Why should I ask about how my Architect's quote will be structured?

This is my penultimate blog in a series about what you should ask your architect before appointing him to your project. The series stems from a period of time where we were being asked a wide variety of questions when quoting, many of which were completely irrelevant and couldn't have been of any realistic help when the (prospective) Clients were considering who to appoint to deliver their project.

As you will have read in my first post on this subject, we are rarely asked the three or four questions that I WOULD ask if I were in their shoes. In previous posts I have touched upon the first few questions namely:

1. What are you professional qualifications and/or memberships?

 

2. Do you carry Professional Indemnity Insurance, if so what's the limit of any one claim?

3. Would you be actually working on my project yourself or would other people in your office actually be doing the work, if so, what are their qualifications and how will you be checking their work?

The next question in my list is as follows:

"Will your quote break down what you have to do into manageable and clearly explained stages so that, if I decide to stop, I know how much I owe you as well as when you will be invoicing me?"

Now you might be forgiven for thinking that the answer to this question is obvious, in fact it often isn't as many architects and other consultants have a variety of ways in which they structure their quotations - some give clarity, others offer clarity if you're prepared to do a bit of research and other methods give little or no clarity at all. Lets look at the most common structures for consultants quotes:

RIBA Outline Plan of Work 2007

 

The RIBA Outline Plan of Work 2007 is a useful document which breaks the life of a construction project down into stages (A through to L) with a description of key tasks associated with each task.

Many Chartered Architects will structure their quotations around the various stages, for example getting you to a Planning Application might cover stages A through D whilst Building Regulations Approval is achieved at the end of stage E with tender actions being covered by stages F through H.

Whilst this is extremely useful on complex projects where many complicated and interlocking tasks have to be carried out, for a smaller project this level of complexity can be somewhat overwhelming and reference to work stages as opposed to outcomes can lead to confusion, particularly for domestic clients who will have to look up the relevant document and then try to work out which stage they are on at any moment in time.

To be fair to the RIBA, they have recognised this and are currently in the process of replacing the Plan of Work with a revamped version, the consultation document can be read here, which will simplify the workstages down to seven easily understood stages that apply equally as well to all scales of project.

Hourly Rates

Some building consultants have chosen to disregard the RIBA Plan of Work and instead have adopted the approach of Solicitors or Accountants, charging by the hour.

Putting to one side, for a moment, what an Architect is "worth" in terms of hourly rates*, I want to focus instead on the lack of transparency involved when someone quotes on the basis of an hourly rate.

How long does it take to prepare and submit a Planning Application or a Building Regulations Application? How long does it take to survey and draw up an existing building? How long is a piece of string? How complicated is your project?

Frankly whilst we as Architects effectivly sell our time and expertise, how can we expect a customer to understand how complex their project is and how involved our role is and thus how long the project is likely to take from our point of view. Most of our clients have no idea how long it takes us to put together a Design Statement, Access Statement or any of the other multitude of documents that we have to submit in support of a Planning Application these days let along the drawings for their project which "coz it's done on a computer probably takes you no time at all"!

If we, as Chartered Architects, are to provide proper support to a client as they embark on their project, surly the first thing we should be doing is being clear about our fees and the added value we bring to a project. Not only does this allow them to budget properly (minimising the risk that they default on our fees) it also builds trust that we will be up front and clear about the costs they might expect to incur.

In my opinion, quotes based on an hourly rate should be stuck straight in the bin!

*Coming back to what an Architect is "worth", consider this:

- Architects train for a minimum of seven years before being eligible to sit their final professional exams which are required before they can register as Architects - more often than not the training takes eight years to complete;

- In contrast Solicitors train for about 6 years, Accountants for 5 years.

- Solicitors can charge £200 plus per hour whilst Accountants will regularly charge £150 plus.

So what's your Architect "worth"........more or less than your Solicitor?

Bespoke stages:

At Architecture & Design Services we quote for the vast majority of projects on the basis of bespoke stages with the outcomes defining the stage. For example a domestic project might be broken down as follows:

Stage 1: Survey the existing building & prepare existing drawings for the basis of further design work.

Stage 2: Prepare outline designs for Client approval, make all neccesary revisions and prepare and submit a Planning Application the agreed scheme.

Stage 3: On receipt of a Planning Applicatiomn, prepare and submit a Full Plans Buildign Regulations Application.

and so on.

The advantages of this approach speak for themselves. The Client knows exactly what to budget for, how much is due at each stage and when that stage falls complete.

