FOCUS
Change afoot? After Dame Judith Hackitt’s final report, the FPA held a seminar in Gloucestershire concerning her recommendations and changes to come, writes William Roszczyk
explored ‘complexities’ in the built environment, specifi cally impacts on prosecutions, before looking at Dame Judith’s recommendations and how they will ‘impact’ the sector going forward. The way that buildings are constructed, designed and occupied ‘needs to be looked at more holistically’, Mr Passey exploring the role of the responsible person, legislation across the UK and the fact that identifying a responsible person is ‘not necessarily straightforward’, and neither are interpretations of the FSO. A ‘cascading of responsibility’ means that
S
some requirements ‘lack clarity’, with the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) having produced a simplifi ed document outlining FSO requirements. Mr Passey pointed out that we ‘should have something far clearer than we have at the moment’, with owners, occupiers or consultants now doing the work originally carried out by the fi re and rescue services (FRSs). That means that those parties are ‘required to interpret’ legislation. Exploring the fi re risk assessment (FRA) and the duties of the responsible person, he gave
46 JULY/AUGUST 2018
www.frmjournal.com
TARTING ON responsibility and accountability, FPA principal consultant Howard Passey gave an overview of existing legislation, and
case study examples of where responsibilities have broken down, noting that commissioning companies, assessors, contractors and even employees have been prosecuted. He outlined Hackitt’s recommendations for a
new regulatory framework for high rise residential buildings (HRRBs) 10 storeys or higher ‘in the fi rst instance’, pointing to this as evidence of a ‘likely wider impact’. Her recommendation for a Joint Competent Authority (JCA) uniting elements of health and safety and other areas with fi re safety was also outlined, Mr Passey being ‘not quite’ sure how that will operate or be constructed. The JCA’s responsibilities will include ‘periodic
safety case reviews’, ‘building improvements where necessary’, testing of construction products and the need to ‘validate and assure guidance’, and ‘we will see how this works out’. The safety case element will remain outcomes based and treat the building as a whole, requiring duty holders to present a case to support their project, providing ‘layers of protection’. With Approved Document B of the Building Regulations (ADB) ‘quite complicated’, changes need to be ‘fairly wholesale’, but hopefully the document will not become ‘too simple’, as
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
