The Building Safety Bill aims to fix flaws in the building
safety regime uncovered by Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review into
Building Regulations and fire safety in the wake of the Grenfell Tower disaster,
principally by establishing a new Building Safety Regulator.
A report published by the Housing, Communities & Local
Government Committee welcomed the Bill but warned that it was “concerned about
some of its provisions” and in particular a “lack of detail” on key parts of
the new regime.
This is not a paywall. Registration allows us to enhance your experience across Construction Management and ensure we deliver you quality editorial content.
Registering also means you can manage your own CPDs, comments, newsletter sign-ups and privacy settings.
It urged the government to include as much detail as
possible in the Bill itself, or to publish secondary legislation alongside it,
as well as a clear timetable for commencement so that the industry knows when
it has to demonstrate compliance.
And it strongly recommended that the government include
provisions in the Bill itself for establishing a national system of third-party
accreditation and registration for all professionals working on the design and
construction of higher-risk buildings.
It said: “The Hackitt report found that a lack of any formal process for assuring the competence of individuals engaged in the design and construction of higher-risk buildings was a serious flaw in the current regulatory regime.
"To remedy this, the final Bill should provide for a robust system of third-party accreditation and registration for design and construction professionals. We can think of few measures that will do more to improve building safety.”
Elsewhere, the report called on the government to recommit to the principle that leaseholders should not pay anything towards the cost of remediating historical building safety defects, warning that the draft bill provides for landlords to recover the cost of building safety measures through a new building safety charge, which would permit them to charge leaseholders for the cost of remediation.
Remediation financing
The report said it wanted to see the government announce proposals to fund all historical building safety remediation works. It said the financing of remediation was “unresolved” despite the allocation of £1.6bn in the building safety fund.
The Bill will apply to “higher-risk” buildings, which the
government currently intends to define as any building over 18m or six storeys.
The report accepted this definition as “reasonable” but added: “We do not
consider height along to be a satisfactory measure of risk. A commitment in the
Bill itself to including, at a specified point in the future, other risk
factors, particularly the vulnerability of residents and their ability to
evacuate the building, would demonstrate the government’s determination to
improve the safety of all higher-risk buildings.”
Responding to the report, the Chartered Institute of
Building (CIOB) said it was “particularly pleased” to see the Committee call
for more detail around the yet unpublished secondary legislation to remove any
doubt on the scope of the legislation and the responsibilities on building
operators.
It added that it was “positive” that the Committee acknowledged
the importance of accreditation to ensure that stakeholders have the confidence
in the competence of persons undertaking the new building safety manager role.
The CIOB said: “We look forward to working with the government
to ensure the Bill drives forward reform and remedies the flaws in the existing
system as identified in the Hackitt review.”
The Committee’s report can be accessed here.
