In our first article we considered two elements of the Act which impact on buildings completed prior to the Act coming into force as law, being
In this article, we consider the elements of the Act which impact on the design and construction of buildings started after the Act comes into force as law. In particular, we’ll consider the role of the new Building Safety Regulator and the new “gateway” regime.
We will shortly release a further article in which we consider the impact of the Act for the owners and occupants of higher-risk buildings, as well as the extent to which the Act fulfils its wider objectives.
By way of reminder:
One of the major changes in Part 3 of the Act is to establish a new division of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) as the new Building Safety Regulator (Regulator).
The role will come into effect in stages over a period of 18 months from 28 April 2022. For the reasons set out below, this is likely to result in a fundamental change to the regulation of the industry, which has historically been carried out by Local Authority Building Control (LABC). The primary functions of the Regulator are to:
To date, the enforcement of criminal offences under the Building Regulations has been rare, since prosecutions must be brought within two years of the offence occurring, and in any event only low penalties can be imposed on offenders.
This will change under the Act because the Regulator will have the power to:
More generally, as a division of the HSE the Regulator is likely to adopt a different approach to prosecution than has been taken by LABC to date.
The HSE is experienced in prosecuting individuals and organisations for health and safety and environmental offences, and by reference to the approach it takes in relation to those matters, we anticipate that it will look to bring a prosecution early in its new role.
We therefore do not share the concerns expressed by the Local Government Association that the Regulator may be insufficiently funded and under-resourced, and that those working for the Regulator may not have adequate training.
In addition, the Regulator will be responsible for introducing and overseeing a regulatory regime for “building control professionals”, being:
Historically, there has been no defined, independent regulation of “building control professionals”. Instead, such professionals often elect to become members of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and associated bodies and are subject to the general oversight of such organisations.
This will change under the Act because the Regulator will:
At the time of writing, no detail has been published as to what the codes of conduct will contain, nor in what circumstances the Regulator will hold building control professionals to account for “underperformance” or it will be deemed necessary to suspend or prosecute building control inspectors.
In a factsheet on the Regulator’s Approach to Enforcement the HSE has simply said “The Building Safety Regulator’s approach to formal enforcement and sanctions will serve the public interest and will be undertaken in a fair, equitable and consistent manner, targeting and taking firm action against those who repeatedly offend, act irresponsibly, or whose actions could cause serious harm”.
It remains be seen how this will operate in practice, but we anticipate the Regulator will look to bring a prosecution early in its new role.
One of the primary functions of the Regulator is to implement the new regulatory regime introduced by the Act for the design, construction and occupation of what are defined as “higher-risk buildings”. The Act contains two definitions of higher-risk buildings, which will apply to buildings in England only. The Welsh Ministers have the power to enact a different definition of higher-risk buildings in Wales.
A “higher-risk building” is defined differently for the purposes of Parts 3 and 4 of the Act. This article is concerned with Part 3 only, which makes changes to the building control regime by amending the BA 1984.
Whilst LABC has historically had responsibility for enforcing the Building Regulations, this will become the responsibility of the Regulator as the “building control authority” for higher-risk buildings, as well as for work with a “prescribed connection” to higher-risk building work.
LABC will remain the “building control authority” for any other work.
For the purposes of Part 3, a higher-risk building is defined as a building in England which:
The 18 metre threshold corresponds with that contained in Approved Document B of the Building Regulations. The theory is that buildings under 18 metres are capable of evacuation by the fire service using ladders.
Consequently, such buildings are said to require less stringent safety standards.
The definition has yet to be enacted and is contained in the draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations (Higher- Risk Buildings Regulations).
The Higher-Risk Buildings Regulations specify the following types of building are “higher-risk buildings” for the purposes of the BA 1984:
The Higher-Risk Buildings Regulations exclude certain types of building from the definition of “higher-risk buildings” for the purposes of the BA 1984, including:
The Higher-Risk Buildings Regulations contain a separate definition of higher-risk building for the purposes of Part 4 of the Act which applies to occupied buildings only. This will be discussed further in our next article. However, it’s worth noting that the lack of a single definition of higher-risk building may lead to confusion in the industry as to which buildings are subject to the new regulatory regime.
