report of the RIBA visiting board to London South Bank University

Royal Institute of British Architects
report of the RIBA visiting board
to London South Bank University
School of Architecture
Faculty of Engineering, Science and the Built Environment
BA (Hons) Architecture, Part 1
Postgraduate Diploma in Architecture, Part 2
RIBA Professional Practice Part 3
date of visiting board 05/06 July 2012
Confirmed by RIBA Education Committee 28 November 2012

1 Details of institution hosting courses
London South Bank University
Faculty of Engineering, Science and the Built Environment
London South Bank University
103 Borough Road
London SE1 0AA
Head of Department
Martin Lake
2 Director of architecture
Mary Jane Rooney
3 Course leaders:
Alex Graef, BA (Hons) Architecture, Part 1
Lilly Kudic, Postgraduate Diploma in Architecture, Part 2
John Howe, RIBA Professional Practice Part 3
4 Courses offered for revalidation
BA (Hons) Architecture, Part 1
Postgraduate Diploma in Architecture, Part 2
RIBA Professional Practice Part 3
5 Awarding body
London South Bank University
6 The visiting board
Matt Gaskin , Chair Norman Wienand – co professional member
Caroline Gould, Vice-Chair Alex Bancroft – student/graduate member
Gill Lambert Andrew Houlton – regional representative
Andy Bourne
Stephanie Beasley-Suffolk (RIBA) attended the visiting board as secretary
Doug Withington (RIBA Projects Co-ordinator) attended the visiting board as an observer
7 Procedures and criteria for the visit
The visiting board was carried out under the RIBA procedures for validation and validation criteria for
UK and international courses and examinations in architecture (published July 2011, and effective from
September 2011); this document is available at www.architecture.com.
8 Proposals of the visiting board
At its meeting on 28 November 2012 the RIBA Education Committee confirmed continued
validation of:
BA (Hons) Architecture, Part 1
Postgraduate Diploma in Architecture, Part 2
RIBA Professional Practice Part 3
This proposal will be submitted to the RIBA Education Committee for ratification, and
subsequent notification to RIBA Council.
K:\Validation\UK Visits\Visits 2011-12\London South Bank\Confirmed report.doc 2

9 Standard requirements for continued recognition
Continued RIBA recognition of all courses and qualifications is dependent upon:
i external examiners being appointed for the course
ii any significant changes to the courses and qualifications being submitted to the RIBA
iii any change of award title, and the effective date of the change, being notified to the RIBA so that
its recognition may formally be transferred to the new title
iv submission to the RIBA of the names of students passing the courses and qualifications listed
10 School’s academic position statement (written by the School)
“The School of Architecture originates in the founding mission of the university and Brixton
School of Building (1906) both of which were part of a wider social project of emancipation,
social inclusivity and recognition that the design and the craft of building (referring to Ruskin)
were imbued with meaning for both the individual and society. The school has always enhanced
both the educational and professional skills of our local London population while remaining
determinedly global: a cosmopolitan, inclusive multicultural hub for learning. Over time, the
school has built up a reputation for bringing radical, innovative and gritty ideas into
contemporary architectural debate. Our best known alumni, from Ron Heron to David Adjaye
are celebrated for their ability to overturn stereotypes and to propose architecture that can bring
about positive change.
“DISTINCTIVE ETHOS
The school has a distinctive ethos and recognises the critical role that architecture has in giving
meaning to society’s deepest and best values and the experiences of both the individual and
society. We place design at the heart of our education and recognise the role that architecture has
in addressing the key issues of the contemporary world and both global and local concerns to
create a relevant and meaningful architecture. We have a commitment to both the discipline and
profession of architecture and aim to provide a creative design focussed education that
encourages speculation and debate. The course is enquiry based and the invitation to students is
to engage with the material and social issues of the contemporary world and to draw inspiration
from the world of ideas and imagination to make architecture.
“Today our school is ranked fourth of the central London Schools listed in the Guardian’s
University Guide 2012 and is recognised both for the diversity of our students and the excellent
standards achieved by our students in their work. The range of backgrounds, cultures, capabilities
and achievements represented by our student profile are recognised by our peers, external
examiners, the profession and employers. Exemplary student diversity highlights a key attribute
of the school which provides a gateway to the profession. The school has a strong commitment
to enable all our students to succeed and to create professional opportunity for all who can
benefit. We offer a ladder of learning opportunity from our extended degree course to degree and
postgraduate studies and all our courses are professionally validated. We educate critical and
effective graduates to face the challenges of the 21st century and to equip them with the tools,
theories and skills to adapt to the challenges of a changing future and a changing profession.
“CONTEMPORARY CITY
An important part of our identity now comes from our location in London at Elephant and
Castle which is at the heart of one of London’s most socially and economically diverse areas.
As London has expanded and developed the location of the university has shifted dramatically in
the last decade from the periphery to the centre. The school has responded to these challenges by
placing the creative practice of design and its relationship to contemporary culture and the city as
the defining nexus of the school’s work. Increasingly we focus our identity and teaching around
the diversity of our students and structuring our activities around the dynamic socio-spatial
relations between local, London and global conditions.
K:\Validation\UK Visits\Visits 2011-12\London South Bank\Confirmed report.doc 3

