THE CHANGING FACE OF CONSTRUCTION PRODUCT CERTIFICATION ROUND TABLE REVIEW 25
between regulatory bodies, and clarifi ed accountability across the industry. The event was sponsored by two manufacturers keen to position themselves as thought leaders on this issue – passive fi re protection specialist supplier Siderise, and waterproofi ng, roofi ng and insulation manufacturer Soprema, both of whom gave useful perspectives during the discussion.
Getting a grip on safety Despite the potential benefi ts of a more robust process for vetting product certifi cation, concerns were expressed (by Wates’ Nev Grunwald) that the sector “hadn’t got a grip on the Building Safety Act,” and that many in the industry thought it didn’t apply to them. The credibility of the Building Safety Regulator was also questioned (on its staff’s knowledge levels, a lack of direction on Principal Designers’ remit, and a lack of predictability on how it was currently vetting projects). Some delegates expressed concerns that the BSR had already approved schemes which were “not compliant.” Other key issues raised included ‘grey areas’ in contracts around products’ fi tness for purpose, and the need to test ‘systems’ of products as assemblies, rather than just individual products; an increased requirement post-Building Safety Act. The round table also heard that architects and housebuilders need to grow their understanding of product testing, and there was support for the increasingly popular Code for Construction Products Information, for assessing product information in the industry across a range of criteria.
The event also saw comment on the industry research undertaken among architects by ADF in 2024, which revealed a range of views on the subject, and helped to drive a focus on specifi ers’ issues at the round table. While nearly half of architects surveyed said they had problems obtaining performance certifi cation info on products, a slightly lower fi gure (32%) said they had diffi culties with getting purely safety-related info. However, an overwhelming majority (84%) said that third party certifi cation on safety and performance was an essential requirement for them.
Potential for a culture change
The round table chair James Parker asked whether we are beginning to see the “culture change” that Hackitt called for happening in
the industry, as the national regulator beds in with its mission to “actively enforce construction products requirements.” Amanda Long, CEO of CCPI Ltd said that “in terms of the industry change curve, it’s very early days.” Nev Grunwald of Wates commented that “trying to get the industry to engage” in terms of general housebuilders on the building safety agenda and product certifi cation “is probably further away than we would like.” The round table, which included former Government Construction Adviser Paul Morrell himself, also looked at issues raised in his report, such as the potential for culture change in the industry. Architect Mark Taylor of Allies and Morrison agreed with Morrell there was a disconnect between architects and product testing, saying, “The world of testing and the world of specifying and designing is two ends of a very long road.” He added: “Architects need to understand more about the context of the products they’re specifying,” but this was a challenge for smaller practices and time-pressured architects.
Morrell cast doubt on the possibility of the Government being able to change the culture of an industry as “diverse and fragmented” as construction is. He agreed with the chair’s assertion that the driver which was likely to change behaviour fundamentally would be when an individual or fi rm is prosecuted, such as by the OPSS.
Representing SME builders as well as architects at hybrid design and build fi rm Pencil + Brick, was Sean McAlister, an architect who also sits on the London board of the Federation of Master Builders. He said the realisation that “all builders are going to be held responsible for specifi cations that the architects pass them, and that you can’t just rely on that for meeting safety requirements” had “really shaken the boots of everyone at the FMB.” McAlister said there were major challenges to achieving an unbroken ‘thread’ of information through projects, asserting that many smaller builders “don’t know how to keep a record, and have to swap out products all the time.” In addition he said that the information around the Building Safety Act “hasn’t been made for consumer consumption,” excluding homeowners, and that explaining new duties to clients was very diffi cult, given the complexity of the language. He asserted: “I’ve had to rewrite it in order to communicate it.”
IN SEARCH OF CLARITY The round table brought together some of the leading voices pushing for greater clarity in information on construction products
ADF APRIL 2025
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
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
