Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

1997 Architects Act: a failure by definition

  • Comment
letters

Robert Miles is correct (aj 10.2.00): the 1997 Architects Act is the law but it is flawed. The act is almost unique. It has no appendix for terminology definitions. Thus, all key terms, inclusive of that of architect as of its title, has no interpretation. This is left to each board member (lay or professional). It causes confusion among practitioners, let alone among the public.

In my rural world, surveyor equals architect (but the former of better training). Both sell services. I asked arb (and earlier, the arcuk) to provide definition. My request is unanswered.

The crunch is that on issues both of design and of quality control, those registered by arb are seen by clients as overruled, on deemed-to-satisfy decisions by local government unregistered officers: these may be students or absentees from site visit. Without definition to back registration, arb has no useful function.

John B Weller, Bildeston, Suffolk

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs