How a narrow definition of competency could have unintended consequences for architects

Ellie cropped

Could well-intended safety measures restrict emerging architects and smaller practices, asks Eleanor Jolliffe

Under the Building Safety Act, clients must now satisfy themselves that the designers they employ are competent. This seems to be a requirement that could become loaded with unintended consequences.

I can tell you that I have qualifications in architecture and engineering; am a registered and chartered architect; wrote a book on architectural history; was awarded a Rome Scholarship; did 42 hours of CPD training last year; and can list the projects I am leading for the practice I work for. But other than concluding that my free time is limited, would you really be able to conclude that I was competent to work on your building project?

This content is available to registered users | Already registered?Login here

You are not currently logged in.

To continue reading this story, sign up for free guest access

Existing Subscriber? LOGIN

REGISTER for free access on selected stories and sign up for email alerts. You get:

  • Up to the minute architecture news from around the UK
  • Breaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters

 

Subscribe to Building Design and you will benefit from:

Gated access promo

  • Unlimited news
  • Reviews of the latest buildings from all corners of the world
  • Technical studies
  • Full access to all our online archives
  • PLUS you will receive a digital copy of WA100 worth over £45

Subscribe now for unlimited access.