Few pieces of legislation will have more impact on the built environment industry than the Building Safety Act (BSA). Yet many in the industry are struggling to get their heads around this incredibly complex act. Last month, in a bid to cut through the noise, Catalyst and Obi hosted an event at the Gem Fitzrovia Hotel, London, exploring ‘The Impact of Part 3 of the Building Safety Act on Clients in the Construction of High-Rise Buildings and the Golden Thread of Information’.
Kicking off the highly informative and engaging event, keynote speaker Paul Nash, director of building safety, UK, at Catalyst, set the scene by drilling down into the requirements of Part 3 of the act and related secondary legislation as they apply to the design, construction, and handover of higher risk buildings. Central to Nash’s message was the need for the industry to create and maintain a digital ‘Golden Thread of Information’ and understand the processes that underpin it.
Following Nash’s presentation, Eoin Leonard, CEO and founder of Catalyst and Obi, expertly chaired a panel debate featuring leading industry figures: Gary Cass, CEO of Broste Rivers Ltd, Steve Cripps, managing director of PMC Construction, and Jess Oliver, head of building safety at Catalyst.
In response to his first question about the new responsibilities for duty holders under Part 2A of the regulations, Oliver said Catalyst was working both on high-risk projects and projects that were not considered high-risk and that, in both instances, the company was being brought in quite late in the process.
“Even though the BRPD is there to plan, manage and monitor the design phase, we are often not consulted until RIBA 3 or RIBA 4 and sometimes even midway through RIBA 4. I think this is because the Building Regulations mandate the Principal Designer and Principal Contractor be appointed before construction starts. My concern is that, as the Building Regulation Principal Designer, you are managing the design, but regulations are mandating an appointment, potentially once the design work is already complete. We are discussing with clients the advantages of appointing the BRPD earlier, but we continue to adapt to these circumstances as needed,” she said.
Cass pointed out that the process starts with the client. “It’s the client’s responsibility to appoint the PD and the PC, but that doesn’t absolve them of their responsibilities in terms of the overall management, planning and execution of that project,” he commented.
Leonard noted that the legislative landscape had shifted, and the operational landscape was trying to catch up. “We know now the client can’t discharge their duty of care and regulators are looking for as much responsibility at the top of the food chain as they can,” he said. “What are we starting to see from a principal designer’s perspective and the changes to the way people are planning and designing?”
Oliver said that for a Gateway 2 application, submitted plans had to show that the high-risk building work complied with building regulations.
“With the level of scrutiny we have seen the regulator coming back with on applications, realistically you need to be at RIBA 4A to provide that level of assurance to the regulator that you are demonstrating compliance with building regulations. In terms of some of the feedback we’ve seen on other projects, they are going into a huge level of depth, which is unprecedented. So, what we’re seeing is the design realistically needs to be front loaded.”
Leonard asked what changes the panellists were seeing in terms of how clients procure. Cripps highlighted the growing importance of geotagging. He said that around three years ago the company would have typically taken pictures of areas and then written up documents.
“Now all of our work is geotagged,” he said. “Those systems have been valuable to us and now it’s consistent right the way through our supply chain. So, each subcontractor is on the same system, the same geotag, all the way through the supply chain.”
The conversation moved onto the topic of timeliness and how the gateways would feed into the critical path. Leonard raised the potential risk of conflating commercial arrangements with gateways and registration.
Cass said it was a topical question at the moment as statistics have just been published about movement through Gateway 2 in particular. “What we’re finding is that 42% of applications submitted – that includes refurbishment and new build – have been rejected so far. That’s not to say the remaining 58% are good. It’s just that those are the ones that have been reviewed and responded to so far.”
He continued: “You could argue this means the system is starting to work because they are identifying issues. You could also argue that behaviours haven’t changed in relation to the construction industry. What it does indicate is that we haven’t necessarily learned from the previous regime.”
Cass also highlighted the danger of under investing in Gateway 2, which could see applications rejected. Cass said it should take eight weeks for a refurbishment project application and 12 weeks for a new build, but that anecdotal evidence suggested it was taking a lot longer.
He added that if the application was rejected you would have to start the process all over again, so “if you under invest in Gateway 2 you’re kicking the can down the road”.
Cripps provided his own example of the extent of the delays to the system at the moment. He said PMC Construction had submitted an application for a project in January, which was validated in February but still had not received formal approval.
Leonard asked about Part 4 regulations in relation to standing access and questioned the quality of information.
“With the existing assets we’ve worked on, while something may have been submitted to building control and gained approval, we often find variations when reviewing the operation and maintenance records, and further differences when we are actually on-site,” said Oliver. She noted that the accountable person, in trying to meet their duties under Part 4 and submit a safety case, faced challenges due to limited knowledge of the building. “They have to piece it together through inspections and investigations, which highlights the importance of the Golden Thread of information,” said Oliver.
Having spoken about the challenges, the new responsibilities and duties under the BSA, Leonard ended the discussion by asking the panellists what the key benefits were for early adopters.
Cripps said his company “tiptoed into the new way of working” two and a half years ago and its processes had become more refined around 12 months ago. “Now, with the clients we work for, we’re getting repeat business from them all the way through,” he said. “Our order book is full for three years. So, I think if you’re an early engager and buy into the system, people have confidence in you. For those in the earlier days, there will be problems ahead because you’ve got to learn all of these new processes.”
Cass added that there were “massive commercial advantages” to showing you can navigate the new system and new gateways. The biggest challenges would be faced by the laggards. “The train has left the station,” he argued. “If you aren’t aware of what you need to do or what you should be doing you’ve got a lot of catching up.”
Oliver said that although the gateways reflected an “onerous regime” compared with what the industry was doing before, “arguably some of what we were doing before wasn’t great”.
She added: “It’s a big step change, and it’s not working quite right at the moment, but the objective is to make sure that buildings are safe, and we should all support that.”