“Currently staff research and teaching reflects the school’s character and context; studio design
briefs, lecture courses and student dissertations respond and expand upon intersecting strands of
interest. The contemporary city, in its variety of imaginary and spatial manifestations across the
globe, is a strong theme; architecture’s capacity to speculate informs a concern both for the
contemporary and the future, with particular emphasis on emerging technologies and design
methodologies. Concern for the future translates into addressing the issue of resource scarcity
and social, economic and environmental sustainability.
“DIVERSITY AND PEDAGOGY
The school attracts students with a broad cultural and academic profile and enables them to
succeed in architecture. The diversity of our students is a strength and generates a teaching
methodology that recognises the value of the individual student experience, but with a shared
conversation about architecture. Design work is informed by a broad range of processes and a
creative ethos characterised by a spirit of enquiry and by a lack of dogma.
“The design studio is critically important to the way we teach and to enhancing the culture of the
school – it is the place where exchange takes place and our students learn from staff and
their peers. Design is developed within the school both as a mode of research, pedagogy and a
form of practice and actively engages ‘designing’ ‘thinking’ and ‘making’ processes. Teaching is
supported by taught lectures and excellent modelling and workshop provision, media laboratories
and a new BIM suite from which build digital and analogue skills, and support employability.
“The school is recognised for the calibre of its teaching and the support given to students to
enable them to succeed. (See QAA and student satisfaction surveys). The teaching of cultural
context and design are in particular commended. Professor Peter Blundell Jones, Professor David
Dunster, Professor David Gloster, Rowan Moore, Pankaj Patel, Sunand Prasad, Alex de Rijke
and the late Katherine Schonfield have all contributed in the past to developing the subject area.
Current staff members engage beyond the academy, as practitioners, academics, journalists and
researchers.
“REPUTATION
The standard of our student design work is recognised nationally and internationally. Both our
full-time and our part-time courses are well supported by employers and we have excellent
graduate employability and high graduate salaries due to confidence in our standards. In 2011,
Daniel Schinagl was awarded a commendation for the RIBA President’s Medals competition at
Part 1; Daniel was also awarded the Sergeant Drawing Prize and Skidmore Owings and Merrill
travel scholarship. Oliver Andrews (Part 1 graduate 2010) won first prize in the Fentress
Architects Global Challenge for his future airport design, published and exhibited and exhibited
internationally. These achievements build on the 2009 President’s Medal commendation at Part 2
awarded to Selvei Al-Assadi, and a history of Bronze Medal winners, Bronze Medal
commendations, and Silver Medal commendations extending over more than two decades.
“STUDENT AND GRADUATE SUCCESS
The success of any course in architecture and its pedagogy can be gauged by the contributions
and impact our students, staff and alumni make to architecture and architectural knowledge;
Graduates such as Ron Herron, David Adjaye, Patrik Schumacher, Andrew Houlton, Stephen
Taylor, Ron Yee, Mike Kane, Tom Teatum, Isabel Allen and Carl Turner have contributed to the
national and international standing of architecture. Currently graduates are well represented in the
top 100 practices and well known design studios including Foster and Partners, Grimshaw
Architects, Wilkinson Eyre, Alford Hall Monaghan, Hawkins Brown, David Adjaye Architects,
Toh Shimizaki Architects, and Ushida Findlay. In recent years our graduates have set up
successful practices in Africa and Asia testifying to their resilience.
K:\Validation\UK Visits\Visits 2011-12\London South Bank\Confirmed report.doc 4

