Weighing up the law
Laura Page explores the recently published Hackitt Review’s key themes and next steps
A
S ALL readers will be aware, Dame Judith Hackitt was tasked with carrying out an independent review of building regulations
and fire safety after the Grenfell Tower fire. The report proposes a new regulatory framework
with three key parameters. Firstly, the framework will initially apply to multi occupancy, higher risk residential buildings of ten storeys or more. However, it suggests that many of the proposals should also apply to other types of high risk residential premises, such as care homes and university accommodation. There is cross industry agreement that it is right
to focus on higher risk accommodation, where serious incidents are more likely to occur. However, several stakeholders, including the Royal Institute of British Architects and the National Fire Chiefs Council, consider that the scope of the changes ought to be broader from the outset, or quickly broadened. Secondly, the report proposes the formation of
a new Joint Competent Authority (JCA), comprising local authority building standards, fire and rescue authorities and the HSE, utilising their respective skills. Services would be fully chargeable, comparable to the COMAH and offshore fee charging regimes. The JCA is modelled on the Competent Authority under COMAH, where the HSE and Environment Agency work together. There is broad support for this proposal, although some are of the view that there should be a new and distinct body, and others – such as the British Security Council – are concerned about the logistics of three already stretched public functions working together. The third ‘key parameter’ is a mandatory incident
reporting mechanism. This is based on the model used by the Civil Aviation Authority, where relevant senior duty holders are under a duty to report occurrences and near misses on a no blame basis. Failure to report is deemed a non compliance. Sanctions can follow, and outputs are publicly available. A different reporting mechanism
is suggested for other relevant buildings. This links in with an overall theme of the report: that fire safety arrangements should be transparent and made available publicly. In particular, the duty holder at the occupation stage will present – at regular intervals – a safety case to the JCA, resulting in a publicly available rating. Notably, the report proposes that the new
framework of responsibilities is structured in the same way as the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, in that the roles of client, principal designer, principal contractor and contractor all have distinct duties at each stage, and that the client and principal designer will sign off on building safety before occupation. Additionally, the JCA will be involved at
key gateway points at which construction and occupation can be stopped if the JCA is not satisfied that suitable safety arrangements have been made. This will all be supported by a ‘golden thread’ of information, to be developed and maintained through the whole lifecycle of the building and consisting of various key information products: a digital record; a fire and emergency file; full plans; a construction control plan; a pre occupation fire risk assessment; and a resident engagement strategy. However, how will this vision become reality?
The government agrees with the proposed changes, and that the current system is not fit for purpose. However, the responsible minister has pointed out that legislative change takes time, has invited responses as to how this could come about by July, and intends to make a more detailed statement in the autumn on how the government intends to implement the new regulatory system. In the meantime, the industry has been asked to get started on the cultural change which is required
Laura Page is a solicitor in the health and safety team at Pinsent Masons
www.frmjournal.com JULY/AUGUST 2018 1
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
