http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/architec ... 12.article
Architects hit out at Tory 'smear tactics'
9 June 2011 | By Elizabeth Hopkirk
Ten reasons why Tories hate architects
8 June 2011
Architects paid £100 million under BSF
6 June 2011
Practices expose how Conservative Party cited massively exaggerated figures on BSF fees.
Architects have accused the Conservative Party of casting a slur on the entire profession by publishing “wildly inaccurate” figures that suggest they made a fortune from Labour’s school-building programme.
The chairman of Aedas, Brian Johnson, accused the Tories of making a “cheap political point without any consideration to the true facts” and said they had confused “design fees” with “architects’ fees”.
The row stems from a prominent report in last week’s Sunday Times claiming architects made almost £100 million from just 21 councils under the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme which was axed by Michael Gove when he became education secretary.
The story was based on a series of requests made by the Tories under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act asking local authorities how much they paid architects and other consultants for new secondary schools.
Only 21 councils responded but the Tories said if the findings were scaled up across the whole BSF programme, architects would have been paid £2.7 billion in total.
The story named a number of architects including Aedas, BDP and Foster & Partners, all of whom complained that the figures attributed to them are inaccurate.
The Sunday Times said Aedas was paid more than £2.5 million for Walkden High School in Salford but Johnson said the true sum was a third of this because the figure quoted covered the fees of all design consultants, rather than just architects.
“In reality the fees paid to architects are a fraction of the overall design costs,” he said.
Even in a case where a multi-disciplinary architect provided all the extra design work, the figures are disputed.
BDP designed the £36 million Teddington School and was also responsible for its structural and environmental engineering, landscape architecture, interior design, lighting design, acoustics, sustainability and planning.
Nevertheless, chief executive Peter Drummond insisted the practice was paid less than the £2.6 million alleged in the Sunday Times.
“A rant about architects’ fees on schools is a rather pointless exercise without a proper explanation of what is actually involved in the specific project,” he said.
“Sadly this doesn’t make for fascinating journalism or political headlines. But if any of the senior politicians involved would like to understand more, we would be happy to fill in the gaps.”
RIBA president Ruth Reed accused the Tories of singling out the profession and slurring it with a “gross distortion of the true picture”.
Fees were often shared between up to 30 consultants and the portion received by architects was sometimes not adequate to sustain office and staffing costs, she said.
She questioned the party’s motives, suggesting it might be trying to justify the claim that it doesn’t need architects to design schools.
“They can’t possibly deliver a schools programme without a design team but there’s a real danger of architects being marginalised as a profession that adds aesthetics, rather than being recognised for delivering the good value that¹s inherent in good design,” she said.
“We have never been happy with BSF and we petitioned - almost in isolation initially - saying it wasn’t the right way to go about procurement. It’s crazy we are now held to be the culprits.”
Gove has repeatedly accused architects of “creaming off cash” from BSF and although there is no evidence the FOI requests were initiated by his office, Reed said his trenchant views on design were at odds with those of other ministers.
A Conservative spokesman said: “Our Freedom of Information request could not have been clearer. We asked 151 local authorities explicitly for ’the total amount spent on architects’ fees’ and we have used the precise figures provided by those local authorities.”
Claims vs reality
Walkden High School
The claim: The Tories said Aedas was paid more than £2.5 million for Walkden High School in Salford.
The reality: Aedas told BD its actual fee was just a third of this and pointed out that it had created a “kit” which could be used to cut costs in future projects.
The claim: The highest single fee in the Tories’ dossier was £2.6 million, allegedly paid to BDP for Teddington School.
The reality: BDP said it performed many other services besides architecture and received less than the figure claimed.
Bexley Business Academy
The claim: The Sunday Times said Foster & Partners was paid £6.15 million for the pre-BSF Bexley Business Academy.
The reality: Fosters says it was paid £1.4 million and “donated a considerable amount of time” supporting “this worthy cause”.