{"id":385,"date":"2023-09-18T10:24:44","date_gmt":"2023-09-18T10:24:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/?page_id=385"},"modified":"2023-09-18T10:29:57","modified_gmt":"2023-09-18T10:29:57","slug":"bim4housing-design-working-group-meeting-12-09-2023","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/bim4housing-design-working-group-meeting-12-09-2023\/","title":{"rendered":"BIM4HOUSING DESIGN WORKING GROUP MEETING 12-09-2023"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n\t

BIM4HOUSING DESIGN WORKING GROUP MEETING 12-09-2023<\/strong><\/h2>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 I\u2019m Das from David Miller Architects. There's some new new people on the call which is great. I\u2019m only available for half an hour because of a commitment to another meeting. I\u2019ve had a number of phone calls and meetings and CPDs with building safety specialists, and obviously the new regulations that have come through. I\u2019ve tried to collate it all and I\u2019ll share it in the three slides. I think they\u2019re up to date in terms of info, but it would be good to get any feedback. <\/p>\n

(shares screen). In terms of what does the Building Safety Act apply to, all buildings in relation to more the duty holders and the competence elements of it. So that\u2019s to all buildings, but then with additional requirements to higher risk buildings, and that really is the going through the gateway process. That\u2019s what I understand from the various discussions, the two main differences in terms of how does the Building Safety Act apply. I think that was your first question, George, on your slide.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I\u2019ll just clarify why I was asking that question. Talking with contractors in particular we\u2019re finding that they\u2019re thinking that all of the rules only apply to HRBs, whereas quite a lot of the rules now are actually under the Fire Safety Act, and that is more universal. The second thing is about interim measures, because if a project is already being built and there is a definition of where you\u2019ve got to get to for it to be in process, then it doesn\u2019t need to go through the regulator. But there is still a requirement under the (probably) building control to do the verification of the information. But again, this seems to be very unclear. When I\u2019ve been asking the questions of the people in our community who are experts there\u2019s a divergence of view, which is not really very helpful. <\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 I agree. The simplest way it was explained to me was\u2026because the Building Safety Act doesn\u2019t talk about technical requirements, like materials, specifications etc. It talks about the threshold for higher risk buildings and that activates the gateways, but for every other building the kind of competency and the due ticket holders apples without having to go through the gateways either and the Fire Safety Act and everything, those things are secondary as well. It all comes under that same umbrella. As an architectural practice we\u2019re treating all projects as if they\u2019re high risk buildings and then discussing the merits of going down that route with the clients and trying to inform them as best as possible. A little bit like when the new CDM regulations came, because of the scale of the projects which are not huge, but they may be 50-60 homes, for example, or up to about 100. <\/p>\n

We\u2019re taking the view we probably need to get advice from a Building Safety Act specialist for this initial phase for us to also understand the regulations better before we then take on some of those roles ourselves. So we\u2019re using that as a transitional period, a bit like the CDM changes that happened in 2015, because we\u2019ve not gone through it before either. In terms of the building safety regulator I think that\u2019s been defined as sitting under the HSE with HEP? 5mins 06secs support. I think the main thing here from us as advisors to clients and to those who interact with clients is that for high-risk buildings the client can\u2019t choose the building control body, so it can\u2019t be like an approved inspector, unless it has to go through the building safety regulator. I think September or October is the deadline for registering, if you\u2019re a building inspector or controller you have to register to be on that list. So that\u2019s one of the main big differences, because a lot of contractor clients might want to appoint their own approved inspector, but unless they\u2019re registered or they\u2019re part of the building safety regulator they can\u2019t be used. That\u2019s quite a big change. <\/p>\n

The high risk building definition in England, the 18 metres measured from the lowest ground level, for a sloping site, for example, to the top finished floor level of the top storey, or has to seven storeys. It\u2019s interesting because I always used to go ground, 1st, 2nd, 3rd floor, but that\u2019s obviously wrong because the ground is 1st storey in this definition. It\u2019s a bit like America, we\u2019ve got to count 1st, 2nd, 3rd floor, rather than ground, 1st, 2nd, 3rd floor. <\/p>\n

NEIL YEOMANS Have you spotted that there are now two different definitions for storey? The definition in the get latest guidance for storey, it\u2019s not just that you count the ground floor, it\u2019s that any part of that floor where the ceiling finished above the ground is now considered a storey. So that is different to what\u2019s in Approved Document B, so that\u2019s causing some confusion. The implication of that is for some buildings, so for us there is at least one additional building that we\u2019re going to have to register due to the change in this definition. The building that we\u2019re now going to have to register, there\u2019s an underground car park and the designers have left a lip of about a foot high. And because the ceiling of the car park is here and the ground floor is here, even though it\u2019s just a foot above that level that is counted as a storey and therefore it changes a six storey building into a seven storey building.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 That is interesting because the diagram typically shows you\u2019ve got the ground floor and then you count double, worst case you\u2019ve got a sloping site. The datum\/zero starts from wherever the steps are to that. What you\u2019re coming across is slightly different . The main thing to note here is that Approved Doc B does have completely different height limits for certain things to kick in. Again, I think that\u2019s where I\u2019ve always been confused because what\u2019s noted on the Approved Document for 18 metres, 11 metres, is very different to the definition to the high-risk buildings. The advice I\u2019ve been taught is don\u2019t think of the Building Safety Act as a technical kind of guidance threshold, it\u2019s just a definition for when there is a high-risk building. You really need as architects and designers and everyone else to be looking at Approved Document Part B which, for example, requires sprinklers above 11. <\/p>\n

NEIL YEOMANS Yeah, but that\u2019s the problem. We\u2019re going to be in a world where we\u2019re commissioning the cardinal sin of data management, we have got two different definitions for the same word. So where architects will be talking Approved Document B storey, as a landlord we\u2019re going to be thinking about what am I going to have to register, and more importantly for the sake of this storm drain I\u2019ve now got to charge the customers a load of extra\u2026it\u2019s an entirely different management regime because of that feature. You guys might not be aware of all of that if you\u2019re working off the Approved Document B definition. <\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 That\u2019s quite useful. I don\u2019t know whether there is some sort of diagram or technical phrase from a document\u2026it\u2019s mute for you to say, OK, we didn\u2019t realise about that. if that could be shared that would be good. <\/p>\n

