If some viewed building control as one of construction’s sleepy and unglamorous backwaters – then the last few months have been a rude awakening.
Since the Grenfell disaster, building control has been under the spotlight like never before. In her independent review into Building Regulations and fire safety, Dame Judith Hackitt identified a need for reform of building control procedures, particularly regarding high-rise residential buildings (HRRBs), and proposed a new way forward.
She had been critical of both private approved inspectors and Local Authority Building Control (LABC) in her interim report late last year.
The partial privatisation of the sector in 1985, which created the first approved inspector body, the NHBC, brought in competition between public and private regulators. The aim of introducing private approved inspectors – initially only for residential but since April 2013 covering all building work – was to inject more commercial awareness and customer focus.
The view from CM’s reader panel
Peter Egan, director, EG Structures
Building control needs to reform to meet current building quality requirements. It has suffered due to cut backs and local pressures resulting in a loss of in-depth knowledge of building methodology, with a growing work load. Grenfell has shown the result of this decline of investment.
The LABC has recently taken great steps in using technical apprentice schemes to develop the correct knowledge and professional standards across their membership.
This approach is an essential initial move in the right direction but we need to do more to take building control processes away from a tick-box compliance exercise into a detailed understanding of building science.
Peter Yohane, senior site manager, Crest Nicholson Regeneration
The building control system needs reviewing because the inspectors have now become afraid of making any decisions and have started delaying projects.
Fire regulations are still not completely black and white and do not allow a straight answer from the inspectors on site. Extra training is required and perhaps there is a need for specialist inspections, especially on fire checks.
The inspectors I have worked with since Grenfell seem to not be sure which way to turn and they seem unsure who can assist them in their inspections.
But in her interim report, Hackitt concluded that while overall customer service standards had risen, the part-privatisation of the regulatory function had created “unintended consequences” and a “difficult trade-off” between building control bodies (BCB) competing with one another for business while still ensuring rigorous certification with all the requirements of Building Regulations.
Some private approved inspectors felt the playing field was not level, because they need formal qualifications and approval to practise and yet lack the enforcement powers of their local authority counterparts, and were hopeful Hackitt favoured requiring all BCBs – public and private – to be licensed through an independent regulator in the way that all cars face an MOT.
They anticipated this might take the form of a scheme like the Construction Industry Council Approved Inspectors Register (CICAIR), extended to all BCBs.
As it turned out, this wasn’t the path she chose. Instead, in her final report Hackitt effectively recommended excluding private approved inspectors from providing their services on HRRBs. She said there should be a single regulatory route for oversight of HRRBs through LABC, via a new regulatory framework called the Joint Competent Authority (JCA).
There would still be a role for approved inspectors, who would be able to provide accredited consultancy and verification services to help dutyholders meet their new responsibilities, she added.
Assad Maqbool, a partner in Trowers & Hamlins’ projects and construction department, suggests this was the right decision: “The Construction Industry Council must look at whether the introduction of private sector approved inspectors is adding to the problems with quality control in the industry.
“The decision as to which approved inspectors to use is sometimes made on a lowest-cost basis and is part of the ‘race to the bottom’ – choosing approved inspectors who are able to charge the lowest costs by stripping back the level of supervision and oversight.”
LABC, which represents more than 3,000 public service building surveying staff, has welcomed Hackitt’s proposals and pledged to help implement all her recommendations.
Chief executive Paul Everall says: “It is clear that allowing developers to choose their own regulators has to stop. Dame Judith has a clear way forward which LABC supports fully and we have already put in place the steps needed to move to a completely independent and competent regulator.
“Public service building control has the skills, competencies and the capacity to deal with the regulation of all buildings in the scope of the review.”
LABC announced shortly after the Hackitt review was published that the first wave of local authorities working to its new, independently audited national standards had all passed their ISO audit.
But private approved inspectors are far less happy with the outcome. Paul Wilkins, chair of the Association of Consultant Approved Inspectors (ACAI), said: “Overall we are disappointed that the review appears to remove the choice of using an Approved Inspector as a BCB on HRRBs which was a surprise, as was the fact that the report didn’t reflect the recommendations of the specific working group looking at this issue.”
Grenfell Tower: Since the disaster, building control has been put under the spotlight
The suggestion by the Hackitt report that approved inspectors would approve substandard work to win repeat business angers Geoff Wilkinson, managing director of approved inspector services firm Wilkinson Construction Consultants.
“It seems the blame has been laid on the influence of the private sector coming in to compete with the local authorities, yet it was the local authorities that approved Grenfell Tower,” he says. “What we really need to see is the introduction of a proper licensing authority for all of these organisations.
“The majority of us actually expected that some form of approach along that line would be in the recommendations and I think we were quite shocked to see that it didn’t,” he adds.
Wilkinson raises a series of concerns, including what he calls the creation of a “two-track approach” to building control consents, with one system for HRRBs and another for all other buildings. He also fears that with building control already suffering a lack of resource, the JCA will draw in further staff from LABC while preventing the approved inspector system from helping “fill the gaps”.
That resource shortage is recognised by one former head of building control at a London borough who spoke to CM. “My finances were on a zero-based budget that received no contribution from the centre. The building control unit was downgraded to be a part of the planning department,” he says.
“Fortunately, an extremely high share of the market enabled me to finance good quality and competent resources, but I was aware that some of my contemporaries were unable to achieve the same.”
“The blame has been laid on the influence of the private sector coming in to compete with the local authorities, yet it was the local authorities that approved Grenfell Tower.”
Geoff Wilkinson, Wilkinson Construction Consultants
For Wilkinson, the issue of whether an inspector is private or public sector is a red herring. Inspectors from either side will receive a payment for their work, he points out.
Instead, he advocates outline approval at planning stage, more detailed plan approval then a final certification stage to stop disasters like Grenfell occurring again. “It’s those things that need to be addressed, rather than whether it is in the private or public sector,” he says.
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the NHBC says it is still reviewing Hackitt’s recommendations in detail, although the organisation makes it clear that it would like to see one regulatory body for all BCBs.
Diane Marshall, NHBC head of technical services, recommends CICAIR’s remit is expanded to achieve this, while allowing LABC and the Association of Consultant Approved Inspectors (ACAI) to continue their roles as representative bodies for their members.
She advocates a single competency framework for all BCBs and mandatory common standards through a single code of conduct. Marshall recognises the need for a “cultural shift” and recommends design approval prior to construction, as well as ensuring that a designated person takes responsibility for coordinating Building Regulations compliance throughout the design and construction stages.
Whether ministers now take up Hackitt’s recommendation in relation to building control remains to be seen. Meanwhile the debate about the two parallel systems of building control and the roles they should play looks set to continue.
