40
PAPs must register existing buildings with the Building Safety Regulator – between April and October 2023 – as well as all new buildings before occupation. They will also have to prepare a ‘safety case report’ which will demonstrate using “detailed, accurate information” that they have assessed all building safety risks and “taken all reasonable steps to control them.” After inspecting this, the BSR will then direct them to apply for a certificate to show the building has been assessed.
“Do you think the Golden Thread of data will ‘preserve the original design intent’ as intended?”
have a direct regulatory role on buildings over 18 metres, or seven or more storeys. In ensuring the implementation of the new framework on high-rise buildings, it will also “help and encourage the built environment industry and building control professionals to improve competence. The BSR will “be the building control authority for high- rise buildings,” introducing “decision points during design and construction” to maintain rigour. It will assign Dutyholders “clear accountability and statutory responsibilities as buildings are designed, built, refurbished and occupied.” They will be required to report “prescribed fire and structural safety occurrences” to the new regulator, and a register will be maintained of “occupied high-rise buildings, building inspectors and building control approvers.” The introduction of such seemingly obvious measures speaks to just how free-for-all certain aspects of the system were previously.
Taking account The new Act establishes the Dutyholder role – (an extension of the CDM regulations). Within the Act these are also termed ‘Accountable Persons’ (APs), which could either be an organisation or person who “owns or has responsibility for the building.” It may also be an organisation or person who is responsible for maintaining common areas. The Government thinks it will “usually be an organisation or business.” The APs will have a duty to take “all reasonable steps” to “prevent building safety risk,” which is defined as “spread of fire and/or structural failure” in the Act. Seemingly introducing a new layer of complexity, if there is more than one AP, the one responsible for the structure and exterior of the building will be the ‘Principal Accountable Person (PAP),’ with overall responsibility for design safety on a construction project.
Information & the Golden Thread Will the Golden Thread be the ‘silver bullet’ it’s being hailed as, for maintaining information throughout a project, in order to prevent lapses in rigour and quality? Architects believe it has the potential to be a powerful tool, as long as they, in the Principal Designer role, are given full ownership of the data throughout, without handovers and revisions. However, the complexity of supply chains, and resulting product assemblies, begs the question as to whether one person should be expected to take full responsibility for the decisions of others. Some believe that a more collaborative approach is the only way to achieve real accountability.
Assessing the Problem: Survey Findings The majority of the professionals we surveyed were architects, making up 72% of the respondents. In addition, there were 22% who said they were either architectural technicians or technologists. The vast majority were involved in the housebuilding sector (76%), with commercial and workplace next at 32%, followed by mixed use (26%), heritage and conservation and healthcare at 19%, and industrial and self-build both at 15%.
The findings centred on the following areas: • Key challenges for accountability • The potential of the Building Safety Act to fix the safety issues in residential construction
• Whether the Golden Thread will ‘preserve the original design intent’ as intended
• Architects’ willingness to take up the Principal Designer role, and the ARB review of competencies
• The legal firepower of the National Regulator of Construction Products
• The likelihood of ‘specification switching’ still endangering robustness in value engineering
• System-based testing of construction buildups versus individual products
• Design compromises for architects in the new regime • Overhauling Building Regulations on fire safety (Part B)
Lack of accountability
Our survey found that 59% of respondents agreed with the statement ‘the lack of accountability on fire safety is the major issue preventing a robust safety regime in higher risk residential projects.’ Only 26% believed this wasn’t the case, and 15% said they were
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
