practical experience, including a minimum of 12 months in a Relevant European Territory, under the direct supervision of an architect or other appropriately qualified professional.
• The way Prescribed Examinations can be used where applicants do not hold the usual Schedule 1 qualifications.
• The need for “recent practical experience and training” for certain categories of applicant, including those seeking re‑entry after more than two years off the Register.
• The requirement to comply with the CPD scheme to remain on the Register, and the possibility of removal where CPD is not demonstrated. 

So the consultation doesn’t rewrite those foundations. Instead, it proposes to implement the new Registration Assurance Process and its three routes via targeted changes to the Registration Rules. The ARB have published draft Rule changes and are asking whether respondents agree that those drafts accurately reflect what is proposed in the consultation document. So if you’re preparing for Part 3 exams or teaching professional studies, the key message is that the familiar structures of qualifications, practical experience, and the legal framework for registration remain, but there is an overlay of more defined, route‑specific processes for certain groups.

The ARB’s aims with these changes are to:

• Create more proportionate processes for applicants, especially those whose routes don’t fit the “standard” pattern.
• Ease access to the Register for competent professionals, particularly those with partial qualifications, people who have stepped away from the Register, and those returning after CPD issues.
• Maintain high standards of competence and public confidence, including by avoiding any loopholes around CPD compliance.

So, what does all of this actually mean if you’re a Part 3 candidate, a recent graduate, or a practitioner thinking about stepping back onto the Register:

For current and imminent Part 3 candidates following the standard route:

• The basic pathway, accredited Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3, plus the required practical experience, is unchanged by this consultation, pending the introduction of the new educational framework of course. 

For those with non‑standard academic histories:

• If you hold, or will hold, ARB‑accredited Part 2 and Part 3 qualifications but your first degree isn’t an accredited Part 1, Route P is specifically designed with you in mind.

There is a time‑limited opportunity to avoid the Part 1 Prescribed Exam by using Route P during the transitional period. After that, the expectation is that you would revert to the Prescribed Exam route.

• You will still need to evidence at least two continuous years of relevant work in the architecture sector, with a reference from a registered architect.

For those considering leaving and later re‑joining the Register:

• Route R clarifies the kind of evidence ARB are likely to expect if you have been off the Register for more than two years, or if you delay your first application for more than two years after Part 3.
• Maintaining continuity of relevant work, and being able to demonstrate that through a credible reference or carefully documented CPD, will be important if you want to minimise friction when you come back.

So the consulation would have formally concluded following the release of this episode so I will revert back over the next few months with the consultation results and next steps proposed by the ARB.

Let’s sum up what we discussed today:

• The ARB’s consultation on new routes to registration closed in February 2026, aiming to simplify access to the Register while maintaining public protection.
• A new Registration Assurance Process is proposed to replace several existing panels with one unified framework of assessors.
• Three tailored routes are planned: Route R for re-entry or delayed registration, Route P for partially qualified professionals, and Route C for those returning after CPD non-compliance.
• The changes don’t replace the standard Part 1–2–3 route but add clearer, proportionate pathways for non‑standard applicants.
• The focus is on reducing barriers, ensuring competence in current practice, and embedding CPD compliance as a continuing responsibility.