In April 2024, changes to the UK’s Immigration Rules introduced a significant rise in the salary threshold required for sponsoring skilled migrant workers — from £26,200 to £45,900. For the architecture sector, a profession often reliant on international talent, this shift has had swift and serious consequences. Now, with more than half a year gone and no governmental response to sector-wide warnings, law firms and architecture leaders are sounding the alarm.

Two leading immigration law firms, Bates Wells and Kingsley Napley, sent a formal letter to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper on 16 December 2024, laying out their concerns. As of now, that letter remains unanswered. Their call was clear: reinstate architects to the Immigration Salary List (ISL) and commission a comprehensive review of the new salary thresholds by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC).

At the core of the issue is a misalignment between policy and reality. The revised threshold may be appropriate for certain high-earning professions, but it fails to reflect the financial structure of the architecture industry. According to data collected by the HR Architects Forum — a respected industry network with over 165 architectural practices — the average salary paid to architects sits at just £37,523, well below the new visa threshold. This isn’t due to a lack of investment in staff, but rather the nature of the profession, which includes a long path to seniority and project-based growth.

The Industry Speaks: Impact in Numbers

A survey conducted by the HR Architects Forum in autumn 2024, with responses from 70 member firms, paints a stark picture of the policy’s impact:

• 62% of firms cannot meet the new minimum salary to sponsor overseas workers.

• 91% have previously relied on sponsorship to bring in global talent.

• 77% expect a reduction in the number of sponsored workers due to the salary threshold increase.

• Over 50% are actively calling for a revised salary band, specific to architecture.

These numbers point to an unsustainable future for the industry if action is not taken soon.

Real-World Consequences: What Practices Are Saying

The fallout from these changes is already being felt by individual practices, both large and small. Camilla Rich, Trustee and HR Manager at Make Architects, reports that the new requirements have introduced not only a salary challenge but a cascade of added visa and sponsorship costs. “Recruiting from overseas has become much more difficult,” she says, “especially at the graduate level. It’s already limiting our diversity, language capabilities, and future planning.”

For firms like HTA Design, the policy shift is especially paradoxical. Caroline Dove, Partner, notes the contradiction between government ambitions and regulatory action. “With Labour committing to building 1.5 million homes, we urgently need skilled architectural teams. Yet we are cutting ourselves off from international graduates and professionals who have trained to UK standards. It’s self-defeating.”

At Zaha Hadid Architects, Chief Executive Mouzhan Majidi adds that these policies threaten the UK’s global leadership in design excellence. “Recruiting staff with the right level of design capability is already challenging. Restricting access to global talent makes it even harder.”

Legal Experts Call for Immediate Reform

Bates Wells and Kingsley Napley are now leading the push for reform. They’re asking the Government to take two immediate actions:

• Return architects to the Immigration Salary List (ISL) — This would grant the profession a reduced salary threshold for skilled worker sponsorship, reflecting sector-specific pay levels.

• Commission the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to conduct a full review of the architecture profession, supported by a public call for evidence.

Marcia Longdon, Immigration Partner at Kingsley Napley, describes the current threshold as “unworkable.” She notes that many practices are now unable to fill crucial roles, particularly at non-senior levels — not because talent is lacking, but because the new rules effectively block it.

Chetal Patel, Head of Immigration at Bates Wells, links the issue directly to national economic priorities. “Architecture sits within the professional and business services sector — one of eight sectors central to the UK’s economic growth strategy. These rules are holding firms back from contributing to that vision. Unlocking access to international talent will act as a catalyst for sustainable growth.”

A Policy Misstep — or a Missed Opportunity?

Immigration policy is a powerful tool. It can be used to protect domestic workers, to attract world-class talent, or to fine-tune economic levers. But when it disconnects from the lived realities of an industry — especially one as critical and internationally respected as UK architecture — it begins to hinder rather than help.

The current rules were introduced quickly, without consultation with key stakeholders. Their effect has been blunt and disproportionate, punishing an industry that has historically relied on — and thrived with — international input.

In failing to respond to the legal representation sent in December 2024, the Home Office is not just delaying an administrative reply. It’s ignoring the voice of an industry that plays a vital role in national infrastructure, urban design, housing development, and global cultural exchange.

Conclusion: A Window for Action Is Still Open

The UK architecture sector is at a crossroads. It needs support, not silence. The Home Secretary must urgently engage with the recommendations made by Bates Wells, Kingsley Napley, and the HR Architects Forum. By reinstating architects to the Immigration Salary List and commissioning a MAC review, the Government can demonstrate that it values the sector and wants it to remain competitive on the world stage.

Doing so would not only remove unnecessary barriers to hiring the best global talent — it would signal that growth, diversity, and innovation still matter in shaping the future of the built environment.