Building Safety Act

Tall buildings or all buildings?

The Building Safety Act applies to high-risk residential buildings. These are defined as buildings that are at least 18 metres in height or have at least 7 storeys, and contain two or more residential units.

However, its limited scope means that addressing cultural change might be difficult, according to Georgina.

“The oversight is on the highest risk buildings, so it could be difficult to drive that wider change across the industry,” she explained. “In theory, it should improve the culture, but my concern is that the additional requirements result in a tick box approach that stifles innovation. ”

“I’ve seen a difference between design teams that are trying to meet requirements and be creative in their approach so that they drive the best outcomes for end users, and others that just expect you to fill in a form to ensure compliance. If the attitude is just that it’s additional paperwork, it’s not going to drive the right behaviours.”

A high risk, complex environment

The panel suggested that the Building Safety Act is the most significant thing to happen to the industry in a generation. As with any new legislation, they felt that there have been some teething issues as organisations take on new responsibilities.

“This is the riskiest time to be involved in the industry for lots of different businesses,” explained Hannah. “Big systematic change is happening for architects, consultants, contractors, and more. Of course, they’ve held this risk for a long time, but the new legislation makes this much clearer. I think there’s been a realisation that some changes have needed to be made.”

She added that the perceived focus on External Wall Insulation (EWI) has caused some issues: “While it’s been important to get cladding systems sorted, it’s not a silver bullet when it comes to fire safety. There are problems when it comes to passive fire protection too, which we know also had an impact at Grenfell. ”

“I hope that people haven’t ignored these wider problems because it’s been the cladding that’s made most of the headlines.”

Georgina agreed, saying that people needed to consider the wider context of fire protection. “Buildings are entire systems,” she said. “You can’t look at one element at a time. There are multiple layers of protection. We also need to make sure that we explain to occupiers and owners what this means in practice, so that they can make better decisions.”

Hannah said that manufacturers should play a role in this education process. “Take fire doors. This is not a commodity product, this is a safety critical product,” she emphasised. “And who knows the most about it? Us, as manufacturers.”

“Any construction product manufacturer should be out there in the market, showing their test data, helping specifiers and installers to use them in the right projects, and engaging with occupiers on how to safely and correctly use products.”

Where competence comes in

One of the biggest shifts in construction post-Building Safety Act is the move towards demonstrating competency.

“We now have regulations which mean we have to demonstrate competency,” Georgina commented. “This will ensure that there is better awareness around safety and a wider, ongoing conversation within the industry.”

Adding additional rigour here should help according to Steve, who highlighted the challenge that guidance is often open to interpretation.

“If you take Approved Documents, they are guidance rather than actual standards,” he explained. “Part of the issue is that they have been treated as standards, with people not always using their experience and expertise to apply them correctly to the project in question.”

The long tail

One other area that the panel focused on was the length of time that had to be considered within the regulations. Steve said: “There’s been a culture previously of trying to get the price down. If every supplier in the chain is doing the same, then that’s lots of issues being stacked together.

“If we continue a race to the bottom, then we’ll continue to have problems. The stick now is that you’ll have a 30 year legacy with the building, with comebacks on the people involved.”

To change this would require people to design with the long term in mind, explained Hannah:

“We need a complete mindset change that brings long-term thinking to the forefront. What is the building going to be like in 10 or 20 years’ time? We need to get ahead of the guidance and actively futureproof what we’re designing.”

That is where the golden thread of information becomes essential according to Georgina. “An old feature of tower block design was having permanently open vents to the corridors. Many of these were closed off to cut energy bills and make blocks warmer. But this design choice also had fire stopping in mind.”

“We need owners and occupiers to understand design decisions like these to avoid unintended, negative consequences as we retrofit existing buildings.”

More to come on building safety?

While a lot has changed already, the panel felt that there is still more to do, not least because there would be more to come once the Grenfell Inquiry report is published.

Steve said: “The work that we’ve seen since the Hackitt Report has taken place before we’ve had the final report from the Grenfell Inquiry. Many people in the industry think that the job has been done but we might find that the problems that we’re solving today aren’t what comes out in the report.”

It was a concern that the rest of the panel agreed with, but the view was that action had been needed. Hannah concluded: “We couldn’t sit here for seven years and do nothing. Everyone in the industry had to step up and take a lead on solving these problems.”