iStock
We look at some of the highlights of the BSR 2023 conference and explain how the issues under discussion will irrevocably change the safety of the UK’s built environment.
This year’s BSR 2023 conference in late March marked a significant moment in the life of the fledgling Building Safety Regulator (BSR), with important presentations from some of the key figures in the post-Grenfell building safety landscape. Perhaps more significantly, though, much of the talk was about the practical steps that the BSR and the construction industry would be taking in the year ahead.
One example has already come to pass: since April, owners of higher-risk residential buildings in England have had to register their buildings with the BSR. The register is open for six months and anybody who has not registered a qualifying building in that period will face being charged with a criminal offence.
Then, from October, building owners and managers will be legally responsible for the structural and fire risks in their buildings, and they will also have to prepare safety cases demonstrating how they are managing and controlling fire and structural risks.
There are changes to building control too. From October, the BSR will become the building control body for the construction and refurbishment of high-rise buildings. The BSR will also start to regulate the building control profession in England for all buildings, via its registration of building control approvers and building inspectors. And it will also have oversight in standards and competence right across the built environment.
Earlier advice
Speaking at the conference, the Health and Safety Executive’s Chief Inspector of Buildings Peter Baker – who has since retired from the role – said that he had already seen some examples of a culture change among construction and housing sectors even before the advent of enforcement or legislation.
However, he also pointed out that: ‘Last year HSE became a statutory consultee and in planning gateway one we’ve raised concerns in around 56% of planning applications for high-rise buildings. That picture is slightly improved now, but it still shows the need to consider fire safety in the earliest stages of the life of a high-rise building. That message has not yet fully landed. This has to change.’
The future of planning gateway one (PGO) – which came into force in August 2021 as a first regulatory step in the drive for high-rise building fire safety – and the question of culture change was addressed by PGO Operational Lead at HSE, Mark Wilson.
‘PGO has sometimes been portrayed as a threat to building inspectors and fire engineers. It absolutely isn’t. PGO is making it a requirement that fire safety is dealt with earlier on in the process, at the planning stage, and that means it’s going to require fire engineers to work collaboratively with architects at the early design stage,’ Mark said.
‘This will require architects and fire engineers having difficult conversations with clients about what a new stringent regime is going to look and feel like for them. We are going to need more proportionate and robust evidence at the planning stage in relation to fire safety.’
Going forward, PGO will be a constituent part of the BSR and will work with gateway two and the multi-disciplinary teams that will be set up to assess building regulation applications. There will also be potential opportunities for a joint PGO and gateway two pre-application service. PGO already is a pre-application service which, Mark said, was currently doing three or four pre-application meetings a week. That, he said, was ‘an encouraging sign’ that people are taking the opportunity to seek the PGO team’s views on design choices before applications are actually submitted.
Mixed results
Perhaps the most important presentation in terms of the major changes facing the construction and housing sectors came from the person who essentially set these developments in motion: Dame Judith Hackitt. As chair of the Industry Steering Safety Group (ISSG), Dame Judith said that, quite aside from legislation or regulatory change, a change in safety culture within the construction and housing industries has to be paramount.
Outlining some of the elements of the ISSG’s fourth annual report, Dame Judith said the progress of that culture change was a mixed picture and while change is starting to happen, it is far from universal. Dame Judith said there are still too many people who would rather stick to a regulatory-based ‘de minimis’ approach to safety standards, including developers who continue to purposely build to poor standards while they can before the more stringent regulations are put in place.
On that topic, Dame Judith had a message for government: ‘We feel very strongly that there is a need for government to give much more support to BSR to act now on buildings that are being built as we speak.’
Looking ahead, Dame Judith said one interesting area of potential positive progress will be in how the BSR and the National Regulator of Construction Products will work together.
‘Having those two regulators working in sync and in tandem will be critical in ensuring we have a joined-up regime and a consistent regime,’ Dame Judith said.
‘The need for more work on product standards and accreditation is going to be underlined even further when the Grenfell Tower Inquiry publishes its final report. I think we will all be very surprised if there was not a section in that report on the subject of products and their accreditation.’
Feeding into that, the Code for Construction Product Information and the work of the Construction Products Association was commended, although Dame Judith said that that work was being hampered by some sectors, notably insurers.
More leadership
While Dame Judith praised the Construction Leadership Council for its support in the delivery of safe buildings, and those involved in the formation of the Building a Safer Future Charter, she was disappointed that, at the time of the conference, only 10 people had signed up to be champions.
Another disappointment, she said, has been the very mixed leadership from professional bodies, who are seemingly finding it difficult to adopt new standards of competence in their industry. For example, she mentioned that even well-meaning efforts by organisations such as RIBA and the Fire Sector Federation appear to rely on government-led approaches, rather than industry organisations taking the initiative to drive change themselves.
Even where there have been impressive efforts to introduce new standards, training and competence are proving slow to progress. ‘Competence is needed today, not once the regulations are in place,’ Dame Judith said.
‘What we need is to see the take-up in terms of training more widely applied, and not necessarily using the old methods and old structures – there’s a real opportunity for some innovative way to approach that training.
‘The urgency for that [training] is increasing… it’s really important that that training is done because the duty holders in the new system are going to need to prove that they have used competent people.’
Dame Judith had special appreciation for the work that Professor David Mosey has done around good collaborative procurement, and the efforts of the Institute of Structural Engineers for the work it has done in extending its previous confidential reporting system for structural safety to now include safer structures in total.
‘There are some really good examples of leadership in terms of doing this in the right way… and lots of pockets of good practice that need building on,’ Dame Judith said.
‘What matters, if we are to have a transparent system, is that we ensure there’s a no-blame culture. That it’s focused on sharing knowledge to avoid the same problem recurring. And we think it’s really important that things like that collaborative reporting structure receive long-term funding because they do and will continue to underpin an effective regime.’
