Building the Future Commission: This is how we make our buildings safer

The Building the Future Commission has been looking for long-term solutions through its eight work streams. However, one of our streams has arguably stood out as having a much more urgent short-term focus than the others. 

The Building Safety Act became law in April 2022, but it was only really in the past year – with the opening of the registration process for higher-risk buildings – that the workings of the new regime have really become clear. 

The industry is facing a huge challenge in getting its collective head around the new post-Grenfell requirements. There is a lot to understand, not least the new planning gateway processes, building registration requirements, safety case reports for relevant buildings, the new “golden thread” of information and measuring and assessing competence. 

>> Download the final commission report: The long-term plan for construction

Therefore, much of the commission’s work on building safety has been concerned with examining ways to improve the industry’s understanding of the myriad legislation, standards and regulations (some of which have yet to be finalised) that are governing this area. How can we improve processes to share knowledge, best practice and learning? 

But, of course, the commission has not lost sight of the big questions. How do we change the culture of building in the UK in order to drive up safety standards in the design, construction and occupation of our high-rise blocks – and, indeed, all of our buildings? How do we ensure that we never see a repeat of the Grenfell Tower disaster which killed 72 people in 2017? How does the construction industry provide reassurance to a rightly sceptical public that it has the will and capability to adapt and improve? 

Clarity of understanding about multiple regulators’ responsibilities 

One of the confusing aspects of the new regime is the fact that multiple regulators are overseeing different elements of building safety. For instance, in addition to the new Building Safety Regulator (BSR) – set up within the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) – the fire and rescue services regulate on fire safety orders, the beefed-up Regulator of Social Housing will have powers over the maintenance of many residential blocks, a new National Regulator for Construction Products (NRCP) is being created, and there are building control teams in local authorities in addition to environmental health departments. What happens if messaging or guidance from different regulators conflicts? 

This problem has been recognised by the BSR, with the former head of the regulator, Peter Baker, last year telling a conference that the BSR is looking at developing a memorandum of understanding to clarify who is responsible for what. Rebecca Rees, a Building the Future Commissioner and partner at law firm Trowers & Hamlins, said the success of this idea would depend on how detailed the memorandum is and whether organisations will be able to see the detail. 

Similarly, industry veteran and construction products testing tsar Paul Morrell sees problems in the setting-up of two regulators – with the Building Safety Regulator overseeing the design and management of buildings and the National Regulator for Construction Products enforcing a new regulatory regime for products. He suggests the idea of a bridge between the two regulators is crucial, because otherwise there will be a gap again between the knowledge of the manufacturers and those using the products in buildings. He says it is up to the regulators and the industry to come up with a way of making this operate effectively. 

The government should at a minimum set up an advice service to provide information on which regulator is responsible for which part of the regulations

Therefore the government should at a minimum set up an advice service to provide information on which regulator is responsible for which part of the regulations where doubt exists. The same body could also work as a mediator to be a bridge between the BSR and the NRCP. 

The government could go further and untangle the web of confusion by introducing a single authoritative body for building safety – rather than simply working in partnership with co-regulators and creating successive layers of regulation. This would make it easier for the industry. 

Resources for the regulator 

The then head of the BSR, Peter Baker, told the fledgling body’s first annual conference back in April that the industry should “expect and deserve a match-fit regulator” and said he wants the new regime to be “world-leading”. Baker has since stood down, but the question remains as to whether the resource levels for the BSR are sufficient. 

An HSE spokesperson told Building last May that it had 200 people employed in its BSR function. By December, the HSE had increased its headcount to 216, with 152 in the process of being recruited. It said it expects to have a total workforce of around 480 when its current recruitment drive completes.

There remains a perception in the industry that the BSR is too under-resourced to adequately carry out its role under the Building Safety Act, including assessing 12,500 higher-risk buildings, overseeing the safety of all buildings, regulating the building control profession, and introducing and overseeing the planning gateway system. The commission therefore calls on the government to undertake a review of staffing levels at the BSR as a first step to ensuring that sufficient resources are available to deliver the legislative and policy changes for building safety to reduce implementation risks. 

Skills, training and competence 

The huge amount of legislative and regulatory change is unlikely to achieve its goal – ensuring safer buildings – without a skilled labour force to enforce them. 

