Citizen Space

From July 2024 to September 2024, we launched a consultation on changes to ARB’s General Rules and Registration Rules.

The proposals included changes to the General Rules in the form of adjustments to improve clarity and consistency. Policies and processes relating to registration matters are separated into a new document, the Registration Rules, to improve clarity and accessibility, with some new items contained:

1. They formally set out for the first time the requirements for architects to carry out Continuing Professional Development as a condition of registration, following an amendment Parliament made to the Architects Act 1997 when it approved the Building Safety Act 2022. The Rules give effect to and articulate how ARB will carry out the policies within the Scheme for CPD, including, for example, how and when architects would be removed from the Register for failing to comply.
2. They propose that architects must now pay fees electronically through the MyARB portal. This change will improve the efficiency of ARB’s processes and the security of personal and financial data.
3. They include a requirement that architects must declare any criminal convictions they have, and confirm that they have read and understood and continue to act in accordance with the Architects Code, before registration can be renewed.
4. They propose further clarity on the responsibility for architects to provide and maintain contact details where they can be reached at home, relating to their professional registration, and their business (if different), which will be used on the public register. They also propose that architects can now restrict some of their publicly available contact details.
5. They propose that in future, ARB will send out the retention fee notice by email only. This would be a more environmentally sustainable and cost effective approach than printing and posting notices to every registrant and is expected to save more than £60,000 a year.
6. They propose that ARB should have the power to remove an architect from the Register when they have only been registered because of fraud or error.

We received seven responses to the consultation. All respondents were architects, including one who is also an academic.

Respondents agreed overall with each of our statements and there were no substantive concerns that lead to the need for any further amendments the Rules following the consultation. Every response was read and analysed. Topics raised by respondents have already been considered by ARB in our earlier work as part of the development of the proposed Rules.

ARB’s Board considered suggestions and feedback from the consultation at its meeting on Wednesday 9 October 2024. It approved the updated General Rules and Registration Rules.

The Board paper, including the analysis of the responses, can be accessed here.

An updated version of the new General Rules can be accessed here and the new Registration Rules can be accessed here.

The approved Rules have taken effect and so the outgoing Rules have been replaced.

In October 2023 ARB’s Board approved the introduction of three new fees to cover the costs of accreditation. This accompanied reforms to the initial education and training of architects, including the competency outcomes required of aspiring architects, new standards for learning providers and a new risk-based accreditation methodology. The new fees were made possible by changes to Government legislation, which were consulted on in 2020. 

The new fees have been set to recover the cost of ARB activities, including the management and administration entailed in quality assurance and decision-making, and the work of the new Accreditation Committee, which includes visits. 

We asked for views on the regulatory impact of the fees as set out in this document. Whilst we are not able to change anything that is set by legislation, we welcomed feedback on the following:  

• Anything further that ARB should consider regarding how the fees are to be paid. For example, whether there is anything you would like us to know about the timing of learning provider budget setting and the timing at which we invoice for the fees.​  

• Anything in the structure of the fees that could have a disproportionate impact on particular groups of students or other individuals, in light of our commitment to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion.​  

• Any further regulatory impacts to which you would like to draw our attention.

We received 33 unique responses, with 12 official responses from learning providers or other organisations, and 21 additional responses from individuals in the sector but not representing their organisations. 

While some suggestions were things we could not consider, those that we could were focused around three themes: 

Timing – to change the time of year at which we invoice. 

Changing the time of year at which we invoice was raised by four respondents. Three suggested ARB should consider the timing of budget setting of academic year for learning providers, and one suggested that they would need more time to adapt to the new fee system. 

Phasing or delaying the fee 

One mitigation suggested was to phase or delay the introduction of the fees, changing how much learning providers would have to initially pay. Respondents argued that this would make the fee more manageable. For example, one respondent suggested that “an incremental and phased introduction of ARB fees (starting at a much lower rate) would be beneficial, in terms of both financial manageability for schools of architecture, as well as in establishing a better working relationship between these Schools and the ARB.” 

