Architects Roundtable – June 2025

On 26 June 2025, Beale & Co partners Andrew Croft, Nathan Penny-Larter, Nathan Modell, and Michael O’Brien had great pleasure in hosting our latest ever-popular Architects’ Roundtable, bringing together senior decision-makers to share their views and experiences on key issues affecting the industry.

There was plenty of engagement on the day, demonstrating the relevance and importance of the main topics covered:

• The Building Safety Act in 2025 (focusing on a market update and potential future changes).
• ESG (focusing on how architects can/must keep design practice in line with emerging ESG principles).
• Trading in the current economic climate.

A summary note of the event is provided below. A further roundtable will be arranged in due course to follow up on the points raised in these discussions and developments in the industry.

1. The Building Safety Act in 2025

The construction industry is still grappling with the impact of the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”): over the last 24 months it has been a dominant topic. Conversation focused on two distinct areas: the dutyholder regime and the gateway process.

The view from attendees was that, despite being introduced over 18 months ago, the dutyholder regime was still not well understood in the industry.

Some examples shared included the dutyholder regime and the BSA’s wider provisions being incorrect or ignored, with there still being confusion in relation to the Principal Designer role and how the BSA and Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 work together.

It was thought that there were also still numerous clients who were not fully up to speed with the BSA. Attendees shared their struggles grappling with their obligation to ensure clients have a complete understanding of the new duties (as all designers are required to do under the BSA). Whilst many are providing a summary of the duties to clients to sign to evidence their understanding ahead of project inception, such documents are being approached by some clients with a “tick box” attitude. Even when signed it was agreed that it is important to make sure clients’ understanding of the dutyholder regime is kept under review.

The group discussed that one reason for these issues was that there is an element of “BSA fatigue” in the industry.  The new regime is complex and confusing with the limited guidance provided to date being unclear. Additionally, despite the importance of the BSA regime and the significant consequences of failure to comply, adoption across the industry has been sporadic, with many firms’ internal documents getting bogged down by the complexity, without a clear message or practical actions. It was stressed that adoption should be led “top-down” by boards and decision makers who should then make sure a clear message and approach is shared with those working on projects.

Coherent industry advice is needed as to how firms should embrace the changes and ensure they are developing the required understanding of their new requirements.

The discussion then moved to the Building Safety Regulator (”BSR”) and the gateway process.  Both were highly topical given the announcement that another BSR leader was leaving that role, and the growing concerns and delays in the gateway process.  Recently released data showed that 10% of Gateway 2 applications had been approved, which matched the impression that the industry had reached.  The roundtable agreed that the BSR is not moving at a speed required by the industry or the government (with its stated target of building 1.5 million new homes).  It was understood that the industry certainly needs to take the process seriously but there are real difficulties in knowing how to do so without clear guidance.  Fears were also raised as to whether the BSR has the required resources to make decisions effectively. In addition, architects working across the country have encountered inconsistency and a variety of responses when working across regions.

Currently, submissions are not being reviewed and responded to in a reasonable time frame and engagement with the process has raised concerns. The changing landscape and new developments, such as the updated BS999-1 fire safety guidance for residential buildings, are only slowing the rate at which approvers can get up to speed, leaving the industry hoping for improvements to the process that may not materialise in the short term.

Finally, the group discussed difficulties they had encountered when interacting with the submissions process. Frustrations were shared regarding the need to submit individual PDFs for each application, with some being unable to complete submissions due to size limits. Other attendees are finding the process more aligned with traditional procurement, which is seen as an oversight given the rise of design and build. Further difficulties are arising from the very little communication applicants receive from the BSR. Meetings are being set without clear agendas and the turnaround times given to rebuff negative comments are unmanageably short, leaving attendees wanting a more structured and transparent communication process.

Frustrations with the new regime and the BSR left some concerned that developers and funders will avoid ‘higher risk buildings’ or build somewhere different all together. It was felt essential that these issues were addressed promptly if the government was to meet its ambitious housebuilding targets.

Helpfully, following the roundtable there is light at the end of the tunnel after the government announced plans to introduce a “fast track” process for the gateway and to restructure the BSR.