“EVENTS
Events and Collaborations such as the OS lecture Series, our Socrates Exchange scheme, the
teaching fellowship supported by Grimshaw Architects and our ongoing relationship with the
South London Society of Architects greatly expand our student experience. This year the school
is inviting Herman Hertzberger to speak to the topic of ‘The Future of Architecture’. The South
London Society of Architects runs an open lecture series and Architects for Health run an annual
design ‘Charette’ to which students can participate. Students and staff have established the
Humanitarian Hub to engage with the architectural challenges of working with NGO’s and
charities in the disaster-relief and international development sector.
“TEACHING AND LEARNING OUTCOMES
Our aim is to assist students to become well rounded, robust and confident people with inquiring
minds who are equipped with the knowledge, skills, tools and competencies eager to meet the
challenges of our changing times and profession. The programme is designed to meet
professional validation criteria but also to provide further opportunities for our students develop
as creative, reflective, resilient and resourceful future professionals.
“We have a commitment to architectural design and project based learning both locally and
globally and to studio culture as being the best medium for the exchange of ideas and peer
learning. Studio based design teaching is the shared central thread that links the study of
architecture across the programme area and which integrates much of the knowledge acquired
through taught studies.
“At undergraduate level students are encouraged to develop research and design processes to
inform architectural design. Postgraduate studies offer graduates the opportunity for the
increased specialisation appropriate at Masters level where there is an increasing importance on
research processes leading design.
“BA (Hons) Architecture (Part 1)
The undergraduate course is taught across a three year structure in recognition of the need to
deliver a coherent and consistent educational experience to all students where there is an
emphasis on sharing knowledge and peer learning. Part 1 learning outcomes prioritise design
skills, a broad knowledge base, and the core competencies in the organisation and manipulation
of concepts and techniques graduated in complexity. On completion of all three years of the
undergraduate course students will have acquired the key knowledge, core skills, competencies
and intellectual skills to receive the Interim Award and meet the professional validation criteria.
Graduates will also have acquired a knowledge and passion for architecture that can sustain and
inspire them through their ‘year out’ future studies and career.
“Postgraduate Diploma in Architecture Part 2
The Postgraduate Diploma in Architecture provides students who have completed an
undergraduate degree in architecture with the opportunities to define their own interests,
speculating on and refining a personal response to the design and making of architecture. There
is an emphasis on independent research and critical thinking leading the design process to
produce complex and diverse design proposals .The postgraduate course is taught in a vertical
studio system and as being the best medium for the exchange of ideas. Students on the course
choose from four design studios identified by subject and theme. The final year offers students
the opportunity to complete a research led dissertation and undertake a major design project as
the culmination of their studies in architecture for Part 2 and a preparation for the challenges of
future professional life.
K:\Validation\UK Visits\Visits 2011-12\London South Bank\Confirmed report.doc 5

“RIBA Professional Practice Part 3
The Part 3 Course is successful in attracting a varied cohort of experienced and mature students
due to its central location and its reputation as a clearly structured course with a professional
focus. The short course of lectures is delivered by acknowledged experts and builds on the
students experience in practice and academia. The learning outcomes for Part Three are designed
to meet the requirements of the Part 3 Validation Criteria and lead to professional registration.
“CONTINUITY CHANGE AND THE FUTURE
‘The best thing architecture taught me was the ability to think critically and to equip me with the
design abilities and skills to engage with practice.’
Chris Phillips, Year Out at Student Hawkins Brown.
“The school is uniquely positioned within the Department of Built Environment to develop a
body of design and research in areas where London is rapidly transforming while continuing to
advocate a progressive and socially inclusive tradition. For the future the school wishes to
continue to celebrate the achievements of our students and graduates, expand our reputation for
design excellence and research informed design and expand the prospects of our graduates to
contribute to architecture both locally and globally.”
11 Commendations
The Board commends the following:
The high standard of teaching that has enabled students from varied backgrounds to succeed
The support for the programmes evidenced by an articulate student body
The clarity and focus of the Part 3 course
12 Conditions
There were no conditions attached to the courses listed in item 8.
13 Action points
The visiting board proposes the following action points; the RIBA expects the university to
report on how it will address these action points. The university is referred to the RIBA’s criteria
and procedures for validation for details of mid term monitoring visits. Failure by the university
to satisfactorily resolve action points may result in a course being conditioned by a future visiting
board.
13.1 The Board recommends that the School must correct the mapping document to ensure
consistency with the module descriptors.
13.2 While the Board was satisfied that the marking was appropriate, the Board recommends that the
School must create a unified, robust, and consistent feedback and assessment policy.
13.3 The Board strongly recommends that the Part 2 is reviewed to achieve the intellectual
progression between years 4 and 5. The Board notes that level 8 standards are not required at
Part 2 but supports the School’s ambition to achieve this.
13.4 The Board recommends that the School adopt a system that enables a transparent balance
between teaching, research and staff development to be achieved for all staff.
K:\Validation\UK Visits\Visits 2011-12\London South Bank\Confirmed report.doc 6

