The Changing Face of Architectural Regulation in the UK

A System Built Around a Title

For decades, the UK’s regulatory system has revolved around one key principle: the protection of the title “architect.”

Legally, only individuals registered with the Architects Registration Board (ARB) may use that title in business. However, there has never been legal protection over the activities typically associated with architectural work. That means many of the things the public assumes architects do, like designing buildings, coordinating consultants, even leading complex projects, can legally be carried out by non-architects, provided they don’t use the protected title.

This distinction has become increasingly controversial.

Recent developments, including RIBA’s policy work, the RIBA President’s decision not to renew his ARB registration, and ongoing government reviews of professional regulation, have reopened a long-standing question:

Should the UK continue to protect only the title of architect, or should it protect the function of architectural practice?

How Regulation Currently Works

To understand what’s changing, it helps to look at how the system operates today.

At its core sits the Architects Registration Board (ARB), the statutory regulator established under the Architects Act 1997. ARB’s role is to:

• Maintain the UK Register of Architects

• Set standards for education and training

• Regulate conduct and competence

• Protect the public by ensuring only those who meet minimum standards can use the title “architect”

Crucially, ARB does not regulate architectural services as such, only the use of the title.

Alongside ARB sits the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). RIBA is not a regulator but a professional body. It offers:

• Chartered membership

• Practice accreditation

• Professional guidance and advocacy

Membership of RIBA is voluntary and legally separate from ARB registration. This means:

• You can be an ARB-registered architect without being a RIBA member.

• In some circumstances, you can be a RIBA Chartered Member without currently being on the ARB Register.

This separation between legal registration and professional recognition is at the heart of the current debate.

Title Protection vs Function Protection

The central issue now facing the profession is whether the UK should continue to protect only the title “architect” or move toward protecting the functions architects perform.

Under the current system:

• The word “architect” is legally protected.

• The activities commonly associated with architecture are not.

In contrast, some other jurisdictions regulate specific tasks particularly those linked to safety, public risk, or complex design by reserving them to licensed professionals. RIBA has increasingly argued that the UK’s title-only model is no longer sufficient, particularly in a post-Grenfell regulatory environment. Its policy work promotes the idea of “reserved activities”, where certain functions would legally require appropriately qualified and regulated professionals.

Examples often cited include:

• Acting as lead designer on higher-risk buildings

• Signing off life-safety-critical design elements

• Taking responsibility for principal designer duties under building regulations

At the same time, government reviews into building safety and professional competence have added momentum to this discussion.

Tensions Between RIBA and ARB

The debate has become more visible and more political due to recent developments within the profession itself.

RIBA has publicly positioned itself as pushing for reform, while the ARB remains focused on its statutory role. The RIBA President’s decision not to renew ARB registration brought this tension into sharp focus, raising uncomfortable but important questions:

• How meaningful is the protected title if senior figures choose not to hold it?

• What message does that send to the public?

• And how should the roles of regulator and professional body interact going forward?

RIBA’s stance emphasises the need for a clearer, more coherent system—one where public protection, professional standards, and regulatory oversight align more closely.

Arguments in Favour of Protecting Function

Supporters of a function-based model highlight several potential benefits:

1. Public Safety

Complex buildings, particularly higher-risk residential projects, require clear accountability. Reserving critical functions to competent professionals could reduce risk and improve outcomes.

2. Clarity for Clients

In a crowded marketplace, clearer rules about who can do what may help clients better understand the level of expertise they are buying.

3. Alignment with Other Professions

Fields such as medicine and engineering already restrict certain activities to licensed professionals. Advocates argue architecture should be treated similarly, given its life-safety implications.

4. Consistency with Building Safety Reform

The Building Safety Act has already introduced dutyholder roles and competence requirements. A function-based model would align with this direction of travel.

Concerns and Criticisms

Not everyone is convinced.

Critics of function-based regulation raise several concerns:

• Over-regulation: Reserving too many activities could limit competition, raise costs, and restrict innovation.

• Professional overlap: Many non-architect professionals—technologists, engineers, surveyors—already perform overlapping roles. Poorly defined boundaries could cause friction.

• Increased bureaucracy: New layers of regulation may add complexity without necessarily improving outcomes.

• False reassurance: There’s a risk that formal regulation creates a misleading sense of safety, rather than genuine competence.

There is also a deeper, philosophical concern: if architecture becomes defined purely through regulated technical functions, does that narrow its cultural, social, and creative role?

What This Means for Part 3 Candidates

For Part 3 students and newly qualified architects, this debate is far from theoretical.

1. Rising Expectations of Competence

ARB’s statutory CPD scheme and RIBA’s continuing professional development requirements signal a clear trend: competence must be demonstrated continuously, particularly in fire safety, sustainability, and ethics.

2. Greater Responsibility in Defined Roles

Roles such as Principal Designer under the Building Safety Act carry legal and professional responsibilities that are increasingly formalised. Even if “function protection” is not yet law, expectations are already rising.

3. A Shift in Professional Identity

The role of the architect is increasingly framed around public responsibility, not just client service. Ethical judgment, risk management, and social responsibility are becoming central to professional identity.

Looking Ahead

So where might all this lead?

The direction of travel suggests:

• Greater emphasis on reserved activities tied to risk and complexity

• Stronger, outcomes-based competence requirements

• Closer alignment between ARB and professional bodies like RIBA

• Clearer recognition of multidisciplinary practice and shared responsibility

• For architects, this could mean increased professional standing but also increased scrutiny and accountability. For Part 3 candidates, it reinforces one key message: qualification is not the end of the journey, but the beginning of a career shaped by evolving regulation and responsibility.

  
  

As this debate continues to evolve, I’ll keep you updated on what it means for the profession and for those navigating their way through Part 3 and beyond.