NEIL YEOMANS George, if I send you an email with a photograph and also to the excerpts out of the two documents please feel free to share it around. It\u2019s the exact example of the building that I\u2019m talking about. Other organisations, there is one in London that has had to add over 30 additional buildings due to this change in definition. So just to give you a view of what we\u2019ve done since last we spoke, I\u2019m very fortunate to have been given the chair of the National Housing Federation Building Safety Group. We met up with the departments last week and discussed it with them and explained that this is not just the worst thing you can possibly do in terms of data management, it\u2019s also now going to leave organisations that firstly will not have some of the key building information for these buildings, because we haven\u2019t had time to collect any of it because this new guidance only dropped at the back end of June and we only realised the discrepancy in early July. So we\u2019re now scrabbling around trying to throw up drones and find square meterage of flat roofs etc for the key building information. <\/p>\n

But secondly, and this is something that Victoria from the Nat Fed pointed out that didn\u2019t occur to me, was there will be landlords out there that would have looked at their stock and gone HRBs, I don\u2019t have any, I don\u2019t have to worry about preparing for this building safety malarkey, not until the scope changes or whatever. They\u2019re potentially going to be dragged into this regime now and they won\u2019;t be looking at this stuff, because they won\u2019t be on the automated building safety alerts because it doesn\u2019t apply to them.<\/p>\n

GEORGE So, is this something that we need to\u2026could that have been designed out? <\/p>\n

NEIL YEOMANS The different departments say no, it couldn\u2019t. They were hamstrung by the definition of building.<\/p>\n

GEORGE What I meant was, in the example that you\u2019ve just given there, it\u2019s the car park, it\u2019s actually to an extent the way the car park was designed. So had the team known that they could have designed it to be lower. Is that right? <\/p>\n

NEIL YEOMANS They could of, but this building was built pre-Grenfell. But yes, it could have been designed out, but that\u2019s why I raised the point\u2026they\u2019re going to be complying with Approved Document B thinking the definition of storey in Approved Document B is the most relevant, and actually it\u2019s not. <\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 They\u2019ve almost made it, again, more complicated because everyone just wants a simple diagram which the diagram with the sloping floor made sense to everyone, but if this is now come in it\u2019s so nuanced that\u2026presumably when they mean ceiling they mean soffit, because a car park typically won\u2019t have a ceiling, so what they probably mean is the underside of the slab of the ground floor. <\/p>\n

Just moving on, from an architects point of view the Architects Registration Board has the power to strike off us architects if we\u2019re not showing suitable competency and on that note the duty holders and competency. And that\u2019s individuals as well as organisations, so again an element of training or CPD to undertake these specific roles is required. So that\u2019s an internal organisation review that needs to happen, modelled around the CDM duty holders or principal designer, but more from a regs compliance. The thing you were talking about, George, the Defective Premises Act, 30 years for dwellings constructed before June 2022, 15 years\u2026The reality is I don\u2019t think anyone really has got insurance of anything to do with facades or cladding. We have to have insurance, but the insurance doesn\u2019t typically cover anything to do with cladding. So it\u2019s a bit of a weird scenario where a developer might come after the design team or the contractor, but there\u2019s no insurance to cover it and so it\u2019s a bit of a weird situation. I don\u2019t really know the answer to that but that\u2019s the reality at the moment. <\/p>\n

GEORGE The other thing on that is that people immediately look at cladding as being an issue, but my understanding is that it\u2019s any serious defect. So it could be internal compartmentation and it could also be a smoke control system not performing, or something like that. <\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Yes, I think insurance is a big problem, not that people don\u2019t have insurance, but what actually does the insurance cover. So where does it leave organisations or practices if someone does come and claim from them. Then obviously there is the creation of national regulative construction products, I guess that\u2019s again for all designers to be mindful of and check with the products or the materials that they are specifying to make sure that it is been approved. That\u2019s a very good way to make sure that the products we\u2019re proposing are suitable. And then the new homes ombudsman created to enable owners to raise complaints to. <\/p>\n

Moving on, we\u2019ve got two slides left. There\u2019s a couple of things, construction of new high risk buildings or alterations to existing high, things that might not have necessarily have been built new, but would become. So if you alter something that\u2019s already been built which falls into the definition then obviously that kick starts the gateways. or if you\u2019re adding storeys to a building that currently is below that threshold, then again that kicks in the requirements. So that\u2019s something to be mindful of, clients, in the past, would add a storey later on to gain more units or homes, but that would obviously be then subject to\u2026<\/p>\n

GEORGE Das, if you add a storey does that mean the whole of the building then would need to be reconsidered, or is it only the\u2026?<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 I\u2019d imagine it\u2019s the whole of the building which would then need to go through, ti wouldn\u2019t make sense otherwise. <\/p>\n

GEORGE And also if , for example, they\u2019re doing something like sustainability or changing all the windows, would that also require building regs approval? <\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Yeah, because actually I did ask this question. We\u2019ve got a live project where the buildings at the moment are below the threshold, they\u2019re not looking to add but they are refurbishing the internals. I asked the specialist, he said from a commencement point of view for materials, change and refurbishments they were talking about removal of at least 25% of the facade of buildings. What I don\u2019t know is does that include windows, so re-cladding. This definition is more to do with you need to have done all of this before next year in order to not to have to comply, but by the same definition works to the facade would then kick it in if the building is currently above that threshold, the high risk building definition. So, I need to find out, because windows are a very good point because lot of people do change windows to make it environmentally better. Will people stop doing that to stop this triggering? <\/p>\n

Obviously the criminal offence thing to kind of commence without stage 2 approval, or to occupy\u2026without gateway 3 approval. The fees, I don\u2019t think I\u2019ve seen anything regarding fees. There was someone earlier, tables that were shared. I did try and look for it, but there wasn\u2019t any definition as such, I guess we\u2019ll come back to that one. Then the three gateways, so one before planning permission and at the moment there\u2019s a 21 day period for the HSE to provide feedback, so that needs to be factored into programs. Gateway 2 can take apparently around 12 weeks. They talk about commencing of whole or parts of the buildings, I think that might become a bit vague, but we\u2019re pushing for, ideally contractors and design teams would have completed the design for the whole building before starting. But again, this is quite a long period that needs to be factored in to programs by the client and the rest of the team. <\/p>\n

