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 use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

ARB must once again be open for free debate

  • Comment

Those operating the ARB have developed for it a reputation as a zealous bureaucracy. To me it seems pedantic about processes, a stickler for rules (as many as possible), an adamantine guardian of the confidentiality of its own business - to the extent, it appears, of sternly requiring sealed lips from democratically elected members, even in relation to their electorate.

An outfit that might cause one to regard Trappist monks as too laid-back and talkative. How revealing, therefore, is the ARB's reaction to a legal opinion (an opinion only, by the way, not a judgement - anyone can have one, you pay a fee, ask your own chosen questions and your counsel will offer an opinion, or several) that might, initially, seem favourable to its approach to its work hitherto.

All its attributes now seem to count for little: it is like watching a retiring country uncle who has consumed an unusual substance in Soho. Abandoned is the special meeting to consider the opinion as a whole board without which the issues should not be discussed with outsiders;

dropped is the cloak of confidentiality: hasty, triumphalist press briefings are the order of the day. How principled - how convenient!

However, legal skirmishes are not the most important issues in play. It is now six years since the passing of the Act, high time for a review of its functioning. The RIBA Council lobbied for the continuance of registration after a government review recommended abolition.

Did the council achieve what it expected or was promised?

Was its decision soundly based?

What benefits has the registration machinery brought and to whom? Is there value for money (architects' registration fees, not public money)? Are there changes that could be made?

These are some of the questions that could be debated, openly: let the profession survey the wood rather than the trees.

Peter Gibbs-Kennet, Bisley, Gloucestershire

  • 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.