Why should I ask about my Architect's insurance?

This is the second part of a short series that is trying to give some guidance about the questions you should ask your 'architect' before entrusting them with your most valuable asset - your property!

My introduction to the series can be read here and the first post in the series, dealing with making sure your consultant is properly qualified, can be read here.

So, why should you worry yourself about your consultant's insurance cover - after all they're only doing some drawings aren't they!

Firstly, let explain what Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) is:

Professional Indemnity insurance is held by many different types of professional to cover them for claims for loss or damage made by a client or third party should they, the professional, make mistakes or are found to have been negligent in some or all of the services they provided.

Registered Architects are required to carry PII as a prerequisite to being registered and must keep up that insurance for a minimum of 12 years after they cease practicing. This is designed to protect you, the client, against the worst case scenario!

So what might go wrong?

Honestly - it's very unlikely that anything will wrong but, in the last few years, we have regularly been contacted by people who have been given incorrect advice by unqualified 'designers' which has led to them building extensions or making alterations to their property without the necessary permissions.

Legislation around building works has become more and more complex over the past few decades. Most projects will need Planning and Building Regulations Approval - both of which areas are constantly changing, in addition you may also need Covenants Approval and/or a Party Wall Award! If your 'consultant' gives you incorrect advice and you don't have all the necessary permissions you might have to undo the work that has been undertaken - a costly experience!

If your 'consultant' or 'designer' does not carry PII, or is reluctant to discuss this matter with you, it should set off alarm bells! It may be an indicator that they are not registered with an appropriate professional body such as the ARB, RIBA, RICS or CIAT.

The level of cover carried should be appropriate for the size of project. Most policies are 'each and every claim' which means that each (unlinked) claim made is dealt with on it's own merits so it is not always necessary to look for cover that exceeds your budget - most architects will ensure that they carry sufficient cover for the type of work they undertake.

So some pointers to conclude:

1. It is very unlikely that you will ever need to make a claim on a reputable, properly qualified, consultant.

2. All qualified, registered, consultants will carry PII and be happy to talk to you about the level of cover carried.

3. Most unqualified 'designers' won't carry PII.

Most importantly:

4. PII is carried to protect YOU!

Asking your consultant for details of their PII cover, at a very basic level, is a great indicator of wether your consultant is truly professional whose advice you can rely on or simply someone doing pretty drawings!

Don't forget - your property is your most valuable asset - can you afford to take the risk of using anyone other than a properly qualified, insured, registered professional?

Local involvement in Planning - will it really work?

As some of you may have spotted in the national press, the Coalition Government is pushing forward with a raft of proposals to transfer power away from Whitehall and into the hands of "local people".

One such proposed reform was announced last Monday (6th December) when

"Radical new planning reforms were announced [today] to hand powers down from Whitehall bureaucrats and down from Town Hall officials to communities so local people shape the character of the very neighbourhood in which they live"

(Department of Communities and Local Government press release).

The proposals are intended to give "Local People" more involvement in drawing up the framework within which Planning Applications are considered and, in some cases, will allow those communities to grant permission for development without the requirement for a Planning Application to the Local Planning Authority (LPA).

On the face of it these proposals sound great but, if the intention is to increase local involvement in the planning process, reduce centralised costs and promote development (through the use of financial "carrots"), will it actually achieve what it sets out to?

Let us consider, first, how the current system engages with "Local People" and the strengths and weaknesses of the system:

Development of Local Plans:

Each LPA is currently required to develop a Local Development Framework (LDF) which  is the name of the new spatial planning system that was introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to replace district-level Local Plans.  LDFs are made up of a collection of Local Development Documents (LDDs) which, taken as a whole, outline the spatial planning strategy for a local area.

In shaping the LDF, each LPA is required to carry out extensive consultation at regular stages with the local community and other interested parties (such as Architects who regularly submit applications to the LPA).