13.5 The Board recommends that the link between teaching and research is captured and informs the
individual and collective trajectory of the staff.
13.6 The Board recommends that the management structure within the School be updated to align
with the established management model from the University, in order to enable architecture to be
championed within the Department. A new structure has been implemented at the Senior
Management level of the University which promotes devolved responsibility. This should be
applied with the Department to enable all constituent parts to have appropriate representation at
all levels.
13.7 The Board reiterates the recommendation of the 2008 visiting Board that in order for the School
to run efficiently the Director of Architecture ‘needs administrative support’ to enable this to
happen.
13.8 The Board encourages the School to continue to reassess the use and the management of existing
studio space and facilities.
14 Advice
The visiting board offers the following advice to the school on desirable, but not essential
improvements, which, it is felt, would assist course development and raise standards.
14.1 The Board welcomed the staff initiative of the forum and encourages further such activity.
14.2 The Board suggests that the School explore the interdisciplinary synergies in the Department and
across the wider University.
14.3 The Board advises the School to resource and embrace a model for long-term research initiatives.
14.4 The Board advises the School to explore the synergies between the Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3
courses and student body, whilst identifying a long-term sustainable vision for staff.
14.5 The Board advises the School to engage in the entrepreneurship initiatives promoted within the
University.
14.6 The Board advises the School to communicate the work and best practice of the students and
staff in the School to the Department, the wider University and externally.
14.7 The Board advises the School to draw fully on the support organisation available in the
University, such as Quality Assurance, Strategic Planning and the International Office.
14.8 The Board encourages the School to find an appropriate mechanism to engage in regular
dialogue with students to identify the specific IT requirements for the School in the long term.
K:\Validation\UK Visits\Visits 2011-12\London South Bank\Confirmed report.doc 7

15 Meetings
15.1 Meeting with budget holder
The board met the head of the Department of the Built Environment, the Director of Architecture and
the course leaders for parts 1, 2 and 3. The following reflects the main points of the discussion.
Since the last visit the school of architecture has undergone a great deal of change. The present
faculty and departmental structure and devolved financial model were adopted as a result of a
review in 2009. A university-wide curriculum modernisation project was also undertaken, with a
view to facilitating integrated teaching.
During the latter project, meetings were held to discuss the philosophy and direction of the
school. This informed the academic position statement as it was presented to the visiting board.
The school of architecture took this opportunity to address the new criteria and to strengthen
design components.
In the new administrative structure architecture is not formally identified as an individual
department or school, but is officially part of the Department of the Built Environment within
the Faculty of Engineering, Science and the Built Environment. Nevertheless staff are keen to
retain a distinctive and separate identity for architecture and it is seen by staff as a school of
architecture functioning as a programme area.
The department has a high level of autonomy with regard to finances and resource allocation.
This affords discretion and flexibility. Surpluses in the department can be re-invested in other
areas. While the department is keen to retain the distinctiveness of its component disciplines,
research and enterprise will operate across the whole department. Income from various activities
can be invested across the department and used to support and develop research. One example
of this is the new BIM laboratory, opened in an adjacent building several weeks previously and in
the establishment of which architecture was involved. Plans for its future use are embryonic.
The programme matrix will allow the school to draw on expertise across the department and
faculty to develop specialisms in its strongest areas, increase the postgraduate offer and hence
help the development of a research culture in architecture.
Improvements to the quality of the present accommodation have been made since the 2008
Visiting Board. However, space remains under pressure. Resources were placed under
considerable pressure due to sudden growth at part 1 generated by the cap on fees. However,
numbers have now stabilised.
Architecture recognises the present building as its space and values the sense of a relationship
with the city it affords them. The holistic concept of a school with a strong studio culture
underpins staff activity; however at present although different years have dedicated studio days
there is no dedicated space or studio culture. The school has placed a bid for more space but it
will not be in the present building. Staff are exploring different models of studio teaching to
make best use of what is available.
Staff offices are no longer adjacent to the studios but in a separate building with other staff in a
bid to encourage the establishment of links for research.
Departmental income depends on student numbers. The impact of the new funding regime is
unknown. The University’s location in central London attracts applicants from all regions of the
UK. Demand remains high. The school is in a strong financial position. Staffing follows student
numbers; if recruitment remains healthy more staff posts will be created. If masters courses are
established as anticipated, staff will be recruited accordingly. Following changes in the university’s
recruitment strategy it is likely that more emphasis will be placed upon recruiting research active
staff. Staff will also be supported to complete PhDs. A professorial post was advertised but it was
not possible to appoint.
K:\Validation\UK Visits\Visits 2011-12\London South Bank\Confirmed report.doc 8