So, why ask the question, because frankly you want to know how much you're going to be paying for your Architect's services and when that money is going to be due!

Why should I care who's doing my drawings?

Yet again I find myself revisiting my blog many months after I last posted - apologies!

As some of you might have picked up, I am trying to complete a series of blogs entitled "What should you look for from your Architect" the first of which can be found here, who knew that doing a series would take so long!

Earlier in the series I covered why I thought it was important that anyone looking to appoint an Architect should ask questions about their qualifications, memberships and Professional Indemnity Insurance cover. In this post I want to explore why it is important that you know who is actually going to be working on your project - hence the title "Why should I care who's doing my drawings?" 

The actual question that I posed in my original post was: "Would you be actually working on my project yourself or would other people in your office actually be doing the work, if so, what are their qualifications and how will you be checking their work?"

So, you've decided to build an extension, new house, office etc and have made contact with a couple of local Architects (always go local they'll probably be cheaper and know your local Planning Department, Building Control officers and local builders) and have asked them to come over to have a look at your site* and now you're face to face with a very presentable person who seems to know what they're talking about and, frankly, you're convinced that this firm is "the one"!

*note: Most Architects will happily come out to your site and spend about an hour with you without charging you for the privilege, if they won't then go elsewhere as these firms are likely to charge you for ever last minute of their time! Visiting site gives us a chance to understand your site and you and to work out just how big the project is, how complicated the site is and whether we are going to be able to work constructively with you - all factors that affect the fee that we charge - remember we are selling our time and expertise!

So, back to the narrative;

Imagine, having signed up to work with the nice Architect you met on site, that you then meet the person who is actually working up your dream project and you discover that they are fresh from University, don't have a clue about what you want or how to build it and, worst of all, are wearing a dirty Arsenal shirt - not quite what you had been led to expect!

Most architectural firms will have staff with a wide range of qualifications and experiences and the fact that the chap working on your scheme is not very experienced is not, in itself, a major problem as long as they are being properly supervised by someone who is properly qualified and experienced.

So why should you ask the question that I posed at the top of this post - frankly because you need to know that the project is in safe hands. A good practice will have systems in place to ensure that staff with less experience are being guided, mentored and encouraged as they develop within the business and that all the work that they produce is being checked thoroughly by a qualified, Registered Architect.

If the nice, well presented person in front of you is not able to answer the question without looking a bit shifty then walk away - you don't need to be employing a salesman as well as an Architect!

Why should I ask about my architects qualifications and professional memberships?

This is part one of a small series of posts that all stem from a post a couple of days ago (which you can read here) which suggests five keys questions you should ask when looking for an Architect.

Let me give you a hypothetical situation and then ask you a question:

The scenario: You have been fortunate enough to have been given (or to have bought) a high end sportscar (you can visualise whatever you like at this point). Your car now needs a service and some minor but essential repairs and you would also like a couple of added extras!

The question: do you use the authorised dealer or 'Big Jim' under the arches because he's a fraction of the cost?

Now, I am not fortunate enough to own a high end sportscar (one day *sigh*) but I suspect that whilst 'Big Jim' is cheaper most people would opt to use someone who works one their model of sportscar on a regular basis and knows what they are doing, after all, it's an expensive piece of kit!!!

So, let's look at that scenario again:

You want to do some work on your house (your most expensive asset) do you go to 'Really nice Russ' who works out of his garage conversion or someone who is a qualified professional but is likely to be more expensive?

I think that, when considering any alterations to your property, you should make sure that the person or company you decide to use are suitably qualified and experienced!

That's not to say that you should always use an architect because they may not have the relevant skills for your project! Most good architects will tell you, up front, if you really require their services and, if you don't, should be able to point you in the right direction.

Regardless of which 'brand' of consultant you require, the fact remains that the membership of a relevant professional body gives you some confidence that they are 'up to the job'.

For Architects you should visit the ARB website and check that they are actually Architects (it's an offence to pass yourself off as an Architect if you are not registered with the ARB).

For Surveyors and Structural Engineers, the RICS is a great starting point.

'Architectural Technician' is often a term used by unqualified designers but you can check with the CIAT to see if they are actually technicians or simply unqualified 'designers'.

Finally, a word of warning! There is no such thing as an 'Architectural Designer' - if your consultant says that this is what they are dig a bit deeper, after all you wouldn't trust 'Big Jim' with your Bugatti, why trust 'really nice Russ' with your Home?

Does Michael Gove have a point?