This issue was subject to considerable comment during the passage of the Building Safety Bill through parliament.
For example, the National Fire Chiefs Council commented that additional safety measures should be required for all buildings with a height in excess of 11m,10 whilst the Royal Institute of British Architects said that the definition of “higher-risk buildings” should include high-risk non-residential buildings of any height because “fire does not discriminate”.
In any event, the definition of higher-risk buildings for the purposes of the Act remains subject to change as the Higher- Risk Building Regulations pass through parliament.
Further, the Building Safety Regulator (discussed further below) is empowered by the Act to recommend that certain types of building are added to the definition of higher-risk buildings for the purposes of Part 4 of the Act (which is concerned with buildings when occupied and creates the role of “accountable person”).
Consistent with these observations, we expect the definition of higher-risk buildings will change over time, possibly to include a lower height threshold and a broader range of buildings which are occupied overnight.
The Act introduces two new regimes which apply during the design and construction of higher- risk buildings:
Common to both regimes is the so-called “golden thread of information”, which refers to “the information that allows you to understand a building and the steps needed to keep both the building and people safe, now and in the future”.
The Act’s intention is that compliance with the new regimes will ensure that owners of higher-risk buildings have to hand well-documented and accurate evidence of risk assessments and safety arrangements in relation to the construction, design and occupation of the building. This will be achieved through the creation, collation, sharing and maintaining of prescribed documents and information through the life cycle of the building in an electronic repository which is accessible to both owners and occupants of higher-rise buildings.
In turn, the storing of documentation and information in an accessible electronic repository will resolve a common difficulty faced by occupants of higher-risk buildings, and in particular tenants, in obtaining information regarding building construction and safety from building owners. This has been a real problem post-Grenfell in relation to cladding products.
In our view, this is a positive step which, in principle, will facilitate a shift in the industry from a “tick box” approach building safety and compliance with the Building Regulations, to imposing a direct obligation on building owners to be able to articulate and explain building safety systems.
It may also help to restore confidence in an industry with a history of non-compliance with regulations, either through lack of awareness, unclear drafting or simple design and construction failures.
There are, however, some practical issues to be resolved. For example:
The latter point may be particularly problematic. There are currently only a limited number of experienced fire engineers in UK, each of whom is likely to be busy with existing work post-Grenfell.
It has been suggested it will take five years to review and inspect building safety cases on all existing buildings. In other words, despite the principle being sound, it has the potential to create huge delays for the progression of new schemes which will need to comply with the new regimes.
More generally, there remains a question regarding the competency of those involved in the industry in relation to fire safety.
The Secretary of State has admitted collective failures by such persons in the past, and the Construction Industry Council (CIC) has commented “…it is imperative that those completing the assessments are able to apply risk-analysis principles and state where the level of risk identified is acceptable.
Early feedback appears to indicate that further guidance is needed”.
An additional consequence is likely to be further price increases. It’s understandable that those with expertise to competently take on this work (which is currently relatively rare), and who are willing to be exposed to the corresponding risks such work entails, will expect to command significantly higher fees that have been paid in the past, adding yet further to the cost of construction in a market which is already subject to significant price inflation.
The Act creates a framework under which the government can introduce competency requirements and duties for those persons fulfilling a defined “dutyholder” role in relation to the design and construction of higher-risk buildings. This has been described as the “dutyholder regime”.
At the time of writing, the Dutyholder Regime is intended to apply only in relation to any higher-risk building which:
The dutyholder regime will primarily be introduced via secondary legislation, and so the exact details remain unclear.
The government has, however, published draft Dutyholders Regulations and an accompanying factsheet, which explain that:
Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM Regulations) and so will include:
The Act creates a further framework under which the government can introduce obligations on dutyholders to review building safety issues at three distinct “gateways” during the design and construction of higher-risk buildings. This has been described as the “gateway regime”.