The school is proud of providing opportunity to a diverse intake and this strongly informs the
culture. However, offers are only made to those deemed capable of completing the course. The
architecture programmes’ strong professional focus ensures that they are in a good position to
engage with the new VC’s emphasis on recognising professional opportunity.
15.2 Meeting with students
The board met a group of students representing all years of the validated programmes and full-time and
part-time modes. Students were positive about their experience at London South Bank and expressed
support for the school. The following represents the main points of the discussion.
Students were not aware of the school’s academic position statement although they were all
aware of the student appraisals prepared for individual years.
Among reasons students chose London South Bank were the following:
o Research led them to decide that it was the best place for technology and practical
elements.
o The Foundation course in Built Environment, which was highly thought of and valued
by those who had completed it.
o The structure, content, self-directed nature and value for money of the Part 3
programme.
o The physical location of the school and the space within the building.
Among the school’s strengths students mentioned the staff, the variety of teaching skills and the
diversity among staff and students.
Students praised the teaching talent at degree and the diversity of teaching methods.
Staff support in the final year of part 1 was infectious, engaging and inspiring.
Part 1 second year students mentioned the availability of space and the workshops, which allow
students to expand their own ideas.
Part 1 students appreciated the breadth of the programme and the input from various specialists.
Small groups in the final year at Part 2 afforded more individual attention which helps students
achieve.
Part 3 candidates commended the contracts game and would welcome guidance on forming a
practice. It was also suggested that this could also be beneficial to part 1 and part 2.
Students felt their views were represented and heeded through various formal and informal
mechanisms. Students are aware that there are funding constraints which may limit what can be
done. Requests are acted upon, even if sometimes in an apparently haphazard fashion (one
example was the request for model making skills, which reportedly had been acted upon for first
years but not second). There was some difference of opinion voiced regarding space and
equipment. The present physical arrangements were seen as hampering architecture’s ability to
develop a sense of a school. Although it was felt to exist, it was fragmented.
The studio space was considered pleasant if it was possible to work there. However, the system
of dedicated year studio days, space allocation and building opening hours led the majority to
work at home through choice. Students would have welcomed extended opening hours during
hand-ins but this was not granted. Students considered that there was no sense of place or studio
culture and that their work developed in isolation. Students considered that the individual cohorts
are disparate in the work they produce and disparate in studio culture. Some more logical
organisation of space would improve this and help them achieve pride of place. An architecture
society had been founded by a group of students in order to create a forum and a culture.
K:\Validation\UK Visits\Visits 2011-12\London South Bank\Confirmed report.doc 9

Because of the relocation of staff offices to a separate and very distant building, tutors were now
too far physically removed from their studio spaces; this move had, apparently, been very
unpopular with both staff and students. Co-location would help student/tutor relationships.
Students perceived a lack of communication between tutors and management; the relocation of
architecture staff offices to another building was seen as a result of this.
The workshops were praised but there was some disagreement about the priority given to various
disciplines. Some felt that other subjects were given priority; there was no dedicated technical
support for architecture, unlike for engineering. Others praised the assistance received from
technical staff and suggested that lack of communication from the architecture department may
be the root of some problems. It was also suggested that online booking had created some
issues. Students would also welcome more equipment.
Software on the PCs in the studios is out of date and slow; however the majority of students have
up-to-date software on their own machines.
The integration into the Department of Built Environment was welcomed; Part 1 students
considered that this had benefited the technology aspects of the course. In particular they had
enjoyed the engineering lectures. It also prepared them to work with other professionals in
practice and understand how architecture and other areas relate to each other. Students would
welcome more input from the Centre for Efficient and Renewable Energy in Buildings, housed
in the adjacent building.
Others suggested that it would be more helpful if architecture students became integrated as a
student body; this was precluded by the current studio arrangements. It was also suggested that
part 3 candidates could integrate into parts 1 and 2 if time allowed.
Students were largely content with feedback, particularly that received during crits and tutorials.
Multiple points of view from different tutors would be welcomed. Some would like more written
feedback and suggested that feedback on work that was submitted, rather than discussed in crits
and tutorials, could be improved.
15.3 Meeting with head of institution
The board met the current Vice Chancellor who has been in post for three years. The following reflects
the main points of the discussion.
The board was impressed by the three themes identified in the LSBU Corporate Plan document
‘Students first: one year on.’
The vision of the university since its foundation has been to prepare students for good
professional careers. Education and research should be relevant to professions that students are
likely to enter. Two-thirds of the courses are professionally recognised. This informs the
curriculum, teaching practice, and research and is popular with employers. Initiatives have been
established to encourage and support entrepreneurship among the student body.
The present structure has been designed to increase integration between subject areas and the
relevance of each to the other without diluting them, ensuring that graduates are able to work in
practice.
The identification of subject areas as distinct ‘schools’ was not seen as significant and it was
suggested that architecture was free to style itself as it wished. The current structure was adopted
with the intent of identifying academic groupings which made sense to students, and the routes
they took to academic success. The increasing integration of architecture with other subjects
would add value. It was recognised that academics played a role in leading and championing their
disciplines while departmental leaders encouraged integration.
K:\Validation\UK Visits\Visits 2011-12\London South Bank\Confirmed report.doc 10