If you read the same type of magazines that I do, you'll know that the Coalition Education Secretary, Michael Gove, has raised the blood pressure of "the architectural community" with some apparently ill considered and uneducated comments about the role (and cost) of Architects within the education sector. At the risk of being lynched by my fellow professionals I have been wondering whether Mr Gove does actually have a valid argument!

Firstly, lets actually consider what he said:

Prior to his ministerial appointment in the new coalition government Mr Gove said Architects were ‘creaming off cash’ under the £55 million BSF programme.

Then, on 2nd June, in the House of Commons and during a debate Mr Gove stated that:

"...I know that Building Schools for the Future makes a distinguished contribution to ensuring that we renovate and refurbish the schools estate, but I have concerns that under my predecessor the programme was not allocating resources to the front line in the most efficient way. It is critical that we ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent on the front line improving education, and not on consultants, architects or bureaucracy...."

Architects Journal

More recently, following a question and answer session at a Free Schools conference on 29th January he said:

“We won’t be getting Richard Rogers to design your school, we won’t be getting any ‘Award winning architects’ to design it, because no-one in this room is here to make architects richer.”

BDonline (Under Creative Commons License: Attribution)

It's interesting to note that the question he was answering was not reported and so his answer could well be out of context, however, on the face of it, the subsequent "outrage" amongst certain quarters appears to be fully justified but is he wrong?

To be clear (before I embark on professional suicide) I am a strong advocate of the argument that Architects can only add value to any project and believe that we, as a profession, have an incredibly important role in lifting the aspiration of students by providing them with buildings that are designed to be fit for purpose and of a higher quality than those that have gone before.

Having said that, I think that Michael Gove is, understandably, upset at how the BSF programme appears to have delivered great value for everyone apart from the Taxpayer. What he fails to understand is that this is not the fault of Architects!!!

It is widely recognised that the BSF procurement process was pretty rubbish (to put it nicely) and that millions were wasted before contracts were even entered into but did we, as a profession, "cream of cash" from the BSF programme?

I don't believe so, however, it is probably accurate to say that the architects involved in BSF were not the most 'cost effective' firms available! In my opinion, the Labour Government was overly obsessed with "starchitecture" as opposed to solid design - the bling over the practical!

I know many architects who have successfully completed a wide variety of education sector projects but who could never get close to a BSF project because they didn't have the 'reputation' in this sector. If the fees charged within the BSF programme were high it is probably simply a reflection of the calibre and profile of the architects appointed!

Taking Mr Gove's statement of June 2010, can we really argue with the sentiment that taxpayers’ money should be spent on the front line improving education, and not on consultants, architects or bureaucracy...."?

Personally, I can't argue with the sentiment of his statement and think that maybe we, as a profession, are being overly sensitive because of his previous statement(s).

The key question for me is how do we ensure that investment in our educational building stock does not compromise investment in the front line? Whilst architects clearly add value, do we always have to use the most expensive firms and build architectural jewels every time or can a more pragmatic and cost effective solution be found?

Finally, Mr Gove had a dig at Richard Rogers and 'award winning architects', predictably, Mr Rogers threw his rattle out of the pram as did a number of other 'leading lights' in our profession - what a surprise!

Is it a crime to suggest that Richard Rogers and his ilk are not the only people that are capable of designing quality schools buildings? I hope not because if it is then I'll be drummed out of the profession before I get chance to pay my 2012 subs!

In my opinion, the obsession with 'starchitects' has caused great damage to us as a profession. Architects are assumed to be raking it in whilst the majority of us struggle to earn a decent living. Mr Gove can, in my opinion, be forgiven for not understanding that you don't have to use Richard Rogers to get good design BUT he shouldn't ignore the valuable contribution that architects make to public building projects.

If the Education Secretary wants to reduce the proportion of school building budgets that get spent on fees then he needs to look at current procurement practices that exclude all bar the largest firms. It's bizarre that, as a practice, we can work on £2million plus design and build schools projects as part of a contractor's design team but can't win a similar sized project in our own right! Relaxing the, frankly draconian, financial and PII minimum requirements will widen the range of practices that can bid for projects and will encourage smaller architectural companies with a track record in education to bring their skills to the table.

If the Education Secretary wants to reduce the overall cost of rebuilding our crumbling schools then he needs to be realistic about how grand he wants new schools building to be. Does every new school have to be an all singing all dancing modern masterpiece or is there scope for them to be more pragmatic exercises in good design?

