I would suggest that the government’s policy of milking the building industry to bankroll local government is a more likely cause of stalled housing than “expensive” architects (News July 12).
So long as S106s and the community infrastructure levy are seen as a major funding stream for council projects that should be paid for from revenue income or borrowing, development will inevitably stall.
No other industry is consistently and repeatedly taxed to these unsustainable levels. The fastest way to kickstart housing is to find an alternative and fair way to finance local authorities and remove the blackmail of planning consents for S106 and CIL.
The other obstacle to viability of public projects is the lack of architects within the system and the risk-averse nature of public procurement. If public sector bodies want £10 million PII from architects for projects of half a million then fees are going to be inflated to cover the premiums and only a limited number of large practices will be able to compete.
I have even been asked by one local authority to act as the main contractor, guarantee the final costs and take on the contractor’s responsibilities as that authority did not want the legal costs of entering into two contracts — one with the architect and one with the contractor. Needless to say, I explained the costs of doing this but it seemed happy to spend massively over any sensible budget as long as it off-loaded any responsibility or risk onto someone else.
Until we have architects in positions of policy and procurement rather than a rag tag and bobtail of non-professionals with fear of responsibility, we will have inflated building costs.
Peter Slinger
via bdonline
No comments yet