A related suggestion was that the fee be introduced after the transition to the new Competency Outcomes and when Part 1 accreditation has ceased. 

Scaling the fee  

This was raised by 14 respondents. Learning providers often stated that a one-size-fits-all fee is inappropriate, mentioning that fees should not be the same for every organisation. Respondents suggested that the fee should be scaled to the size of the learning provider. These included requests to consider the number of students, the income of the institution or the number of accredited qualifications being provided. For instance, one official response from an accredited learning provider said “the ‘covering costs’ concept needs to carefully consider whether all Schools are charged the same or is based on the number of prescribed programmes”. 

Another official respondent included “sliding scales for fees based on School size/number of courses” among their list of recommendations. 

Other requests  

Some respondents suggested things that ARB will not be able to consider because they were based on a misunderstanding of the cost recovery basis of the fee. For example, one respondent suggested the fee could be used to create a stipend returned to universities to support certain activities. One also compared ARB’s fee level to other regulatory bodies, saying that ARB’s fees should be aligned with these. 

Some learning providers requested more information about how the fee is calculated, beyond the detail published on our website as part of the engagement exercise. 

Finally, some also wanted more detail about what they will need to do in future, and said they found it hard to respond to this exercise without full details about the data they’ll need to produce for their qualifications to be monitored against our new Standards for Learning Providers. 

Additional engagement 

In addition to the feedback we received through formal responses to our questions, we also met a number of providers and continued to discuss a range of issues with SCOSA with feedback consistently referencing a desire to review the timing, scale and structure of the fees due to the potential impact on learning providers. These formed part of the feedback to the Board. 

ARB’s Board considered the survey responses and wider feedback from learning providers at its meeting on Wednesday 28 February.  

At this meeting it decided to make changes to the new fees. These include changes that will apply to both the fees for new qualifications and for annual accreditation. 

You can read more about these changes here. 

From October 2023 to December 2023, we launched a consultation on changes to ARB’s plagiarism policy. 

ARB has been operating a zero-tolerance policy towards “plagiarism and cheating” but we wanted to update the policy to improve its fairness and consistency. We also wanted to clearly emphasise the standards of honesty and integrity those who join the Register are expected to uphold. 

We asked for views on proposed updated policy as set out in this document, along with accompanying changes to procedures for the Prescribed Examination and the UK Adaptation Assessment. The proposed new plagiarism policy continued to treat plagiarism as severe but improved our approach in four key areas: 

• A clearer new definition of what we consider to be plagiarism. 

• A clearer declaration for applicants. 

• A clearer process for examiners and ARB staff involving a new standardised approach to identifying plagiarism. 

• A new range of discretionary penalties that escalate based on the severity of the offence.

We received nine responses to the consultation. The majority of respondents (five) were academics. Three were registered architects and one was an architecture student. 

Respondents agreed overall with each of our statements and there were no significant concerns that would mean needing to change the substantial elements of the policy. Every response was read and analysed, and ideas and suggestions identified by respondents were incorporated into an updated version of the policy. 

ARB’s Board considered suggestions and feedback from the consultation at its meeting on Wednesday 28 February 2024. It approved the updated policy with some additional amendments to provide further clarity on the original intent of the policy. These are: 

• Clarifying that plagiarism means someone has not demonstrated their competence or knowledge in a particular area because their evidence for doing so was plagiarised, rather than them having an overall lack of competence or knowledge. 

• Removal of the word “grade” to better match the Prescribed Exam, UK Adaptation Assessment or any future assessments.

• A change to reduce potential confusion around references to 'presenting someone else's work as your own'. This may not have clearly included generated plagiarism that wouldn’t necessarily be from a person (as “someone else”). The new policy instead refers to 'the work of a third party as your own'. 

An updated version of the new policy can be accessed here.

The new policy is not yet in effect and ARB will now work to implement it later this year. When the policy is in place, it will be clearly communicated to any applicants to whom it would apply.