The building safety regime is under sustained scrutiny for holding up crucial projects and stunting economic growth, but it is here to stay, so the industry must adapt – and so must its clients, argues BESA’s director of specialist knowledge Rachel Davidson.
Warnings from industry leaders about the negative impact of the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) on project timetables and construction finances are not scaremongering. Everyone across the sector is feeling the effects of sluggish growth, rising costs and skills shortages – and delays in the approval process is one of the biggest blockers to progress.
Construction Leadership Council (CLC) co-chair Mark Reynolds recently warned the MP members of the Housing Committee that long delays in gaining sign-off for fire safety design was directly responsible for a wave of job losses across the industry. He said some higher risk building approvals were taking up to 48 weeks at planning Gateway Two – four times the period specified in the Building Regulations.
Additional costs to clients are running into millions of pounds and many projects are becoming unviable and, therefore, likely to be cancelled. A shortage of skilled people able to assess and sign off applications is at the root of the problem, but so is the industry’s failure to provide the necessary fully planned detail.
Confused
Reynolds said he had some sympathy for the BSR because of multiple teething problems setting up the new system, but said the industry was increasingly confused about what it was being asked to do and called for better guidance and communication.
Reynolds was not complaining to the government committee so much as making sure they understood what is happening on the ground. This is a reality check, but it is not the politicians who will deliver safer buildings. Few of them understand how the construction process works, but by accepting all the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower public inquiry and its share of the blame for past failings, the government can claim it is doing its bit with policy changes to follow and further consultations in the autumn.
BESA and its members are also trying to make sense of all this and ensure we meet our responsibilities, but one thing we can be sure of: The regime is here to stay so we need to make it work and the key will be getting our clients to recognise their crucial role.
There are lots of challenges in the process, but the fundamental weakness BESA members see is the failure of clients to engage with the new safety culture. Many simply see the mounting costs and delivery obstacles – and look for ways to evade them rather than working with us to ensure a better outcome for all.
That is why BESA will soon be launching a ‘Compliant Client’ campaign designed to educate, not intimidate, and point out why it is important that clients get behind this and why it is in their best interests.
Good investment
Clients – be they developers, major contractors, housing associations, landlords, commercial or residential tenants etc. – do not want poor quality, unsafe buildings. There is no financial or social rationale that makes a bad building a good investment.
So, getting this right is the best way to get the best return on your investment (ROI). Yet, many clients start value engineering designs as soon as they see them – long before anyone puts a shovel in the ground. Why?
If a good quality, safe building is predicted (at concept design) to cost, say, £10m to build, why should a client expect to get the same building for £9m? They won’t. The result will be a different building – a worse one.
Obviously, there is a trust element here – and the industry has lost the trust of many of its clients, but surely the solution is not to immediately start arguing about the price but, rather, focus on getting the design right.
And – shock horror – that is exactly what the legislation and the BSR is asking for. Proper, detailed and fully developed design at each planning gateway. Surely, that is what we should be striving for anyway, with or without legislation?
Approvals
Yes, the Regulator needs to up its game and put the multi-disciplinary teams in place to speed up approvals, as Reynolds points out, but so does the industry because the current delays at Gateway Two will only be reproduced at Gateway Three leading to more hold ups at the building occupation stage if we don’t focus on getting the design details right from the start.
However, quality does not come cheap. The process will not improve if the current payment model continues. People need to be paid fairly and promptly to put in the time and recruit the necessary expertise. VE is not the solution. If you start off from a position where you are immediately price gouging, you perpetuate the corner cutting culture that got us into this mess in the first place.
You will also cost yourself a lot more money further down the line, including avoidable remediation work and ongoing under-performance of building systems. The investment up front pays off in the long term…and you will be a compliant client on the right side of the law and the moral argument.
Because let’s not forget why we are here. Grenfell shone a light on why proper design work and accountability matter. So, clients, we are where we are but without you, we will not get to where we need to be.
For a clearer understanding of roles and responsibilities under the Building Safety Act visit BESA’s Play it Safe guidance here.
