Our thoughts on building a safer future: The reform of the building safety regulatory system

After considering the recommendations made in Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review of building regulation and fire safety, the Government have outlined their proposals to minimise the risk of fire safety in high-rise buildings.

Among the changes, the MHCLG are considering which buildings will fall within the scope of new legislation, and introducing five duty holders who will be responsible for the safety of the building whilst it is being designed and during construction:

• Client
• Principal Designer
• Principal Contractor
• Designer
• Contractor

As a manufacturer of acoustic insulation which is used in tall buildings, Thermal Economics falls into the Designer duty holder role because we supply calculations which are used to prepare or modify a design, and therefore have an interest in ensuring fair regulation for high-rise buildings.

Our Senior Consultant in Building Physics, John Hefford, prepared our response to the consultation on the Government proposals.

Establishing a Building Safety Programme

The Government’s proposals go beyond Dame Judith’s recommendations, which is unnecessary given that the Government’s own evidence shows that it is not appropriate to consider apartments between 18 and 30 m in height within the same risk category as apartments greater than 30 m.

Furthermore, it is obvious that the Government are also looking to expand the recommendations to non-residential buildings as well. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as some non-residential buildings should be within the scope because they have room for residential purposes where it is likely that the occupant will reside there for longer than a year, for example:

• Care homes
• Prisons
• Supported/sheltered housing
• MOD barracks/single living accommodation

The most concern for these workplaces should be given to prisons and secure residential accommodation (including institutions for persons detained under the Mental Health Act 2007). This is the one category of buildings where occupants and residents are most likely to be physically restrained and will be the least likely to be able to escape or evacuate from a fire due to the security controls in place by design to inhibit occupants’ movements within and egress from the building.

Evidence provided in the consultation also show that this category has the highest rate of fires per 1,000 buildings by such a margin that it could also be inferred that buildings within this category contain occupants who are nefarious and deliberately causing fires.

Do the Duty holders’ Responsibilities work?

The new proposals would require the principal contractor to consult the client and the principal designer on any changes to plans, and the principal contractor would have to notify the building safety regulator of any major changes before carrying out the work.

In our view, a major change would be any change that would cause any amendments to the Fire and Emergency File prepared by the principal designer or to the Construction Control Plan prepared by the principal contractor.

This will still allow product substitution within the building envelope to be considered as a minor change provided that:

The substituted product is an equivalent product, where it can be demonstrated that the fire and structural risk are unchanged; although size or thickness of the construction products may differ.

Example 1
Replacing an insulation board in a masonry cavity wall with an alternative product, installed in exactly the same way and meets the minimum fire and structural requirements in the Fire and Emergency File.

Example 2
Replacing the product specified as the resilient layer for acoustic separating floors with an alternative product that does not affect fire or structural risk. As there is no change to the building safety precautions, it should not be necessary to seek approval from the building safety regulator before carrying out the work.

However, the government proposal for the principal designer and the principal contractor to confirm that the building complies with the building regulations would not ensure adequate regulatory oversight.

We believe the building must be inspected regularly during the construction phase by either a local authority building control inspector, an approved inspector, or an appointed building safety regulator. Also, it should be the local authority building control who produces the final declaration that the building complies with the building regulations.

Spinning a ‘Golden Thread’ to assure building safety

There is a huge role for Building Information Modelling (BIM) within the Government proposals. However, BIM standards should only be mandated for new buildings in the design and construction stage only.

It becomes more difficult to correctly adopt BIM standards to a building that is already constructed. Not all the required information may be available, especially as BIM is still an emerging trend in the domestic sector and very much in development.

There is also enthusiasm within Government to create a ‘just culture’.

Creating a ‘just culture’ will rely on less on the fear of blame or confidentiality, but more on replacing apathy it with pride in a job well done. Young workers attitudes are greatly influenced by their older colleagues.

The construction industry will have to take steps to actively engage older workers to actively promote a ‘just culture’ otherwise cynicism can insidiously derail front-line occurrence reporting from being perceived as a ‘box-ticking exercise’ at best, or a form of professional suicide due to perceived fears of retaliatory action by line managers at worst.

Responding to the consultation

Thermal Economics has responded to the relevant questions in the Government consultation, although the proposals cover a much wider scope beyond which we have submitted a response for.

The consultation is now closed. However, you can find out more about the Government proposals on their website.