36
“What are the key problems within accountability at present in the ‘higher risk’ residential sector?”
Association of Consultant Architects, who provided extended comment on the survey questions. He is a founding director of Volume 3 Architects, and joint founder of Dal Riva Construction Management.
The findings of our survey threw up revealing insights on not only a degree of consensus over the problems, but also some lack of consensus when it came to the potential of proposed solutions to address the accountability issues in particular. The major takeaway was that nearly two-thirds (59%) of respondents believed that ‘the lack of accountability on fire safety’ was ‘the major issue preventing a robust safety regime in higher risk residential projects.’ Under a third believed this wasn’t the case, showing that for our sample at least, the problems around clarity of responsibility, and resulting robustness in procurement, was clearly the biggest nut to crack, post-Grenfell.
Persistent concerns
Key among the concerns of respondents in terms of the causes of accountability issues, were the ‘value engineering’ (cost saving) undertaken by contractors during projects, a lack of protection of architects’ original design specification, and a parallel ‘lack of clarity of individual responsibility’ in project roles. Design and build contracts were cited as a further cause of obfuscation of responsibility, as was the ‘lack of a robust decision-making process,’ and the fragmented nature of construction supply chains. Architects were split on whether the Building Safety Act would fix most of the issues however, with only 10% separating the majority (who thought it would), from those in the other camp. Respondents also gave a muted response to the changes within the Act in terms of their individual potential to improve things, with only credibility of materials testing receiving a decent amount of
support. Despite the laudable intentions, only a tiny amount of respondents thought the Golden Thread had strong potential to protect the original design intent. More worryingly, given the need – and potential – for architects to take a greater role in protecting specifications on safety grounds, most respondents (69%) said that they would not be keen to take up such a role, ‘given the level of scrutiny and responsibility for safety.’ Finally, despite the changes brought by the post-Grenfell regime embodied in the Act, over half of respondents thought that contractors would still be able to switch product specifications, sabotaging the robustness the new legislation is designed to deliver. Most of our architects surveyed also believed that until there was a ‘full overhaul’ of Part B of the Building Regulations to resolve its ambiguities – beyond simply restricting the use of certain materials – the desired safer future would not be achieved.
Introduction
In her 2020 report on the construction industry issues revealed by the Grenfell tragedy, Dame Judith Hackitt made a couple of scathing assessments of the parlous state that a fragmented sector had got into over the years. In her damning report, a “broken” industry was characterised by a combination of confused roles and responsibilities, a degree of indifference, and ambiguous Building Regulations which effectively created loopholes for inadequate rigour in the system. Hackitt highlighted a “race to the bottom” in terms of the building procurement culture in this area, and that as a result, that culture needed a complete overhaul to avoid the likelihood of another Grenfell. The proposed introduction of a ‘Golden Thread’ of building information data, maintained and protected through
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
ADF SEPTEMBER 2022
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 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