In my experience very few "normal" people take part in this consultation. on the whole responses are received from Community Groups (such as Civic Societies) - who see themselves as the self-appointed guardians of particular patches, professionals - who have to deal with the system every day (such as Architects, planners etc) and those who have vested interests in promoting development (such as developers).

Occasionally, the LPA will produce travelling displays that will be erected at Town Shows or in shopping centres to take the consultation process out to the community but this often produces relatively mundane responses - "that's pretty" or "we need more parking"!

The unfortunate truth is that most "normal" people don't have the skills to be able to understand the process of developing planning frameworks and the sheer complexity of balancing the differing pressures and long term implications that are implicit within such strategic documents - they focus instead on the things that affect them and their quality of life. 

The Application Process:

It has long been established that planning applications are publicised by the LPA when received. Neighbours and surrounding houses who might be affected by proposals submitted for planning are notified both in writing and by the posting of a brightly coloured notice fixed at the boundary of the application site for a minimum of 21 days.

Representations made by the public are all recorded and, if more than two are received, an application must be heard by a Planning Committee before it can be granted permission. At committee stage "local people" can speak their piece in front of the committee members (who are all elected councillors) and the applicant has the opportunity to defend their proposals.

The sad reality is that, again, most people are only interested in what affects them directly (normally in a negative way) and very rarely attend these important meetings out of a sense of civic duty or to support applications that they feel would be beneficial to their area or town.

This week I had personal experience of one Planning Committee meeting and was also interested to follow the tweets of Andrew Johnson who is Leader of Harlow Council as he attended a very different Planning Committee in Harlow (as a spectator).

On behalf of a Client I attended a meeting of the London Borough of Redbridge Regional Planning Committee to speak in favour of an application for which I was the agent. the application was for the extension to a childcare nursery and had been recommended for approval by officers. Having ensured that I arrived some fifteen minutes early I was somewhat surprised to find that, when the meeting started, I was the only member of the public apart from one other applicant!

Andrew, on the other hand, was tweeting regularly from a Planning Committee meeting in Harlow that was considering, amongst other non-contentious applications, two items that had stirred up considerable local public emotion. As a result his meeting was packed to the rafters with opponents of the applications in question. 

So will an agenda of "increased localism" result in an improved planning system with lowered centralised costs and an increase in development?

I remain to be convinced!

Firstly, mechanisms already exist that allow certain development to take place without the need for a planning application. This mechanism is called Permitted Development (PD) and it is a consistent set of rules that apply nationally and have been structured to ensure that any developments undertaken under this "relaxation" of the normal procedures are modest and neighbour friendly. Unless neighbourhood plans are going to allow development in excess of that allowed under PD they will simply be ignored in favour of the PD limits.

If local neighbourhood groups are to be allowed to approve schemes that go beyond PD limits, thus cutting cost centrally within LPAs, what training are they going to be given to enable them to consider the wider implications of their decisions and what safeguards are going to be put in place to ensure that decisions are made on the merits of the scheme as opposed to how big the brown envelope is?

The obvious route for enabling this is to use the existing Parish Council structure - allowing their Planning Committees to make decisions whereas now they can only comment on applications to the LPA. The fundamental problem with this approach is that almost every Parish Council I have had the "joy" of coming into contact with have been fundamentally against development on their patch and most of them are dominated by one or two individuals who drive through their particular agenda.

Secondly, if the aim is to engage "local people" in the town planning process then the existing process is not actually broken, opportunities exist throughout the life of an application for the public to comment, force an application to committee and then speak up in a public meeting. even in the context of the LPA developing strategic plans the public have every opportunity to make their comments known and to influence how a town is developed in the longer term.

In summary, the current system is not broken in the way that those with limited knowledge of the system think. Most decisions are taken by professional planning officers who test an application against planning policy that has been developed by other professionals who have taken into consideration those representations that have been made. The Planning Committee process is, on the face of it, a robust, democratic process and gives those who are interested the opportunity to participate in the planning process.

The fact that people only wish to get involved if an application affects them directly and they percieve that it will have a negative impact can not be blamed on the system!