These are the periods that I understand in terms of changes to what\u2019s already been approved. So again, one way to look at it is that there will be less changes proposed, unless really required, because maybe a product has gone out of availability. That\u2019s seen as a positive in our view: You design it once and you specify it once and you build it. That would make life much easier from an architectural point of view at stage 5, but maybe the weeks might kind of detract from value engineering as we o through, typically on a DM build that we work on. At gateway 3 again there\u2019s maybe a 12 week process to get the completion certificate and you then need to use that completion certificate to register the building with the building safety regulator which could take another 3 week period. So that\u2019s quite a long period of time before almost post-PC, current PC, before occupation, so that\u2019s going to be 15 weeks. So again, that needs to be understood by all parties.<\/p>\n

The golden thread, I think that\u2019s sort of the definition of it throughout the lifecycle, digital, secure, transferable, accessible. As-built information from an architectural or a design point is really quite a big change because they do define it as as-built, rather than final record. How do we get to that, we need much more transparency or less changes that what is currently happening or projects in D&B where we may not get told of all the changes that have been undertaken. To be honest, any project program that currently shows an overlap between the design and construction because of gateway 2, although there is this parts part that they\u2019ve introduced, has a potential flaw. Interestingly, we\u2019ve just done a tender and the client was showing an overlap, but it was for a large residential scheme. So again, maybe clients are not really up to date yet, which is quite worrying. <\/p>\n

And the final slide, in terms of non-high risk buildings, the duty holders and competency requirements are still there. I don\u2019t think they\u2019ve necessarily defined when that kicks in, but when I asked they thought it might be the same, which is as long as the project hasn\u2019t commenced, or must have commenced on site by 2024, then they would avoid the requirements to make sure that the right duty holders and the competency requirements are in place. And then I was asking about what does a commencement mean. I think for new builds, in building regs it talks about going up to the damper of course, so ground floor slab, which is quite different to just putting foundations. And if it\u2019s multiple buildings on the same site, they all have to get to that same level for it to have to commence. So that again is quite a big change because a lot of people used to put a hoarding up or a bit of foundation here or there. That change needs to be factored into construction programs etc. Again, as I asked for the refurbished project we\u2019re working on, this was the definition that he felt commencement meant, that you\u2019d had to have done all of that by that by that date. So this is more for an internal strip out and change of use from office to residential project. <\/p>\n

I also asked about demolition and enabling works because a lot of clients are still waning to do demolition and enabling before stage 5 fully starts. And that, as far as I understand, is outside the gateway, but you still need to apply for the demolition notice. In theory the enabling works can take place without having gateway 2 approval. We\u2019re as a practice following this for all projects in all sectors in our specifications where we can, unless\u2026we know that you can go slightly below that in some instances, but to make our lives easier and to future-proof the clients we\u2019re using that as our materials spec. And I think you also asked about staircases, George. As far aa I understand it there is no threshold, apart from in the London plan which requires 2 staircases above 30 metres residential. But I think the building control bodies are trying to get all of these things to align because, as Neil pointed out, there is discrepancy between what sometimes the Building Safety Act says and sometimes London Plan says and building regulation Part B and others say. The other thing i\u2019m aware of is sprinklers and wayfinding, for residential buildings above 11 to have sprinklers and other use classes over 30. <\/p>\n

I will share these, but ti would be good if anyone has opinions or information which contradicts these, because this is how I understand it looking at the latest information that I\u2019ve had from various sources. And if they\u2019re still not correct then we need to get them right. <\/p>\n

GEORGE I think this has been very helpful, thank you. <\/p>\n

JIM CREAK Obviously I\u2019m looking at this firer statement, do you actually mean the safety case, or is this a fire strategy? I\u2019m tying you down to a bit of a definition there. In gateway 1 fire statement, you\u2019ve said, is that the new safety case requirement?<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 No, I believe that\u2019s actually a template that exists, but just looking at the design in terms of layout, adjacencies to other buildings, escape routes, materials, access for fire fighters. It\u2019s actually just proving that you\u2019ve thought about all of that at planning stage, which makes absolute sense, but it requires fire consultants to be appointed as well, tracking of vehicles to be done, maybe looking at road layouts. <\/p>\n

JIM CREAK Yeah, that\u2019s been termed the fire safety case as opposed to a fire statement. When you\u2019ve put down there sprinklers and wayfinding, one of the other things there would be the Premises Information Box which would hold the sorts of things that would be in the fire statement. <\/p>\n

MIKE SMITH That\u2019s quite a nice summary from Das. We are all fighting with this secondary legislation over a lot of these things. The reason I\u2019m a bit late is I\u2019ve been on calls with the HSE and clients on the definition of gateway 2 buildings and so forth. So the summary that Das gave is pretty good, it\u2019s a pretty clear understanding and aligns very much with what our understanding is. I think what you all have to be aware of there is huge rabbit holes in some of this legislation that you could go down. So some of the definitions and the crossover between the Safety Act and the Building Act can very quickly diverse between one and the other and so you can spend a lot of time with very listigious? 31mins 05 secs words looking at a very clear paragraph. And I still think the HSE recommendation this morning is that the new gateway 2 go live date will be the 2nd October for stage 2 applications. <\/p>\n

I think Das mentioned fees there, as we understand it the fees will be a very notional fee to put the application in. It will be a couple of hundred \u00a3 to submit. And then the registered building inspector, which will be your replacement building control inspector, will then put forward a cost for the project based on its complexity and the team that they need to do the assessment. <\/p>\n

GEORGE Yes, and if they then need to do investigations then that\u2019s just an hourly rate, the conversation last year was it was \u00a3170 an hour that they were charging. But of course that\u2019s open ended, so it\u2019s probably better for clients and main contractors to invest in their designers in making sure that all of that information is as clean as possible so that those types of investigations aren\u2019t necessary. <\/p>\n

MIKE SMITH Exactly, I think the emphasis on stage 2 gateway submission is solid and robust and having all the right information so that the BSR assessment is them just checking all the information, asking if you\u2019ve got any questions, and then they will go through. I think what will cause you a challenge is if you submit a basic stage 2 application you run the risk that your costs will ramp up because the assessor will take longer to do it and it will be charged back to the accountable person. <\/p>\n

