The 'veil' of control: exploring the attitudes and perceptions of UK design controllers

In the UK, architectural design is regulated through a system of design control for the public interest, which aims to secure and promote ‘quality’ in the built environment. Design control is primarily implemented by locally employed planning professionals with political oversight, and independent design review panels, staffed predominantly by design professionals. Design control has a lengthy and complex history, with the concept of ‘design’ offering a range of challenges for a regulatory system of governance. A simultaneously creative and emotive discipline, architectural design is a difficult issue to regulate objectively or consistently, often leading to policy that is regarded highly discretionary and flexible. This makes regulatory outcomes difficult to predict, as approaches undertaken by the ‘agents of control’ can vary according to the individual. The role of the design controller is therefore central, tasked with the responsibility of interpreting design policy and guidance, appraising design quality and passing professional judgment. However, little is really known about what influences the way design controllers approach their task, providing a ‘veil’ over design control, shrouding the basis of their decisions. This research engaged directly with the attitudes and perceptions of design controllers in the UK, lifting this ‘veil’. Using in-depth interviews and Q-Methodology, the thesis explores this hidden element of control, revealing a number of key differences in how controllers approach and implement policy and guidance, conceptualise design quality, and rationalise their evaluations and judgments. The research develops a conceptual framework for agency in design control – this consists of six variables (Regulation; Discretion; Skills; Design Quality; Aesthetics; and Evaluation) and it is suggested that this could act as a ‘heuristic’ instrument for UK controllers, prompting more reflexivity in relation to evaluating their own position, approaches, and attitudes, leading to better practice and increased transparency of control decisions.

Infection Control in design and construction work

Objective: To clarify how infection control requirements are represented, communicated, and understood in work interactions through the medical facility construction project life cycle. To assist project participants with effective infection control management by highlighting the nature of such requirements and presenting recommendations to aid practice. Background: A 4-year study regarding client requirement representation and use on National Health Service construction projects in the United Kingdom provided empirical evidence of infection control requirement communication and understanding through design and construction work interactions. Methods: An analysis of construction project resources (e.g., infection control regulations and room data sheets) was combined with semi-structured interviews with hospital client employees and design and construction professionals to provide valuable insights into the management of infection control issues. Results: Infection control requirements are representationally indistinct but also omnipresent through all phases of the construction project life cycle: Failure to recognize their nature, relevance, and significance can result in delays, stoppages, and redesign work. Construction project resources (e.g., regulatory guidance and room data sheets) can mask or obscure the meaning of infection control issues. Conclusions: A preemptive identification of issues combined with knowledge sharing activities among project stakeholders can enable infection control requirements to be properly understood and addressed. Such initiatives should also reference existing infection control regulatory guidance and advice.