The Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) has been fully in force since April 2024 when the transitional period ended. It followed in the wake of the Grenfell disaster and seeks to address the shortcomings that were identified by the subsequent enquiry and deal with the legacy of dangerous high rise residential buildings that have been built over the preceding years – by no means an easy task.
It also aims to improve building safety standards. However, its implementation has been met with challenges, as regulatory bodies and construction professionals navigate new requirements and their implications for projects.
It introduces many new provisions a few of which include:
- A new role for the Health & Safety Executive called the ‘Building Safety Regulator’ (BSR). With wide ranging powers including the role of Building Control for Higher-Risk Buildings (HRB)s
- The introduction of a new regulatory regime for the design and approval of high-risk buildings involving clear flow of information and a ‘golden thread’ that now runs through the lifecycle of a project that allows all key decisions to be traced and information to be passed on from initial conception through to delivery and subsequent maintenance & operation of a building.
- New roles and duties for all persons involved in the delivery of construction projects including the appointment of a Principal Designer for Building Regulations (PD-BR).
- An overhaul of building regulations approval and inspection regimes.
These are all sensible measures and the decision to introduce these are broadly supported. The problem arises however in that they have been dropped onto an industry that was ill prepared and is now struggling to get to grips with interpreting what is required and how the requirements can be met. What we have also realised is that many of these measures & the principles now applied don’t just apply to high-risk buildings but to all building projects.
The problems start early in the process at design stage. At renewal stage, many experienced competent Architects are unable to obtain Professional Indemnity insurance (PI insurance) at reasonable commercial rates for design of fire safety measures and/or cladding. As such, they are writing to advise their clients of this & withdrawing from providing details on these key elements.
Fire engineers are understandably now very busy if not overwhelmed by the upsurge in demand they are experiencing. This is a symptom of not only increased demand for fire engineers who are now required earlier in the design & development cycle, but also a consequence of the scarcity of qualified fire engineers in the profession.
Fire engineers provide expert professional advice on fire strategy and provide design guidance to project teams in how to apply building regulations Approved Document B or BS9999. It is unusual however that their role will involve providing clear guidance on how key fire resisting elements of the building fabric to be employed will interact and perform as a whole. Instead there is now even greater reliance on specialist installers and suppliers.
On passive measures designers refer to product information & test data from manufacturers which the project Architect is then required to choose and specify (a real problem when as above they cannot obtain PI insurance for this and exclude any responsibility for this). Further, on active systems again manufacturers and installers of such systems will supply and install their products, but not advise or guarantee how they will affect the overall building. How these component parts operate will depend on the overall fire strategy.
On passive systems such as fire rated plasterboard ceilings and walls, there are many examples of standardised systems which have been tested for new build situations, but precious little that deal with existing construction when tackling a major challenging refurbishment project (particularly of historic buildings). In these situations, project teams are being forced down a route of introducing additional structures to take fire rated components. Further, the use of any ‘non-standard’ method of construction such as Structural Insulated Panel Systems (SIPs) or glulam primary support structures suddenly introduces a whole new level of unexpected complexity and expense that can make many projects unviable.
There is an argument therefore that the industry has become fractured in that there are now multiple parties to a project taking individual responsibilities for individual elements. Project managers are faced with the task of stitching these elements together to make sure that all elements are covered and that the ‘golden thread’ of information is continuous and runs through a project stitching the fire safety strategy together to make sure it is achieved. This is not a role envisaged by the BSA. Arguably the Government at the time thought that the Architectural profession would take the lead, but the reality is that that the insurance industry simply will not allow it.
The BSA has arguably had the biggest impact on the construction industry in a generation. Clearly it will be uncomfortable while we adjust to the new norm. In this new world it is even more important to bind the project team closely together to ensure close collaboration at all levels. It now even more than before requires close cooperation with regulatory authorities and building control. Teams need to bring in more specialists at an early stage to advise on such matters as fire stopping / compartmentation and active fire suppression systems. These need to be incorporated into the design & fire strategy from the outset. On refurbishment works, opening up of existing construction in the pre-construction phase can answer many questions. The days of asking contractors to take on these risks on a design & build basis with minimal information are gone. The risk profile and accountability now required requires clients to take an active role in the delivery of safe buildings.
By Darren Firas-Robles
Source: Dorset Biz News
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!