Building Safety Regulator Conference: What did we learn

Building Safety Regulator Conference: What did we learn

FIS CEO Iain McIlwee reports on the Building Safety Regulators Conference held on Wednesday 22 March.

This Wednesday I attended a full day conference organised by the Building Safety Regulator, along with around a 1,000 people from across construction and property management.  There was a lot to digest, but the key point is that, whilst there is still much to be done, they are sticking to the original implementation timeline.  The Regulator becomes fully active next month with the Registration of occupied High-Risk Buildings becoming mandatory.  This is significant as it brings greater and clearer responsibility on individuals to ensue that a building is safe and there is a plan in place to keep it that way and it reminds us all that people are at the heart of building safety.

The next key point and they finished with this to emphasise, is that The Building Safety Act is not just about high-risk buildings.  For these there is an enhanced oversight system being put in place by way of Gateways.  For all other buildings, the key recommendations set down in the consultation will be carried through in secondary regulation – still a bit of parliamentary scrutiny required, so not set in stone, but basically the alignment of Building Safety with the existing CDM requirements is critical.  These changes are focussed on cultural change in and tighter controls for construction.  The phrase used was from Shed to Shard

What does it mean if you are working on High Risk Buildings?

Get your head around Gateways.  If working on High Risk Buildings, familiarise yourself with the additional information requirements at Gateway 2 (i.e. how are you going to convince the Regulator that you have a workable design and effective delivery/information management plan) and Gateway 3 (prove that you stuck to and built it as per the plan).  Photographic evidence will be key – the regulator will want reassurance that the stuff they can’t see was done right – controls and procedures are in place to manage the process, competence and communication.  Any changes on the fly will need to be documented, and in many cases, approved by the regulator before progressing.  The Regulator will want to see buildability considered to limit the need for change on site.

Buildings will be required to go through these Gateways from October.  A cautionary tale was that 50% of Buildings did not meet Gateway 1 (Planning and Fire Plan) requirements.  The Regulator is primarily interested in fire and structure, but we were repeatedly reminded that meeting all of the Building Regulations is a requirement.  They expect the process to be dynamic between the Gateways to minimise any hold ups, but these are hold points, hard stops.

The key to making it through the Gateways is evidence, evidence, evidence.  A number of the discussions centred on what Stage (according to the Plan of Works) the design is expected to be at before you can proceed through Gateway 2.  In one of the presentations it was confirmed that design should be completed to Stage 4 (Technical Design) before you can go through the Gateway and Stage 5 (Construction) can begin.  There was mention of the series of gateways, but my impression was that whilst the regulations do make allowances for exceptions, exceptions should be that.   To emphasise this the impact of design changes on weight was used as an example.  If you don’t know how you are building it, how can you fully understand and detail the loadings?

Will it really have much impact on the wider building sector?

Emphatically Yes – in fact this was a big part of the summing up.  Effectively this is not a change to the Building Regulations, but a massive change to the regime and processes expected to evidence compliance.  Building Control is being subjected to wholesale change, a much more robust competency regime with greater emphasis on process.  Greater granularity is to be expected – their focus will be on competence, control and evidence.  We can expect more testing questions as Approved Inspectors become Registered Building Control Inspectors and are subjected to more independent scrutiny and tighter controls.  The process will be very much aligned to the existing CDM Regulations and “as built”.  Within this, the statutory duty holder roles will apply to all projects.  The Principal Designer (PD) role got a fair bit of attention and it was clearly news to some that this statutory role relates to all projects – significantly the PD will be accountable and need to provide confirmation that the requirements of the building regulations have been met.

There are still a few things to iron out, one issue discussed was whether CDM and Building Safety could be separated and administered by two PD’s (in theory yes, but the intent seems to be that one PD should be the norm).  Another question asked was whether this would mark the end of D&B.  It doesn’t, the regulation are being written to allow, but it should be the death knoll for design and dump – with the PD and Designer Roles so closely regulated I simply can’t see how scope of design can be limited in the way we often see it now.

The key for Contractors is to ensure they can demonstrate competence – that is confidence that individuals have the skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours necessary and organisational capability (management policies, procedures, systems and resources) to meet the requirements of the building regulations.

Other key takeaways

It was encouraging to hear the FIS work in helping to establish the Passive Fire Knowledge Group recognised in one of the panel discussions as a good example of taking responsibility and trying to align the supply chain to confront issues before we get to them.  It was also good to hear the work we have done on developing competency frameworks acknowledged and the whole super system concept that we have been focussed on getting a mention with the finishes and interiors talked about in this context.

