- Mandatory architect sign-off under discussion
- Critics warn of higher costs for small builds
- Government signals review, not a decision
Homeowners extending their properties could be required to hire a qualified architect under proposals being discussed within government, a move critics say would push up costs and add little practical value.
The idea, being explored under Labour, would make it compulsory for builders to consult an architect before submitting a planning application. That would be a major shift from current practice, where many homeowners rely on architectural technicians, designers, or even draw up basic plans themselves for smaller projects.
If introduced, the change would apply across a wide range of projects, from modest conservatories to larger home extensions. Builders would need to show that a qualified architect had been formally retained, a requirement that could add thousands of pounds to overall costs.
Architects in the UK typically charge between 3 per cent and 15 per cent of total construction costs, according to the HomeOwners Alliance, although some work on fixed fees. Critics argue that forcing homeowners to pay for services they may not want would drive up prices without necessarily improving design quality.
Samuel Hughes, a housing expert at the Centre for Policy Studies, reportedly compared the proposal to a “medieval tithe”. He said people who currently choose not to hire architects would be compelled to do so, adding that homeowners could still ignore design advice while simply paying for a signature, as quoted in a news report.
Architects push back, critics remain sceptical
Supporters of tighter rules argue that unqualified designers are diluting building standards and that reserving certain tasks for trained professionals could improve outcomes. Industry bodies including the Royal Institute of British Architects have been lobbying for stronger regulation, according to trade reports.
The Architects Registration Board, which oversees the profession, has also been drawn into the debate. Its chief executive, Hugh Simpson, reportedly said this would be an appropriate moment to consider regulating the function of architectural work, not just the title, noting that many EU and G7 countries already go further in this area.
Critics, however, say the proposal risks becoming a box-ticking exercise that benefits architects financially without improving housing quality.
The government has declined to comment on the merits of the proposal but confirmed it will launch a “call for evidence” into the built environment professions. Officials at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said it is not government policy to require architects to submit planning applications and rejected claims that the regulator had formally backed the change.
A spokesperson said media reports had confused the roles of the Architects Registration Board and the Royal Institute of British Architects, stressing they are separate and independent organisations. Details of the evidence review are expected to be published in due course.
For now, the idea remains under discussion rather than settled policy. But with housing costs already under pressure, the prospect of mandatory architect involvement is likely to keep homeowners, builders and designers on edge.