Is the current system perfect? Of course not!

As someone who submits Planning Applications to a variety of LPAs every month, I know all too well how the system has become more drawn out, more bureaucratic and more costly over the past five years. I also know how poor the training and knowledge of some of those involved in the process can be.

Once upon a time a Planning Application simply consisted of drawings (plans, sections and elevations - proposed and exisiting) and an application form. Nowadays a valid application may consist of the drawings, application form, design and access statements, ground contamination surveys, sustainability reports, bat surveys, tree surveys, tree protection plans, lifetime homes checklists and any number of other "local requirements". All of these take time to prepare and, I guess, involve planning officers having to wade through reams of paperwork - all of this before the aesthetic impact of a proposal is considered!

I have learnt that if you want to reduce costs you reduce paperwork. The faster someone can process something the cheaper it is!

In addition  the system is also suffering from a lack of appropriate training. Councillors and officers alike have to take into account any number of, often, conflicting issues when making their decisions and I am always shocked at how poorly informed Councillors are on issues of design and urban planning. Decisions made at committee stage are all too often preceded by ill-informed, inaccurate debate where incorrect statements by a councillor of an applicants case or scheme can't be corrected by the applicant and can often colour subsequent discussions and thus the decision.

To give you an example, my application to Redbridge was refused (I'm not bitter - we'll win on appeal) because of a lack of on-site parking. The councillors decided that, despite of the evidence provided to them (which they clearly hadn't read) there was going to be a significant increase in vehicular movements. Despite having clearly set out how the nursery was operating (sessions in the morning and afternoon) and stating clearly that the demand would only be limited to very short periods of time, the councillor decided to base their decision on the opinion of a member who "had done the whole nursery thing 15 years ago and everyone drives" - the fact that the nursery funding structure has completely changed since then which has completely changed the profile of the "average" client was completely ignored - his incorrect statement was taken as fact despite the evidence contained in our submission!

To be fair, Harlow Council's Planning Committee this week made some very difficult decisions - one of which was to approve an application despite significant public disquiet - but they are supported by an increasingly well equipped Development Control Team and they are prepared to listen to their officers opinions and advice - something Redbridge did not!

So what's the solution?

If I were Mr Pickles I would:

1. Scrap the plans for local neighbourhood plans and instead invest the money in establishing a programme that encourages people to recognise that it is a civic duty to be interested in the planning process and that attending a planning committee meeting can give them the opportunity to support what they see as positive applications as well as objecting to the applications that they dislike.

2. Review the rules for speaking at planning committee meetings so that it becomes easier for people to speak (at present you have to give at least 24 hours notice of your intention to speak) and for applicants to correct incorrect statements - there needs to be more dialogue with the public.

3. Spend the next month talking to people like me - small to medium practitioners who have very little influence in shaping Government policy but bear the brunt of its implications and asking our opinion about where the system fails the public;

4. Review the requirements for supporting documents in the Planning Application system - perhaps make it such that if an application is being lodged by a member of a recognised proffessional institute (RIBA, ARB, RICS, CIAT etc) then the requirements for some documents that relate to quality of design can be dropped in recognition of their proffessional training;

5. Invest money in specific training for councillors on Planning Law, Design and Urban design so that they are equipped for their role on planning committees - perhaps such training should be a prerequisite for membership of a planning committee?

So, Mr Pickles, if you get to read this blog entry - feel free to ring me or DM me via twitter - I'd love to discuss this with you further before you make a final decision!

For everyone else - normal rules apply, feel free to comment as I'd love to hear your thoughts!

Reactions to "A manifesto for change - Part 1"

My last post has generated quite a bit of reaction - I didn't realise that people might actually read it, silly me!

I received emails and comments through facebook that deserve to be read by people who read the original blog and to which I would like to respond in a public forum.

