Code Revision - plain English?
The Code and "best" practice.
Applying the Code : will there be difficulties?
Will ARB be claiming the function of architecture aesthetics monitor? (25 October 2010)
Code revision - plain English?
The Board as newly elected and appointed will now be responsible for the code revision which had been put out for consultation in 2008. On the purpose of the statutory code and the use of plain English see this Note by an independent observer.
The Code and "best" practice
The use of the superlative is inappropriate to a Code. At the prompting of a Board member, AARUK reminds policy-makers in a note that the Register of Architects is not intended as a register of excellence ( pdf version).
Applying a revised code : will there be difficulties?
At its meeting of July 2009, the Board understood and accepted that the Code cannot be mandatory and made appropriate changes. But observers at the meeting were surprised to learn that members of the Professional Conduct Committee had sought to persuade the Board to the contrary. In a note entitled Forgetting the Act, AARUK examines this contrast and what it may imply ( pdf version).
From the first beginnings of the ARB in1997 (when the Register of Architects established under the Act of 1931 came under its regime) some have seen the need to challenge the ambitious claims of authority, power and jurisdiction which have been made in its name. (See, for example, the note issued by the RIBA in May 2003 about the Status of the ARB, and the High Court proceedings reported in Case Study 2 of these pages.)
But who could have expected the day would come when the ARB would issue an announcement with the heading "Professional Conduct Committee fines architect £4,000 after ‘aesthetic disaster’ (20/10/2010)"? It seems certain that the Registrar has responsibility for this choice of headline.
We will not dwell on the manifest absurdity revealed by those words, but responsible policy-makers will be aware that it needs little imagination to see in this that the jactitatious animus of the ARB, or tendency to injuriously foolish error, has yet to be scotched.
It should be mentioned that fines are for the use of HM Treasury, and in no way compensate any client or other person affected; while it is evident that the ARB can be vindictive, it has no power to award damages, and seems to be of no practical use in such cases
|Architects Registration Board|
|- competence to practise|
|Professional standards - the code, etc|
|Use of title|
|Links to websites:|
|- chartered bodies|
|- historical notes|