I recently read that the Housing Secretary, Robert Jenrick, had made some strong statements on architects under his forthcoming overhaul of the English planning statement.
He has argued that in future, any buildings developed ‘should be locally popular’ and that the ‘built environment’ shouldn’t be imposed upon local communities; it shouldn’t just be something which is the dream of an architect or what is fashionable to a certain type of person. He argued that we don’t listen to people’s views’ and believes power should be wrested from architects and planners who ignore the view of the public.
Strong stuff Mr Jenrick! Behind this headline of architect bashing, there are some (potentially) useful changes. For example, local authorities will be responsible for creating design codes to help define what is locally popular and historically important to an area. It is vital to ask local communities what they want and how things should look but they will need to rely on advice from trained professionals to guide our planning committees to come to decisions. In my experience it has never been harder to get planning permission through an increasingly complex process. I would welcome some streamlining of the system and the ability of experienced planners/ conservation offices to offer guidance, help and informed decisions. The planning system is struggling, especially in this last year with a lack of resource. So, who is going to write these design codes and set good standards? Yes, you guessed it. It will need planners and architects! I think Mr Jenrick missed the point entirely. Architects and planners train for a long time to be able to offer advice, opinions, and good design. In fact, in our RIBA professional code of conduct, the first section is integrity: ‘Members shall consistently promote and protect the public interest and social purpose, taking into account future generations.’ If we really want the best design in our communities then shouldn’t we use talented and experienced help, just as I would not want to go to the pub for a medical consultation or the bookies for financial assistance? Therefore, why don’t we insist that all planning applications have an architect signing off the design? If we are to increase standards in our communities, this would make sense. I bet the vast majority of people do not realise how many applications are completed by people with no experience, or use names similar to ‘architect’, to imply a formal training. I am saddened when I see housing designs that are plain, poorly proportioned, and not of our time. The lack of a talented architect on the job is often the reason. I certainly don’t impose designs on people as I am employed by clients who live in those communities and guide me.
The challenge and fascination of this profession is to take a brief, a budget and create the best product – irrespective of whether it is a house, factory, or medical centre. If we are to raise the bar, improve our local communities and create popular design, then call in the professionals – the design professionals.
