Bold opening: Regulation isn’t optional when lives and skylines are at stake. The president of the Royal Institute of British Architects has chosen to step away from the legal right to call himself an architect, protesting the gaps in regulation he says put public safety at risk.
Chris Williamson, 69, is best known for shaping London’s Elizabeth Line stations at Paddington and Woolwich, along with numerous other transport projects across the capital. He has decided not to renew his Architects Registration Board (ARB) registration, which currently grants the title of “architect.” By letting his registration lapse, Williamson will no longer be legally permitted to describe himself as a registered architect.
This marks a historic moment: it would be the first time since World War II that Riba has been led by someone who cannot legally use the title of architect.
Williamson began a two-year term as Riba president in September and has chosen this course of action to highlight a broader issue: while there are legal rules governing who may use the title of architect, there are no equivalent safeguards governing who can practice as an architect or who can submit planning and building-control applications, or issue final compliance certificates.
He acknowledges that not every aspect of architectural work must be regulated, but he argues for regulation over who can engage in key stages of the process—such as submitting full planning applications, building-control submissions, and certifying final compliance.
In his view, certain critical tasks—much like those in medicine or dentistry—require regulated oversight to protect public safety and ensure the integrity of the built environment. He said: “There are serious risks to public safety and to how we design our places when there’s no regulation over who can perform these functions.” Regulation, he contends, should focus on the function itself, not merely on protecting a title.
Williamson contends that today’s most urgent architectural decisions—addressing the climate emergency, managing rapid urbanisation, designing homes, workplaces, healthcare, and educational facilities, coordinating fire and life-safety strategies, and solving complex technical details—are increasingly being made by individuals without regulated training, accountability, or a professional duty of care. This, he asserts, is precisely where regulation matters most.
“Regulating function would ensure that those entrusted with these responsibilities are properly qualified, insured, and held to clear ethical and professional standards.”
He added that his motion is not about protectionism or preserving a profession for its own sake, but about recognizing that architecture has tangible social, environmental, and safety consequences—and that the public deserves robust protection as a result.
Williamson also noted that seven years of study typically accompany architecture qualification, explaining that lengthy training exists for good reason. He believes that regulating what professionals can do, as opposed to simply safeguarding a title, is vital.
He stressed that he feels empowered to take this stand at this stage in his career, though he acknowledged that a small, sole-practitioner practice might struggle to afford such a protest. The decision came after he distributed hundreds of qualification certificates to young architects recently, underscoring his concern for the next generation.
In response to ongoing concerns about fire safety and building controls, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has established advisory panels for fire-safety matters within engineering and the building-control sector.
Eleanor Jolliffe, an architect, wrote to The Times criticizing regulators for trying to define what makes a competent designer for blocks of flats without explicitly using the word “architect.” She warned that the situation is serious, even if the irony is sharp.
The housing ministry emphasized that architects are already regulated and, while there are no plans to change this, the possibility of reform remains under review. It reaffirmed the importance of competence, accountability, and strong regulation to achieve a safer built environment and said it would continue to engage with the sector on these issues.
