Slight changes to Building Control
Astonishingly, I am blogging on two consecutive weekends! I must get a hobby.
On 1 October 2023 The Building Regulations etc. (Amendments) (England) Regulations 2023 (“Regulations”) came into force. This, and any other legislation, is in the public domain at www.legislation.gov.uk. It’s been causing a bit of a kerfuffle in a certain authority’s Building Control department, and I am sure others will follow suit.
The Regulations are part of the government response to the Grenfell disaster and is intended to put in place additional checks and balances for “High Risk Buildings”. Those checks and balances do not necessarily apply to “domestic clients”, as is laid out in Part 2A Section 11C.
First, a bit of history.
The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations were first issued in 1994 and have undergone a couple of revisions since, the last one being in 2015. The legislation was intended to deal with health and safety on building sites. Construction is inherently dangerous and work related fatalities due to construction outstrips other industries by a distance (www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals). At the risk of sounding flippant, it also required suitable welfare facilities, so at least even domestic projects have shelter and a toilet available.
The CDM regulations introduced the roles of principal contractor and principal designer and assigned roles to these people and the client. These roles included satisfying themselves that anyone involved in the project had sufficient information to perform their role and were competent to do so. In (very) brief terms, this meant the designers had to make sure their designs were not just buildable but take downable as well. The contractors were charged with maintaining a safe working environment.
The latest Regulations have not changed the roles of the client, designer and contractor, but has underlined them and written them in bold script – metaphorically, you understand. It emphasises the fact that the designer has a responsibility to make their designs safe, and builders must build that design safely. It stipulates that the if the client has not made the relevant appointments, it will be assumed that the “designer in control of the design phase” is the principal designer and the contractor “in control of the construction phase” is the principal contractor.
I should remake the point here that this refers to domestic clients. Other projects, especially High Risk Buildings are subjected to a rather more rigorous procedure in accordance with the Regulations.
There are two consequences on domestic clients as a result of the Regulations. The first is that at least one local authority has cited this as a reason to issue pieces of paper to the client (applicant), demanding that the principal contractor and the principal designer sign it in acknowledgement of their roles under the Regulations and as proof of their competency. They also withheld the issue of Building Regulations Approval or a Completion Certificate until that document is completed.
I am not an expert on such things, but I see nothing in the Regulations that requires me to confirm my role as a designer, neither do I see anything that gives any local authority the right to withhold approval under those circumstances. What I do see in the legislation is that the client, principal designer, and principal contractor should “satisfy themselves” that the others are competent. The Regulations do not stipulate how that satisfaction should be achieved but, in my case, quoting the selection of initials that follow my name is usually sufficient.
The second side effect, particularly for domestic clients, is the increased reluctance of Building Control Officers (BCO) to offer advice on site. When I was young and good looking, the BCOs tended to be ex-tradesmen who had got too old or too fed up to spend their days getting cold and/or wet on building sites. I don’t blame them. In my opinion, it should be illegal for a structural engineer to attend site when it is less than 5oC, it’s raining, or there are no biscuits.
Those ex-tradesmen would often explain to the client/builder/designer what amendments are required to meet the Building Regulations. Not anymore. I am informed from a number of sources that they no longer offer such advice, often referring the client or builder back to the designer, and often citing the Regulations as saying they are “not allowed” to offer advice.
This is a fallacy. There is nothing in the Regulations, or any other legislation that I am aware of, that prevents BCOs from offering advice. It is absolutely true that their role is to approve, not design, and, technically, they have no authority on a building site. They cannot tell a builder to stop doing something, but they can tell them that, if they continue doing that something, it won’t meet the Building Regulations and it won’t be approved.
It is easy to see, however, why this policy has been adopted, even if it is inaccurately credited to the recent legislation. I am given to understand that a large proportion of domestic applications are made without a building professional involved. Instead, the householder relies heavily on the advice given by the BCO to complete the works in the mistaken belief that is Building Control’s role. It would seem that Building Control are trying to force householders to engage building professionals to assist them.
Of course, this policy provides plenty of opportunities for your humble structural engineer, but I still have considerable support for it. To misquote Donald Rumsfeld, sometimes we don’t know what we don’t know. A project may fall outside of Permitted Development Rights, may be notifiable under the Party Wall etc Act 1996, may compromise your neighbour’s right to light, privacy or the quiet enjoyment of their property, and it is highly likely that the householder has no idea that they have contravened any of the relevant pieces of legislation. It’s one thing to break the rules, but at least know which rules are being broken.
Which is why I always go to the source material, often repeatedly, rather than relying on my faulty memory or another person’s inaccurate interpretation of it. The Regulations affect my business, so I read them. I don’t mean I take a cursory look at the bits that affect me directly, I read them. I know when a local authority is exceeding their authority by quoting the Regulations as the reason for their behaviour.
Which is a pity, because their stance is a good idea. Construction is dangerous, costly and quite likely to impact on neighbours. The fees for a building professional are tiny when compared to the cost of construction and especially to the cost of litigation and the subsequent costs should something have to be corrected.
So, an A for achievement, but an F for execution.
Keith Rawlings (CEng, FIStructE)!!