Architect Interview Questions

When I receive a brief I start with a thorough site analysis, covering planning history, constraints, local character, and any environmental factors. I then run an initial client workshop to test the brief assumptions and surface any unstated requirements, particularly around budget, programme, and long-term use. From there I develop concept options, usually two or three distinct approaches, and present them with clear reasoning so the client can make an informed choice rather than just reacting to what they see first. Once a direction is agreed I move through RIBA Stages 2 and 3 in parallel with early pre-application planning discussions, which reduces the risk of significant changes later. By the time we submit for planning permission the design is well-tested, the planning authority has already seen the concept, and the client understands exactly what they are getting.

I frame it as early as possible as a design challenge rather than a conflict, because the client's underlying goals are usually achievable even if the specific solution is not. When I identify a conflict, my first step is to get the planning policy wording in front of the client and explain the risk in plain terms: not just "this will be refused" but what that means for their timeline and costs. I then present two or three design alternatives that address the same brief requirement within policy, so the client sees that their goal is still reachable. If there is any genuine ambiguity in the policy I arrange a pre-application meeting with the local planning authority rather than guessing the outcome. Clients generally respond well to being treated as partners in solving the problem rather than being simply told no.

I approach sustainability as a design input from day one rather than a checklist applied at the end. On a residential project I completed recently, we carried out a daylight and overshadowing analysis during concept stage that shaped the building orientation and window placement before any planning work began. This reduced the mechanical ventilation requirement and cut the predicted energy use significantly. I am familiar with the RIBA 2030 Climate Challenge targets and I use them as benchmarks at each RIBA stage rather than waiting for a final energy report. I have also worked with Passivhaus principles on two projects and found that the rigour of the standard actually improves the design quality as well as performance. Where budget limits what is achievable, I prioritise fabric-first: better insulation, airtightness, and orientation before adding renewable technology.

I use a project stage tracker that gives me a weekly view of each project's critical deadlines and the hours required to meet them. At the start of each week I check this against my actual capacity and flag any gaps to the project director before they become problems. I find that planning applications have the most fixed deadlines and the longest lead times for coordinating structural and MEP consultant drawings, so I build backward from submission dates. Within each project I use a drawing register to track what has been issued, what is pending, and what is waiting on others. When I am managing junior team members I keep my feedback cycles short, usually 48 hours, so they do not sit waiting on comments. The honest answer is that the load is rarely even, so I also keep a clear list of tasks that can be deferred without programme impact so that I have a genuine buffer to draw on in peak periods.

On a residential extension project, we received a planning officer's report recommending refusal on grounds of bulk and massing in relation to the neighbouring property. The client was understandably frustrated because we had done a pre-application consultation and the concerns were not raised at that stage. I called the planning officer directly to understand which specific element was the problem. It turned out the issue was the first-floor rear projection, not the whole scheme. I revised the design to step the first floor back by 1.2 metres, which resolved the officer's concern without changing the ground floor footprint the client cared most about. We submitted an amended scheme and received a delegated approval eight weeks later. The lesson I took was to document pre-application conversations in writing and confirm any officer comments in follow-up emails so there is a record if the position changes.

I was leading a commercial fit-out project where the client began adding scope during the technical design stage without acknowledging the cost and programme implications. By week six they had verbally requested changes that would have added roughly 15 percent to the build cost. I requested a formal meeting and brought a simple change log showing each request, the estimated cost impact, and the effect on the programme. Rather than making it a confrontation, I framed it as a planning session: which changes did they want to keep, which could we find cheaper alternatives for, and which were they happy to remove? That conversation reset the relationship. We agreed to freeze the scope except for a small contingency list, and I set up a fortnightly change review so nothing was actioned without written sign-off. The project completed on budget and the client came back for a second project.

On a mixed-use development I was designing, the structural engineer advised that the required floor-to-floor heights for the commercial ground floor would push the residential floors above the permitted development envelope if we used a conventional flat slab. Rather than just accepting a reduction in commercial floor height, I worked with the engineer to explore a post-tensioned slab option, which reduced the slab depth by 220mm. That single change brought the overall building height within the planning envelope, preserved the commercial floor-to-ceiling height the client needed to attract retail tenants, and avoided a full planning redesign. It also removed what would have been a significant programme risk. I find that the best technical solutions come from treating structural, MEP, and planning constraints as design inputs rather than obstacles imposed after the architecture is done.

I have prepared and managed full planning applications, listed building consents, and discharge of conditions submissions across residential, commercial, and heritage contexts. I understand the difference between householder, full, and outline applications and when each is appropriate. I have used pre-application advice services with several local authorities and found that a written pre-app response is worth the fee for any scheme with heritage or policy risk. I am familiar with the National Planning Policy Framework and how local plans sit within it. On one project I successfully argued a departure from local design guidance on the basis of material planning considerations, which required careful preparation of a design and access statement and a heritage impact assessment. I also have experience with Section 106 negotiations and understand how obligations are typically structured.

I have written NBS specifications at technical design stage for residential, commercial, and refurbishment projects. I use NBS Chorus and understand how to build a project specification from the office master, tailoring clauses to the specific procurement route and contract. I pay particular attention to the interface between specification and drawings: anything not clearly located on a drawing must be in the specification, and vice versa, otherwise the contractor has a legitimate claim for additional costs. I have also coordinated specifications with structural and MEP consultants to ensure there are no conflicts between disciplines. On smaller projects I sometimes use a shorter bespoke specification, but on any project with a main contractor tender I always use a properly structured NBS document. I am aware of the NBS National BIM Library and use it for standard product specifications where appropriate.

I have administered JCT contracts, primarily the Standard Building Contract and the Intermediate Building Contract, as well as smaller works contracts. My approach to contract administration starts before the contractor is on site: I make sure the contract is properly executed, the programme is agreed, and the contractor understands the inspection regime. On site I carry out regular inspections tied to payment stages rather than relying solely on the contractor's own quality control. I issue architect's instructions promptly and in writing, keep a site inspection record for every visit, and chase outstanding information requests before they hit the programme. When defects arise I record them photographically and issue a formal schedule rather than relying on verbal agreements. I have also dealt with extension of time claims and understand how to assess them properly under the contract rather than just accepting the contractor's figure.