12 Round Table Review: Managing the Golden Thread of Information to Ensure Long-Term Safety
UNRAVELLING THE GOLDEN THREAD Our expert group looked at how using the golden thread on Higher Risk Building projects heralds a new era of transparency which helps social housing managers
“Recognise that safety, sustainability and maintenance all have much more in
common than they are diff erent” Chris Lees, Data Clan
THE BUILDING SAFETY CHALLENGE With a raſt of challenges on their plate, not least price infl ation aligned to increasing cost constraints, managing the golden thread, even if they aren’t the Accountable Person, is more work for social landlords. T ey may be asked to embrace digital checklists, automated alerts for maintenance intervals, and new formal review processes, as well to collaborate with contractors and facilities management teams. Our expert round table discovered a host of reasons why they should engage
with the process, not least to ensure that the data is in the most usable form. We heard a variety of insights from the sector on how this is evolving, but also views on the many remaining obstacles, many of which were organisational. We also heard how making the best of the golden thread means proactive engagement with residents, and a willingness to invest in the process, and expertise required.
THE GOLDEN THREAD IN PRACTICE T e meeting explored the nature of the golden thread, and how project teams need to encompass a wide range of data, including architectural and structural plans, fi re safety features, materials used, and ongoing inspection and maintenance records. T e information must not only be up-to-date, but also easily accessible – for example to residents as well as contractors and the Building Safety Regulator – and in an interoperable but secure format. Its overall goal is to off er the “single source of truth” advocated by Hackitt for a fully transparent history of the building. Event chair Matt Baird from Spring Housing asked whether, given the goals
of identifying risks and hazards, the golden thread will be a “possible panacea, or a persistent pain” for social housing providers. Data expert Chris Lees said safety needed to be viewed as part of a combination of factors and not be seen as separate from other areas of maintenance like tenant engagement, sustainability and reactive repairs. “I understand that it’s a really complicated legislative and regulatory environment, and people naturally try and simplify it.” He warned that currently, duplication meant ineffi ciency: “T e frustration
is that at least 80-90% of the information that all of those things need is exactly the same information. Social housing providers have a head of building safety in the team, a head of sustainability, then another team for planned maintenance and reactive repairs.” Currently, he asserted, “most social housing providers I’ve been working with have a veneer on top to try and make it look joined up to the tenant, and a little bit to the Regulator.” Stephen Hamil of NBS stressed some of the positives of the rigorous new
Gateway approval regime for HRBs, in particular the sign-off stage at Gateway 3. “It’s confi dence in the systems and the products, knowing what has gone in the building, and knowing that product A hasn’t been substituted for product B.” In terms of the ‘pain versus panacea’ question, Hamil said managing the
golden thread will be “a little bit of a pain, but it’s a necessary pain.” He clarifi ed: “Before the Building Safety Act, and when they looked at what went wrong with Grenfell, things weren’t getting verifi ed, things weren’t getting checked.” Hywel Davies, ex-CIBSE and now Chartered Association of Building
Engineers was candid on the housing and construction sectors’ failings, saying “Awaab Ishak’s death was as needless as the 72 deaths at Grenfell, and the fact that the Social Housing Regulator is moving on that with a vengeance is only to be welcomed.” He explained why the rigour and depth of the new data regime is essential, saying “the blunt truth is we know very little about our building stock.”
THE ROLE OF THE ACCOUNTABLE PERSON Our discussion confi rmed that exactly which body should take the key Accountable Person (or Principal Accountable Person) role is not immediately clear; it could be a building owner or landlord, but may be a separate property management company tasked with property maintenance. However, Hywel Davies said that who should take the role was “clearly
defi ned in the Building Safety Act, you can’t subcontract it.” He continued: “You can’t say the managing agent is responsible; they’re not, you can give them the work, but you take responsibility.” Davies said there have already been issues around Accountable Persons not
sharing information: “T ere is anecdotal evidence that some APs are simply refusing to provide the information, and perhaps one or two of them need to be challenged, and issued with some sort of enforcement notice by the HSE.”
GOING THROUGH CHANGES How change is managed within the golden thread in HRB construction and operation phases is fundamental to its success. In the past, this has oſt en been
Housing Management & Maintenance August/September 2025
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
