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.

Government scuttles RIBA hopes of ARB takeover


The Government has officially confirmed the ARB will be retained, ending the RIBA’s hopes of taking over its functions

In a letter sent to the board Andrew Stunell, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State responsible for the Architects Act, claimed there was no compelling case to change the current regulatory system having considered ‘alternatives to the current model’ (see attached).

Among the ‘alternatives’ was a potential takeover of professional regulation by the RIBA which, according to reports, had been lobbying the government since May to make good Ed Vaizey’s pre-election pledge to scrap the ARB.

Stunell has now called for a meeting between RIBA President Ruth Reed and ARB chair Beatrice Fraenkel and asked the two organisations ‘to work closely together in order to support the work of architects and in addressing our priorities on climate change’.

Responding to the letter, Frankel said: ‘I was delighted to receive the attached letter to be invited, along with Ruth Reed, to meet the Minister to discuss how we can work together collaboratively, recognising the respective roles of ARB and RIBA . This can only enhance the opportunities we have between us to support the profession and protect the consumer.’

Key passage from letter

‘As you will be aware from the announcement of the Arms Length Body Review, it has been decided to retain ARB in its current form.’A strong case remains for architectural regulation to be independent from Government to ensure the continued standing and reputation of the architectural profession. In considering the alternatives to the current model of Architects’ Regulation I took into account a broad range of considerations and came to the view that the case for change was not compelling.’


Related files

Readers' comments (3)

  • So the Government ignore a pre-election pledge and then pass over the opportunity to save money by disbanding a quango .... does anyone know what they are doing ?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It was always going to be difficult to persuade the 33% of architects who are "unattached" that they should come under the jurisdiction of and be regulated by the RIBA, when as a matter of choice they had decided not to become members.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • When they come together can they agree to a 25% reduction of combined fees then?
    What does ARB do for 50 quid a year apart from sending out unnecessary paper about PII?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this 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.