Architecture is important. The University is identifying ways to invest in it; however, this must be
integrated into other disciplines without any subject being diluted. It is the VC’s belief that
architecture will not be able to integrate with other disciplines until it makes the step towards
digital modelling. This is seen as one of the chief challenges for architectural education. The VC
does not want to perpetuate a view of architecture that is not what it will be in the future.
Architecture students need tools and techniques to allow them to address the realities of life. The
university is keen to invest in the architecture of the future, not of the past.
The university invests continuously and the impact of the fees as far as its finances are concerned
is seen as neutral. At the time of the visit there was no evidence that potential students were
deterred by the rise in fees.
The university is proud of its tradition of attracting a diverse student body and of the
achievements of its graduates. While it retains its commitment to create professional opportunity
to all who can benefit it will accept only those who are likely to succeed, seeing widening
participation in terms of widening success.
The university’s vision is clearly communicated through corporate plans and events involving
staff. In addition to this, there is a desire to improve the listening culture.
15.4 Meeting with external examiners
The Board met a group of external examiners attached to parts 1, 2 and 3. The board was particularly
interested in discussing the evolution of the school, its identity and distinctiveness, the distinction
between part 1 and part 2, assessment and external examining processes. The following reflects the main
points of the discussion.
External examiners are supportive of the school but frustrated by its apparent inability to manage
its position or to improve organisational issues. They voiced concerns about leadership and
empowerment, line management and communication between the school, its staff and externals
examiners.
External examiners have a sense that architecture is marginalised by the university and that there
is possibly a lack of comprehension about what architecture is and a lack of understanding of
studio culture. Examiners believe that the school has been in transition in recent years and that
this probably remains the case.
With regard to distinctiveness, across the diploma school this has been fairly evenly established
across the three studios. However there is an underlying feeling is that although there may be a
global position, further diversity could usefully be built in. Broadly, the degree course is about
building and the diploma about cities. Of the three Diploma studios, the most long serving studio
is the strongest in terms of results. There is a general question about whether students should be
encouraged to change studios from year to year and how academic level progression is achieved
when levels 7 and 8 are run concurrently in the same studio.
A technically-driven course, arising from the university’s strong technical background, and
thinking through making might be identified as a specialism for the whole programme. It was
also commented that ‘hands on’ had not been its focus for some years.
The university’s tradition as an access university offers huge potential in the area of urban design
and the nature of cities, as it can take a genuinely inner-city view. This is already reflected to an
extent in part 3.
The student body is diverse in all senses but the school does not want to be pigeonholed. Its
distinctiveness could be identified through a number of areas, for example technology as
mentioned above.
The curriculum modernisation project was seen by some externals chiefly as an administrative
exercise with little impact on work or teaching. Others commented that the credit change seemed
to provide much clarity for students and allowed more time to focus on design.
K:\Validation\UK Visits\Visits 2011-12\London South Bank\Confirmed report.doc 11

The evolution of the course at diploma level is related to identity; the board considered generally
that there is a significant lack of external identity for the school. The school needs a powerful
presence such as an architecture website or yearbook to help to build up its culture and profile.
If there is no funding for this, students could use blogs or build a student website. The
establishment of history and theory blogs was seen as a strong, positive step. The school
reportedly agrees that these issues are important, but this is apparently never acted upon.
The intensive timetable of external examining does not allow sufficient time for reflection on
ethos, identity or the criteria or to meet those students not being interviewed or other staff. This
is counterproductive, and might be relieved by greater numbers of examiners. An informal visit
by external examiners in the first semester, at which these issues could be discussed, would be of
benefit. It is also not apparent that the staff meet in a body; there seem to be demarcations
between parts 1, 2, and 3.
Externals have discussed the distinction between parts 1 and 2 with diploma staff. It is about
ideas, complexity, and research. This has been discussed in particular with regard to the new
studio at part 2; the turnover of studio staff and dissemination of information from one year to
the next may be affecting this. It is also difficult to assess marking across studios as the focus of
each studio is different.
Quality of work and scale of ambition in process work is not universally evident across both
levels or all studios on the part 2 course. The best established studio is very strong, and
examiners would wish to instil the ambitions of this in the other design studios.
Part 3 attracts a varied cohort who praise the management and content of the programme. The
course demands engagement, personal motivation and self-management from the candidates. It is
well up to the standard of other offers.
The physical structure of the campus is problematic for the school. The move to the present
building should have been beneficial, but it is not suitable for architecture, being too corporate
and discouraging more flexible ways of working. The location of staff offices is exceptionally
frustrating for staff. However, both they and the technical tutors are available in the studio. There
is insufficient space and nowhere to store models, which has an impact on studio culture.
Students had also reported to external examiners difficulties in gaining access to the workshops.
There is a burgeoning culture of research. Leadership through research is a way to drive studio
culture forward and to inform students of the interests of the staff. The School benefits from
very strong staff members and it is positive for students to see this. The diploma course should
take the form of architecture as research, setting the standard and culture for the whole school
and creating ambition.
Part 3 comments are responded to fully. Part 1 and part 2 examiners receive a formal response,
but their comments are not felt to be consistently acted upon. One example of this relates to the
school website.
Some externals had attended an induction session, others had not. Induction sessions were crossdepartmental
and, although helpful, were not architecture specific. Course briefs and guidance are
sent in advance. Advance copies of formative material would be helpful.
15.5 Meeting with staff
The Board met a group of staff currently attached to the architecture programme. The following
represents the main points of the discussion.
The academic position statement was written by the director of architecture and circulated to
staff for comment. It is seen as a position statement that is in progress and is supported by the
staff. The number of new staff appointments over the last two years means that the School is
assimilating new points of view. This is seen as positive.
There is no desire to identify closely with one point of view as this would be seen as restrictive.
The school can be seen to stand for a variety of things.
K:\Validation\UK Visits\Visits 2011-12\London South Bank\Confirmed report.doc 12

