News & Insights
Joseph Sinclair and Laurence Harris discuss the new Architects Code which comes into force on 1 September 2025.
A substantially revised code of conduct and practice for architects comes into force on 1 September 2025, replacing the Code that has governed since 2017. The new Code is intended to reflect significant developments in the regulatory, societal, and industry landscape, and aims to align more closely with evolving public expectations of the architect profession.
All architects are required to confirm their understanding and commitment to the Code of Conduct when they renew their registration annually. This article is intended to help regulated professionals to understand their obligations, and to explain the cultural shift that the new rules represent.
The new Architects Code is available here. Its publication comes nine months after the initial Architects Registration Board (“ARB”) announcement of a draft version and a three-month consultation, the results of which can be found here.
The ARB’s motivation for revising the Code is stated in the following terms:
‘The last substantial revision to the current Code was in 2011. Since then, the Grenfell Tower disaster and ensuing building safety crisis, the climate emergency, and changing social attitudes towards equality, diversity and inclusion have all transformed the environment in which architects practise.’
The new Code was also heavily informed by an independent research report, titled ‘Professionalism in Architecture’[1], completed in March 2024. In the new Code, the ARB has moved away from a simple compliance-driven or rules-based model, to a wider statement of professional values and expectations; focusing on the outcomes it wishes to achieve rather than the rules it wishes to be followed; setting out the behaviours and high standards expected of the profession.
The results of the consultation make for interesting reading: a similar number of participants found the new Code too lenient as found it too demanding. One respondent said some of the standards were “societal aspirations and are not necessarily important in the context of an individual architect undertaking their professional role”. Another says the opposite, saying the code was “too weak” on the issues of sustainability and equality. This perhaps reflects a divide within the profession as to the role of the ARB in expressing and policing values, or the extent to which an architect’s role extends to upholding values and norms in areas such as sustainability.
A move from a rules-based approach to a principles-based approach
The ARB’s new Code has not arisen in a vacuum. It is the latest in a series of reforms across the UK’s regulated professions, all invariably said to be responding to a shared set of pressures: heightened public scrutiny, demands for transparency, and a growing expectation that regulated professionals serve not only their clients but also the public good. The shift marked by the new Code therefore mirrors changes to the regulation of legal, healthcare, and finance professionals over the past five years.
The 2017 Code was structured around 12 standards, which were informed by further guidance. There was limited supporting guidance on the specific issues of dealing with complaints, professional indemnity insurance, and sustainability. That guidance remains effective until the new Code is published on 1 September 2025.
The new Code marks a substantial reframing, with the 12 replaced with six principles:
Each principle is informed by positive statements (“Architects will meet the Standard when they…”) with accompanying illustrative behaviours. As a notable example, the new standard to act in the public interest includes requirements to:
(a) challenge others where their actions put others or the environment at risk, with an obligation to report to the appropriate authority where risks are not adequately managed; and
b) decline work which requires an architect to act contrary to the Code.
It is important to be mindful of the provisos in the introduction to the new Code. It remains the case that not every failure to meet the Standards will give rise to disciplinary proceedings. Conversely, the fact that a specific course of conduct is not referred to in the Code does not mean it cannot form the basis of disciplinary proceedings: there may be circumstances in which there is unacceptable conduct or serious professional incompetence even where there is no clear breach of the Code.
Significantly greater guidance documentation
While the new Code comes in at half the page-count of the 2017 version, it will be supplemented by what appears to be a considerable number of topic-specific guidance documents. Each of these will be subject to public consultation, with three already published.
The tranches for the publication of guidance are as follows:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
At the time of writing, only the Part 1 guidance documents have been through a completed process of consultation. The remainder are either subject to consultation or “pending”, with no guidance published. It appears that a significant number of the supporting guidance may be published with a short window between publication and the Code coming into force, giving limited time for architects and their practices to implement what may be fundamental changes to the ways of working. Watch this space!
The guidance published to date appears to be in keeping with the ARB’s objective of positive obligations. In its draft Raising Concerns and Whistleblowing guidance, for example, the ARB speaks of a need for all architects to foster a “speak up culture”. Examples of the positive obligation to report per Standard 2 include bribery or fraud, unjustifiable damage to the environment, unsafe building design or site practices, and general “unlawfulness”. It will be of interest to advisers and practitioners alike to consider how this guidance is interpreted by the ARB and the Professional Conduct Committee.
The 2025 Code represents a re-design of architectural regulation, but the project is yet to reach completion. As further guidance is issued and the first disciplinary cases under the new Code are heard, practitioners should monitor developments closely. Adherence to the new Code will require not only technical understanding but cultural and organisational change within architectural practices, potentially in a very short time window.
Overall, the new Code appears to represent a significant streamlining of the standards affording greater flexibility, accessibility to the public and key stakeholders, in addition to the need for firmer commitments and action by regulated persons. However, with greater flexibility comes ambiguity and creeping risk of hindsight informing adherence to the standards. In the case of a positive obligation to report, this risk is especially great in an industry where there are multiple stakeholders within a project and where it is often difficult to forecast or predict what become serious issues.
With guidance speaking of “speak up cultures,” “leadership,” and “mentoring” the new Code has abandoned the historical boundaries between professional obligation and ideological aspiration. The new Code is undoubtedly more modern, responsive, and well-intentioned than its predecessors, but whether it empowers architects or burdens them with expectations better placed elsewhere remains to be seen. The true test of this Code will lie not in its language, but in its application.
[1] https://arb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ARB-and-Thinks-Insight-Strategy-Professionalism-in-Architecture-March-2024.pdf
Tom Edwards looks at the impact of the shift from Joint Enterprise to Common Purpose in the five years since…
Ben Hargreaves explores the inherent challenges in the admissibility of sexual history in sex cases. Section 41 of the Youth…
Silas Lee, pupil barrister, reviews the statutory regime on witness anonymity. Anonymous witness orders are most commonly sought by the…
An analysis of the law on fitness to plead and stand trial in the magistrates’ courts: Silas Lee reviews the…
