With the new Building Regulations regime in England now just over a year old, it’s the perfect time to reflect on one specific part of the process – how clients are approaching their new obligations and strategic project planning.
As one of the largest social housing providers, Peabody participated in pilots and trials as Building Regulations legislation and guidance were developed, and hosted roundtable discussions with design consultants and contractors to work through considerations and emerging concerns over future delivery of housing projects.
The process has given the client valuable insights into the logic and intentions behind the landmark legislation, although Design Director, David Stronge, admits that navigating large projects through the new regime has not been all plain sailing.
Here, David shares some of his experiences in navigating and implementing the new regime when it comes to higher-risk buildings (HRBs).
What are the key areas of focus?
The point of the development process under closest scrutiny for Peabody - and many other large clients - is Gateway 2 for high-risk buildings (HRBs). This is the point where designs must be submitted to the new Building Safety Regulator to be rigorously inspected and approved for building safety and regulatory compliance before any construction work can begin.
A key point of focus is the amount and completeness of design work needed to submit a Gateway 2 application, which in turn raises issues around more front-loading of design fees and the apportionment of construction or programme risk.
An example would be if entering a fixed price construction contract either before or after a Gateway 2 approval comes, David says. At this point in time, it finds itself analysing whether we as a client, or the tendering contractor, would reasonably expect to hold and manage the risk. This is where contract detail is necessary and any exclusions as part of the tender become important.
David says Peabody can foresee the positive knock-on effects to design and construction quality the broadest sense, not just in the areas of building safety. This is because of greater clarity over who does what, and the eliminations of uncontrolled or unapproved changes on site.
Everyone is expected to understand and embrace their role, and nobody gets a free pass, as he puts it.
Download RIBA's client care letters (exclusive to RIBA Members)
How is Peabody adapting to the new regime?
Peabody takes the view that at early project stages the Architect/Lead Designer is best placed to fulfil the Building Regulations Principal Designer (BRPD) role, and it is amending its standard scopes and appointment documents to address this. Peabody does employ in-house architects and engineers as design and technical managers, but its scale of operations and governance considerations means it will always need external parties to carry out the dutyholder roles.
For later stages and delivery (post Gateway 2), it is anticipating the need for the build partner on a design and build contract to be appointed Principal Designer (in addition to the Principal Contractor role.) Both these duties must be appointed directly by the Client, and this is the most likely route to be adopted once they are satisfied there is the competence to meet the appointment.
The likelihood is that the architect carries out a supporting role here as the Lead Designer though the approach may vary project to project subject to competence and organisational capability.
“The builder could be legally taking on the role, but the skills, knowledge and experience still comes from the professional designers,” David says. “In this scenario, the builder would need to demonstrate to the client that it has the competence through organisational capability to plan, manage and monitor the design work, including how they safely outsource related activities, as well as construction work.”
Perhaps the most challenging issue that David says Peabody is still working through is the timing of the Gateway 2 application in relation to the contractor’s design portion and the specialist suppliers’ design work still to come.
Pre-tender, Peabody will ask the consultant design team to develop and coordinate a design responsibility matrix. This identifies the leads and contributors for all aspects and elements of design. This matrix also asks that the items of design that need to be ‘completed’ by in the future be identified.
Knowing who needs to be involved in the future and to what extent (often under the remit of a main contractor), Peabody can then tender for a design and build contractor or a joint venture partner.
“We understand that the Regulator is seeking evidence and demonstration of how our scheme designs will comply with the Building Regulations when built,” he says. “If that demonstration and evidence can be provided without the final design being confirmed, such as how sprinkler nozzles will be set out in ceilings, then perhaps it will give us a little leeway in ensuring projects can progress with a reasonable and proportionate level of design completion and evidence.”
These are discussions happening throughout the industry, for HRBs as well as non-HRBs.
“The question is whether consultant design teams are still willing and capable of producing a coordinated and evidenced “compliant” design (knowing that specialists still have to come in to “complete” that design) without requiring those specialists to come in prior to Gateway 2 to do the specialist design work the consultants choose not to do.”
This involves a conversation with the Building Safety Regulator (or other building control body where not a HRB), to agree the strategy for the HRB project – but you must have a strategy to approach them with. Peabody is also discussing whether some specialist contractors have to come onboard earlier to produce designs for the Gateway 2 submission, which is a change to current ways of working.
What is the advice to other clients?
David’s advice to other clients is that it is not business as usual because the new building safety regime is intended to be a meaningful step change in how the industry works.
For large or prolific clients, the challenge will be modifying operating assumptions built up over the past 10 to 20 years. Especially around how the likes of design and build contracts have been used to transfer risks without fully understanding them first, he argues.
At Peabody, he says they are keen to explore not only the improvements the new regime might mean for managing building safety, but also the expected knock-on impacts for overall management and control of other aspects of quality in design and construction.
“For clients on smaller projects, we’d encourage them to be conscious and intentional about who they commission to design and build their projects,” David advises. “Can clients receive and scrutinise the evidence presented by those potential duty-holders that demonstrates Building Regulations competence for a scheme of a particular size or complexity?”
Appointments should be proportionate to the intended work – you don’t need an airport designer level of competence for a domestic house scale of project (in fact an airport designer may not even have the competence for a domestic project!), he points out. David also recommends keeping a record of who you chose and why (as requirement under the HRB Regulations), and clearly task them with the duty-holder role using the appointment/scope of service or build contract.
Thanks to David Stronge, Design Director, Peabody.
Text by Neal Morris and the RIBA Practice team. Send us your feedback and ideas.
RIBA Core Curriculum topic: Legal, regulatory and statutory compliance.
As part of the flexible RIBA CPD programme, professional features count as microlearning. See further information on the updated RIBA CPD core curriculum and on fulfilling your CPD requirements as a RIBA Chartered Member.
