The RICS APC Rights of Light Candidate (a fictional case story)

Disclaimer – any similarity to any real person is purely coincidental and unintentional.

A little over seven years ago an interior design student joined a practice for work experience and, having some knowledge of AutoCAD commenced work within the architectural technician’s department of the practice. Shortly afterwards and having graduated they were naturally looking for future employment and it was at this time that the practice needed assistance in their rights of light department and were also about to migrate to a new software edition from an third-party supplier rather than their own in-house bespoke version. The new software would require short term intensive training whilst maintaining the existing service to the client base.

The advantage for this person was that they knew the personnel within the practice and had demonstrated their competence with AutoCAD, including an understanding of accuracy requirements and, through undertaking a degree had demonstrated an ability to learn and to apply knowledge. On this basis they were employed full time and joined the existing team on training sessions with the? software provider.

Not only did they prove that the decision was right for the practice to provide employment, but they went on to demonstrate a greater understanding of the modelling and calculation process than many contemporaries and it was no surprise when their manager decided that they had sufficient knowledge as well as an appropriate personality and presence to begin client faced activities, attending meetings and explaining results and options.

It is important to recognise that this extra involvement would take them away from the computer for periods and yet the workload demanded the same attention as before. This was accomplished in part through their own involvement in setting parameters and timings for achievement of objectives and a recognition by management in financial terms.

Following one client meeting they asked a question of their manager relating to advice in respect of rights of light which demonstrated an awareness beyond the usual mechanical process of calculations and results, and it was decided to set aside time each week, usually during lunch where they would bring at least one question to be discussed. This was a free discussion and often opened a challenge to the manager to undertake research rather than simply express answers in terms of ‘this is what we always do.’ It was in fact a two-way process.

Within a relatively short period of time the manager overheard them talking to a client setting out the issues in a concise and informative manner with caution expressed appropriately and responding to questions in very professional terms. The manager decided to raise the possibility of RICS membership with them, warning that it would take some personal effort and a lot of personal time to complete the documentation necessary but that the rewards would include increased personal prestige and also a career opportunity and so it was agreed that the practice would fund the APC process and provide a suitable counsellor.

The route selected was the Preliminary route as defined by the RICS where the person has a degree with five years’ experience. This route requires a 5,500-word summary of experience, a 3,000-word case study and CPD record which is submitted for preliminary review and, subject to approval they would then progress to the actual APC interview process.

With the counsellor’s assistance a plan was agreed for the selection of appropriate competencies and for the completion of the summary of experience over the following year, ensuring that additional training and CPD would be provided but requiring them to explore and undertake their own CPD to achieve the time recorded requirements. Whilst their manager monitored work and progress on a continuous basis the counsellor insisted upon a quarterly review of progress against targets and discussed issues such as the appropriate case study with their manager. It was decided at the first review that the candidate had a project involving a development where there would be a large number of existing properties adversely affected in planning terms and the Local Authority were also seeking assessment of the proposed development in terms of both BR209:2011 and BR209:2022 which had just been issued.

It was agreed that the word count would prevent discussion of all the issues arising and so the candidate would need to decide which merited a detailed discussion. This decision was for the candidate to make because, ultimately, they would have to present to the APC panel and justify decisions taken. The supervisor and counsellor could only advise in terms of context and assess their knowledge in a mock interview environment. The candidate chose to concentrate on the justification of apparent non-compliance by looking at three aspects of the existing surrounding properties, one being overhanging balconies, the second based on lower target values for VSC in urban areas and the third the proximity to the boundary all of which are discussed on BR209 but require assessment and justification for planning purposes, or the consideration of alternative approaches such as modification of design of the proposals. Even with this limitation it was difficult to keep within the word count required and the candidate was advised to leave some additional considerations for the APC presentation whilst ensuring that the preliminary submission would still appear complete.

The counsellor monitored the RICS assessment platform for the candidate’s progress but also noted that the planned competency submissions, towards the summary of experience, for review were falling behind the agreed programme. This was not unusual but needed to be discussed at the six months review. There was also a lack of recorded CPD.

