Top quantity surveying firms have called on the RICS to create a dedicated construction faculty for them
An informal group of nine of the largest QSs, known as the forum, is pressing for the reorganisation because members feel the institution is failing to cater for their specific interests. The row has been simmering since the acrimonious arguments over the Agenda for Change, launched in 2000. However, both sides say their present discussions are positive.

Roger Fidgen, a partner in forum member Gardiner & Theobald, said: 鈥淢any of us are concerned that the RICS鈥� faculties are now pretty disparate; the institution should try to pull them together because there is nobody there with knowledge in any one particular field. We are not only fed up about the fees 鈥� the RICS is not doing enough for the old QS division.鈥�

Fidgen said there was a movement to regroup the project management, cost consultancy and litigation groups into a single construction faculty.

He said: 鈥淲e need one person 鈥� a leader in our profession 鈥� to head up a construction faculty. I think Paul Morrell [former senior partner in Davis Langdon & Everest] would be excellent. The RICS seemed to have

a broad acceptance of what we were saying 鈥� they seemed to be very receptive of the idea.鈥�

We need one person 鈥� a leader to head up a construction faculty

Roger Fidgen, Gardiner & Theobald partner

The restructuring idea follows a meeting between the two parties over the controversial RICS fee increase, which was narrowly voted through last month.

Cyril Sweett chairman Francis Ives said: 鈥淲e are continuing to liaise with the RICS about how the major practices can help the RICS and vice versa. We have

also discussed international issues with them and a new PR initiative to raise the profile of the industry. Since Agenda for Change, the profile has been raised for the property industry, but not for us as second-class citizens.鈥�

An RICS spokesperson said talks were continuing.