December 10 2024

Ben Addy, the founding director of Moxon Architects, has given evidence to the Scottish Parliament outlining how architecture has been disadvantaged by Brexit.

Speaking on behalf of the RIAS Addy warned that the profession is slipping behind its European peers as a result of new barriers to trade and called for targeted government support to level the playing field and promote Scottish architects on the world stage.

Addy said: “As one of only a few Scottish architecture studios competing for work in Europe, it is clear that we are disadvantaged compared to our peers in the EU.

“Firstly, there is still no mutual recognition agreement in place for UK architects wishing to work in the EU. At Moxon, we have a niche where we can work under the wing of EU-domiciled consultancies, but for many of our peers, this does not apply.

“Secondly, Scotland has a misdirected approach to public procurement, whereby, for the sake of small, short-term savings, local talent is often excluded rather than promoted. This results in a diminished domestic architecture scene, overly dependent upon private clients for commissioning good quality architecture."

The RIAS advocates support for architecture firms wishing to cultivate European partners and learn how to navigate design competitions on the continent to maintain frayed European links. Karen Anderson, the newly elected president of the architects body, added: “We urge the UK Government to revisit the botched negotiations on mutual recognition and accelerate the work of the Architects Registration Board and the Council of European Architects to find a solution.

“However, recognition is just one of many post-Brexit issues including visa barriers to working abroad and recruiting and retaining EU nationals, including those graduating from Scottish architecture schools. But the biggest barrier is a collapse in work and fees, which diminishes the scope to invest in foreign ventures. Other symptoms include delays and unreliability in supply chains which are slowing down construction projects and disrupting forward work planning."

Anderson also called for the Scottish Government to get its house in order by reforming procurement processes to value design over cost.

Since Britain's exit from the European Union in 2016 Scotland has been reliant on the Architects Registration Board and RIBA to manage relations with the Architects Council of Europe, bypassing the RIAS.

11 Comments

#1 Posted by Zack David on 10 Dec 2024 at 14:11 PM

Respectfully, the issues you mentioned are not a direct result of Brexit but rather a consequence of a poorly negotiated trade deal. We should not be aligning our standards with those of the "sick man of the world." Additionally, we should not be discouraging local procurement in favor of multinationals, a practice enforced by the EU, by the way.

Furthermore, the government should be encouraging architecture firms to design local projects in traditional styles that people actually appreciate. The pet projects of self-important so-called artists are making our cities increasingly unattractive.

#2 Posted by Euro Phil on 10 Dec 2024 at 15:58 PM

#1 your first sentence is nonsense. I didn't bother with the rest.

#3 Posted by pog mo thoin on 10 Dec 2024 at 21:23 PM

Euro Phil Whilst I agree with your sentiment concerning the first sentence by #1 I think his opening sentence of paragraph 2 is even worse !

#4 Posted by Lovely on 11 Dec 2024 at 08:17 AM

Can someone just remind us first why Scotland left the EU when we voted massively as a country to stay in?

#5 Posted by Fresh Prince of Bel End on 11 Dec 2024 at 09:55 AM

#4 September 2014 is the date, innit?

#6 Posted by considering my membership on 11 Dec 2024 at 11:14 AM

This comment is nothing to do with Moxon who are very accomplished. But thoughts are that it seems increasingly that the RIAS think the pool of architects in Scotland is extremely small indeed (perhaps their membership has been falling - would be good to know?)... and seems to be mostly and exercise in parachuting in from London for platforming anyone beyond their chosen few.

This is before they openly attack their own members in the national press (a recent phenomenon) whilst ignoring their own failings. What do they actually deliver for membership? It must be worth it if you're one of the chosen favourites but even then...

#7 Posted by Point of order on 11 Dec 2024 at 11:18 AM

4+5 .... but Scotland is NOT a country by any definition of the word country. As a political entity, it is a colony. The rest is all window dressing and 5 knows it.

#8 Posted by The game is afoot on 11 Dec 2024 at 15:05 PM

Perhaps a colonised country even?

#9 Posted by Robert Menzies on 12 Dec 2024 at 12:00 PM

Enric Miralles wins the Parliament building architect competition despite he and his wife not being insured or registered. Kengo Kuma wins the V&A museum competition despite not being registered and despite it only being open to registered architects...
Scottish architects frozen out in both instances. Fraser Inquiry discovered that Paul Grice, the new parliament's chief executive, did not want small Scottish practices involved as he thought this posed a risk (seriously!) despite such discrimination being a breach of EU procurement law.
We are the tartan coolies of the construction industry hired to make the award of contracts to so-called 'architects' outside our borders palatable politically.
Remind me again how both these projects went. On time and to budget????

#10 Posted by CadMonkey on 12 Dec 2024 at 17:32 PM

If you want to be a happy architect - don't enter competitions.

By the way, it makes total sense for (small or large) scottish firms wanting to work in the EU to partner with local firms. What's the problem?

And on Brexit, presumably non-UK architects have the same reciprocal issue trying to work here. So the playing field is kind of level - if you look at it with a glass half full.

It's generally best to employ local talent anyway.

#11 Posted by Robert Menzies on 13 Dec 2024 at 17:17 PM

The problem is - who then has design liability when things go wrong? And does the employment of a local architect actually reduce the risk? For instance, Miralles stuck poles in front of the windows of the MSP block at Holyrood effectively preventing rescue from the outside in the event of people being trapped in a fire and despite this being a requirement of the EU's Construction Products Directive which Spanish architects have to comply with. Even worse, two Scottish students died behind barred windows in 1998 - the year the parliament project was announced.
Before that 20 people died in the Stern Bros. fire in 1968 because firefighters were prevented from rescuing them by barred windows. So why did RMJM not raise this issue with Miralles? Or did he just ignore them? (We were told the building would be fully compliant with the regs. only for crown immunity to be applied when it became obvious it was not).
Same with the V&A museum where the fire engineer logged 23 areas where the building was non-compliant with the regulations. yet somehow it got warrant (the building sponsor headed up building control in his day job so put two and two together). None of this was mentioned in the McClelland report into the V&A fiasco because he could not access the relevant records - which had been 'lost'. How convenient.
When reviewing drawings for our London office I had to ask repeatedly why they were not compliant with the Approved Documents only to be told that both the private building inspector and the fire engineer employed on the contract had not raised any issues so no changes were proposed in line with my recommendations. So much for the benefits of using local architects. And it gets worse.
When I persisted a complaint was lodged against me and I was moved off the project. Last year this major hospital unit was shut down overnight after an unscheduled inspection by London Fire Brigade, with the architects "declining to comment" on the ensuing disruption caused when approached by The Guardian.

Post your comments