MO FISHER Just to add to that is that change control is also going to be chargeable and that\u2019s full cost recovery and we don\u2019t know what that looks like. So if you\u2019ve got a product noted on 200 drawings and you change are building safety regulator\/building control then going to put a cost forward to say we\u2019re then having to go through and check a percentage of those drawings, all of them, that hasn\u2019t been clarified at any point so we don\u2019t know what those costs are going to look like. So again it\u2019s just reinforcing the point made by Mike to get your gateway 2 information, once you\u2019re there you need to be comfortable that whatever is specified is going to be used through the project. Albeit you could have supply issues etc that mean that you need to make that change, but I have heard through an HSE Q&A that they would look at situations in a reasonable manner. So if you can\u2019t get a product that is specified there and you\u2019re replacing it for something that is equal or better, then they will look at that favourably because they realise it\u2019s a supply issue. But again, we\u2019re yet to see how that actually works. <\/p>\n

GEORGE We had a Bim4housing contractural group meeting yesterday where we had some of the big contractors. One of the things that Mace raised was the importance of change control, they said that change control is going to be the thing that\u2019s going to bite a lot of people. So I think we need to simplify that. <\/p>\n

MIKE SMITH Your stage control process will form part of your stage 2 gateway submission, so you have to submit within your gateway 2 application how you manage your change control. And what they\u2019ll then look to do is evidence of the changes that have happened. If you did make a change because of a subcontractor supply issue what they\u2019d then want to see is have you done your assessment of why you\u2019re change was required, have you got the right sign off from the right person based on what you\u2019re changing. So when you then go through the change control they\u2019ll say, great, you\u2019ve done everything, thanks. So it will be quicker based on if you have the right things. <\/p>\n

MO FISHER There\u2019s going to be an HSE portal for that, or there was one proposed. I sat in on BSR research and that\u2019s where I know that there was a cost because I went through all of the process and then right at they end they went credit card details please. And I was like surely you should be doing that up front, rather than at the end, it felt a little bit naughty. So, we\u2019ll see how that comes, because again I think they should be giving you a quotation rather than an invoice. Because if you did want to change for a good reason, but it\u2019s going to cost you \u00a350,000, but you don\u2019t need to make that change, you\u2019re doing it for a moral obligation, maybe sustainability - you don\u2019t need to do it. the product is compliant in every way you look at it, it will put people of form doing those decisions. <\/p>\n

ALIN MARGARIT I\u2019d like to ask if anyone has an opinion from a British designer perspective of working abroad and considering that the health and safety issues are supposed to be followed as we have them in UK, regardless of where you work, I'm wondering how is this new legislation impacting the work we do overseas. For example, in my mind first comes the International Building Conduct Code that\u2019s it\u2019s kind of an umbrella which would cover most situations and then as you go into local contexts you have local codes and so on. As a designer or an architect or the duty you have to look at health and safety issues, you would still refer to the UK legislation mostly, regardless of where this is.<\/p>\n

ANA MATIC I can try and answer this, not that I know the answer. I think what\u2019s going to happen is that this will be more of an overall cultural change. We work abroad as well, so I think what\u2019s going to happen is that our own internal processes will change to adapt and once they\u2019re changed we\u2019ll be looking to implement them wherever we\u2019re working, regardless of whether that\u2019s a UK project that\u2019s subject to the gateways, or it\u2019s an international project where actually the gateways don\u2019t exist, but similar principles should apply. At least from an architects point of view, the cultural and the procurement changes will start becoming fixed into our normal work and therefore we\u2019ll be expecting ourselves and our consultants to work in a certain way. But I don\u2019t know if there is any immediate changes that will affect international projects. <\/p>\n

MIKE SMITH I think when you read the direct Act, the Act applies to buildings in England only. The theory is that following the guidance in line with the Act for buildings outside of the UK will be a very good process, but I think you wouldn\u2019t be able to go through the gateway processes because they would assess it as a building outside of their control. <\/p>\n

GEORGE Can I just clarify, Mike, we talk about the Act as the Building Safety Act, but I think it gets mixed up with the Fire Safety Act. Because the Fire Safety Act has got a wider\u2026is fire safety also related to Scotland, Wales and Ireland? <\/p>\n

MIKE SMITH This is where the challenge lies as well. What you see is even when you\u2019re looking at the Building Safety Act and the Building Act there is still definition crossovers that mean that mean that number one, it will be included. So there\u2019s care homes and hospitals, we\u2019ve been having a real struggle to understand that because on the one Act they are included and in one Act they\u2019re excluded. So you can find that there\u2019s very fine lines between definitions in those different documents and the secondary legislation that then clarifies it can send you down these rabbit holes that can be quite difficult.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I was talking a few months ago with one of the partners at Devonshires. Obviously people at the moment are trying to limit their liabilities and responsibilities, in a practical way, but he said that the clarification from the regulator to some extent isn\u2019t so relevant in that you have to ensure that you\u2019re complying with building regs. So therefore however it comes out, if you\u2019ve not complied with building regs then you are liable. For me, that\u2019s a bit of an interesting one because from everything that I\u2019ve been told building regs themselves are contradictory, and some of the standards are contradictory as well, so it\u2019s actually quite difficult to know. <\/p>\n

One of the things I wanted to pose today is the role of the principal designer. I\u2019m raising that because it seems to me that if it is the case that a measure of whether a project has or hasn\u2019t complied somebody has to review that. My understanding is the client has got a responsibility to appoint a principal designer and a principal contractor, and that principal designer has got a responsibility, and therefore I presume a liability, to actually verify that the project has complied with building regs. That seems to me to be quite an onerous responsibility. I\u2019ve discussed it with a couple of architects that are following that route of becoming principal designers and they\u2019re at the moment in conversations with their insurers to try and scope how they\u2019re dealing with that. As one of them said we\u2019re probably comfortable in doing the architectural bits, but structure and M&E are obviously specialist areas, but the principal designer is expected to be able to verify all of those areas. I don\u2019t know if that\u2019s something that Mike or Ana are planning to go with. <\/p>\n