From the perspective of the new building control procedures, all of this will come at a cost – the term “cost recoverable” was used to describe the work of the regulator.  If you are planning jobs for the future, do have a think about the additional costs in terms of compliance and potential fees.  Significantly if you are working on High Risk Buildings, double check contracts for causes of delay too.

The final and heavily reinforced message was don’t wait, start making changes.  The words “ongoing”, “transition”, “looking into that” and “in progress” were all used and there is a realisation that there is still much to be done.  All the detail isn’t yet in hand, but this will come in the secondary regulation over the coming months (it will be subject to Parlimentary scrutiny which may change and possibly delay aspects), but Regulator is scaling up and the direction of travel set down in the consultation in October doesn’t seem to have been diverted far so it is time to get cracking!

Useful Links to help you start preparing:

  1. FIS Summary of response to the October consultation of reforms to the Building Regulations
  2. FIS Guide to Developing a Competency Management Plan
  3. BuildUK Guide to the Building Safety Act (Available to FIS Members Only)
  4. Start looking at your quality management procedures – FIS PPP Quality Risk Management Toolkit
FIS Responds to Consultation on Omitting National Standards from ADB

FIS Responds to Consultation on Omitting National Standards from ADB

FIS has today responded to the the Department for Levelling Up Housing and Communities (DLUHC) consultation on changes to the guidance in England using Approved Document B (ADB).  This consultation includes the recommendation to remove national classes using the BS476 series as a method of demonstrating compliance.

The reason behind the change is that potential flaws in Approved Document B and the use of the national classification standards for Reaction to Fire and Fire Resistance were identified in both the Building A Safer Future work and during the Grenfell Inquiry.  As part of this, it was highlighted that the BS476 series standards have not been reviewed by the British Standards Institution (BSI) in detail for some time (typically over 20 years) whereas the European equivalents continue to be updated on a regular basis.

Through an extensive consultation with members concerns have been raised that this approach would be more problematic when looking at Fire Resistance.  Here manufacturers have been more heavily reliant on testing to British Standards.  This test evidence would all be rendered defunct by the proposed change and a substantial programme of retesting will be required to support the determination of products and systems commonly used today.

Click here for a fully copy of the FIS Position Paper and Response to Consultation on Omitting National standards from ADB March 2023

You can see a full copy of the consultation which closes on the 17th March here.  Please do consider adding your own response.

Building Safety Guide Updated

Building Safety Guide Updated

Build UK has updated its comprehensive guide, to the building safety regime to reflect the latest secondary legislation and guidance that has been published. Changes in the March 2023 version include:

Described as “the most straightforward and comprehensive piece of guidance around this issue”, the Build UK guide is designed to ensure all members are aware of their responsibilities, the new bodies that will oversee the regime, and the reforms to existing legislation which may extend liability. The next update will be published in early April.

The Register of Higher‐Risk Buildings and what it means for us

The Register of Higher‐Risk Buildings and what it means for us

The Higher‐Risk Buildings (Key Building Information etc.) (England) Regulations, which introduce the requirement for Principal Accountable Persons to register Higher‐Risk Buildings, will come into force on 6 April 2023. Existing Higher‐Risk Buildings must be registered before October 2023 and the Regulations set out the specific information that will need to be provided to the Building Safety Regulator in an electronic format within 28 days of applying to register a building.

A significant amount of information will be required, including the materials used in the structure, roof and external walls; the number of staircases; the fire and smoke control equipment in the building; and the type of evacuation strategy. Detailed guidance from the Building Safety Regulator is expected to be published shortly with full implementation of the Building Safety Act completed by October 2023.

Commenting on this incoming requirement, FIS CEO, Iain McIlwee stated:

“This is an important development and underpins the need for better information management in the sector.  For our members, the critical takeaway is that we need to ensure that we are documenting effectively decisions and recording as built.

This hunt for live information has uncovered problems and we are starting to see a growing number of legacy claims hit the press.  Within these Design Development elements in the contract are front and centre and proving critical.  For projects moving forward, clarification and qualification of design details needs to be an element of pre-construction that should happen at tender stage, not on the site under time and cost pressure.”

FIS is running a Building Safety Act session at our Conference in London on Monday 27th February where we will be looking at common problems, what the inspector will be looking for and how we deliver the Golden Thread.  We also have a detailed introducton to the Building Safety Act here that includes a number of tools designed to support compliance, including our new Guide to Developing a Competency Management Plan and Quality Management Toolkit.

For advice and guidance on spotting traps and understanding design liability issues (including how to avoid being the accidental designer) visit the FIS Contractual and Legal Toolkit.

