When Chris Williamson went public with his decision not to renew his Architects Registration Board (ARB) registration, he exposed a frustration long felt across the profession. His argument, that the title “architect” offered such limited public protection in the absence of reserved activities, struck a chord, and prompted a fair amount of praise and recognition from fellow professionals. But the absurdity of title-based regulation is not the only thing that is wrong with the ARB.

As I’m sure many will know, the board is the successor to the Architect’s Registration Council of United Kingdom (ARCUK), which was established in 1931. Sixty-two years later, by 1993, the Warne Report recommended that both ARCUK and the protection of title be abolished – with the statutory registration of architects bringing “no added benefit to the public, to consumers, or to the profession itself”. 

 …