So firstly, the email I received from Andrew Bramidge who is the Chief Executive of Harlow Renaissance. Andrew's email is as follows:

"Hi Mark

I read your blog the other day – thanks for the comments and sentiments there. As you rightly identify, the critical question is what happens next and we will be working hard with the Council and others to ensure that there is a strong legacy and that much of the work continues. Clearly that will not be easy in the context of public funding cuts (and which is why we are having to close!). A key piece of work is the Design Guide and we will be pushing to get this adopted as formal SPD.

In relation to your comment on the town centre,

"Why not encourage Land Owners to partner with the Council to deliver meaningful redevelopment of individual properties or groups of buildings within an agreed brief and design framework?"

this is precisely what we [Harlow Renaissance] are now doing. We are working with our design team on a range of masterplanning options (reduced scale, less land acquisition and phased) which we can then discuss with existing landowners how they can bring forward developments that are consistent with this. We aim to have a draft of something in October.

For parts of Town Centre North where there is a multiplicity of owners we will still be undertaking an OJEU process, but we see scope for a number of developments coming forward against an agreed brief. In the current climate we feel this is a more realistic scenario for delivery.

I would take exception with one of your comments about us being a Quango (which we are not!) and that our existence meant that the future of the town was being determined by people with no connection with it. I could make the point that five of our thirteen board members live in Harlow and another two run business here and also that three of our six staff are long term Harlow residents, so to say that we have “no connection” with the town is just false!

However, that would actually be missing the point in that we are a delivery body and not a decision making one. We do not plan the future of the town (although at times I wish we did!) or have any responsibility for strategy. Our role is to implement the decisions that Harlow Council as the democratically elected representatives of the town have agreed upon. We actually have no powers of our own.

Regards,

Andrew"

I am really pleased that the momentum for change that Andrew and his colleagues have so successfully generated is not to grind to a halt during the next few months as Harlow Renaissance is "wound down".

The fact that the Design Guide is to be completed is great news and I urge the Council to adopt this as soon as possible as it is long overdue.

I remain concerned that the regeneration of Harlow Town Centre North is being approached from the perspective of a wholesale redevelopment on a grand scale. I would prefer to see a gradual replacement or refurbishment and adaptation of the existing building stock so that the urban grain of the town centre does not disappear. One of the major problems with the Water Gardens development was, and is, that it totally ignored the pre-existing urban grain and established it's own which is incompatible with the rest of the Town Centre.

I still remain convinced that some of the buildings that are in the Town centre are incredible pieces of early modern architecture and could and should be retained, brought up to date and form the skeleton of the new Town Centre.

Regards my use of the term "Quango", I apologise to Andrew - this was simply a lazy use of language which I have now rectified on the previous post.

For the record, the five board members who live in Harlow are as follows:

Cllr Andrew Johnson - Leader, Harlow Council
Cllr Chris Millington - Leader of the Opposition, Harlow Council
Cllr Mark Wilkinson - Leader of the Labour Group, Harlow Council
Cllr Eddie Johnson  - Deputy Leader Harlow Council
Jackie Sully - Chair, Harlow 2020

In addition, I think that the two board members who run businesses in Harlow are:

John Keddie - Vice President of R&D Operations, GlaxoSmithKline
Steve Hammond - Former Managing Director, United Glass

Andrew is quite correct in stating that Harlow Renaissance are simply a "delivery agency" but the reality is that they have also been doing a significant amount or work in shaping the views of the decision makers in the Town. This is no criticism, in fact I am hugely grateful to Harlow Renaissance for the work they have done in this area. My concern is that without an organisation like Renaissance, the will to implement change will diminish and the skills that are needed to set out a long term vision for the Town will be imported from London without any thought to the skills the Town already has at it's disposal.

I also had some other comments via Facebook which I won't publish in their original state. Suffice it to say that I have always been an advocate of small businesses being part of the solution and Local Authorities often overlook such businesses because of their size rather than recognising their flexibility and, often, value for money!

My recent comment on Twitter which said something along the lines of "Well that's 2 yrs of networking & gaining influence down the tube!" was simply a statement of frustration that, after two years of building relationships with people like Andrew and through no fault of their own, any progress that we, as a practice, had made was effectively wiped out.

