Excuse Me ! Are we supposed to be impressed by this proposal ?

The architect in question was erased from the register not too long ago - a decision upheld upon appeal.

Not sure if UR can publish links to external sites - but industry articles can be found easily.

It's (in my opinion at least) a damaging shame that certain people are able to circumvent the rules / restrictions and still participate in the industry following damning evidence againt. If someone is found guilty (and decision upheld) of 'unacceptable professional conduct and serious professional incompetence' then they should not be allowed to continue in the profession.

#2 that may be well and true, but until ARB actually protect the Function of Architects rather than just the Title, then they shall forever remain a pointless and bloated quango who hand out measly fines and enable any Tom, Dick or Harry to design buildings.

The government should change the law so that the planning application for any building (no matter what size) that is designed for human habitation must be approved by an ARB registered architect.

The current system is not fit for purpose, you have people with no qualifications whatsoever designing buildings for human habitation.

Go through planning portals for different local authorities and look at who designed the accommodation and try and search their credentials, you will find so many people that have no credentials.

You also have people who call their company 'Architectural Services' at best that is often just someone with Architectural Technician training and they are not a proper ARB registered Architect, sometimes they have some kind of basic surveying training and sometimes they have no qualifications at all.

Gas Engineers are legally not allowed to open a gas boiler unless they are Gas Safe registered, there should be something similar for buildings designed for human habitation, as I mentioned they should make it so that any planning application for one must be approved by an ARB registered architect.

As people have mentioned here this was designed by someone who was struck off from the ARB for dangerous practice, but under the current system is allowed to carry on designing buildings a unperturbed.

@#4 - simple question; why?
The designer of this scheme used to be on the ARB's registered as practiced as an architect for 40 years. He was, by your criteria, allowed during that period to design building 'for human habitation'. Do you want to go back and tear all his other building down, just in case?
Architecture and architects do a hang of a lot more than design dwellings. Is it ok, in your world, for a "person with no qualifications whatsoever" (there are very few people in that category, most have got a couple of standard grades) to design an art gallery, office, court building, factory, airport etc..?
Protectionism isn't the answer. Architects just need to demonstrate the additional quality that their particular skills bring.

Give it a rest.

Frank Lloyd Wright, Corbusier, Mies Van Der Rohe, Tadao Ando, Carlo Scarpa, etc…. All had no formal training as architects.

Training or not (not actually my main concern) - if you are found guilty of 'unacceptable professional conduct and serious professional incompetence' then you lose the right to continue working in the field. That should go for any sector / industry / job.

Architecture is one of the most skilled professions out there (not as skilled as doctor but still pretty skilled), yet is is one of the most unregulated.

#2 is right, any Tom, Dick or Harry can submit a design, it is madness. People should be trained to a certain standard.

There are lots of dangerous buildings out there in terms of construction safety and a lot more will be built with the lack of standards.

Local authorities just don't have the manpower to investigate all the dodgy designs being summitted by all untrained amateurs.

Ben,
Registration of Architects did not prevent the perfect storm of corruption that was Grenfell.
As deep throat has it, always, 'follow the money'.