The Education Secretary must not, however, lose sight of the fact that schools are hugely complex buildings that can't be treated with a "one soloution fits all" approach. Architects are invaluable in assessing and delivering designs that suit the particular needs and requirements of individual clients, regardless of the sector and, if we are to avoid the mistakes of the past, we must be allowed to bring our expertise and knowledge to the table.

So, to conclude:

Did the profession 'cream off cash' in BSF? No but the fees were probably higher than they might have been because the Government wanted 'starchitecture' as opposed to good design.

Is it critical that we ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent on the front line improving education, and not on consultants, architects or bureaucracy? Absoloutely but you can't avoid paying fees for the professionals you need to deliver quality schools buildings for the future!

Does every school need to be designed by Richard Rogers etc? No, in fact having a wider range of architects involved in the schools programme can only benefit both the profession and the taxpayer!

Does Michael Gove have a point? Yes, however his statements before and after show a lack of understanding of the complexity of designing a school and that not all architects are Richard Rogers or charge fees like Richard Rogers but that we CAN deliver quality design when allowed to!

What Michael Gove needs to understand is that Architects are part of the solution (not the problem) but if we continue to get offended by attacks on 'starchitects' and fail to educate our Education Minister about the valuable and irreplacable skills we have as a wider profession we will be stereotyped, sidelined and labelled as an expensive luxury that the country can't afford at this time!

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 ever happened to quality public buildings?

A few weeks ago my wife and I celebrated our 13 years of blissful marriage with a day trip to St Albans with our two kids. Having negotiated the one way system and found a multi storey car park we set out on foot to visit the Cathedral.

The History of St Albans Cathedral is somewhat chequered and was brilliantly brought to life for us by the guide who showed us (and our surprisingly attentive children) around. 

Originally founded as a Benedictine abbey founded by King Offa in ad.793 the current building was begun in 1077 by the Normans and was extended in the "Early English" style as the congregation grew. this extension can clearly be seen as the Norman rounded arches give way to the more pointed style further down the nave.

In 1539, the various buildings around the Cathedral were demolished and sold as building materials to a local contractor, leaving just the main church and gatehouse still standing and the Town purchased the church from the King as a parish church.

The financial burden of maintaining the building became too heavy for the town to bear and, as a result, the building began to fall into a state of disrepair. In the 1800s Lord Grimthorpe stepped in and, on the basis that he was allowed a free hand with regards to design, funded the complete restoration of what we now see.

Now, it is clear that Lord Grimthorpe had no architectural training and (according to our guide) little taste, but he managed what must have been an incredible feat, turning a virtually derelict building into one of the finest churches in the region.

Having been wowed by the Cathedral, I was equally impressed with the 1980s extension, which is known as "The Chapter House". This addition was designed by Sir William Whitfield and the brief was very simple. The original chapter house (destroyed during The Reformation) had been the hub of daily life of the monastery and the new building should be its modern equivalent.

The Chapter House, crafted from over 500,000 reproduction Roman bricks, flows effortlessly from the Cathedral and the detailing, when combined with the use of the exposed brick and concrete, screams of craftsmanship!

I could not help wondering (as I waited for the family to emerge from the toilets) why it is that so much of our recent public architecture has failed to meet the standards of architecture and construction quality that is clearly visible in this sensitive addition to a much loved historic building.

There has been much debate in recent weeks about the quality of the buildings resulting from the drive to rebuild our schools and hospitals and there will be, no doubt, much pressure to reduce the cost to the public purse of such projects in the future, but is this a false economy?

The week before visiting St Albans I attended a design workshop at Harlow Council's relatively new Civic Centre. This is a building that was designed and constructed as a part of a wider project to redevelop the area of Harlow Town Centre known as the Water Gardens.

The project was privately funded and, in my opinion, the architecture and quality of what has been delivered leaves something (well actually quite a lot) to be desired. It's not just the poor quality materials that are distressing but also the lack of thought in the detailing.

I could not help wondering, as I walked along the corridor feeling every board of the access floor flexing and squeaking below my feet, how long the Civic Centre will last - is it destined to be a listed building of the future - I doubt it very much!

In these unprecedented times of financial restraint, should we be looking to short term cost savings when it comes to public building projects or should we, instead, be looking to ensure that the design and build quality is such that the building outlasts our generation?

In my opinion, we need to have a radical change of approach when it comes to the commissioning of public buildings. we need to throw off the thinking that says that cheap and quick is best - in the medium to long term the short term savings are thrown away as we revisit or demolish poorly conceived buildings that are no longer fit for purpose or fundamentally flawed by bad design

Instead we need to embrace the concept that public buildings should last longer than those who envisage them. We need to embrace good design - by appropriately qualified professionals - and accept that good buildings should be fit for purpose and capable of accommodating change. They should offer the occupants both visual and environmental comfort and should be a lasting statement of our era.