MIKE SMITH As I see it from the new secondary legislation as well, I'm led to believe that the client now has a responsibility to sign off the completed works. There's been a new shift that what they're looking now to do is, I think if you go back to the whole premise of the accountable person, what they're trying to do is they're trying to give a building a point of contact for everything to funnel through. So from the BSR route there's your building, this is the person looking after it, they\u2019re making all the right decisions and they are then disseminating the information to designers, contractors, whoever else it is. Because therefore they are receiving information from architects and designers it\u2019s their responsibility to be able to say we have a compliant building. We\u2019ve also seen quite recently with some building reg applications ahead of gateway 2 approval that we\u2019re seeing building control bodies also taking that sort of stance. <\/p>\n

They\u2019re sort of saying we\u2019re not going to tell you you\u2019re compliant, we\u2019re going to ask you questions and you\u2019ve got to prove to us that you\u2019re compliant. So they are sort of changing that stance and anywhere where we are seeing ambiguity in We've also seen quite recently with some recent building Reg applications ahead of Gateway to approval that we're seeing building control bodies also taking that sort of stance. There's sort of saying we're not going to tell you you're compliant. We're gonna ask you questions and you've got to prove to us that you're so they're sort of changing that stance. And anyway, where we're seeing ambiguity in determination or understanding of the requirements they are typically seeking us to get a fire engineer to vouch for fire safety related sign-off\u2026fire engineer to sign off, this is a derogation from the regulations. That then goes back to building control and building controls don't really say thank you, they sort of say we've received this. So they\u2019re being a little bit more slippery fish really giving us advice and really putting the emphasis back on us to design to requirement. <\/p>\n

JIM CREAK I agree with that. That's exactly the advice I am actually giving to seek assurance from others. I liken this situation, Mike, like the statutory bar used to be, in other words, because the fire safety sort of hands over on occupancy but also impinges on design and real understanding this fire statement and the fire safety strategy. I'm telling clients now that they must seek those assurances from the specialists involved, I like the idea you proposed which is an overall designer that will have the answers to this, but from my perspective I don\u2019t see a problem with the two pieces of legislation, I see that they compliment one another. And it does put an onus, and I\u2019ve always said this since we started this process, George, that it starts right at the beginning with design. <\/p>\n

We\u2019ve talked about the old situation of a purpose group of a building, is it going to mixed residential, is it going to have retail, commercial, all of those things now have to be considered right up front in stage 1. And of course those declarations have to be made to building regulations and building regulations, quite rightly, they don\u2019t say it\u2019s OK, they say we\u2019ve got your justification, we\u2019ve got your calculations. You sign it off, you\u2019ve got the liability, and then you hand that over to the client. And that\u2019s what I\u2019m saying, I\u2019m not worried about the detail of the definitions about this other foot or whatever, I\u2019m actually telling clients to treat it all exactly the same because when you get into the fire safety order, it doesn\u2019t matter whether it\u2019s a hotel, care home, it\u2019s got to be suitable and sufficient for the purpose group of which you\u2019ve designed it. And that means that the client, the landlord, has to seek assurance from the professions, and that goes right back. The golden thread can\u2019t just stay at completion, it\u2019s too late. <\/p>\n

MICHELE HANIOTIS Just back to the PD, maybe I\u2019m over simplistic but it seems to me to be the principal contractors role because they coordinate the building regs application and I know that implies a procurement route, it\u2019s an interesting problem there. We\u2019ve talked to various solicitors and on the one hand you might be able to do a pre-commencement agreement with a contractor who will take on the PD role to get the building regs done, or you do it under one contract. They seem to think it\u2019s possible, although there\u2019s quite an extended period of time, not just to do the building regs application but also to wait for approval, so that has contractural implications. So there are details there that need to be resolved, but I can\u2019t see why in the design & build world the principal contractor can\u2019t be the principal designer (building regulations) coordinating the building regs application and verifying it and so on as they would normally do. <\/p>\n

MIKE SMITH It\u2019s a tricky one, I think there is still a general feel that design & build contracts will be less off, I still feel there\u2019s this designing it fully. <\/p>\n

MICHELE HANIOTIS I'm jumping in here and saying that if we only did it properly with the contractor involved at the earliest stage in design, we might actually get the benefit because at the moment (I\u2019m not the only one who might think this), this fragmented business. We have a pre-contract designers who are called concept designers who don't know their arse from their tit, and I'm very angry with the architectural profession, as an architect, that they don't know. They call people who know how to build buildings technical architects, I thought architects knew how to build buildings. That's my rant for the morning. And then when you go through that process where the contractor prices the scheme on the basis of poorly developed design from planning drawings and some generic ERs and then they end up having to make it work, who pays for that? And the delayed periods of getting new planning applications in and so on. If we had the contractors benefit from the start to make sure the scheme was buildable and that there was some technical input, unless the architect can be technical, I think I\u2019m very happy for that. It\u2019s just going to be a protracted design development period and who is paying for that. I think that is going to be an issue. <\/p>\n

ANA MATIC We are definitely going to be providing the principal designer role. We think we\u2019re competent, we have projects on both sides, we have a delivery unit that deals with later stage design, in effect technical architects, as you say, but we also have projects that are just normal all the way through projects. So we\u2019re experiencing both. We have a principal designer lead role, so we\u2019ll be offering a kind of consultancy for principal designer role as well. Quite how it\u2019s going to work with proving that we\u2019re competent to speak on behalf of the overall coordinated design, I don\u2019t know. I don\u2019t think anyone knows because I think the regulations and the guidance has been written without actual understanding of coordination. Duties have been pushed into certain roles and bags or buckets, whatever you were to call them, and the building process has been simplified into here you are, you make a design and then you just go to the contractor then you just go to construction. <\/p>\n

We all know it\u2019s not like that, things change in the industry, procurement changes, suppliers go bankrupt. With the best will architects, even if they know what they\u2019re doing exactly, might specify something today and in three months time that thing might change. So I think it\u2019s not always incompetence, life is just messy and much more messy than the regulations would like to think about it. I think architects are very competent to be principal designers, I just also want to caveat that with the fact that we are not able to control the coordination, the coordination will depend on procurement. That\u2019s a very important thing to remember. The lead designer always gets blamed for everything that goes wrong in the coordination, but just being the lead designer doesn\u2019t mean you have the stick to beat everyone in the team to do the right thing. People will be doing the right thing, including the designers and subcontractors, only if they\u2019ve been paid properly, they\u2019ve been briefed properly, they have good employers requirements, they understood the project, all of those things. So I think really the time will tell and probably a new type of design & build will develop. That\u2019s as much of an understanding at the moment. <\/p>\n

