As RIBA launches its refreshed RIBA Principal Designer Course (CDM Regulations & Building Regulations) for Spring 2025, it’s the perfect time to revisit, discuss and shoot down some of the myths that persist about the Principal Designer.
To do this, RIBA asked its industry experts and course presenters to choose a common myth they continue to hear among Chartered Members and to put them straight once and for all.
The new webinar series, which is suitable for practitioners working with domestic and commercial clients, and on both higher-risk and non-higher-risk projects, kicks off on 24 April 2025.
Myth: The Building Safety Act only applies to higher-risk buildings (HRBs)
Adam Hopkins (Senior Technical Manager, Peabody), writes: It is common for persons to refer to compliance with the Building Safety Act when discussing building work – which is not necessarily incorrect, but it could be construed as misleading as legislation governing building work generally is the Building Act 1984 and the Building Regulations 2010 made under this Act.
The Building Safety Act 2022 amended the Building Act 1984 and also the Building Regulations 2010, so it would be more proper – and potentially less misleading – to talk of Building Regulations compliance to avoid people assuming the Building Safety Act is the legislation to be complied with for building work, and that it would therefore not apply to non-HRB buildings and building work.
Myth: The Contractor can appoint the Principal Designer
Adam Hopkins (Senior Technical Manager, Peabody), writes: The Principal Designer (and indeed Principal Contractor) must be appointed by the Client as set out in Regulation 11D. The Principal Duty Holders support the Client in the execution of the Client’s own duties as set out in Regulation 11A. It would not be acceptable for the Contractor (in JCT Design and Build terminology) to appoint the Principal Designer as they are not the Client for the work. In forms of contract such as JCT Design & Build it may be necessary to appoint the Contractor as both Principal Contractor and Principal Designer (if they are competent).
Myth: The Principal Designer only needs to be appointed before construction commences.
Keri Barr (Keri Barr Architects), course presenter, writes: 11D(3)(a) of Part 2A states that the Principal Designer must be appointed “before the construction phase begins”. Technically, you could argue that this means the statement isn’t entirely a misconception. I would say that there is a strong argument for the Principal Designer to be appointed much earlier – ideally at the start of RIBA Stage 2 – even if you’re a sole practitioner acting as both the architect and the Principal Designer.
The Principal Designer must have control and influence over the design team and design work – co-ordinating, planning, managing and monitoring – to ensure a Building Regulations compliant design. It’s simply too late only to appoint the Principal Designer after most of the design work is complete. Delaying the appointment of the Principal Designer to the last minute would be treating the appointment as a box ticking exercise, rather than ensuring genuine technical compliance.
Read more about when a Principal Contractor should become a Principal Designer
Myth: The Principal Designer must inspect work on site to make sure it is compliant.
Joan McCoy (White Ink), course presenter, writes: The reality is the Principal Designer has no legal responsibilities to inspect construction work. The Principal Designer duties relate to design work, during the design phase.
The design phase is any stage at which design is being undertaken and includes design work being undertaken when the project is under construction.
Under the Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (England) Regulations 2023, Regulation 32 (4), the Principal Designer has a duty “to ensure an appropriate frequency of inspections of HRB design work for safety occurrences* throughout the construction phase”. This requirement relates to inspection of design work only.
There is a parallel requirement on the Principal Contractor under Regulation 32 (3) to ensure an adequate frequency of inspections of the work for safety occurrences*. This relates to inspection of the construction work.
Although the Principal Designer does not have a legal duty to inspect construction work for compliance or for safety occurrences, an architect or lead designer who has also been appointed as a Principal Designer, may have separate architect or lead designer responsibilities under their appointment to inspect construction work. It is important that these are not confused with the Principal Designer duties, as this can lead to a further mistaken belief that the completion statement provided by the Principal Designer confirms that the building is compliant – rather the Principal Designers statement upon completion is to confirm that they have complied with their duties under Part 2A of the Building Regulations 2010.
Notwithstanding the absence of a legal or contractual responsibility to inspect construction work either for non-compliance or safety occurrences, any designer who notices non-compliant work, or anything that might lead to a safety occurrence during construction, should not ignore this but bring it to the attention of the Principal Contractor so that it can be rectified. Any matter that is a safety occurrence on a HRB should be reported using the project’s Mandatory Occurrence Reporting system.
*A safety occurrence is broadly speaking: an aspect of the design (if built); or an incident or situation relating to the structural integrity or fire safety of an HRB that would (when the building is used) be likely to present a risk of a significant number of deaths, or serious injury to a significant number of people.
Myth: A third-party Health and Safety Consultant is best placed to be the CDM PD.
Paul Bussey (AHMM), course presenter, writes: The CDM Principal Designer (CDM PD) must plan, manage and monitor the pre-construction phase AND coordinate health and safety during the pre-construction phase and be the designer with control over the pre-construction phase of the project. This PD role continues into the construction phase where design work may need revisiting, further co-ordination is required following specialist design or contractor design in accordance with contractual arrangements, or/ and when gathering and preparing information for the health and safety file.
The introduction of the 2015 CDM regulations implemented the above requirements, but instead of architects taking on the CDM PD opportunity, the industry saw a general move towards retaining third party ex-CDM-Coordinators (who had formerly been appointed under CDM 2007) to take on the reframed Principal Designer role despite them not being designers or being part of the design team (and often being rarely in attendance at design or project meetings).
As a result, the output provided (often for a lower fee than the architect would charge) came in the form of “narrative risk registers”, rather than as a project-specific reflection of abnormal risks. This document then became an instruction manual for the design team to follow throughout the project, with occasional updates.
Critical construction design management items were at risk of being hidden inadvertently among the noise of more general, day-to-day and non-specific items. This led to clients believing they were complying with CDM regulations where there might be no more than an “illusion of safety”. With the implementation of the Building Safety Act, we are seeing the same process appearing in relation to the Building Regulations Principal Design, even though the Act clearly states that the “PD must be the designer in control of the design.
Architects with appropriate competence are now realising there is an opportunity to control and integrate CDM and Building Regulations compliance into their designs in a proportionate and deliverable way by expanding services to include CDM PD and Building Regulations PD and being remunerated to do so. For their part, clients are required to give PDs “sufficient time and other resources” to carry out their role(s).
Myth: Building Control signs off an architect's work.
David Brook, (Technical Director at Hawkins\Brown), writes: Building control aren’t strictly responsible or liable for what they issue a completion certificate. Reg 17(4) says, “A certificate given in accordance with this regulation shall be evidence (but not conclusive evidence) that the requirements specified in the certificate have been complied with.
Case law under Murphy v Brentwood District Council also cites that a local authority is not liable for losses associated with negligent approval.
Under new amendments to the regulations, Clients are now responsible for declaring the compliance of work against Building Regulations, at completion, they must provide a: Reg16(4a)d) “a statement, signed by the client, confirming that to the best of the client’s knowledge the work complies with all applicable requirements of the building regulations.”
Obligations now sit with clients to ensure they make suitable arrangements for the design and construction of building work, and appoint competent designers to discharge their duties accordingly, in doing so being responsible for their own designs and supporting clients in confirming compliance with The Building Regulations.
Thanks to Adam Hopkins, Peabody; Keri Barr, Keri Barr Architects; Paul Bussey, AHMM; Joan McCoy, White Ink; David Brooks, Hawkins\Brown.
Text by Neal Morris. This is a professional feature edited by 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.
