Jonathan Falkingham, co-founder of Urban Splash and shedkm, has written directly to the Architects Registration Board to contest what he calls an ‘absurd’ approach to ARB architect title regulation, arguing the regulator’s focus on terminology does nothing to address the far more pressing matter of unqualified individuals carrying out building design work with no accountability.
In a letter dated 7 August, seen by the Architects Journal, Falkingham acknowledged ARB’s statutory duties but argued that the regulator’s request, that he either cease describing himself as an architect on LinkedIn and his company website, or reapply to join the register, exposes a fundamental flaw in the current system. ‘I understand the legal position you are seeking to uphold,’ he wrote. ‘However, I believe this request highlights a much wider and more fundamental problem with the current system of architectural regulation in the UK.’
Falkingham, who is 64 and holds an MBE for services to architecture, is a RIBA Fellow and a Design Council ambassador, and studied at the University of Liverpool. He co-founded shedkm in 1991 and Urban Splash in 1993. He was not listed on the ARB register when the Architects Journal checked, and it is unclear how many requests or warnings preceded his letter.
Title policed, function left open
The crux of Falkingham’s argument is one now shared by a growing part of the profession: that ARB architect title regulation, as currently framed, protects a word rather than the public. He argued that he does ‘not offer architectural services to the public’ but employs architects at Urban Splash, and that his use of the title ‘reflects a lifetime of contribution to architecture, recognised by my peers, clients and the wider industry.’
His letter called it ‘extraordinary’ that ARB ‘is prepared to devote resources to pursuing individuals over the use of a title, while the much more significant issue of unqualified individuals undertaking building design work remains largely unaddressed.’ He added that ‘the current system permits individuals with no qualifications whatsoever to undertake work that can have profound consequences for the safety and quality of our built environment.’
Falkingham also raised the financial leverage that RIBA members collectively hold. He warned that if ARB continues what he described as heavy-handed policing of CPD with no consideration for career progression, members ‘could quite sensibly continue to adhere to the more onerous but relevant RIBA lifelong learning and withdraw from the Architects Register completely,’ leaving ARB ‘in a perilous financial position.’
ARB responded with a measured statement: ‘We are aware of Jonathan Falkingham’s letter of 7 August and the points it raises. However, we would not comment in detail on any private enforcement matter.’ The spokesperson confirmed ARB’s statutory duty to investigate potential misuse of the title ‘architect’ and stated that the regulator takes ‘a proportionate and evidence-led approach to enforcement.’
Prosecution and the protection-of-function campaign
Falkingham’s letter arrives against a backdrop of intensifying debate across the profession. Last week, ARB announced its first successful prosecution in five years, against Mike Hooper, owner of Mike Hooper Architects, of Tavistock, Devon, who continued to use the title after being struck off the register. Hooper was fined £2,200 and ordered to pay approximately £9,000 in legal costs.
The broader campaign to shift regulation from title to function was ignited last December when RIBA president Chris Williamson, also WW+P co-founder, announced he would not renew his ARB membership. That decision launched an RIBA campaign to repeal the Architects Act, abolish ARB, and create a new Built Environment Council that would reserve specific functions to qualified architects.
The government has since asked ARB to lead a working group examining how to regulate professional activity across the built environment, with scope for protection of function included. The ARB-led taskforce will be informed by advice from experts nominated by nearly a dozen organisations, including the RIBA, CIAT, RICS and the RTPI. Williamson subsequently repeated calls in the Architects Journal for the repeal of the Architects Act and for bold action to reserve ‘critical activities to those who are regulated.’
Falkingham’s letter closed with a direct request: ‘I would therefore ask the ARB to reflect on whether pursuing the use of a title by an experienced and widely recognised contributor to the profession is really addressing the issues that matter most. The profession, and the public, would be far better served by a regulatory framework that priorities competence, responsibility, and outcomes rather than the policing of terminology.’ With the government’s working group now under way, the question of what Urban Splash‘s co-founder is calling ‘absurd’ sits squarely on the taskforce’s agenda.