MICHELE HANIOTIS Why do we think a good design & build contractor can\u2019t do this? Because they have technical design coordinators to do exactly the job of coordinating the design team. I\u2019ve worked with some terrific people over the years, the rest of them might be awful, but the people doing the job, generally from an architectural background, but they have a project management role about coordinating. Sometimes it might be the architect, but quite often not, because as you say Ana it\u2019s a different skill set almost, to pull together the whole thing. Now obviously now we\u2019re using BIM, there is that advantage in that somebodies got to coordinate a federated model, so there\u2019s already a sort of coordination role in that as well. As long as you\u2019ve got a decent contractor I don\u2019t see why you can\u2019t rely on their design coordinator to technical manager to pull together the building regs, because they already do. <\/p>\n

ANA MATIC Oh no, contractors are perfectly placed to do the role,. It\u2019s just that if the design & build is changing in itself, we might see contractors not being very keen to take this role. We\u2019d love them to do it, but they might not be so keen. We'll see. <\/p>\n

MIKE SMITH I think Ana\u2019s right, the regulator has this idealistic view that everything is fully designed, you submit your gateway 2, nothing changes and the builders go away and build it. And we know that although that is potentially feasible, it has its own challenges within and there is always that on construction stage issue that will sit there. I think this is why we need a little bit more knowledge about that change control between the gateway 2 and 3 and what constitutes those changes. We\u2019re all fully aware that the idealist world of trying to fully design a building before we\u2019ve appointed all of the various supply chains is nearly impossible because we would then have to sub-appoint all these outer designers which would mean our fees would go up which would mean that clients fees expectations before starting would ramp up and here\u2019s a danger then that you would slow down development. <\/p>\n

JIM CREAK In the design & build stage the problem in my experience over 30 years is when it comes to specialist contractors. When it deals with fire alarms that you can\u2019t actually draw up a confirmation because so much is variable in the fit-up depending on the occupancy profile. This again is crossover between the statutory bar where you just had a building and it had four walls and you\u2019d get a key from a landlord\u2019s representative and you\u2019d say there it is, go ahead, it\u2019s been built to spec buildings regulations, just go and occupy it. But it\u2019s not as simple as that anymore because needs of the different occupants, I call it occupant profile and occupancy profile, things change with the specialist contractor systems within there. And that\u2019s something that designers have got to get their head around. <\/p>\n

GEORGE I want to pick up on tow things. One is that Michele was saying there, she mentioned BIM. One of the frustrations that I have at the moment is that people are seeing BIM as being the solution, and certainly it can be, as long as you\u2019re asking for the right information. I\u2019m concerned that people aren\u2019t interested in actually the detail and it\u2019s the detail that gives you the information that Michele was just referring to. So unless we actually are defining what the detail is then that\u2019s critical. One of the things that I found encouraging in the secondary legislation when ti came out a few weeks ago, and I think Mike referred to this, the client now has a much clearer responsibility for signing off what they\u2019re being provided. So, Regulation 38, which is the definition of the information that needs to be handed over from a fire perspective. In my experience of looking at O&Ms and handover information Regulation 38 is never satisfied, certainly in the ones I\u2019ve seen and also anecdotally from talking to people in this group. And yet that\u2019s a fundamental thing that could be very clear and could be explicit. So therefore I think that is something that we should zero in on. <\/p>\n

And the new regulation requires clients to actually explicitly say that they\u2019ve received the information that\u2019s needed, which I think is a really strong thing because it means, for example, Michele\u2019s colleagues, who may or may not be engaged in the process because typically asset teams are expected to get crap information and therefore they don\u2019t get engaged, which is a self fulfilling prophecy, that\u2019s something that we need to address. One final thing on that is the specification. So if we\u2019ve got within change control, if we need a robust change control mechanism i\u2019m assuming therefore that you need to have a performance specification for that product that\u2019s easily accessed so that when an AOV is swapped out for a different AOV, or doors are swapped out for different doors, how easy is it for the specification to carry against that. <\/p>\n

I\u2019ve been doing work to try and understand that. I\u2019ve spoken with NBS because NBS\u2019 Chorus is probably the most widely used specification tool, and said could we extract from NBS Chorus a specification for a door or a wall. And the answer really is no. Typically the NBS specification is maybe a 1500 or 2000 page PDF document, that\u2019s the output that then is held. <\/p>\n

ANA MATIC You can export from NBS, you just end up with a dead copy. You can export that specific clause, part of the clause to a PDF or Word document or whatever. It\u2019s just your ending up with a dead copy, not a live copy if that makes sense. So you have to remember then to update it if you\u2019re ever going to use it in isolated\u2026it becomes static data. <\/p>\n

MO FISHER I\u2019ve also spoken to NBS because I\u2019ve found that there is room for human era with input from suppliers. What I\u2019ve found out from NBS is it\u2019s not mandatory for suppliers to declare fire performance etc and then NBS verify it, which i found was astonishing. So the forms that they give suppliers have room for them to fill in that information, but it\u2019s not mandatory and it\u2019s not mandatory for them to declare what certificate. So I\u2019m actually in discussions trying to push that, the more people here that would agree that they think it\u2019s mandatory for suppliers to declare what their performance is, not just from fire, membranes for water proofing etc and back that up the better. Because I do find it very discouraging that later on down the line when us as a designer will dig into a product you go hold on a minute, that\u2019s not fit for use in this application and that\u2019s not right. If a supplier is putting forward a product that they should be responsible. <\/p>\n

Just coming back to the PR role, the problem I see also for architects as PDs competency levels within skill sets, which we\u2019ve mentioned, but for example smoke control, CFD analysis, how can an architect look at that, review it and say I\u2019m competent enough to sign that off. So there\u2019s got to be a level of competency statements form consultants, subcontractors, that people must buy into and agree yes they are and that\u2019s got to pave the way for that sign off. The other one was the role of the contractor as PD. I think some contractors will want to take that on because they won\u2019t want to lose that control during the construction phase of what they have through D&B. You can imagine an architect acting as a PD and they say we want to change our product and the PD has the overriding hand to say we disagree, you can\u2019t, I don\u2019t think it\u2019s going to work well in relationship there, but could we see a PD role with the architect delivering the building regs application and then the principal contractor also then becoming the principal designer through the construction phase. <\/p>\n

