MODULAR BUILDINGS
Left: DRLC staff member Christian testing air flows for compliance.
modular frame not being in the correct order with the risk of mixing hot and cold water and, if not corrected, could lead to risks of such things as Legionella growing in the tepid water. Yes, this can be resolved, but at what cost not only to the NHS also impacts on the programme and requires additional labour and if the modular parts that are not correct are sent back the programme plan and the final cost.” I asked Edward if he had any confidence in things
getting better in the future: “Sadly, due to the constant saving and value engineering or investor pressure, the process and manufacture either in the building element or mechanical and electrical off-site manufacture rarely fits the on-site requirements. You could argue this is not so critical on a house build, though still expensive to correct not only financially but also on the program. On a multi- storey building, such as a hospital wing, as the structure is built independently of the offsite modular sections if the tolerances have not been met from both parties it could have serious implications for the compliance of the building.”
How could the system of compliance checking be improved? The role of modular buildings within the wider construction industry is well established and not in dispute. Their advantages over traditional methods of construction are numerous and widely recognised. Modular techniques allow for faster delivery times, reduced waste, improved quality control through factory production, and significant reductions in carbon emissions. In addition, because the process is replicable, once a design has been proven it can be rolled out across multiple sites with a high degree of efficiency. This combination of environmental, economic, and practical benefits means that modular buildings are increasingly being viewed as an essential part of the future of construction, particularly in sectors such as healthcare where demand for new facilities is both high and urgent. However, the author suggests that the adoption of such
a new and innovative method of constructing buildings necessitates a parallel rethink of how compliance checks are conducted. Traditional compliance processes were developed with conventional, on-site construction in mind, where inspectors can observe the building as it is progressively assembled and intervene if necessary. Modular construction, by contrast, transfers much of the activity away from the site and into the factory, where key systems and components are completed before delivery. This shift requires a reconsideration of when and how compliance inspections should take place to ensure that the same standards of safety, functionality, and regulatory adherence are being met.
Verification at the factory stage At present, compliance inspections typically begin once the modules arrive at site, when they are already assembled or near completion. This timing creates a significant challenge: by the time issues are identified, it may be too late to resolve them without major disruption or prohibitive cost. The author therefore argues that amendments to the current inspection regime are essential. A crucial improvement would be the addition of a preliminary stage focused specifically on the factory environment. In this approach, inspectors would visit the manufacturing facility while the modular components are being designed, assembled, and fitted out. Such early-stage inspections would provide an opportunity to confirm that the systems and materials being used are appropriate for the intended context – in this case, a healthcare environment. By verifying compliance at the factory stage, inspectors can ensure that modules are being built to meet the strict standards required, such as those relating to ventilation, fire safety, and infection control. This proactive approach would not only reduce the likelihood of non-compliant buildings being delivered to site, but also provide greater assurance to clients and regulators that modular construction is capable of meeting the highest levels of performance demanded in critical sectors.
Above: DRLC MD David Livingstone checking compliance of plant.
Dr Louise Webb
Dr Louise Webb is a director at DRLC Ltd, where she serves as an Authorising Engineer for Ventilation and leads the Fire Safety Team. DRLC provides Authorising Engineers to NHS and private healthcare providers. She recently earned a Master’s in Building Services Engineering, with her dissertation Net Zero and the NHS highlighting that director-level engagement is critical for effective carbon reduction initiatives.
March 2026 Health Estate Journal 55
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