In short, we need a return to the Architect as the central figure in the design of our public buildings and realistic budgets that allow us to construct buildings that my Grandchildren can visit and marvel at when they celebrate their 13th Wedding Anniversary!.

Design and Build - a modern fairytale or just a tall story?

Draw up a chair, pour yourself a glass of wine and let me tell you a tale of how public projects used to be commissioned in the olden days - things are so much better now-a-days, aren't they?

Once upon a time, a long long time ago, when Clients employed Consultants who were respected as professionals and Builders built things, buildings were conceived, designed, tendered and then built and everyone was happy with their lot.

In those days, Clients trusted their consultants to provide professional advice and to steer their particular project towards completion - on time and on budget (hopefully). Everyone in the process knew where they fitted in and what their roles were and, whilst there were risks, everyone took their fair share.

In those fairytale times, Architects and their ilk concentrated on ensuring that their designs were fully considered and resolved in the sure and certain knowledge that, the more confident a builder was about what was required of him (in those days it was pretty much all men), the keener his price would be and thus the Client could be reassured that, by paying some fees before the project hit site, they were getting the best possible value for their money.

Although we didn't know it at the time, those days were soon to be lost to us!

One day someone (probably a Client) wondered out loud why it was that Clients were paying for their consultants and the builder and yet still taking a share of the risks - that seemed somewhat unfair to them!

Shortly after someone else (probably a highly paid consultant from outside the construction industry) suggested a method of transferring the risk away from the Client and minimising the upfront cost - a win/win situation, a no-brainer - get the builder to do the designs and then build them!

And Design and Build was born!

Now, you may have detected a slight tone of cynicism in the story so far - and you'd be right. In my experience Design and Build has neither reduced a Client's exposure to risk nor the final cost of their project.

As a company, we have been fortunate to benefit from some Design and Build projects, doing construction drawings for builders and, in the vast majority of cases, have charged a fee very similar to the fee we would have charged the Client if the project had been commissioned through a traditional procurement route - so no saving there then!

On every single one of those projects the Client has retained an "Employers Agent" to provide the initial designs and to act as Contract Administrator - all roles traditionally fulfilled by the Architect - who's now employed by the builder!

So, just to recap, the Client employs a consultant to fulfill the role of an Architect (apart from the detail design bit of the job) then pays the builder to employ an Architect (or 'designer') to design the building - anyone else spotted the flaw in this 'cunning plan'?

Now, there are 'Employers Agents' and 'Employers Agents'! Most of the time the tender packages that we see, from builders asking us to quote, are little more than illustrated briefing documents with little or no detail and, in many cases, the existing buildings are not even drawn accurately and the proposals are often unbuildable. On these jobs we really earn our fee - goodness knows that the Clients consultants haven't!

Occasionally the tender documents are extremely detailed and our role is reduced to simply providing details of tricky junctions and holding the builders hand during the contract - a role that the Employers Agent would probably happily fulfil if given the chance.

At both ends of the spectrum the Client ends up paying not only for two sets of consultants, where one decent one would suffice, but also a premium for the privilege of transferring an unknown level of risk to the Contractor.

So the question is this: Does the Client really benefit from Design and Build? In my opinion, the answer is 'not really - they just think they do'!

As far as most Clients are concerned they are spending less on consultants and are immunising themselves from cost and time overruns - they are deceiving themselves!

All contracts make provision for extensions of time and for claims for additional costs arising from Client variations, regardless of the procurement route, and Contractors are very skilled at making those claims. Without robust tender documents the Client remains exposed!

My other concern with Design and Build is that the Client often (unwittingly) surrenders any control over the quality of the materials used. If the tender package is weak in detail, the contractor can minimise their exposure to unforeseen costs by down-specing the raw ingredients for the building. The Client may be expecting tiled floors but, if that's not specified, they'll end up with vinyl - but still be paying for that tiling!

In this period of "austerity" it is time that Public Sector Clients started to pay more attention to how they spend their much reduced capital budgets and regain control of their projects.

Employing one Architect, working up a detailed scheme with them and then getting competitive tenders based on quality tender documents has to be more cost effective (i.e. cheaper) than, effectively, employing two consultants and paying the contractor a premium for acting as Client without any real concrete guarantees on time, cost or quality!

If you would like more information on our Design and Build projects, please visit our website and peruse our 'Projects' section.