Watch our webinar in collaboration with Schüco, which explores the latest thinking in building safety and what the implications are for architects.

We are living through a time of enormous change, and rightly so, in our approaches to designing for fire. The tragedy at Grenfell and subsequent inquiry have shown us just how much can go wrong, and new legislation will give the profession new responsibilities and opportunities. This webinar examined the current situation, explained what is needed and what the opportunities may be, and looked beyond the current legislation. Are we doing enough? And do attitudes and laws need to change even more?

Paul Bussey, lead at AHMM on technical design, which encompasses CDM, fire and access, outlined the impact that the proposals in the Building Safety Bill will have. It will, he said, mean a ‘massive change’ for all buildings, and not just tall buildings. He outlined the fact that there will be a Building Safety Regulator and the new role of the principal designer, a response to ‘systemic failure’. ‘We are all at fault, he said. ‘This was a complex, creeping and collective myopia.’

Speakers from left to right: Jerry Tate, Paul Bussey, Jessica Barker, and Tom Roche

Bussey has been working with the RIBA, which is making new demands on architects. It has, he said, ‘moved the bar upwards’, with a test for architects and advanced study for those taking on the duties of principal designer. In addition, it has produced a health and safety guide for all architects and overlaid the new gateways at which safety information has to be produced over the RIBA Plan of Work. Although it will probably be another two years before the Bill is fully enacted, ‘We have to take action now,’ Bussey said. ‘This is a cultural change.’

Invisible Worlds at the Eden Project in Cornwall, designed by Tate + Co Architects (ph: Killian O’Sullivan)

It is a change that Jerry Tate of architect Tate & Co believes could be of benefit to architects. ‘Architects should be responsible for the golden thread of design information,’ he said, arguing that this should lead to enhanced roles for them and even possibly to protection of function.

He showed three of his practice’s projects. Because the practice specialises in sustainable buildings in sensitive environments it often, he said, takes a co-ordinating role ‘because there are key technical or statutory requirements that are central to creating the end product. So, we already look after the golden thread.’

Tate + Co Architects’ Creative Centre at York St John University (cgi: AVR London)

This is an opportunity that architects in general still have time to seize, he argued. With the requirement to provide a certain level of information at each gateway stage, this role would equate to protection of function for architects. The benefit, he said, would be ‘a dramatic effect on the quality of design and construction. It would allow huge strides in creating buildings that genuinely reduce our carbon footprint.’ Tate dismissed possible concerns about increased fees or raised insurance premiums. Overall, he argued, costs and risks would fall.

Tom Roche, senior consultant at insurer FM Global, argued that the profession needs a better understanding of fire, and the ability to evaluate risk in the way that an insurer does. ‘It always strikes me,’ he said, ‘that everybody has different views of fire.’ To many people, a fire in which there is no loss of life or injury, and that is contained to a single building, is a success. This ignores disruption and loss of property. Add to this the fact that Dame Judith Hackitt’s report said that the Building Regulations are not fit for purpose, and that guidance derived from the regulations has been described as ‘ambiguous’, and it is not surprising, Roche said, that ‘a number of people are confused.’

It is important that we are clear what the risk is that we are worried about, he said. While the Building Safety Bill is a step in the right direction, we need more than this, Roche argued. ‘We have to understand how materials perform in fire, and the systems we place in buildings. What will it mean for a firefighter to come into a building to tackle a fire? Have we put the right systems in place?’ In short, he said, ‘I’m used to a world of risk management processes. Architects will also have to do this.’

Fire safety at planning stage on Beaconsfield Cottages, London, designed by Stolon Studio

Jessica Barker, director of Stolon Studio, was also concerned about an aspect of fire in addition to danger to life. This is the fear that fire can cause. Even with the introduction of Gateway One in July, there is, she said, no consideration of fire safety in the planning process for low-rise buildings – and these are the buildings where most fires happen.

Having witnessed a fire in a low-rise conversion of a Victorian building that had no working fire protection and inadequate means of escape, Barker launched a campaign to ask government to make fire safety a material consideration at planning. This did not receive the requisite 10,000 signatures but, probably as a result, there is now a policy in the draft London plan. More is needed, Barker argued. ‘I really support the initiative of the golden thread, the steps needed to keep buildings and people safe. I’d like to see it as part of a net to promote safe considered design which starts at the earliest point for all buildings.’

What was really encouraging about this webinar was that it was not only informative about the challenges ahead, but that dealing with fire was also seen as a way to improve the design and management of buildings overall – with architects best placed to drive this change.