Many legal measures have followed as a consequence of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, but perhaps the most significant is the Building Safety Bill. Designed to “create lasting generational change”, the bill became law in 2022.
Although this will change certain aspects of building safety completely, others may be more resistant.
The act, itself a huge 262 pages, applies to England and Wales and includes a new Building Safety Regulator (BSR), created as the ultimate overseer of building control.
The old regime for building control will go – Approved Inspectors will be no more. Instead, there will be private-sector organisations, each a Registered Building Control Approver (RBCA). To work in building control, individuals must become a Registered Building Control Inspector (RBCI).
To protect owners, burdens will be placed on developers, who must join a New Homes Ombudsman scheme, face lawsuit under the Defective Premises Act for 30 years (existing buildings) or 15 years (new regime buildings) and pay a levy to cover the case of orphaned buildings where no-one can be found to foot remediation bills.
For high-rise buildings, government has identified “gateway points” throughout the construction process, during which information must be submitted, ensuring a “golden thread” of continuous data on safety. Planning will generally be scrutinised much more carefully, with the HSE a statutory consultee. At all times, some Accountable Person (AP) must be identified to be a dutyholder for building operation and maintenance, including safety. Despite the language, the AP can be an organisation, but must:
What the new regulation doesn’t fix is human nature. Whatever obligations are imposed, the tendency, at least for some less scrupulous operators, is to game the system, identifying as many corners to cut as can be found, so as to offer a lower quote. Often, this behaviour is a response to what works: quick, single stage tendering that centres on price comparison drives down cost.
But focusing on lowering costs can present challenges in terms of safety and often at the expense of quality. It may result in a seemingly lower fee, but on closer inspection crucial elements may have been left out in order to maintain the bottom line. Examine the detail of any quote. What is included, and what is not? What is fixed, and what is subject to change?
At Eden Facades, 70% of our work is from repeat business, and you will find many testimonials on our website. This wouldn’t happen if we were skilled but uncompetitive on price. As we have written about before:” Meeting a client’s specific requirements is more difficult if competing simply on price. Undoubtedly, there will be someone that will do it cheaper, but adding real value comes with understanding the client’s objectives and alignment with the outcomes of the project.”
Our partners trust us to deliver the most value, because we work well and honestly. 95% of our initial quotes remain unaltered (excluding cases of actual variations or extra works).
Discussing a recent project for the RAF, Shane Walton, Site Manager at Kier Construction said:
“The initial project was for the rendering; because that went so well, we spoke to the team about the rainwater pipes that were needed, and they were able to help price them for us. We had a couple of quotes for the downpipes, and even though Eden’s was slightly more expensive we chose to go with them because we had been so impressed with their gang and the way they worked.”
Instead of focusing on how low we can price a job, as an industry, we should always be prioritising the safety and the quality of the project.
To find out more, get in touch on 01268 744199 or via office@edenfacades.co.uk.
Stay up to date with Eden Facades News.
Sign up to our newsletter.
