A recent survey by Architects' Journal has revealed overwhelming support among architects for legal protection of their professional functions, with 92 percent of more than 250 respondents favoring some level of functional protection. The poll, launched on November 5, was prompted by rumors that government advisers are considering whether to legally restrict architectural work to qualified professionals only.
According to detailed analysis of the survey responses, a majority of participants (more than 56 percent) want architects to have exclusive and protected responsibility for planning and building control submissions. Only about one-fifth (21 percent) wanted all architectural tasks to be protected, with some suggesting protection should only apply from RIBA Stage 3 onwards. Remarkably, fewer than two percent of respondents wanted protection limited to just high-risk buildings.
The debate has emerged as advisers to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) working on designing a new single construction regulator are reportedly reviewing whether to legally protect architects' job functions from being performed by unqualified individuals. Currently, while it's a criminal offense to use the title "architect" in business without being on the ARB register of qualified architects, anyone is allowed to perform architectural and building design tasks. This differs significantly from many other countries, including France, Portugal, and Spain, where such functions are legally protected.
When contacted, the MHCLG would not specifically confirm whether protection of function was being re-examined, but told the publication: "Architects are already regulated and, while there are no plans to change this, we keep opportunities for reform under review." Despite this non-committal response, the rumors have reignited passionate debate across multiple platforms beyond the online survey.
Ben Addy, founding director of Moxon Architects, strongly supports the concept, arguing that "legal protection and legal accountability go hand in hand, or they go nowhere at all." He explained that if the public is entitled to rely legally on architects' work, then that work must be both protected and enforceable in law. "The reverse is also true: one without the other is nonsense," Addy stated. He criticized the current system, saying "protecting the title alone is just a fig leaf – a token gesture that conceals the absence of full public accountability while doing little to serve the wider public interest."
Several survey respondents provided detailed suggestions for implementation. One anonymous commentator argued that all private residential works, except permitted development, should become an exclusive function of architects, along with design sign-off for building control submissions. They also called for the principal designer role under CDM Regulations 2015 to be mandated to architects. "The debate over protecting the architect's function must center on public safety, not professional ego – though it certainly needs to justify the $125,000 debt and 10 years of training," the respondent noted.
Another participant highlighted current problems with the unregulated system: "Without protection of function, we're seeing design and technical coordination at critical stages being diluted by unqualified individuals, leading to poor outcomes and unnecessary risk. Protecting function would help restore value, uphold standards, and serve the public interest." They noted that with anyone able to submit planning applications, architects increasingly work within a system where significant resources are consumed processing non-professional submissions.
Some respondents suggested that protection should align with the "golden thread" concept, requiring all work to be properly recorded. One stated: "Only an architect should carry out this role, even if that means architects are called in to sign off interior design works and fit-outs. Same way a builder can install electrics but only an electrician can certify the install." Another thought protection should begin at RIBA Stage 3, when "design information becomes critical to approvals and technical coordination."
However, not everyone agreed with the proposals. Nearly a quarter of respondents raised concerns about potential bureaucracy. William Matthews, director of William Matthews Associates, expressed skepticism: "I'm not sure that it would add anything other than bureaucracy. UK standards of professionalism and competence are already among the highest in the world, demonstrated by the global success of UK firms." He noted that in countries where planning applications must be literally stamped by registered architects, this hasn't automatically led to higher standards.
Other critics questioned where such restrictions would end, with one respondent asking: "Where do you stop though? Restricting work on listed buildings to conservation architects?" They suggested an alternative approach: requiring all building designers to carry appropriate professional indemnity insurance, which "may naturally weed out non-qualified professionals."
The survey results have prompted broader discussion about the profession's future direction and its relationship with public safety and accountability. The Architects' Journal poll on protection of function remains open for additional responses, as the architectural community continues to debate this potentially significant regulatory change.
