The purpose of the act is to set clear guidelines as to how high-rise residential buildings are designed, built, regulated, and managed; questions remain as to how well prepared the industry is to embrace the changes set out in the bill.

Many of these changes will take up to 18 months to come into force, during which time the industry would do well to examine the fundamental shift in working practices to allow the effective shift in culture to take place.

Ensuring building safety is a priority and providing some accountability within the system is a step forward for the industry, but some concerns remain:

1. The information revolution and the skills gap

 Perhaps the most fundamental shift in culture required is to address what Dame Judith Hackitt called, in her 2017 report, ‘almost unanimous concern surrounding the ineffective operation of the current rules around the creation, maintenance and handover of building and fire safety information. Where building information is present, it is often incomplete or held in paper form and is not accessible to the people who need to see it.’

Taking into consideration the fact that the ‘people who need to see it’ will include – at the very least – architects, designers, contractors, building managers, residents and the emergency services, Hackitt’s conclusion that such information be stored digitally was pretty much inescapable.

But what implications does her ‘golden thread of information’ have for an industry in the early stages of emerging into the digital age?

This is little short of a revolution for an industry facing a skills gap in precisely this area. With technology advancing all the time, the fact that only nine per cent of the sector is made up of workers under 25 – the very generation who are most tech savvy and able to bring about the changes required – shows that there is much work to do in attracting a workforce that can implement this key recommendation of the Hackitt report.

2. Implications of removing the role of Building Safety Manager

 Putting in place a Building Safety Manager for high-risk buildings – to be appointed by the building’s Accountable Person (in most cases, the owner) – was a central proposal of Dame Judith’s report. Initially supported by the government, this idea was eventually scrapped due to concerns that the costs involved would be passed on from the AP to leaseholders, tenants and residents – just the people Hackitt was seeking to protect from such obligations.

The job title may have gone, but the work still needs to be done, with the onus now firmly on the owner of the building to put in place safety procedures that most suit their building.

Far from guaranteeing that associated costs will not be passed on to residents, the appointment of a non-specialist in a specialist role clearly leaves something to be desired. As Eddie Tuttle, of the Chartered Institute of Building, puts it: ‘concerns remain that some of the recent amendments, such as removing the duty to appoint a Building Safety Manager, will lead to a lack of clarity over the right competencies and training for those in the ‘accountable persons’ role and potential inconsistency in the implementation of building safety management regimes.’

Further inconsistency may also arise when an owner sells a building. Whereas before the BSM would have stayed in place, a new Accountable Person will now need to be identified.

While it’s true that a new office of Building Safety Regulator within the HSE is being set up to oversee these matters, the government’s aim that clearly identified individuals – with the requisite skill and experience required – should be in place to ensure the safety of high-rise buildings, looks weakened.

3. Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) – an ongoing problem

 Concerns have also been raised in the industry that a late amendment to the bill – extending the compensation period for sub-standard building and refurbishment work from six to 30 years (rather than the previously proposed 15) – will lead to higher premiums and companies going to the wall.

Tony Hill, Managing Director at Eden Facades comments: “With an evolving landscape and changing regulations, insurers are nervous and “cladding” coverage restrictions, or even total exclusions, are becoming standard when firms come to renew their professional indemnity insurance.”

Higher PII premiums for construction firms are therefore very likely to be passed on to the customer in terms of higher purchase prices and rents, and some SMEs may even be squeezed out of the market with only larger companies able to afford increased premiums.

Such problems in an already weak PII market, in combination with escalating building costs and the possibility of some insurance companies simply walking away from construction, could well result in the industry’s inability to meet housing demand.

4. Accountability and compliance

 In her third report as chair of the Industry Safety Steering Group, published earlier this year, Dame Judith Hackitt highlighted her frustration with the slow progress being made by some companies when it comes to making buildings safer for those who live in them. She reports a mixed picture, with some companies taking the initiative and making significant progress while others are holding back until they ‘see more detail’ and are required to make changes by law.

Crystal clear to Hackitt is that ‘that legislation alone will not deliver the outcomes we are looking for. The culture of the industry itself must change…’

For safety experts UL, there are four pillars to the necessary change in culture. To improve accountability so that all parties know where their responsibility begins and ends, to keep digital, easily-available records in an industry where around half of all records exist in hard-copy form, rigorous third-party testing and certification and, perhaps most importantly, to understand the lived experience of those who actually live in a particular building, and to listen to their concerns.

5. The changes should be viewed as an opportunity

 Overall, the required change in culture should be seen as an opportunity to embrace a new mindset, moving away from the perceived ‘race to the bottom’ mentality within the industry and towards a more predictable and safer future.

At Eden Facades, we fully take on board Dame Judith’s assertion that companies should be making changes now rather than waiting for legislation to trickle down in 18 months’ time.

As Tony says: “For us, collaboration is the key. We are having clear, upfront conversations with our clients and engaging specialist insurers and fire-safety consultants. This is the chance for our sector to nurture a new culture and begin changing attitudes and practices.”

Call us on 01268 744199 to find out more about our processes or to discuss a specific project.