I am, as stated above, an advocate of small and steady changes when it comes to regeneration, rather than "grand gestures" and firmly believe that The Water Gardens was and is a disaster for Harlow in terms of urban planning. Future regeneration phases will find it extremely difficult to reconcile the urban form of the Water Gardens and the Town centre will, in my opinion, forever be split in two.

As I said in my previous post, please leave comments as you see fit or contact me through the usual channels as I firmly believe that the best way to maintain the momentum for change is to talk about how regeneration should be delivered in Harlow. You never know, my manifesto "part 2" might include some of your ideas!

The photos used in this blog are courtesy of the Harlow Civic Society

A manifesto for change - Part 1!

If you've read my last post you'll know that Harlow Renaissance, Harlow's regeneration company, has announced that it is to "cease trading" at the end of the financial year. Since i wrote the piece last week, I have been giving some thought to what my "manifesto" would be if I were seeking office on the single issue of "Regenerating Harlow". This post is my fledgling attempt to articulate some of my thoughts and I'll probably return to the subject over the next few weeks and months as the situation becomes clearer and as my thoughts develop.

1. Harlow needs change and change is good

There is little doubt that Harlow, as a town, is in need of change! Many of the buildings are no longer fit for purpose and the infrastructure of the Town is sadly lacking. This need for change is not a result of failure, as many would have you believe, but of changes in the way we lead our lives that could not have been reasonably predicted 50 years ago and by poor quality and ill conceived development that, rather than improving the pre-existing problems, has in many cases undermined the solid urban planning principles that the town is founded upon.

Change can be a force for good, improving situations where hope has been long abandoned and bringing light where once all was dark.

Change almost always brings with it fear - fear of the new, fear of failure, fear of making things worse than they already are, but fear is not constructive, fear stops things happening rather than acting as an encouragement - now is not a time for fear!

As a Town we should embrace change and new ideas (we are after all living in a groundbreaking urban environment that was all about a new way of doing things) we should encourage innovation in our business sectors and we should support and spur on our Local Authority as they seek to bring in the necessary change to our built environment.

2. Small changes can be more effective that grand gestures!

It's easy to be seduced by the idea that a "grand gesture" will solve all the known problems in one fell swoop however I firmly believe that, whilst occasionally this may well be true, often small, incremental changes can be far more powerful drivers for improvement that wholesale redevelopment.

In Harlow, for example, the Water Gardens Development which was completed in 2004 was intended to improve facilities within the Town and created some 45,000 ft2 of "leisure spaces" and created a new Town Hall. It was a grand gesture that has been very successful in bringing new people into Harlow, mainly to use the new shops that have been attracted to the development. however, in creating a new shopping "zone" The Water Gardens development turns its back (physically) on the old Town Centre which had the (almost) immediate effect of killing off any chance that the northern half of the Town Centre ever had of passing trade. As a result Market Square is dying a slow and lingering death by pawnbroker and charity shop!

Any Town Centre development needs to recognise the importance of maintaining a balance across the whole of the retail offering and, in the case of Harlow, the strength of the urban form that exists. Yes Harlow Town Centre's buildings are suffering from old age and poor maintenance but this should not automatically condemn them to becoming hardcore. One of the, often overlooked, aspects of Harlow Town Centre is that, when you look beyond the grime and peeling paintwork, many of the buildings have the early DNA of today's contemporary masterpieces.

I would resist the lures of wholesale "regeneration" and embrace the opportunities that the existing buildings and urban environment offer for re-imagining the early days of Harlow New Town.

I would focus on re-balancing the quality of the public realm so that those areas that have been long ignored and overlooked become, once again, spaces that offer something new and different to the population of Harlow.

In these times of financial restraint, I would look to work with existing land owners to encourage them to partner with the Town in improving the quality of the space enclosed by their buildings which could only lead to increased footfall and trade and thus increased revenue streams and property values for them.

