INDUSTRY VIEWFINDER 21
Which aspects of the post-Grenfell safety regime do you think requires the highest focus? Low priority Slight priority Moderate priority High priority Very high priority
response, which was consequently chosen by 29%, the same fi gure choosing ‘yes’. With responses split almost exactly down the middle previously, and a reasonable percentage opting for unsure this year, it’s once again diffi cult to really decipher where architects stand based on our sample. This could be down to the many challenges facing designers of tall buildings outweighing the more obvious benefi ts they provide in densely populated urban areas.
Building Safety
Arguably more important than ever, safety has been a huge talking point for everyone in the industry following the Grenfell tragedy and subsequent Hackitt review and Building Safety Act. With multiple aspects to the safety regime, we asked which requires the highest focus. Respondents were asked to rank each aspect as one of fi ve options ranging from low priority to very high priority. The highest ranking option, selected as either very high or high priority by 88% combined in 2021 and 71% combined in 2025 was ‘fundamental changes to clarify Building Regulations.’ The fact this fi gure hasn’t dropped much since the introduction of the Building Safety Act is somewhat alarming, as regulations in regards to safety should be clearer – but it would seem many architects would not agree.
Also ranked high or very high priority by a combined 71% of our cohort was ‘direct accountability for construction and occupation,’ versus 81% in 2021, and a combined 72% said ‘ensuring there’s a golden thread to preserve design throughout procurement, or formally review it,’ compared with 71% in 2021. The introduction of the golden thread is presumably therefore welcomed by architects, and a positive indication that it will be adhered to and carried out. This also links with the need for direct accountability, with the golden thread making it clear who exactly is accountable and responsible for things at every stage of a building’s life, among other improvements.
In our 2021 study, ‘making sure the Competent Persons Scheme (CPS) isn’t going to be used to allow upgrades to bypass planning’ was ranked as high or very high priority by 76%, but recently that number dropped to 57% – the biggest drop among all the choices. With the CPS now applying to architects as well as contractors and installers, the fact less respondents view this as a high priority is hopefully an indication that the scheme is not being used to bypass planning, but has, as intended, helped to ensure that only competent people are carrying out and signing off work in tall building projects – a responsibility of the Principal Designer.
Challenges & solutions Project delays With so much regulatory change in the last few years, we asked our cohort if they’ve faced any postponements or delays to tall building projects. Unfortunately, a total of 58% said they have – the majority (26%) saying a project has been simply ‘put on hold,’ followed by ‘faced a recall to planning’ (16%), ‘cancelled entirely’ (11%) and fi nally ‘postponed indefi nitely’ (5%). However, when asked why projects have faced delays, safety was only the third most selected choice, by 27% of respondents. Ranking higher were fi nancial issues (63%), and client design issues (46%). Therefore, according to our results, general economic uncertainty and instability have had a much greater negative impact than the Building Safety Act on tall buildings in the past three years.
Building Safety Act The Building Safety Act has had a huge impact on projects and the architects designing them. But do they see it as a positive change overall? 43% of our respondents said they believe the Act has ‘produced a more favourable environment for procuring buildings over 18 metres.’ However, 24% said they don’t believe it has, and a further 33% were once again ‘unsure.’
ADF NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 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 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