I don\u2019t think anywhere that you\u2019re not allowed to change the PD role, you are, but you have to justify it. And the BSR is all about procedure, so the BSR is more procedural than the building control actually sort of agreeing the detail. And I think that for me is where I\u2019m just doing a clear split line, procedure is BSR and building regs is building regs, but it still remains to be seen whether they will actually approve. They must approve something at some point, they can\u2019t just say we\u2019ve reviewed everything and we agree with the principal designer , otherwise what\u2019s the point of having them there. <\/p>\n

MIKE SMITH Isn\u2019t that the function though of these two PD roles. My understanding is that there is now tow PD roles, there\u2019s what we would call the original PD and there is the new PD that now deals with the building regs. And the idea is that they can be separate or the y can be combined. So one person could do both if they have the competency, but you could separate them out which would then enable you in theory to retain the PD building regs appointment, transfer PD over to the principal contractor so you could still do that D&B route, but any variations in change to the regulations would come under the review of the PD building regs. <\/p>\n

MO FISHER Yeah, and for that I think that split for the PD building regs could happen after building control application. So architect up to application and then contractor after, and that fits a sort of hybrid D&B scenario in that world, but you may also get contractors that just don\u2019t want to do the PD role, they just want to put the onerous onto someone else and don\u2019t want to have to plan, manage, monitor, because it\u2019s in the law that that\u2019s what the PD has to do and you could see a push on that coming from contractors.<\/p>\n

MICHELE HANIOTIS Back to the queries about change control and building regs applications and how complete it could be before you get the supply chain input. Is anybody on the calls to the HSE having their regular updates on building regs and the BSR requirements? That question has come up and it might not be a perfect answer but I think what\u2019 they\u2019re saying is we\u2019re not going to be stupid about this, you have to justify why you can\u2019t give us all the details. Smoke alarms are one of the examples where a specialist input is required as long as you can justify it because it\u2019s part of a supply chain, and they expect they have to have that dialogue. Maybe I\u2019m being naive, but I think they\u2019re not stupid, they want to see the proof, they understand the way we build. But it means you can\u2019t start with a bit of a piling? 1hr 08mins 30secs and hope for the best all through the contract, it won\u2019t be that either, as we know they sort of procure during the job. <\/p>\n

They have to have designed it to demonstrate, as much as possible, the functional requirements of the building regs. So there a little bit getting a bit wooly because the secondary legislation is out. I think we\u2019re just going to have to start doing it and see what happens. The information management side, we\u2019re pushing ahead at Network to engage asset management to write out EIRs properly. Now that they are registering schemes they\u2019re starting to wake up to what we\u2019re asking for, so we\u2019re making good progress with key building information. We\u2019ll wait to see what happens when they start having to do the building safety cases, but we\u2019re starting to make sense of that. And as you say, George, the Regulation 38 information has been a bit patchy over the years, but now everybody is getting much smarter about it. And so hopefully we\u2019ll get our information management, either analogue or BIM, in shape. That\u2019s the plan anyway. <\/p>\n

GEORGE I\u2019m coming across quite a lot of people saying, well, we don\u2019t need to do any of this because it\u2019s gone through building control so therefore if building control have signed it off, then what do we need to do. I\u2019m saying to them you can\u2019t pass liability onto building control because they don\u2019t carry liability, so therefore if information is missing then it\u2019s your responsibility to ensure that it isn\u2019t. I just wondered whether anybody else has a view on that. <\/p>\n

MIKE SMITH Yes, what you\u2019re talking about there is applications ahead of gateway 2 that have already been approved.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I think probably projects that are being completed within the next year, say. <\/p>\n

MIKE SMITH It\u2019s quite tricky, I think is the answer. There\u2019s a couple of things there, as I see it ahead of gateway 2 approval if you\u2019ve already got an initial notice or building control approval notice you can carry on without going through gateway 2 approval as long as you achieve the transitional requirements and start on site ahead of April 2024 with various criteria around that. Now, it\u2019s a bit grey around that. it\u2019s not everything applies, there are different requirements under it, but that\u2019s my understanding.<\/p>\n

GEORGE But the specific question I\u2019m trying to simplify things on is have we got the documents that should have been provided for Regulation 38? And for me, either you\u2019ve provided them or you haven\u2019t. So if you haven't provided them, if the contractor hasn't provided them, if the supply chain hasn't provided to them to the client, in my view they have to. Whereas what I\u2019m being told is that if building control has signed it off then nobody needs to do anything because if building control have missed out that there\u2019s no door schedules, for example, then there\u2019s nothing that anybody can do. That seems to me to be nonsense because building control, they can\u2019t check everything, they\u2019re not responsible, are they? <\/p>\n

JIM CREAK I\u2019ve been going on by Regulation 38 for the last 15 years and unfortunately the paragraph is not that clever, it\u2019s actually very very weak. And you can ask loads of people what they actually think should be in the details handed over to either an occupant or a tenant or an owner of a building, both on the fire safety side enforcement and in approved inspectors, they are not sure that fire stopping and fire door register and all of that is meant by that. It still keeps going back to an old mechanical M&E of how the building works. But you\u2019re perfectly correct, I\u2019ve been on this whole thing for 15 years and it\u2019s enforcers that are the problem because they don\u2019t actually know what should be in it.<\/p>\n

GEORGE So if the clients now have to sign off that they\u2019ve received it then I think theres\u2019s an opportunity, as Michele was saying, if the information requirements can be tightened up so the client is explicitly saying that I do want a door schedule, I do want to know where the fire stopping is, therefore that\u2019s something that the supply chain can then deliver against. <\/p>\n

JIM CREAK I think with HRBs it\u2019s a definite, George, but with other buildings it\u2019s still going to be difficult. <\/p>\n

RICHARD We\u2019ve got 10 minutes left and I\u2019m hearing a lot of we need this, we\u2019ve got to do this, we must have this. George said we need to address this, and I\u2019m assuming you\u2019re talking about Bim4housing, this group. So how do we do this? have you got any ideas. We\u2019re saying what we need, what can we do about it? we can\u2019t just leave it to these requirements and what we need to happen out in the aether somewhere. What can we as Bim4housing as this group do about it? <\/p>\n