I would reject any attempts to bolt additional housing on to the outskirts of Harlow until the problems of poor housing stock and infrastructure in the existing neighbourhoods have been addressed and it can be demonstrated that the demand for new housing can not be met through intensification without damaging the individual and collective character of Harlow's neighbourhoods.

3. Change is more effective when it is made collaboratively, involving the people it affects!

Change is often, as I have said above, associated with fear and uncertainty, it can often be undermined before it has even got going by the inertia that doubts can cause. If change, at a town wide level, is to be effective, it has to be brought about with the support of local people, businesses and interest groups.

Consultation can often sound the death knell for any project if the purpose is not clearly stated at the beginning of the process. It will never be possible to get every single person to agree on what, where, how and when regeneration should happen. It is possibe however to give people to opportunity to express their thoughts and comments and to be heard. it is possible to make people feel part of the process of regeneration and to take ownership of the changes that result.

Alienating individuals and organisations by simply ignoring them because they might disagree with you simply stores up trouble for later down the line as campaigns and petitions gather pace.

I would look to set out clearly, at the earliest possible point in time, what the overarching aims and ambitions are for the regeneration of Harlow. I would use inclusive language rather than industry jargon and I would look to explain why the priorities are as they are and what the signs of success will be.

I would encourage local business to be part of the soloution and would look to use physical regeneration as a driver for the economic regeneration of the Town.

I would encourage local residents to contribute to the shaping of a new vision for Harlow in the 21st century and beyond - letting them know that their thoughts are just as valid and as important as the professionals and Councillors that will be, neccesarily, pulling together the various strands that will make up a Town wide regeneration work.

I would encourage the local politicians to put behind them any party political loyalties and work together as a body to bring strong leadership at a time where many will be looking for certainty and decisive decision making.

So those are my first three manifesto 'pledges' I hope they made sense and that you enjoyed reading them.

To summarise, change is neccesary, can be a force for good and can be more effective when undertaken in small, bite sized, steps with the involvement of those it affects.

Let me reassure you all that (at the moment) I have no intention of standing for any kind of office. However, if Harlow Council want to talk to me about shaping the future of the town they know where to find me!

As always I would welcome your thoughts and comments - interaction is always good!

What next for Harlow?

After a few weeks of rumours and speculation, it has finally been confirmed that Harlow Renaissance, Harlow's regeneration company, is to cease trading at the end of the financial year.

Does the update to Part L really address Climate Change?

Last week I finally got around to reviewing the new Approved Document Part L of the Building Regulations which, for those of you who I have completely lost already, deals with the Conservation of Fuel and Power in buildings. Part L (as I shall refer to it) has, for some time now, been the primary tool of the Government for reducing the carbon footprint of both our residential and non-residential building stock through the application of ever tougher performance standards for the thermal envelope of a new building, the efficiency of any heat source used to heat said building and, latterly, requirements for some energy efficient lighting installations.

The basic aim of Part L is to drive down the CO2 emissions of buildings on an ever steeper curve until, eventually, new housing will be carbon neutral. The latest version of Part L comes into force in October of this year and, according to some, is likely to add around 6% to the cost of the construction of a new dwelling. The cost implications for extensions and refurbishments is talked about less and will probably vary - needless to say it won't be cheaper to build after October '09!

Last week I also got to go to the first day of the first Test Match against Bangladesh at Lords.

Now, you may be forgiven for asking what the connection was between these two momentous events, let me explain.

On my way to Lords and facing an hour long commute to St Johns Wood, I grabbed a free copy of the Telegraph courtesy of a free voucher. Having caught the train at Harlow Town station I settled down and opened my paper to wile away the journey and, on page 3, was confronted by the headline "A summer of '76 every decade (Met Office predicts)", it's worth a read (although I would suggest you read the rest of the blog first before clicking on the link above)!

