Seven years after Grenfell: We have come a long way, but there is still a huge amount to do

The executive summary of the Grenfell Inquiry Phase 2 report makes damning reading and is critical of a number of bodies and organisations regarding how they behaved and managed their operations prior to the tragedy. The full report provides lessons within it for all those in the construction industry, as well as those who own and manage residential buildings.

The recommendations for change and improvement are wide and far-reaching. We must remember that they are recommendations, but we can expect the government to review them all and implement many in some form. 

I expect the review will begin, at least in part, relatively immediately, but the duration of the review and implementation will take years. For designers and contractors, the proposed changes will have an impact on our businesses and as individuals. Some proposals, if adopted, will bring considerable change.

Concerns over the competency of architects in relation to building safety are highlighted, and the inquiry recommends that the ARB and RIBA review the sufficiency of the competency changes they have already implemented. We may therefore see further changes regarding how we maintain and evidence competency as architects.

I have advocated for a number of years for a single regulator in relation to building safety, which we do not have today, even with the Building Safety Regulator, as other government departments hold responsibility for various related regulators, assurance bodies, testing, and assessment. The inquiry recommendations propose a single construction regulator, with a chief construction advisor, responsible for building regulations, construction product certification, testing, fire risk assessor accreditations, building control oversight, and the licensing of contractors to work on Higher Risk Buildings. This will be a very large regulator, and one can only foresee the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) expanding to take on this role. This is a sensible proposal, but it will require significant resources to establish and operate. Given the resourcing issues that the BSR has faced, one wonders where all the required competent civil servants will be sourced to meet this need.

It is absolutely right that the industry faces further change

The construction regulator will be responsible for ensuring the conformity of construction products and issuing the evidencing certificates. This will provide a greater level of certainty to specifiers that they can rely on the stated product performance, which even today, seven years after the Grenfell tragedy, we often cannot do.

Another recommendation is that all Approved Documents, including Approved Document B, be reviewed to ensure clarity and that they are fit for purpose. However, the proposal for a reinforced statement in the statutory guidance documents, which states that reliance on the guidance will not necessarily ensure compliance with Building Regulations, will be worrying for many designers and contractors.

The report calls for an urgent review of the definition of a Higher Risk Building, such that it considers not only the height of the building but also the vulnerability of its occupants. We may therefore see care homes and hospitals, for example, being brought into the design and construction stage requirements of the Building Safety Act legislation, and at heights lower than 18m and seven storeys.

For those undertaking the Principal Designer Building Regulations role on Higher Risk Buildings projects, it is proposed that a senior manager in the business provides a statement at Gateway 2 that the design, if built, will be “as safe as required by the Building Regulations”. Such a statement will be heavily considered by legal advisors and insurers.

It is proposed that a national register of contractors be established by the new Construction Regulator for those working on HRBs. This is likely to be welcomed by clients, but the proposal for a director in the contractor organisation to personally sign a guarantee that the building, as constructed, is as safe as required by the Building Regulations may well restrict the number of contractors willing to take on HRB work.

It is absolutely right that the industry faces further change. It is all our responsibility to ensure that whatever part we play in the design and construction of residential buildings, we do it in such a way that those who occupy them are safe.

Andrew Mellor leads the development consultancy team at PRP. The practice has been advising the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and conducting research around policy and building regulations.