What is being done to improve fire safety post Grenfell, and what does the new legislation mean for architects, project teams and manufacturers? These questions and more were addressed by a panel of experts at a round table discussion in London hosted by Architecture Today in partnership with SIG Design & Technology. Report by John Ramshaw.

Round table participants

The Building Safety Act 2022 establishes important new rules and duties for the management of fire and building safety. It is one of several pieces of recent legislation, including the Fire Safety Act 2021, aimed at reforming safety standards in the wake of the Grenfell Tower disaster. The much needed and widespread changes brought about by the new laws are redefining key roles and responsibilities within the industry, as well as how buildings are designed, constructed and managed. So what does this mean for architects, project teams and manufacturers? What can these parties do to ensure that they stay ahead of the game and deliver best practice? And what is coming further down the line in terms of the ongoing evolution of fire safety?

Selected for their diverse experience and perspectives, the round table participants comprised representatives from architectural practice, engineers, fire consultants, legal experts, suppliers, a qualification body, and both public and private clients. The discussion was held under the Chatham House Rule.

Adam Eaton, Darya Bahram and Huw Wilkins (ph: Robin Bell)

The end of Design & Build
Central to the Building Safety Act in respect of ‘higher risk buildings’ (HRBs) are Gateways, which are designed to demonstrate safety compliance at critical points during design and construction. Gateway Two requires full Building Control approval before work can commence on site with a 12-week determination period from submission to the Building Safety Regulator (BSR). Gateway Three stipulates that a building cannot be occupied before it receives a completion certificate, with an eight-week determination period from certificate application to the BSR. Given these significant extensions to the building programme, the chairperson asked the panel whether they thought Gateways could present difficulties for Design & Build procurement.

Several panellists responded in the affirmative, with one suggesting that the new legislation presented a huge opportunity for the design industry to ‘retake control’ of the procurement process, and another advocating the return of ‘master builder’ status for architects with full control over the specification process. These opinions were tempered by another participant who felt that the complexity of many construction projects, had led architects to correctly rely on the expertise of specialist subcontractors and other experts, and as such, there was a need for project teams to engage earlier and work more collaboratively with extended building programmes to ensure both quality and compliance.

Ron Hedger, Dan Brown and Joanne Drew (ph: Robin Bell)

Another panellist expressed the opinion that client preference for, and satisfaction with, D&B contracts would ultimately lead them to adapt this procurement method and its time frames to accommodate the new Gateways. This led several speakers to suggest that Design & Build could become Design then Build, with longer programme times but with the same ‘single point of responsibility’ that many clients value. One participant felt that this approach could potentially eliminate grey areas of fire safety design, implementation and record keeping by making it easier to carry out checks and measures through both the design and construction processes.

Benjamin Ralph and John Gray (ph: Agnese Sanvito)

Measuring quality
A topic that arose from the discussion on Gateways was that the quality of Building Control applications would likely affect their speed of determination. It was felt this could provide another opportunity for architects to wrest back control of the design process by assuming the role of lead consultant. However, there were concerns about whether the Government had put in place the necessary resources to manage this part of the legislation, and whether this might result in delays with regards to getting on site.

One participant questioned what constituted a ‘good quality’ submission, and stated that guidance was needed to ensure that the right information was submitted rather than all the available material, which could further hamper the approval process. Another panellist questioned whether there would be sufficient numbers of Building Safety Regulators (BSRs) available to cope with demand, and whether they would be of adequate competency and experience given their relatively low paid grade. In one speaker’s experience, some of the regulators that they had already dealt with “fundamentally did not understand fire safety design.”

Luke Tozer (ph: Agnese Sanvito)

Redefining competency
The issue of competency aroused strong opinion, with one participant expressing the view that the Grenfell Tower disaster was due in large part to design rather than management errors, which in turn revealed widespread de-skilling across the construction industry and a ‘race to the bottom’ in terms of procuring projects quickly and cheaply. The speaker said that the Building Safety Act was designed to ‘put the brakes on’ in terms of safety checks and balances during procurement, and advocated, “finding opportunities in the design process for greater co-ordination between consultants, suppliers and subcontractors.”

Another point made on this subject, was that architects and other professionals needed to know where their competency ended in relation to fire safety design. “They cannot be expected to be knowledgeable in every area, and so must defer to other experts when necessary,” said one speaker. “If you can’t defend your design against an industry expert in a specific area then you are outside your competency. It is not a sign of weakness to admit that you need expert advice.” The RIBA is introducing a course aimed at accrediting competency in relation to the Building Safety Act. “The format, comprising a multiple-choice test, submission of evidence, and interview – described as a ‘mini’ Part Three – suggests that it will be fairly rigorous,” commented one speaker.

Andrea White and Ron Hedger (ph: Agnese Sanvito)

Another panellist spoke about the ‘competency divide,’ or the perceived failure of the Building Safety Act to engage with installers and estimators at one end of the supply chain, compared to consultants and building professionals at the other. They said that this was creating some negativity in terms of the former’s perceived ability to solve on site problems and show evidence of professional skills and behaviours, as well as deal with the time pressures resulting from condensed handover periods. The participant went on to define competence as two distinct areas: product competence, and individual competence. They recommended a comprehension test (as part of an accredited training course) for the former in order to demonstrate learning. This was particularly important, they said, in terms of specifying, installing and estimating fire-safety products. Another speaker pointed out that qualifications alone did not ensure individual competence and that in-depth and relevant experience were also critical.

