Architects Registration Board considers proposals for maintaining competence

Architects Registration Board considers proposals for maintaining competence (19/05/2006)

At its meeting on 11 May 2006, the Architects Registration Board (ARB) considered proposals for a scheme to assure members of the public that architects maintain their competence to practise.

In its discussions last year, the Board had decided first to examine the RIBA’s requirements for Continuing Professional Development (CPD), as around 70% of registered architects are RIBA members. It wished to have a scheme that not only provided protection to the public, but was also practical and workable, and made the least possible demands on the profession. The RIBA was then reconsidering its scheme which is now based on a core curriculum and certain minimum requirements, eg. those relating to Health & Safety.

Chairman of ARB’s Prescription Committee, Alan Crane, said that:

“ARB worked very closely with the RIBA in developing the core curriculum, for two reasons: first, to ensure that the two organisations’ requirements were compatible, and to assure the RIBA that any architect meeting its requirements would be likely to satisfy ARB that they had maintained their competence; and second, to enable ARB to assure the public about the competence of all architects on the Register without placing any additional requirements on the vast majority of the profession.”

The Board was presented with three options for monitoring competence:

Option 1

Annual self-declaration by architects, with monitoring of a random sample

Option 2

Annual self-declaration with monitoring undertaken by a body other than ARB

Option 3

Annual deemed declaration with risk-based monitoring.

In essence, this means that applying for retention on the Register would be deemed by ARB as confirmation that competence had been maintained in the previous year, and would be maintained in the year for which renewal was sought. ARB would only ask an architect for details of activities undertaken if it had reasonable grounds for believing that competence had not been maintained.

There was a fourth option of “No action”.

The third option was recommended for adoption, as it would not require any additional action by the majority of architects.

The Board agreed to defer a decision until its next meeting in July so that the Board could examine further the implications of each option before one was chosen for consultation with the profession.

The Board did however agree to amend General Rule 20 in order to clarify the Board’s current expectations regarding maintenance of competence under Section 9 of the Architects Act, and to remove anomalies in the present Rule. As required by the Architects Act, the Board will now consult on this proposed change. If adopted, the new Rule would read as follows:

“Any person who falls within the categories described in Section 9(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Act and who is engaged in the practice of architecture, must have gained such recent practical experience as prescribed by the Board.

The prescribed practical experience for the purposes of this Rule shall be that such a person shall have undertaken sufficient activities, including CPD and active engagement in the practice of architecture, during the period of two years immediately prior to the application, in order to maintain competence to practise in accordance with the Board’s guidelines, which shall be published from time to time.

Where the Board is not satisfied that such a person has gained such recent practical experience, that person may be required to satisfy the Board of their competence to practise.”