The three themes of the Students First initiative have been presented at university fora; how
these will be embraced by the school will be the subject of discussion.
The school’s external profile and the visibility of architecture is a key issue. Some progress has
been made on the development of the website. The school has made explicit its need for a
website and an external identity, but there is a question of how that fits with university policy. As
a general point architecture as a discipline and its requirements (position, space, modus operandi,
internal and external visibility) seem to come into conflict with the university. This position
changes with changes in senior management. In the meantime staff and students engage via
blogging and a website set up by a student.
Staff meet monthly for forward planning but as yet not to discuss ethos and direction.
There have been a number of meeting to discuss philosophy and identity
Staff are aware of some fragmentation between part 1 and part 2. Staff attend each other’s crits
and are aware of current discussions regarding architectural education in general. The staff body
comprises long-standing and newer members of staff, all of whom bring different views to the
discussion. At present there is no forum which these discussions can take place, as the curriculum
modernisation project and office moves having taken priority over the last year. Staff are
enthusiastic about the opportunity to develop this process in line with the institution’s mission
statement.
Staff continuously reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of assessment and feedback. All
diploma staff review all work to ensure parity. Course and module guides are intended to
communicate learning outcomes to students. Staff believe that by the third year students do
understand the system and that by fifth year they are capable of marking each other.
The student intake is diverse in all senses and students arrive with very different expectations.
Staff welcome the richness and challenges of the teaching experience, which they believe are not
understood elsewhere. Students are admitted via portfolio submission and interview. Students
entering from the built environment foundation programme are ultimately very successful and
achieve parity with those entering via other routes. Students are taught as individuals and staff
attempt to draw out their own interests and instil confidence. At first year this necessitates
generating a conversation that is available to all. Descriptors, briefs and clarity of aims and
academic intention are crucial to this. Student numbers need to be maintained at an appropriate
level for this to remain a successful approach.
Staff meet on an annual basis to discuss parity between studios.
Staff appraisals allow staff to calculate their workload. However they believe that there is and
underestimation of the expectation of incoming cohorts paying much greater fees. The
development of masters programmes will be incremental. Staffing implications will be better
known at a later stage of the development process.
Architecture’s future within the new structure is not yet known. Architecture staff need to be
energetic to build their position. Architecture does not have adequate representation or strength
in the consultative hierarchy, and senior management changes rapidly as do policies. Architecture
needs a strong leader who can respond to the school and university management.
The developing research culture is seen as an exciting opportunity; staff engage with this through
attendance at the twice-termly fora featuring presentations from different departments.
Administrative support is an issue both for the director of architecture and the school in general.
16 Delivery of academic position
The Board noted that distinctive qualities of the academic position included:
Diversity of student body
Accessibility
Part time provision
K:\Validation\UK Visits\Visits 2011-12\London South Bank\Confirmed report.doc 13

The Board noted that within physical and organizational constraints delivery of the academic
position as stated was being achieved but felt that the position statement as articulated required a
more rigorous focus on what truly makes the School distinctive
17.1 The Graduate Attributes for part 1
The board was content that all Graduate Attributes for part 1 were met.
17.2 The Graduate Attributes for part 2
The board was content that all graduate attributes and all criteria for part 2 were met. However,
as an overall observation the board questioned whether it is always desirable for individuals to
remain in the same studio for both years. The board applauds the school’s ambition to set the
standard at masters level (level 8) but considered that at present, both years more closely reflect
level 7.
18 Review of work against criteria
It should be noted that where the visiting board considered a criterion to have been met, no
commentary is offered. Where concerns were noted (or a criterion clearly not met), commentary
is supplied. Finally, where academic outcomes suggested a criterion was particularly positively
demonstrated, commentary is supplied.
18.1 BA (Hons) Architecture RIBA part 1
GC1 Ability to create architectural designs that satisfy both aesthetic and technical
requirements
At the high end, this was very good.
GC2 Adequate knowledge of the histories and theories of architecture and the related
arts, technologies and human sciences
History and theory linked to design studio is a strength. This is sequential through all three years.
This should be taken as a model for other parts of the course.
GC3 Knowledge of the fine arts as an influence on the quality of architectural design
Within the second year and the students incorporate their knowledge of the fine arts within
architectural representation as well as varied 3D artefacts. This ignited a series of projects
throughout the year. The second year students demonstrated a wide range of influences.
GC4 Adequate knowledge of urban design, planning and the skills involved in the
planning process
The board noted the external examiners’ comments that this could be a strength of the school.
The board suggests that the school refines the goals of this unit.
GC7 Understanding of the methods of investigation and preparation of the brief for a
design project
The board suggests that the school further invests in the recording of process for example
sketching, drawing and physical models.
GC9 Adequate knowledge of physical problems and technologies and the function of
buildings so as to provide them with internal conditions of comfort and protection
against the climate
With regard to sustainability and environment, there was evidence of strategies in the technology
report. However, this could inform the design in a more integrated way.
K:\Validation\UK Visits\Visits 2011-12\London South Bank\Confirmed report.doc 14