Discussions around public sector client competence, which can encompass everything from building design to management delivery, highlighted a labour shortage of competent professionals. This was leading some public sector clients to adopt a ‘grow your own’ strategy, which, although effective, was described as a ‘slow burn’ process. For some private sector clients the emphasis is on working with accredited companies/organisations and checking work on site using trained specialists, such as fire co-ordinators. The aim is to take ownership of fire competency rather than rely on third parties, such as the HSE, to do this on their behalf.

Joanne Drew, Ross Finnie and Adam Eaton (ph: Agnese Sanvito)

Installation issues
The competency of contractors and installers was also discussed, with the chairperson asking how specifiers could ensure that their buildings would be constructed in accordance with the design drawings and specification. Employing a Clerk of Works was suggested by one participant, but the lack of provision for this role within the Building Safety Act meant that for others poor workmanship could remain ‘buried’ beneath successive layers of construction build-up, and not revealed as part of a final inspection.

Installer self-inspection coupled with photographic evidence was one suggested solution, but this raised doubts in another speaker who called into question ‘competent’ subcontractors “who think they are doing the work correctly because that’s the way they’ve  always done it, but in reality they have been doing it wrong for the last 40 years.” The unregulated subcontracting of works from an ‘approved’ installer to an unknown outfit for reasons of expediency was also identified as an inherent weakness in the current system.

Lucy Homer (ph: Robin Bell)

Another speaker adopted a more optimistic attitude, suggesting that most contractors and installers strove to do a good job, but were often penalised in terms of risk and cost by the procurement process. They suggested that partnering agreements centred around shared risks and rewards would provide better outcomes for all in terms of quality and safety. Working exclusively with Tier 1 and 2 contractors, who can demonstrate their supply chain and its third party accreditations was recommended as a way of safeguarding onsite competency by one panellist. They considered training, qualifications and experience to be the founding principles of competency, and said, “We shouldn’t be in a position where anybody in the [building] process is incompetent, whether, for example, they are designing a cavity barrier, installing it or checking/approving it.”

Andrew Nicholson and Nigel Ostime (ph: Robin Bell) 

PI insurance and the Building Safety Act  
The discussion on competency led inevitably to the subject of professional indemnity insurance, with one participant saying that there is not as yet sufficient clarity on what competency means in relation to the new legislation. As such, architects, insurers and clients are likely be left in limbo on this issue until it is properly defined. Other panellists spoke of dramatic increases in the cost of their company’s PI cover post-Grenfell, with one outfit experiencing a price increase of 1500 per cent despite having no claims.

Joanne Drew (ph: Robin Bell)

The Golden Thread
On the subject of the Golden Thread of Information, one speaker made the point this was “an incredible opportunity to document the building and educate its users, maintenance staff, and those who come in the event of a fire.” They said that the mentality of building users was changing as they became more resourceful in the digital age – making the analogy that householders often go online to fix common issues, such as blocked dishwashers or washing machines, prior to calling an expert. This change of behaviour showed the need for exhaustive, high-quality digital building resources. There was also a brief discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of digital versus hard copy Golden Thread information, with panellists split between the two approaches.

Another participant highlighted the necessity of updating the Golden Thread of Information throughout the building’s life to take account of changes to its fabric and services/servicing. “You wouldn’t buy a £150,000 Porsche and not maintain it properly,” they said, “so why would you not maintain fire strategies or check fire alarms on a building that costs considerably more.”

Ian Dryden (ph: Robin Bell)

The two staircase debate
On the subject of trigger-heights for twin staircase fire strategies, many of the participants felt that there was a lack of guidance and joined-up thinking from the government, and that this was resulting in a high-degree of uncertainty for clients and specifiers, as well as a ‘spooked and jittery’ housing market. One speaker went on to say that there was “no scientific or engineering justification that demonstrated two staircases [in a building] provided any more safety than a single staircase.” The participant also felt that the government had lost trust in the construction industry (despite high-levels of competency by many of its members), leading to knee-jerk reactions over key issues, such as trigger heights, and that the Building Safety Act was in part a political statement.

One speaker cautioned against conflating the Building Safety Act with potential changes to the requirements/recommendations for two staircases, which are not yet regulatory. They described the former as “good design practice and risk management made law.” Another participant agreed, calling for architects “to be rigorous, produce compliant designs, demonstrate that any changes remain compliant, and that the project has been built as intended upon completion.” They went on to draw a parallel between the introduction of the CDM regulations and the Building Safety Act, with­ both laws appearing daunting to some architects initially, but in effect being based on what many practitioners would describe as good practice. “If it [the Building Safety Act] is going to encourage good behaviours, then that’s fantastic news and we shouldn’t be too afraid of it,” they said.

Nigel Ostime (ph: Robin Bell)

Closing statements
Drawing the discussion to a close, the chairperson asked the participants to sum up what they had taken away from the discussion. Despite some of the concerns raised during the debate, the overwhelming response was positive, with many seeing the Building Safety Act as a catalyst for improved practice, shared knowledge, and an opportunity ‘take ownership’ of fire safety. One speaker viewed the Act as a chance to reset and look forward, with the legislation underlining what professionals and others should already be doing in terms of fire safety design and implementation.

A more pessimistic view taken by one of the participants was that fire design for high-rise residential buildings would become highly prescriptive, negatively impacting D&B procurement, design creativity and flexibility, as well as resulting in uniform box-like buildings with two staircases. Another participant felt that the new legislation would bring about a welcome cultural change in terms of ‘doing the right thing’, but issues of competency, together with what they saw as an erosion of the industry’s knowledge base, were highly concerning. A further panellist thought ongoing CPD, training, and testing would be critical to the future success of the legislation. “It is only when we test ourselves that we discover how competent we are,” they said.

The SIG Design & Technology team can be contacted on 01509 505 714 or by email at info@singleply.co.uk

Participants’ responses