Gateway 1 has already been implemented by secondary legislation under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and applies to planning applications made on or after 1 August 2021.
It imposes an obligation on a person applying for planning permission in relation to a higher- risk building which contains at least two dwellings or educational accommodation to:
Approved Document B or a fire engineered solution.
The local planning authority must consult with HSE before granting planning permission for a higher- risk building subject to gateway 1.
The intention is presumably that HSE will identify any issues with the fire statement which must be resolved before permission can be granted or otherwise as a condition of any permission.
Gateways 2 and 3 have not yet been implemented, and will primarily be introduced via secondary legislation, and so the exact details remain unclear. The government has, however, published a factsheet.
In relation to Gateway 2, this explains that:
It’s expected the Regulator will have up to 12 weeks to determine an application for building control approval, and an extension can be agreed if necessary.
This has the prospect of delaying the commencement of works significantly, although any delays may be moderated through the availability of a staged plans approach, which will enable applications to be made in relation to defined stages of work.
In theory, this means an applicant can be progressing one stage of work whilst applying for building control approval in respect of the next.
The effectiveness of this will require cohesion between the approval process and the progression of the works, as otherwise clients will face the risk of downtime on site.
Delays may also be caused by the proposed change management process which will apply during construction and between gateways 2 and 3. The intention is this will require:
What will constitute a “major change” has yet to be explained. The change management process is intended to prevent the relaxing of fire safety as a result of value engineering carried out following the grant of building control approval by the Regulator.
The result is that the client will need to avoid making any changes, whether major or otherwise, due to the impact on the progression of the works and the claims for prolongation which will likely follow.
In addition, the dutyholders will be subject during construction to ongoing requirements to:
In relation to Gateway 3, the factsheet explains:
It’s expected the Regulator will have up to 12 weeks to determine an application for final approval, and an extension can be agreed if necessary.
This again has the prospect of delaying the commencement of works significantly, and imposing a significant administrative burden on dutyholders; each of which will need to provide a declaration of compliance that the works have been carried out in accordance with the Building Regulations. This is likely to result in:
From conversations which we’ve had with some main contractors, the administrative cost of complying with the dutyholder and gateway regimes may increase the cost of work by some 3%.
Adding that to existing price inflation is going to cause some real overheating in the market.
The administrative cost aside, we can expect to see an increase in professional indemnity (PI) insurance premiums for those involved in provided certification, documentation and information for the purposes of the gateway regime.
There is a question as to the extent of coverage in the event of an investigation or prosecution by the Regulator either during or following the construction and design phase.
It’s likely that a typical PI policy will provide cover for defence costs incurred in responding to a formal HSE investigation or prosecution in relation to health and safety or environmental missues, on the basis that defence costs often include any costs associated with an investigation, criminal proceedings, legal representation, and mitigation.
However, a fine or the cost of remedying a contravention of the gateway requirements is unlikely to be covered, leaving individuals and organisations exposed to what can in theory be an unlimited liability.
Other costs that are unlikely to be covered are those incurred in relation to collaboration with the Regulator during the gateway phase and compliance with any informal advice that may be given.
This will raise difficult questions for insurers regarding at what point a policy is triggered in particular with regard to mitigation costs.
Partner
tim.claremont@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)20 7871 8507
Senior Associate
Gavin.Hoccom@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)330 045 2384
An engineering company in Tyne and Wear was fined £20,000 after a worker fractured his pelvis and suffered internal injuries after falling through a petrol station forecourt canopy, whilst he was replacing the guttering.
The climate emergency has reached a point where real and substantial damage is being caused to both the planet and society. There has been a shift from planning and theorising the most effective solutions, to a phase where practical, efficient, and sustainable solutions are required at speed.
In anticipation of the adoption of the Building Safety Bill, our specialist compliance and regulatory team will give an overview of the measures proposed in the Bill.
