School of Specification The Building Safety Act in practice – ADC

What’s changed for architects in respect of the Building Safety Act, and what should they focus on?

We are evidencing more clearly our company and individual competency. This includes ensuring that every technical member of staff has access to appropriate training and that they are recording their experience. There is also a greater focus on consistency of output through more frequent peer reviews and exemplar material, as well as the production of materials that help to articulate compliance. On HRBs (higher-risk buildings) there is a greater focus on the GW2 (Gateway 2) as a milestone.

The additional duties of the Principal Designer have not been difficult to fulfil, but challenging to agree with clients. While the role is still relatively new, the guidance has been to retain the duties to those stated in the regulations. Unfortunately, due to Government and other sources abbreviating and reinterpreting the duties, the expectation of what our clients often think the role extends to or includes has caused some challenges.

How should architects define and prove competence under the Building Safety Act?

Experience is key. Training alone is not enough. Experience imparts knowledge that you otherwise would not have gained. We need to be able to evidence that what is required of us is very similar to the experience that we have gained from another project. And that the sum of all our project experience makes us competent to design and deliver the client’s brief.

How does BSA compliance correspond to the RIBA work stages?

The RIBA Plan of Works is not strictly aligned with how and when you might be able to evidence compliance. For example, you would be expected to spatially plan your layouts to meet Approved Document M for planning. But you wouldn’t be expected to evidence how compartmentation works at this stage of a project. Compliance is only evidenced once you have coordinated and agreed preceding strategies, allowing you to develop the next layer of detail.

What are the main stumbling blocks to achieving BSA compliance for HRBs?

Typically, tall buildings have to adopt fire engineered solutions. They can have multiple uses and often include below-ground levels. They require multiple layers of compartmentation, which must accommodate multiple fire-rated penetrations. The façades are often unique and specialist in design and include attachments. The structures often include areas of transfer. As a result, schemes have always benefited from presenting and explaining strategies to meet compliance. Without this dialogue there is a risk that information may be misunderstood or not included.

How has the BSA affected procurement and programming?

For non HRBs it’s largely business as usual. Some contractors are noting a little more engagement with clients earlier than you would typically expect to help with decisions on construction methodology and therefore reduce the risk of fundamental strategies having to change later on. For HRBs it’s been a big shift. As early as possible, consultants and clients should  agree what is required for their project to evidence compliance, and what support they need in order to do this. In most cases this means specialist design (CDP) is being procured earlier, with a focus on only developing work to evidence compliance, as opposed to drawings to support fabrication. This specialist design is either incorporated into the respective consultants’ overall responsibility and narrative of the strategies, or vice versa.