14 Round Table Review: Managing the Golden Thread of Information to Ensure Long-Term Safety
CONSENSUS AGAINST THE SILO MENTALITY Data expert Chris Lees said that the current silo mentality on building data had to change to avoid duplication, and this was a view shared by other delegates
“concerns around recording details about tenants under GDPR and privacy rules – almost all the high value data a social housing provider has is personal.” Premlal concluded: “I’m all for technology, but it can’t replace the human
touch,” and mentioned feedback from speaking to housing association Clarion; they are “going back to the Housing Offi cer model, because that is where the information is and the trust with customers.” T is could raise further recruitment challenges, with chair Matt Baird already pointing out the diffi culties of funding building safety consultants for smaller HAs.
SPONSOR QUESTION: K SYSTEMS Kevin Mangan, technical director from co-sponsor K Systems, asked the delegates whether, in the light of a well-reported “supply bottleneck” of projects queuing for Regulator approval, a “two-stage approval approach could be feasible to allow works to start?” Delegates rejected such an idea, however, citing negative consequences for design, and McSoley adding that “what’s being sent to the regulator isn’t everything.” T e Building Safety Alliance’s Anthony Taylor admitted that the Regulator
needed “signifi cantly more resources, both in personnel and the money to pay for personnel with adequate competence.” Chris Lees went further, saying it was “functionally inept, but I don’t want to see them using more resources to build a bigger shovel to keep digging the hole.” On product specifi cation in the realisation of the ‘single source of truth’ goal
which underpins the golden thread, Stephen Hamil said that with the advent of the 2024 Construction Products Regulation, “every product needs to have some sort of carrier code, which could be a QR code, it could be an RFID, which goes online and shows the key information in digital form.” He added: “You can’t argue with the principles behind the golden thread, but the devil is going to be in the details.” And, in terms of engaging residents on fi re evacuation protocols, Hony
Premlal said that landlord awareness was lacking: “How many know which residents are vulnerable? I know we’ve sent lots of letters to customers, but you need to get them to really understand the consequences, have that conversation with people.” She said this was also about getting other partners such as the fi re brigade involved, but that “transparency is fundamental – we need to tell customers if something is wrong.”
SPONSOR QUESTION: WINKHAUS Co-sponsor Winkhaus posed the question, as signifi cant numbers of fi re doors have been installed before the new regs, “will the number and location of non- compliant doorsets be made public?” Hywel Davies said the Accountable Person “must provide to each person residing in the building any defects to the fi re safety requirements; there’s anecdotal evidence that some councils are simply refusing to provide the information,” and suggested the Regulator should step in. He added: “I’m not aware we’ve made any signifi cant changes to the technical
requirements on fi re doors. We have made procedural changes, and made the requirements of fi re risk assessments more robust, and that has revealed that a hell of a lot of doors were installed incorrectly.” Davies cited examples of door fi re safety being compromised such as closers
being removed by maintenance teams based on resident requests. Anthony Taylor asserted: “Assessment of fi re doors should only be done by a competent fi re risk assessor, not the inspector, this should remove this mass change of fi re doors, which is costing an arm and two legs.” Chris Lees said some of the ineffi ciencies e.g. around “using a fi re door in a
new confi guration” could be addressed with standardisation. “We might have to have a custom burn test to fi gure out whether that certifi ed product will perform to that specifi cation in this wall system, for example.” He continued: “Why do we have to do that so much? If we move to more standardised designs, we wouldn’t need all of that nonsense, and we’d save tons of cost. It’s also safer; there’s less opportunity for misinformation, and less opportunity to forget.”
WHY DOESN’T COLLABORATION HAPPEN? Alex Lubbock nailed a key remaining issue in construction of “why doesn’t collaboration happen,” and pinpointed variances in application of the new laws across public and private sectors working against this collective approach. But where there is clear legal responsibility in particular, Anthony Taylor concluded that the overarching change for construction in social housing was that “it has to wake up to the idea that you’re accountable for your designs. We want to know what you’re doing, and why you’re doing it.”
For a longer version of the report on this Building Insights round table, please visit
www.insights.netmagmedia.co.uk
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
