11 Protection of Function: Uncomfortable Truths
Part of a Series - The Grenfell Tower Tragedy Changed Everything
Rethinking the Architectural Profession in the Post-Grenfell Era.
Average Reading Time 8m - 1700 words
11 Protection of Function: Uncomfortable Truths
While architects are vital to the built environment, we must confront the truth that nothing we talked about previously in relation to roles, responsibilities and specialisms is the sole responsibility of architects alone.
Other professionals, such as RICS surveyors, CIAT technicians, RTPI planners, IStructE structural engineers, and ICE civil engineers, regularly perform similar roles, sometimes with architects, sometimes without.
Design and Innovation: Structural engineers, civil engineers, and CIAT technicians often shape building designs and infrastructure without direct architectural oversight.
Regulatory Compliance and Public Safety: Surveyors, engineers, and fire safety consultants ensure buildings meet regulatory standards, sometimes without architects' involvement.
Project Coordination and Collaboration: Project managers from diverse backgrounds lead team coordination, budgets, and timelines.
Cost and Risk Management: Quantity surveyors often lead in advising on cost and risk, with architects as contributors.
Contract Administration and Construction Oversight: Surveyors frequently oversee construction project administration and are often involved in the selection of the design team.
Sustainability and Climate Adaptation: Engineers and environmental consultants drive sustainability initiatives, often with specialised expertise that architects lack.
Post-Occupancy Evaluation: Facilities managers and surveyors focus on operational efficiency rather than architectural design during post-occupancy evaluations.
This overlap creates a challenge. If architects do not hold exclusive rights to any specific function, how can we credibly argue that the government should regulate the function of architecture?
Why This Matters
The built environment is inherently collaborative, with blurred boundaries between professions. This collaborative nature is a strength, but it also weakens the argument for protecting the function of architects. Unlike doctors, vets or dentists, who hold sole responsibility for critical decisions in their fields, architects are a part of an interdependent ecosystem.
The Medical Act of 1858 was the first significant piece of legislation to protect the function of doctors in the UK. The General Council of Medical Education and Registration was established which created a medical register to distinguish qualified practitioners from unqualified ones. It marked the foundation of modern medical regulation in the UK.
The protection of veterinary practice began with the granting of a Royal Charter in 1844, which established the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS). However, the first significant legislation to protect the function of veterinary surgeons was the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1881, which regulated who could legally practice veterinary surgery and required registration with the RCVS.
The Dentists Act 1984 served to consolidate the Dentists Acts from 1957 to 1983, streamlining and updating the regulatory framework for dental professionals in the UK. The Act regulates the practice of dentistry and established the General Dental Council (GDC), which is responsible for maintaining a register of qualified dental professionals and setting standards for dental practice. Under this act, only individuals registered with the GDC are legally permitted to practice dentistry in the UK.
Why was it possible to protect the function of professions like doctor, vet or dentist yet not protect the function of architect?
The struggle to agree standards and control in architecture has been ongoing since the 1700s with many associations and incorporated bodies competing to elevate educational standards and differentiate architects from the many parties involved in the building and construction industry at the time. The Institute of British Architects (IBA) was established in 1834 with the noble intention of elevating architecture from a trade to a recognised profession on par with medicine or law.
The IBA succeeded in establishing itself as the leading architectural institution in Britain where previous bodies had failed because it had a clear focus on professional standards and public image, strategic leadership, and a determination to control access to the profession.
By 1837 the Institute of British Architects had gained royal charter with the responsibility to advance architecture as a profession that promoted the public good.
During the late 1800s and prior to 1931, the RIBA and other bodies made numerous attempts to gain statutory control over the architectural profession. These efforts largely revolved around the idea of statutory registration, which would not only legally protect the title "architect" but also protect the “function” of architects; and grant the RIBA greater authority in setting standards and regulating practice. The RIBA sought full closure of the profession, where only registered architects could practice architecture.
However, these attempts faced resistance from various groups, including architects who practiced surveying, those concerned about potential monopolies, and politicians wary of restricting access to the profession.
In 1931, when the UK Architects (Registration) Act was introduced, it was part of a broader effort to formalise the profession through regulation and registration, but the protection of the title of "architect" (rather than its function) was a compromise reflecting societal and political attitudes at the time. There were several reasons for this distinction between architects and professions like doctors, vets, and dentists.