At the review, the candidate admitted that whilst they had been attending formal CPD as well as undertaking private reading/ research they had not been recording it until some-time later. It was suggested that they should take 10 minutes after each CPD session to record the purpose of the CPD and what was learned, on their laptop, and to add this into the assessment platform on their return to the office rather than waiting for a suitable time to record a batch.

The issue with the summary of experience boiled down to two things. Firstly, understanding how to apply the standard competency descriptions to a niche specialism and secondly the relationship between each level of the competencies. The counsellor and supervisor explained that level one competency is the “what” i.e., explaining what the candidate understood about the competency in relation to their pathway and more widely the involvement of other specialists in the process such as topographical surveys within the measurement competency and any relevant guidance and legislation etc., and then, for level two, the content is more about “how” the competency is applied by, where possible, reference to projects where it has been applied and what advice had been given to a client.

The difference at level three was that the candidate needed to express “why” advice was given in almost the same way as required for the case study. An example was provided where advice was given that no right to light had yet arisen and the explanation included reference to the Prescription Act 1832 requiring 20 years uninterrupted use and the research evidence confirming that no right could have occurred in any other way.

The candidate grasped the concept and started providing sections relating to each competency for review. The counsellor also had access to the draft guidance for APC candidates which was to be attached to the Rights of Light Guidance due for issue in November 2023 and provided a copy to the candidate. This gave the candidate the opportunity to audit their own content and to understand how the mandatory competencies should be addressed.

Part of the review process required the counsellor to look not just at content but such things as spelling and grammar. It is common amongst candidates, even those having degrees, that their attention to spelling and grammar is not at the level those of older generations, as this is not taught in the same way. The counsellor pointed out that clients expect good quality reports and can be disturbed by poor grammar or multiple typographical/ spelling errors, and this is no different to the approach of the assessors and preliminary reviewers. This candidate could be said to be among the better ones in terms of grammar and the number of corrections required was quite minimal.

During this period up to the 9 months review the only real clarification required was in respect of the client care competency which is mandatory to level two but optional as a technical competency up to level three. The counsellor advised that they should be treated separately, the mandatory looking at office practice and the technical at project-based advice.

At the nine months review the counsellor recommended that the candidate undertake the professional ethics module online so that this could be recorded and form part of the CPD record and the mandatory competency. The case study was progressing to a first draft which the counsellor requested sight of as soon as the candidate felt able, explaining that it is not uncommon for the first draft to be well short of meeting the requirements and that it was better to have feedback at an early stage, even if unfinished.

The first draft was, in fact, quite typical of those seen by the counsellor. It used the RICS template but failed to treat it as an expert report and was more a diary of events relating who did what and when. The counsellor explained that the purpose should be to set out, as one would to a client, a description of the project, identification of the issues that needed to be considered with available options, what research and consideration the candidate had made in respect of those options and the resulting recommendation.

The candidate should then review what they have learned from the project especially any new knowledge gained and whether they would give different advice on another occasion.

By the fifth draft it was agreed to hold a mock interview to assess the content of the summary of experience and the case study. This interview produced two outcomes, the first was to identify a few weaknesses in information provided and the second highlighted questions that the candidate might wish to prepare for in advance of the interview. This latter was the most difficult as the preliminary review could be critical if key questions were left unanswered.

Following a few minor changes, the submission for preliminary review was made and the result was largely positive recommending submission to APC assessment at the next session.

Due to the timing of the APC session (spring and autumn) there was in fact a brief period of refinement available, and this was used by the candidate with the help of the supervisor and counsellor, to hold a couple of full mock interviews. This allowed the candidate to practice their presentation which introduced some current information, including an outcome that had not occurred at the time of writing the case study.

The interview itself can only be reported third hand but it appears that the candidate had a wider knowledge of the subject area than the assessors and, of course, their case study was their own expert subject and so it was no surprise when the confirmation of passing the APC was received.