4


NEWS


Managing Editor James Parker


Publisher Anthony Parker


Account Director Midge Myatt


Senior Account Manager Steve Smith


Digital Marketing & PR Account Manager Suzanne Easter


Operations Director Shelley Collyer


Editorial Contributor Ruth Slavid


Events Coordinator Amy Madigan


Studio Manager Mikey Pooley


Production Assistant Georgia Musson


Digital Production Coordinator Kimberley Musson


Feature Coordinator & Publisher’s Assistant Kim Neville


Finance Director Simon Reed


Advertising & Administration 01435 863500


info@netmagmedia.co.uk Press Releases


editorial@netmagmedia.co.uk Registration &


Circulation Enquiries info@netmagmedia.co.uk


FROM THE EDITOR


W


hat is being seen as a landmark case in the long wake of the Building Safety Act has seen the then Barratt Developments (now Barratt Redrow) win out, establishing a precedent that developers won’t have to pick up the bill for remedying buildings. In particular, this case shows that developers can pass on this cost to subcontractors even if the work was historical, and they commissioned the work voluntarily.


Barratt subsidiary BDW Trading (including David Wilson Homes) won in the Supreme Court recently against structural engineer URS Corp (part of Aecom). In 2019 Barratt underwent a review of its high-rise buildings and structures in London, Leicester and Croydon were found to have serious issues. However, the real issue for the industry going forward is that a seven-member judging panel found that URS was accountable for the cost of remedying these defective designs – despite these occurring before the newly tightened provisions of the BSA.


When the Government, shocked by the Grenfell tragedy, asked developers to inspect and remedy defects on their high-rise buildings, Barratts proactively engaged in this process across a range of sites. They claimed the cost of the repairs under the Defective Premises Act 1972, whereas the structural engineers’ case rested on the somewhat confusing basis that Barratts was liable as it was not under any legal obligation to remedy the defects. The judges threw it out, starkly clarifying the Building Safety Act’s 30 year limitation on liability. Expect a fl ood of cases from developers pursuing alleged negligent designers and subcontractors for historic building safety failings.


An Employee Owned Company


Cointronic House Station Road, Heathfi eld East Sussex, TN21 8DF


At the same time as bolstering developers’ confi dence that they will not foot the bill for remedial works, momentum is building for central Government to bolster its support of domestic retrofi t. The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee however recently issued a major report on the current retrofi t programme, which criticised “stop-start measures and short funding cycles,” which have “undermined confi dence of consumers, installers, and the wider supply chain.” It also attacked the Government for not having clarifi ed “how it will support retrofi t beyond 2026, when key schemes are due to expire.”


The Committee’s long list of recommendations include a simpler set of schemes suitable for less affl uent homeowners, and more consumer education. One also echoed the Federation of Master Builders’ long-term call for licensing of retrofi t contractors. Which of these will the Government even look seriously at?


Annual subscription costs just £48 for 12 issues, including post and packing. Phone 01435 863500 for details. Individual copies of the publication are available at £5 each inc p & p. All rights reserved


No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, including photocopying, recording or stored in any information retrieval system without the express prior written consent of the publisher. Although every effort is made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of material published in Architects Datafi le, the publisher can accept no responsibility for the claims or opinions made by contributors, manufacturers or advertisers. Editorial contributors to this journal may have made a payment towards the reproduction costs of material used to illustrate their products. The manufacturer of the paper used within our publication is a Chain-of-Custody certifi ed supplier operating within environmental systems certifi ed to both ISO 14001 and EMAS in order to ensure sustainable production. Printed in England


This magazine may be recycled


There is confi dence being shown by a couple of major players on the supply side, that not only the Future Homes Standard will eventually see the light of day, but also that the retrofi t agenda is going to support a major upsurge in demand for insulation. Saint Gobain and Knauf recently announced they are to open UK factories making mineral wool, in Melton Mowbray and Shotton respectively, as the two giants pursue Scope 3.


James Parker, Editor


Looking to update or cancel your ADF registration? Scan the QR code to visit our registration page. From here you can also register for our Digital


Issues and Newsletters. Alternatively, please visit architectsdatafi le.co.uk/subscribe


YY BUILDING, CANARY WHARF BREEAM Outstanding refurb by Buckley Gray Yeoman reuses an early Docklands building for bio-enhanced workspace


ADF_06_2025 Covers.indd 1 05/06/2025 09:50 06.25 ON THE COVER...


The YY Building in Canary Wharf, a refurbishment of the former 30 South Colonnade into 415,000 ft2 biophilically-enhanced workspace.


Update your registration here:


Cover image © Tim Soar For the full report on this project, go to page 16


of


WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK


ADF JUNE 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  |  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