Architect Richard Harrison (of the Association of Consultant Architects) reviews the scrutiny the industry has been under since Grenfell on accountability and decision- making on high rise projects, and whether architects’ roles could be strengthened

residential buildings. Remediation liability issues are ongoing, affected residents remain fearful in their homes and the buildings insurance industry and mortgage lenders have restricted the residential market. Part 2 of the Grenfell Inquiry into how the tower was covered in combustible materials during a refurbishment, breaching Building Regulations, commenced in January 2020. It was paused by the Covid-19 crisis, but re-started on 12 February 2021 and is ongoing.


In parallel with the Public Inquiry, Dame Judith Hackitt delivered her independent report ‘Building a Safer Future’ in May 2018. It contained 109 recommendations, 56 for government action and 53 for the industry to respond to. The Construction Industry Council galvanised around this, and hosted the responses for the industry. A key failing highlighted by Hackitt was the lack of adequate competence across the entire industry. In 2018, Hackitt was appointed to chair the Building Safety: Industry Safety Steering Group (ISSG). This reported, in July 2019, on necessary cultural changes to the industry covering competence, leadership, procurement and products. Its final report, ‘Setting the Bar,’ was published in October 2020. The MHCLG published the Draft Building Safety Bill in July 2020 and consultation on the proposed changes was completed in January 2021 and the Minister is now considering the next stage.

Architect or ‘Master Draughtsperson’? Was it not always the architect’s role to certify a completed project’s compliance with Building Regulations? Have we more


hree and a half years after the Grenfell fire, questions are still being asked about the safety of our larger

recently been re-designated as the ‘master draughtsperson’ and shunted off site while something else gets built?

Under the proposed Building Safety Bill, the building regulator may permit/require the proposed appointment of “prescribed persons,” including designers for building projects, as well as the principal designer. Local Authority Building Control will manage prescribed persons, under an amendment to the Building Regulations in the Draft Building Safety Bill Section 3, Clauses 38 and 39. Under Part 5, Clauses 111 and 112, powers to ensure that architects are competent will be delegated to the Architects Registration Board (by amendment to the Architects Act 1997). While initially intended for higher risk projects, this prescription could in time apply to all persons appointed under all building projects. Architects may in future be registering under a Competent Persons Scheme in the same way as electricians and heating engineers, and self-certifying. Is this an opportunity for architects to resume their role as the lead designer from inception to completion and beyond, either should they wish, or be required to do so?

Competence as principal designer Can a single person be competent as the principal designer to sign off a complex building? The short answer is yes, under Clauses 38 and 39, if the proposed legislation is passed.

A key dutyholder role of the principal designer is to certify that the completed project complies with Building Regulations, and to do so the principal designer has an implied responsibility to ensure that all aspects (building design, structure, fabric and services) comply.

It has been argued that no designer can have all the skills necessary to certify

It has been argued that no designer can have all the skills necessary to certify an entire design... and this discounts an individual for the role

an entire design unless they are a multi-disciplinary practice, and therefore this discounts an individual for the role. I suspect this is not what is intended by the proposed legislation. The dutyholder roles are intended to be ‘high level’ and ‘managerial’ – ensuring the frameworks have been complied with, not to absolve other designers from their individual roles, duties and responsibilities. The dutyholder may have a responsibility to ensure that those working on the design teams are competent to do so but not necessarily for their output.

Remember that the principal contractor would certify that the completed building project complies with and has been built in accordance with the design. This role is also intended to be ‘high level’ and ‘managerial’ – ensuring their frameworks have been complied with, not to relieve other contractors from being competent to fulfil their respective contracts and speciliast certification.

Higher risk projects

A higher risk project is likely to be a significant project. It is highly unlikely that this will result in the appointment of a sole practitioner, simply because of the quantity of work necessary to fulfil the project design.

ADF MAY 2021

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84