Close
Menu

IDM

About IDM

Posts by :

New Update

Important Update – New Regulations Released

Important New Regulations Issued

18th September 2023

New Update

The building industry is on the cusp of a transformative era 

The new regime includes new terminology, roles and timelines that are important to understand for any building work (not just HRBs). 

New regulations were published on 17 August 2023 and each contains further details and definitions: The key regulations are –

 
The new regulations will come into force on 1st October 2023 and create new dutyholders being the client (including domestic client), the principal designer and the principal contractor. In addition it places duties on designers (including the sole or lead designer) and contractors (including sole contractor). These are. 
 
1 Duty to ensure compliance

The primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with building regulations lies with those who initiate building work and those who play crucial roles in the design and construction process. These duty holders are accountable for ensuring that work is designed and constructed so as to comply with building regulations.

2 Duty to be competent

It is essential for duty holders to have the necessary skills, knowledge, experience and behaviour’s relevant to their designated tasks. If an organisation is involved, it should have the organizational capability necessary to fulfil the duties.

3 Duty to cooperate, coordinate and communicate

Duty holders are required to work together effectively, maintaining clear lines of communication, sharing information and collaborating throughout the process.

Example

The Client must ensure that their Designer/Contractor are competent for the work proposed and the Designer/Contractor must not take on work where they do not possess the necessary competence. At the end of a project, the Client/Designer/Contractor will be required to issue a joint written statement to the Building Control Body clearly stating that the building work complies. 

Domestic clients have similar responsibilities,  but if a domestic client fails to make the appointments, then the designer in control of the design phase of a project is the principal designer, and the contractor in control of the construction phase of a project is the principal contractor.

Architects will naturally become the principal designer in most cases. But if the client only appoints the architect to undertake planning drawings and the contractor works to these (eg a typical “building notice”), then the contractor would effectively become both designer and contractor, so undertake dual roles of principal designer and principal contractor.

This has huge implications for many small builders who are not insured or competent to undertake the design role and make the compliance statement required at completion.

We would therefore urge our clients to ensure that they are working to a detailed set of construction phase plans and not to work under a “building notice”.

Impact on Your Project

This will apply to any new applications submitted from 1st October 2023 onwards 

Submissions to building control will in future rely on the designer’s justification of compliance, rather than designers seeking design input from building control to meet compliance.

Architects (and contractors) who have, in the past, used the building control application process to refine design details will have to ensure full compliance with Building Regulations prior to submission.

Contact us for further information or guidance on the latest changes. 
READ MORE IN OUR INTERVIEW IN AJ
wcc-blog-1

No Two Buildings Should Ever Be the Same

Building Regulations are seen as a set of rules to be followed, which, yes, essentially, that is exactly what they are, but building regulations don’t need to constrict architects.

Grenfell-min

Grenfell Latest Inquiry Update

Grenfell Latest Inquiry Update

10th July 2023

Grenfell-min

It has been revealed that the Grenfell Tower Inquiry will not publish its final report on the disaster until next year. This is disappointing as the inquiry team had previously expressed hopes of publishing the report towards the end of this year.

In its statement, the inquiry team said that drafting of the Phase 2 report continues, with each chapter of the report at a different stage of drafting but with some now nearing completion. As report drafting approaches completion, the Chairman is now required under rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules to write to those subject to criticism in the report to allow them reasonable time to respond to the criticisms made against them. We understand that process, although entirely confidential, has now begun, with letters understood to be sent out in July.

New powers

Meanwhile the Government has granted itself a new power to replace the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) as the regulator for high-rise residential buildings with a new body, should the Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommend even more sweeping reform.

The amendment came as a surprise to the industry and may indicate that HSE themselves will be subject to criticism by the Inquiry. This could signpost even wider reform to building safety regulation than first thought, and may change the definition of in-scope buildings and the way building regulatory functions are currently spread across multiple regulators and arms-length bodies.

The Government, however, is understood to have confirmed that it has “every confidence” in the HSE to deliver the new regime and expects it to be fully operational by April next year. This despite just 750 of the 12,000 high-rise residential buildings in England having so far been registered since the scheme was launched in April, and with just a few months remaining before registration closes in October.

Civil Action

In other news, the civil claim against 22 companies/organisations involved in the design, construction or maintenance of Grenfell Tower, has apparently been settled with a global sum of about £150 million compensation agreed. Amongst the firms facing legal action are Rydon Maintenance Limited, insulation providers Kingspan and Celotex, architect Studio E, cladding subcontractor Harley Facades and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

Rydon Maintenance Limited confirmed in recent weeks that it has made a provision of £26.7M in its accounts for its share of this settlement. In a supporting statement Rydon admitted that:

“Along with many other contractors and developers, Rydon used products in its partial refurbishment of the [Grenfell Tower] which were marketed widely by manufacturers. It is now apparent the manufacturers circumvented fire regulations to assist in the marketing of their products and the certification process was very weak.”

On that subject, it is understood that the Building Research Establishment (BRE) have recently discontinued their relationship with the Kingspan Group due to the perceived ‘reputational risk’ to the BRE.

In a statement to Inside Housing, the BRE – which is a leading building science institute and provides testing against official standards for a wide variety of construction materials firms – said it would no longer accept work from the firm “following evidence heard during the course of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry”.

It said it was also refusing to take work from Celotex, which also made insulation ultimately used on Grenfell Tower.

Check back regularly for further updates on Grenfell Tower and the Building Safety Act.

Our Latest Articles

wcc-blog-1

No Two Buildings Should Ever Be the Same

Building Regulations are seen as a set of rules to be followed, which, yes, essentially, that is exactly what they are, but building regulations don’t need to constrict architects.