FIS position on omitting National Standards from ADB

FIS position on omitting National Standards from ADB

Government in the UK* through the Department for Levelling Up Housing and Communities (DLUHC), is consulting on changes to the guidance in England using Approved Document B (ADB).  This consultation includes the recommendation to remove national classes using the BS476 series as a method of demonstrating compliance.

The reason behind the change is that potential flaws in Approved Document B and the use of the national classification standards for Reaction to Fire and Fire Resistance were identified in both the Building A Safer Future work and during the Grenfell Inquiry.  As part of this, it was highlighted that the BS476 series standards have not been reviewed by the British Standards Institution (BSI) in detail for some time (typically over 20 years) whereas the European equivalents continue to be updated on a regular basis.

What this means for the Finishes and Interiors Sector
Currently, in England, the Building Regulations allow performance for Reaction to Fire and Fire Resistance to be declared through Classification using European standards.  In these standards, Reaction to Fire is classified as class A, B etc and Fire Resistance e.g. for non-load bearing walls as Integrity (E) and Insulation (I).  This is currently the preferred methodology for performance declaration in the current edition of the ADB.

The Classification process enables the use of a set of clearly defined rules (called “extended applications”) to determine scope of performance.  A classified system supports compatibility of products and is particularly helpful when considering interfaces and products being used to build a system.  Classification allows test evidence to be readily compared (e.g. standard wall constructions that contain dampers to protect penetrations around ducts which have not necessarily been tested in that configuration or the configuration of doorsets within walls).

The Regulations currently also allow performance to be declared for Reaction to Fire and Fire Resistance using test evidence by using BS476 series test standards.  The results of the tests are expressed using National Classes; in the case of Reaction to Fire they are described as Class 0 etc and FR minutes for Fire Resistance.  It is this element that Government are now proposing is removed.

Are there any concerns with this approach?
In Scotland they have already moved to the European classification system for Reaction to Fire.  The Scottish Regulators are awaiting the outcome of the English consultation before deciding on what to do regarding Fire Resistance.

So far, consultation with members (and experts from the wider sector), indicates that there is broad support for England to follow suit and omit the national classes for Reaction to Fire and adopt the European Classification system wholesale.

There is, however, some concern that this approach would be more problematic when looking at Fire Resistance.  Here manufacturers have been more heavily reliant on testing to British Standards.  This test evidence would all be rendered defunct by the proposed change and a substantial programme of retesting will be required to support the determination of products and systems commonly used today.

There are also gaps in the European test standards such as for partial penetrations (where they are currently not covered by a test standard) and external walls (BS 8414 is a national standard and as such is not listed in EN13501 series).  Currently this is addressed using BS tests, Ad hoc tests or assessments using test evidence in accordance with the PFPF Guidance – it is not possible to provide a European Classification by these means.

Designers currently rely heavily on these Ad hoc tests or Assessments using test evidence and rules set down by the Passive Fire Protection Forum (PFPF) Guidance to determine scope and meet the alternative provisions when tested to the relevant parts of BS476 set down in ADB.  This approach does not support Classification in accordance with BS EN 13501-2, furthermore current references in ADB require the exclusive use of classification and do not permit test standards in isolation to determine performance.

Wall systems and fire doors have been identified as key areas which will be greatly impacted by this change and a 12 month transition period has been proposed to allow changes to the new regime to be implemented.

The concern remains the impending lack of evidence (in the right format) may impact the ability of schemes to get through Gateway 2.

Where the difference between National classes for fire resistance and classified systems using EN standards can currently catch you out
Estimators and buyers should be aware that the permissible method to determine fire performance may differ depending on the descriptions used in the tender documents.  Getting this wrong could mean installation may be deemed non-compliant against the specification.

Although the BS EN 1364-1:2015 test and the BS 476: Part 22: 1987 tests have some similarities, and Approved Document B gives a parity between the two test methods this doesn’t mean a parity of specification i.e. a 60mins specification tested to BS 476 would not necessarily pass a 60mins test to BS EN 1364-1, there are differences in the standards and the major ones are:

a) Insulated thermocouples specified in EN 1364 series tests result in a longer build-up of the temperature before the test commences.
b) The furnace pressure is slightly more onerous in the BS EN 1364 series tests.
c) BS 476-22 makes no allowance for the partition height above its tested evidence.

To allow for these, system manufacturers have had to develop different detailing so that the specimen will pass the BS EN 1364-1 test which will impact both material and build costs.

You should always check what test evidence or performance class, or classification is required at the costing, scheduling and material ordering stage and that this information is clearly communicated with the site to ensure a complaint build and avoid costly disputes and remediation.