The long and short of the article is that the Met Office, whilst dropping their seasonal predictions (after all who can forget the summer of unbroken Bar-B-Ques we had last year) the Met Office continues to provide the Government with long range forecasts and is predicting that climate change will result in extreme droughts occurring ten times as often as they do now with their worst case scenarios indicating an increase of temperature of 4degC from current averages! All of this is being compared to the Summer of 1976 which (so I am told - being two at the time) was excruciatingly hot with temperatures reaching record highs of 36degC. These exceptionally hot conditions led to reservoirs and rivers drying up, water being rationed, people being rushed to hospital with heat exhaustion and forest fires breaking out left right and centre!

Now, we should take this with a pinch of salt, after all it is only a prediction and a long range one at that, but it does raise an interesting point. Eleanor Burke, Climate Extremes Scientist with the Met Office, states in the article that:

"Britain has to prepare for 1976-style droughts. This could include designing buildings to cope with heat......"

Approved Document Part L of the Building Regulations addresses the conservation of energy primarily through the use of insulation and air tightness to keep heat in but what happens when you want to keep temperatures low? The Approved Document does cover the control of Solar gain but, in my opinion, does not ensure that extreme air temperature levels outside the building do not affect the level of comfort inside the building.

One of the criticisms that can be leveled at Part L, is that it can promote a singular approach to energy efficiency (i.e. increasingly high levels of insulation) at the expense of other considerations, after all it was never originally designed to be a vehicle for driving down carbon emmissions! In doing so it fails to recognise the benefits that can be gained in providing a stable internal environment all year round.

As Architects, we often see buildings that have been constructed with a good level of insulation that have then needed air conditioning or other mechanical cooling devices to stop the occupants overheating in summer. This is particularly noticable in lightweight buildings.

We also see other examples, such as St Albans Cathedral (which I also visited this week - more about that in another post) where, through the limitations of building technology at the time, the building retains a stable internal temperature all year round due to it's massively thick masonry walls.

This use of thick masonry structures to regulate internal temperature is known as Thermal Massing. Thermal mass is a property that enables building materials to absorb, store, and later release significant amounts of heat. Buildings constructed to be thermally massive absorb energy (heat) slowly and hold it for much longer periods of time than lightweight buildings, which are designed to heat up quickly and rely on insulation to stop heat escaping.

This effect delays and reduces heat transfer through a thermal mass building component, leading to three significant benefits:

• 
  
  There are fewer spikes in the heating and cooling requirements, since mass slows the response time and moderates indoor temperature fluctuations.
• 
  
  A massive building uses less energy than a similar lightweight building due to the reduced heat transfer through the massive elements.
• 
  
  Thermal mass can shift energy demand to off-peak time periods when utility rates are lower.

The greatest advantage with thermally massive buildings, in the context of the Telegraph article, is that the effect is the same whether the heat source is internal (i.e. underfloor heating) or external (i.e. extreme external temperatures), the structure is slow to radiate heat.

If we are faced with the likihood of increasingly hot summers, it is not sufficient for Part L to simply look to make the heating of our houses and work spaces more effcient, it also needs to look to make the cooling of those same spaces equally as efficient and preferably passive.

Although the latest update to Part L is much welcomed, until it encompasses all aspects of achieving a comfortable environment for building occupiers, it will remain an ineffective way of addressing both the cause and effect of Climate Change!

What impact a Hung Parliment?

So the election is finally over (almost) and in theory at least, we know what the next few years holds for us in terms of political leadership. Of course, I am assuming that a coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats will actually happen and will last more than a few months.

The question that we still don't really have any answers to is how the new Government's policies will really affect architectural practices like mine.

One thing that we can probably safely assume is that, in return for supporting the Conservative Government, the Lib Dems will secure a referendum on electoral reform and some sort of input into the reform of the tax system but it is unlikely that they will be able to exert much influence over other areas of policy.

So this leaves us looking at the Conservative Election Manifesto for clues.

On the face of it there aren't that many policy proposals that are specific to Architects, in fact none of the Parties has really set out any "architectural" policy proposals during the campaign. Of the Tory manifesto pledges, I could only really find a few that I thought would have a significant impact on what we do, these are as follows:

- Abolishing Regional Assemblies and Regional Planning, devolving those powers to local partnerships of businesses and Councils.

