Councils and housing associations would have to pay architects' costs in design competitions under a radical code of conduct being drawn up by the Royal Institute of British Architects.
The news follows a spat in east London last week, when architect Piercy Conner was turned down by Newham council for an £8m social housing scheme despite winning the RIBA-led design competition.

RIBA president George Ferguson said: "We're looking for proper treatment and reward of architects following the shortlisting process, and we're looking for guaranteed protection of architects' designs to stop clients cherry-picking the best bits from entrants."

He also said the RIBA was looking at whether clients – including housing associations, councils and regeneration bodies – should be obliged to accept the results of a competition. However, he added that this was not the institute's preferred course of action.

"We need to reassess what the client [commits] to when it signs up to a competition, so it is unthinkable something like this could happen in the future," he said.

The RIBA is looking to create an "industry standard" code of practice that both clients and architects would have to adhere to.

"There need to be fundamental, compulsory guidelines to stop the misuse and exploitation of architects, particularly by the public sector," said Ferguson.

There need to be fundamental, compulsory guidelines to stop the exploitation of architects by the public sector

George Ferguson, RIBA

The RIBA informed Piercy Conner of Newham council's decision not to accept the outcome of the competition for Brooks Road Estate on 26 January. The institute said it was the first time this had happened in one of its own competitions.

Nick Francis, an associate at Piercy Conner, said: "We worked at risk and spent £10,000 on this competition. Now, after winning it, it looks like we're left seriously out of pocket."

Newham council has not yet contacted Piercy Conner to explain its decision, and did not send a representative to the final assessment of the schemes.

In a statement, Newham said it had concerns about the strategy required to decant tenants for Piercy Conner's scheme, and the fact that it covered the whole street, which would not be possible because the street included private freeholders. It also said the plan would provide too many studio flats, which would be difficult to let.

Francis said these comments were "grossly inaccurate" and said the concerns had been addressed at the final assessment, which Newham did not attend.

Source

Housing Today