2. ESG: keeping design practice in line with emerging ESG principles

The second topic of discussion concerned the need for architects to keep design practice in line with emerging environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) principles, and the risks associated with not doing so.

ESG is gaining greater prominence because businesses around the world are no longer assessed solely on their financial performance but on their broader impact, whether that be on the environment or on the way they interact with the societies and communities in which they operate. A firm’s commitment to sustainability, ethical practices and good governance is therefore under the microscope. This is particularly important in firms which might have offices around the world as attitudes and regulations towards ESG differ depending on the jurisdiction in which a business operates.

It is also true to say that the term ESG means different things to different people and therefore there is not necessarily one definition which is applied.

Attendees mentioned that there is a market trend towards architects being expected to investigate and interrogate materials specified by other project parties, both for quality and provenance – it was agreed that commenting on such materials was not something an architect should be doing, given they may have been specified by others with specialist expertise relating to the material’s properties and performance. This would, however, depend on the scope of the architect’s appointment. However, there were circumstances where the architect was responsible for the selection of materials and, in those cases, the architect would be expected to consider the sustainability of that material and the way in which that material was sourced.

Where architects are stipulating material selections in designs, members around the table emphasised the challenges of balancing growing environmental concerns of the construction industry with other key drivers. Often structural timber is suggested as a necessary step toward Net-Zero compliance, but this has resulted in push-back from third-party stakeholders (mostly due to cost). It was emphasised that in such circumstances an architect should take steps to highlight the risks of using a less environmentally friendly product (and documenting the advice provided) on which the client can then make an informed decision.

The final ESG point discussed was commitments to sourcing materials. Working in the UK there are expectations for the supply chains to comply with relevant anti-slavery policies. Architects are expected to investigate supply chains and whether members of the chain are complying with their obligations.  The group did not immediately have any solutions but agreed it isa salient issue that needs to be addressed.

3. Trading in the current economic climate

The economic climate is still challenging: according to the latest statistics, firms in the construction sector are most susceptible to fall into insolvency.  BCIS have published figures that indicate construction insolvencies are still 25% above pre-pandemic levels. There are a number of contributing factors: higher interest rates, national insurance contributions, increased transport and supply chain costs, and higher energy prices.

Some issues compound difficulties for the construction industry including the ongoing skills shortage, supply chain inflation (which is running at 4.7%, approximately 1.5% ahead of general inflation), and delays for projects progressing through the planning gateways with the BSR.  The general economic climate is causing uncertainty and leading to the stopping and starting of projects.

Attendees have all seen an impact on tendering, with under-pricing an issue: certain bidders are understood to be adding in a number of caveats and/or add-ons in tenders to try and ensure they get appointed, but are then seeking to increase scope and fees at a later date (not unlike budget airline add-ons).  The hope is that elements of the Procurement Act 2023 promote open financing, and the roll-out of the Construction Playbook brings parity among project parties.

There was some debate on graduate salaries and whether architects, as a whole, were undervalued and under-pricing for work and whether a change in mindset was required.

Other struggles included increasingly short timeframes to turnaround client requests and the size of workload associated with services, particularly given the slim margins the industry is facing.

AOB

The roundtable finished with an open conversation about the recent URS v BDW Supreme Court judgment. The judgment (as detailed in our article here) and resulting impact was front and centre of attendees’ thinking, particularly those with historic projects. Attendees discussed how they had been attempting to work through those historic projects to understand where documents might be, who was involved, and understand if there are any gaps in records (and the reasons for this).

By way of final comment, attendees agreed the points discussed during the roundtable are recurring themes, and are interrelated: the BSA continues to dominate discussions so the industry needs to be aware of duties and procedures in order to meet their obligations. Meanwhile, the circular economy and more sustainable and resource-efficient practices are key towards a green transition, therefore the industry will need to factor in these points at all stages of the construction lifecycle, particularly in light of the Government’s 10 Year Infrastructure Strategy.

If you found these insights valuable, we encourage you to stay connected as we continue to explore these critical industry developments. If you would like to discuss any of the topics covered, please don’t hesitate to contact one of the authors or your usual Beale & Co contact.