FIS opinion on the proposed changes
We agree with the general direction of travel which has been evident over the last two revisions of ADB and a consistent rules based approach will address any of the ambiguity that may have existed.

However, we are concerned that the unintended consequences of restricting evidence from ad hoc testing and structured assessments, where neither can define a classification, will lead to delays at Gateway 2 and 3 and potentially issues in demonstrating compliance on jobs across the wider sector. Until an approach on the matter can be agreed then interim arrangements will be necessary.

In addition, the current capacity and facility to test is unlikely to meet the demand to meet the Governments 12 month transition period.

Both of these substantial issues should be considered before making a decision to make these changes.

Next steps

The relevant passages from the consultation are copied below and a copy of the full consultation can be read here

To ensure that FIS can provide a considered response to the consultation please let have you views on the following questions.

Consultation questions for the removal of national classifications

Question 13 – Do you agree that the national classifications for reaction to fire should be removed from Approved Document B? [Agree/Disagree]

Question 14 – Do you agree that the national classifications for fire resistance should be removed from Approved Document B? [Agree/Disagree]

Question 15 – If you disagree, what evidence can you provide that outlines why the national classifications are still required. [Free text]

Question 16 – Do you agree that there should be a transitional period of twelve months? [Agree/Disagree]

Question 17 – If you disagree, how long should the transition period be and what is your evidence to support a longer or shorter transition period? [Free text]

Question 18 – Please outline any concerns you have about the withdrawal of the national classification with regards to fire resistance including potential impacts, such as on the fire door industry. [Free text]

In addition, can you please let us know how many tests would you need to carry out in order to offer classified fire resistant systems.

You can respond directly, but please do keep us informed of your views so we can include in the FIS response and surrounding discussions with stakeholder groups and Civil Servants by completing this poll here (no later than Monday 20 February).

We will hold an online meeting at 11:30 on Friday 10 March to hear your views before submitting our formal response.

To attend please email or if you have any questions, please email me joecilia@thefis.org or calling 07795 958780.

* The equivalent republic of Ireland consultation can be found HERE, interestingly this seperates new build and refurbishment.

Consultations launched to support Building Safety

Consultations launched to support Building Safety

The Health and Safety (HSE) and Building Safety Regulator (BSR) have recently launched several consultations and research in connection with building safety.

Professional Conduct Rules for Registered Building Control Approvers (RBCAs)
The BSR will be operating as part of the HSE from April 2023. Building control professionals will have to register with the BSR to perform building control work in England. The professional conduct rules sets out standards of professional conduct and practice that registered building control approvers are expected to meet.

The professional conduct rules are mandatory principles of conduct and standards applying to all who wish to register with the BSR as Registered Building Control Approvers (RBCA) in the private sector.

The HSE are seeking views on the proposals and the consultation closes on 17 February 2023.

Draft Code of Conduct for Registered Building Inspectors
Building control professionals will have to register with the BSR to perform building control work in England. The code of conduct sets out standards of professional conduct and practice that registered building inspectors (RBIs) are expected to meet.

The code of conduct are mandatory principles of conduct and standards of behaviour for RBIs, whether they work in the private or public sector.

HSE are seeking views on the proposed code of conduct and the consultation closes on 17 February 2023.

Managing Building Safety
The BSR is inviting views on their information document that highlights the necessary competency for those managing high risk buildings (HRBs), including a summary of the recent British Standard, publicly available specification (PAS):

  • PAS 8673:2022 Built environment – Competence requirements for the management of safety in residential buildings – Specification

 The consultation will close on 24 April 2023 and can be found here.

Building Safety Competence Information for Principal Contractors and Principal Designers
The BSR is inviting views on their information document that highlights the necessary competency for the new principal designer and principal contractor roles, including a summary of the recent British Standards, publicly available specifications (PAS):

  • PAS 8671:2022 Built environment – Framework for competence of individual Principal Designers – Specification
  • PAS 8672 Built environment – Framework for competence of individual Principal Contractors – Specification

 The consultation will close on 24 April 2023 and can be found here.

HSE Research Project – Accountable Person and Principal Accountable Person
The HSE has commissioned an independent research agency, Kantar Public, to interview people working in private and public sector housing organisations who will be an Accountable Person or Principal Accountable Person; will make decisions about the role; are knowledgeable about the role; and/or who will work on important aspects of the role (such as building registration, resident engagement and complaints handling).

All interviews will be conducted by independent, experienced researchers at Kantar Public. For further information or to register your interest to participate in this research, please email marios.zampetis@kantar.com