The commission has found a lot of good work in the industry relating to competence, particularly through standards which the Construction Products Association and others have played a big role in developing. However, there is concern about the burden of assessing competence of principal designers and principal contractors. Our commissioners have reported that designers are receiving long forms from clients which can take days to complete. 

More courses should be developed to ensure that those involved in designing, specifying, procuring and installing passive fire protection systems have the necessary knowledge and skills to do so effectively

“We are already receiving very long questionnaires from clients, which include different questions and subjects; each questionnaire takes days to complete – a recent one took us five staff days to complete,” said one architectural practice. 

The industry should therefore develop standardised competency assessments for designers, principal designers and principal contractors. If these standard industry versions could be used on numerous projects in the same format and be accepted by clients as compliant, then confidence in the competence of those undertaking these roles would grow and valuable time would be saved. 

When it comes to passive fire protection, the industry is doing a commendable job at trying to improve and share knowledge, notably through the Passive Fire Knowledge Group set up by a handful of tier one contractors and trade associations. However, more courses should be developed to ensure that those involved in designing, specifying, procuring and installing passive fire protection systems have the necessary knowledge and skills to do so effectively, while a centre of excellence is one idea suggested by Morrell which could help improve knowledge-sharing around construction products. 

Competency of clients 

When it comes to the competency of clients, our commissioners felt the current system does not place enough of an onus on clients or contractors under design and build contracts. 

Clients are the ultimate decision-maker and there is an argument that the driving force for change begins with an engaged and interested client. Currently clients are asked to assess the competency of principal contractors and principal designers, but as referred to above this is often done in a ham-fisted way, with little standardisation. Instead, the commission believes clients too need to demonstrate competency. The government should therefore consider developing a new competency standard for clients at a strategic level. This could be adopted by the Social Housing Regulator and industry groups in order for it to become mandatory. The industry needs clients to be trained, to be competent, to understand what good looks like and not to delegate it all to consultants. 

Code for construction products and testing 

While some areas of building safety may need drastic new action, with others the commission believes we simply need to ensure the industry supports the good work already under way. 

The Code for Construction Product Information (CCPI) has been warmly received. The code, administered by non-profit body CPI Ltd and led by former consumer rights champion Amanda Long, was prompted by Dame Judith Hackitt’s review of building safety regulations, which found construction’s product testing, labelling and marketing regime to be “opaque and insufficient”. The case for change was strengthened by allegations of misleading marketing claims aired at the Grenfell inquiry. 

The scheme has around 50 companies already going through the CCPI organisational assessment and more than 50 product sets (including more than 700 products) have had their information verified or are in the process of verification. Furthermore, a number of big contractors and housebuilders, including Barratt, Berkeley, Mace, Morgan Sindall, Murphy, Persimmon and Skanksa, have joined a supporters group pledging over time to only use suppliers that are CCPI-verified. 

In December, the CCPI also published a version of the code for builders merchants and distributors. Belgrade Insulations, CCF (part of the Travis Perkins Group), Quantum Insulation, SIG Trading and VJ Technology are the first merchants and distributors to commit to assessment against the CCPI. 

Ensuring product information is accurate and unambiguous would go a long way towards helping the industry restore its reputation after Grenfell

However, with an estimated 28,000 construction product manufacturers in the UK, CPI faces a formidable task in ensuring enough sign up to make a difference to product safety. 

The commission believes the overall aim of the code, to ensure product information is “clear, accurate, up-to-date, accessible and unambiguous”, is hard to argue against. Furthermore, as we await the findings of the Grenfell Inquiry, it is vital the industry shows that it has learnt from the mistakes of the past, and supporting the code is a visible first step in achieving this. 

Therefore, the commission believes the industry should embrace the Code for Construction Products Information as the bare minimum standard; it is a blueprint for excellence. 

Ensuring product information is accurate and unambiguous would go a long way towards helping the industry restore its reputation after Grenfell, but this is only part of the story. We also need to ensure products are used correctly and safely in their passive fire systems. 

Currently when tier one contractors inherit designs for a building, they are not confident they can give technical assurance that all passive fire components meet building and fire safety regulations. The commission believes the industry needs standardised testing methods for passive fire systems, ensuring results that are not just consistent, but reliable. 

Download the full report below

    DOWNLOAD NOW