GC10 The necessary design skills to meet building users’ requirements within the
constraints imposed by cost factors and building regulations
Whilst covered in the curriculum, this area could benefit from reference to the school’s part 3
programme.
GC11 Adequate knowledge of the industries, organisations, regulations and procedures
involved in translating design concepts into buildings and integrating plans into overall
planning
As with GC10, this area of the programme could benefit from closer reference to the part 3
programme.
18.2 Postgraduate Diploma in Architecture Part 2
GC1 Ability to create architectural designs that satisfy both aesthetic and technical
requirements
“GC1.3 develop a conceptual and critical approach to architectural design that integrates and
satisfies the aesthetic aspects of a building and the technical requirements of its construction and
the needs of the user.”
The board considered that GC1.3 needs improving by more evidence of process, feedback and
assessment.
GC2 Adequate knowledge of the histories and theories of architecture and the related
arts, technologies and human sciences
The Board would wish to see a more pronounced progression from part 1 to part 2. The
programme at part 1 might serve as a useful model for history and theory delivery at part 2.
GC3 Knowledge of the fine arts as an influence on the quality of architectural design
Whilst the board was content with the level it considered that there was room for improvement.
The board encourages the potential development of a new masters programme but considers that
the school needs to follow through the initiative in terms of resourcing, structure, and
progression points. Because two of the three studios use the same project as a vehicle for both
incoming and final year study, the board considered the repeat of structure at both levels does
not offer students any apparent benefits.
GC5 Understanding of the relationship between people and buildings, and between
buildings and their environment, and the need to relate buildings and the spaces between
them to human needs and scale
The board considered that while the work meets the required standard, this represents a missed
opportunity in the exploration of ideas. There is scope for improvement here.
GC6 Understanding of the profession of architecture and the role of the architect in
society, in particular in preparing briefs that take account of social factors
Considering the school’s location in London, this could be stronger. The board recognises the
rich cultural context surrounding the projects. The school should explore this in greater depth.
The board notes the reference to ‘urban grittiness’ in the school’s academic position statement.
The school should make use of opportunities in the wider department to contribute to projects.
K:\Validation\UK Visits\Visits 2011-12\London South Bank\Confirmed report.doc 15

GC7 Understanding of the methods of investigation and preparation of the brief for a
design project
With regard to criterion GC7.3, the Board refers the School to the advice given in paragraph
14.5.
GC10 The necessary design skills to meet building users’ requirements within the
constraints imposed by cost factors and building regulations
The school should investigate opportunities to integrate management, practice and law across all
three validated programmes (Parts 1, 2 and 3).
GC11 Adequate knowledge of the industries, organisations, regulations and procedures
involved in translating design concepts into buildings and integrating plans into overall
planning
As at GC10, the school should investigate opportunities to integrate management, practice and
law across all three validated programmes (Parts 1, 2 and 3).
18.3 RIBA Professional Practice Part 3
As an overall observation, considering the speed and trajectory of the part 3 course, the content
and self-directed learning is impressive. The board encourages the part 3 programme leader to
engage in dialogue with his counterparts at part 1 and part 2 to enable them to learn from good
practice demonstrated at part 3. Particularly, the students praised the contract game highly.
PC1 Professionalism
This is very good and well-delivered.
PC2 Clients, users, and delivery of services
This is good.
PC3 Legal framework and processes
The board noted that when the level of planning law teaching was identified as insufficient this
was rectified immediately. This is an example of when the course showed itself to be flexible to
contemporary practice. The board infers that this happens elsewhere to keep the programme
current. This dynamic model may be useful for part 1 and part 2. The board compliments the
course leader for listening and reacting in a positive way.
PC4 Practice and management
The programme has a strong market identity.
19 Other information
19.1.i Student numbers at part 1
At the time of the visit 257 students were enrolled at part 1 in full-time and part-time modes.
19.1.ii Student numbers at part 2
At the time of the visit 106 students were enrolled at part 2 in full-time and part-time modes.
19.1.iii Student numbers at part 3
At the time of the visit 36 candidates enrolled in the spring session and 30 in the autumn session
at part 3.
19.2 Documentation provided
The school provided documentation appropriate to preparing the members of the visiting board
for the visit.
K:\Validation\UK Visits\Visits 2011-12\London South Bank\Confirmed report.doc 16