Professions such as medicine, dentistry, and veterinary care were seen as directly affecting human or animal health and safety. In these fields, unqualified practitioners posed immediate life-threatening risks, which led to stronger regulation of both title and function. Architecture, by contrast, was not seen as carrying the same level of immediate physical risk to the public, even though poorly designed buildings could have catastrophic consequences.
The medical, veterinary, and dental professions had stronger, more unified professional organisations that were able to push for full protection of both title and function. The architectural profession was fragmented, with disagreements among practitioners about whether function should be regulated. Some architects saw registration as a threat to competition and feared it might limit opportunities for those without formal qualifications.
The construction industry relied heavily on a wide range of building professionals, including engineers, surveyors, and contractors. There was resistance from these groups and from government policymakers who feared that restricting architectural functions would disrupt the construction industry and increase costs.
Architecture was seen as both a technical and an artistic endeavour. Some argued that regulating the function of architects would stifle creativity and innovation. Others maintained that competent design work could be carried out by non-architects, such as engineers or experienced builders, without formal architectural training.
The 1931 Act was the result of negotiations within Parliament and the profession itself. Protecting the title of "architect" was seen as a middle ground, allowing qualified professionals to distinguish themselves while avoiding stricter regulation of the entire building process. This left room for other professionals to continue performing tasks associated with architecture.
The Architects Act of 1931 did not grant the RIBA full control over the profession it sought, but it did establish a system of registration and protect the title "registered architect". This meant that only individuals registered with the newly created Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom (ARCUK) could legally use the title "registered architect". The UK government created ARCUK and removed the registration of architects from the RIBA in a desire to maintain a degree of separation between professional associations and regulatory functions.
In 1938, the Architects (Registration) Act was passed, which restricted the use of the title "architect" to those on the register held by ARCUK. This was a step closer to the RIBA's objective of controlling the profession, although the practice of architecture itself remained unrestricted.
While the life-and-death responsibilities of doctors, vets, and dentists justified full functional protection in law, architecture was seen as less critical to immediate public safety, leading to a focus on title protection rather than full regulation of the profession's functions. This decision continues to shape the architectural profession today.
Unlike these medical professionals, whose functions are tightly regulated to safeguard public welfare, architects remain bound only by protection of title under the Architects Act 1997, regulated by the ARB. Thus, enabling unregulated individuals to perform key architectural functions without oversight, accountability, or qualifications. The failure to secure the profession’s status not only undermined architects' societal role but also contributed to compromised public safety and trust in the built environment.
This absence of exclusivity is precisely why no one has successfully made a case for the government to regulate architectural function since. The reality is simple. Almost every task an architect performs can, and often is, done by someone else. Even the title “Principal Designer”, under CDM 2015, is increasingly filled by other professionals, particularly in commercial and infrastructure projects.
This is not to undermine the importance of architects but to acknowledge the complexity of the issue. It’s a harsh reality for many in the profession, but without defining safety-critical responsibilities that can only be performed by architects, the case for protecting function is lacking.
What Next?
Where does this leave us? Should we abandon the idea of protecting function altogether? Not necessarily.
Perhaps the real challenge isn’t about protecting the function of architects but about creating a unified standard across all professions in the built environment.
With the introduction of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA), we have an opportunity to define areas of safety-critical responsibility that architects might share with members of RICS, CIAT, ICE, and IStructE. These shared responsibilities could form the foundation of a new framework - one that protects not just architects but also the public.
Until then, consider this. The lack of protected function doesn’t just weaken the architectural profession; it also risks fragmenting accountability, with potentially devastating consequences for public safety.
Reference Source:
Architect: The evolving story of a profession by Eleanor Jolliffe and Paul Crosby - ISBN-13 978-1914124853
Coming next:
12 - Protection of Function: Why It Matters
13 - Protection of Function: Unregulated Professionals
14 - Protection of Function: A Way Forward
Previous
09 - Protection of Function: Why We Need It
10 - Protection of Function: How Do We Define It
We invite you to engage with our work, share your insights, and join us in this transformative journey.
You can find us at