- Rewarding Councils for building new homes, especially affordable homes.

- The creation of Local Housing Trusts to allow local communities to build the homes they need.

- Strengthening the powers of Local Authorities to stop "infil" and "backland" development.

- Extension of Government procurement to small and medium sized businesses.

The truth of the matter is that the policies outlined above will not really affect the majority of practices  and despite much rhetoric on the doorstep about simplifying the planning process, no specific promises are made within the manifesto, nor is there any statement about design quality in publicly procured buildings.

True, for some practices (and certainly local planners) the abolition of the Regional Assemblies and Regional Planning infrastructure will have a huge knock on effect, but for those of us who have more modest practices, it is likely to be something that will pass almost unnoticed.

The emphasis on local communities building new homes is interesting and could, if implemented, bring a new stream of work into local practices. However, past experience has shown most local architects that their Local Authorities are unwilling to "risk" using small practices preferring instead the perceived security of a "brand" architectural practice. Unless the Conservatives can incentivize Local Authorities to look locally for Consultants, much of this new house building will, once again, be delivered by the mass house builders and their 'designers' and any sense of local character will be sacrificed for standardised house types.

The reality is that, for the last ten years or so, many small architects have increasingly been surviving on a diet of private clients doing small developments - often on backland or infil sites. the loss of these development opportunities could choke that regular supply of work and, unless it is replaced by an alternative source of work, this could lead to the extinction of small, independent practices as they are forced out of the market, merge with others in the same position or are simply swallowed up by bigger firms.

The other great unknown is whether the coalition government will scale back or call time on the Building Schools for the Future programme. For firms like mine this will not have a significant impact as we are already excluded from this work due to our size. It could however force many practices to reevaluate how they secure work and in which sectors they want to be active.

The truth of the matter is that we have no idea what will unfold in the next few months or years, the only thing that is certain is that nothing is certain.

The funny thing is that, as a practice, we have been seeing an increase in both enquiries and actual commissions in the period that led upto the General Election. I think that many people were convinced that, by now, there would be a new government in power and that things would be much more certain than they are, lets hope they don't get cold feet!

In the vain hope that someone with some clout might read this blog, here are my suggestions for policies that a coalition government could introduce to make the business of a local Architect more profitable and sustainable:

Local Authority Projects:

- All Local Authority building projects to be delivered using directly employed consultants to ensure that the Local Authorities retain true control over quality and design.
- All Local Authority consultants to be employed through a simple tender process that recognises the fact that, in the case of "chartered" consultants, a high level of professionalism is guaranteed to ensure that even the smallest practice can compete with confidence.
- Professional Indemnity Insurance levels required on Local Authority projects to be set at a level that is appropriate to the scale of the project to ensure that realistic insurances are held by consultants and that small practices are not excluded from projects that they could otherwise carry out.
- Local Authority procurement guidance to place an emphasis on using local consultants, where possible to ensure that local capital expenditure is reinvested into the local economy rather than being lost to other regions.

Planning System:

- All Planning Officers to hold, or be undergoing training to hold, a design related qualification to ensure that design is at the forefront of the appraisal and decision making process.
- All Planning Committee members to be required to undergo regular CPD and design related training to ensure that the committee have at least a basic understanding of design issues and the construction industry.
- All Planning Applications to be signed, prior to submission, by a Chartered Architect (RIBA), Surveyor (RICS) or member of the CIAT to ensure that all applications submitted are of an appropriate design quality and accompanied by all the appropriate supporting information.
- All Local Authorities to establish design review panels of local design professionals and planning professionals to review all major applications prior to Planning Committee decisions to ensure that elected members have formal access to local design expertise.

Until then, we'll continue to muddle on providing our Clients with the high quality service and professionalism that they have grown to expect from us and hope that, through a growing reputation, we too can grow to compete with the big boys!