GEORGE I think we should be providing landlords, clients, with a distilled version of what we\u2019ve been talking about here which is saying what information is needed. Because at the end of the day a lot what we\u2019re talking about is contractural and responsible and all the rest, but at the end of the day what we\u2019re doing is talking about information and therefore I think that if we can look at it through the prism of what information is needed and how is that information being provided and who is providing it. It\u2019s that sort of RACI thing, that\u2019s possibly a way of doing it. I think this is all coming together now with the point about change control. My team Active Plan, they\u2019re getting bored with me talking about Regulation 38, but it seems to me to be a very simple part of a bigger picture. But if the project isn\u2019t able to satisfy what\u2019s in Regulation 38 I think that should be a massive red flag for any project. <\/p>\n

MIKE SMITH For me it comes back to good quality EIRs and good setting baseline right at the start and I think one of the things I was just going to raise there is obviously we had a huge amount of good UK BIM framework documentation and guides around all the standards. Unfortunately, there has been a little bit drop and obviously there's been rebranding and renaming of that, which has slightly distilled that and lost a bit of direction. So the ISO 19650 series is still the mandatory requirements and sets of offered the bits and pieces to it. But I still feel we see a lot of uneducated clients about what those standards mean, which cause a lot of the questions when you go through. So Regulation 38 requirements can be clearly stated within your EIRs as a deliverable document, so that can set a framework for a client to say this is what we need. And then from a client team or delivery team, we can price to deliver those documents in a way we go. So it's actually quite simple, but it's still quite difficult to get good quality EIRs at the start of the job and that almost starts the problem as we go through the process.<\/p>\n

GEORGE The challenge with that is that all of the standards, the 19650, the Firey standard is a bit more explicit, but most of them are at high level. They\u2019re mostly saying that you need this process, you need to ensure that you\u2019ve got these documents. Whereas as Jim was saying earlier the trouble is the definition of what Regulation 38 should include needs to be more explicit. So that\u2019s something, Richard, that we could do. <\/p>\n

RICHARD I\u2019ll tell you why I\u2019m asking this question. We\u2019ve got a big online meeting in the middle of November, primarily for HAs and LAs but obviously everyone is welcome. The guy who\u2019s going to be our special guest at that is one of the principal advisors to the Levelling Up committee. So we\u2019ve actually got the ear of someone who\u2019s got the of the Levelling Up committee, which is no small thing. I want to make sure that we maximise that to the full. Whatever comes out of this meeting, there\u2019s obviously a lot of meat that\u2019s going to come out of this meeting, we need to be able to distill that and expand on that over the next couple of months so we\u2019ve got something very strong to put forward. Not just for that meeting, but also we\u2019ve got 300 HAs and LAs who are members of Bim4housing now, and that\u2019s expanding all the time. So we really have got the ear of that side of the industry so it makes sense to exploit that and use that and let\u2019s tell these guys what you want. <\/p>\n

GEORGE That would work for me. I think one the challenges we\u2019ve got is that everybody is completely overwhelmed with information at the moment. I heard the time last week cognitive miser. What that relates to is people largely being overwhelmed with information and not being able to absorb anymore, so therefore they become miserly, it\u2019s a current thing of just skimming through things rather than actually reading them. I think that\u2019s endemic and to a great extent that\u2019s why we\u2019re going to need to use more technology to be able to sort this, but you\u2019ve got to have the data available in a structured way to be able to do that. The other thing I\u2019d suggest is what Das went through this morning I thought was very good and what might be useful is if we share that with everybody and if people could make their own comments on it, doing a brain-dump against it, and then sharing it back with us. So what we can then have is the collective view of the people on this call so that we can have that as a common set of interpretations because I think it isn\u2019t clear. I was talking to Johnny Furlong last week and, I said I don\u2019t think it\u2019s clear to people as to what\u2019s in scope and what isn\u2019t. Johnny thought it was clear, but I think there are so many variables. <\/p>\n

RICHARD Yeah, that\u2019s the most fundamental of the lot, is this building in scope or not. If we\u2019re not even sure on that, where do we go from there? <\/p>\n

ANA MATIC I think it would be great to come up with a summary of the highlights of this meeting because I think some really useful stuff came out. And then if George or somebody from this group can be at the meeting with the housing associations that would be amazing because I think we need to be feedbacking the stuff that absolutely needs to start being addressed now so that things can actually move on. My highlights from today: Definitely change control procedure needs to be clear, probably at the point of gateway 2 onwards, but generally needs to be clear just across the whole of the development of the project. So that implies a competent project manager or design manager on board and if the project doesn\u2019t have a competent project manager or design manager then who takes this on, who looks after this? Who proposes a good change control procedure and who then manages the process? <\/p>\n

These are all very normal procurement questions, what I\u2019m saying is even high risk buildings sometimes come with not a very knowledgeable client and not a very good project manager. And then you\u2019re in a situation where you\u2019re actually starting from scratch and saying well, you need to have an EIR because that will tell you how you\u2019re going to exchange information. So all the things we assume will be in place might not be in place so those are the situations we need to think about. <\/p>\n

RICHARD This meeting is recorded and we publish the highpoints of this meeting, so believe me nothing you\u2019ve said is lost. And also anything you put in the notes, please use the notes because we include those in that document. <\/p>\n

MO FISHER My biggest ask would be the Building Safety Act to be in a single document rather than spread around 20 or 30 pages of different legislation. <\/p>\n

MIKE SMITH I think I understand why that is a problem. The problem is when they try and get the primary legislation through you get royal assent. Because that takes so long to go through the time frame what they do is they give themselves an opportunity to amend and address the secondary legislation because it\u2019s quicker. Like you, I get so frustrated, you get the primary legislation then you get the secondary legislation then you get the advisory notes, and what you do is you go down massive rabbit holes.<\/p>\n

RICHARD If you had all of that as primary legislation it would never get through a session. They have to not exactly cut it short, but cut it short as much as they can and then fill in the gaps with secondary legislation, otherwise it would never get through the House because secondary legislation doesn\u2019t have such a long passage, you don\u2019t have the committee stages to some extent. <\/p>\n

JIM CREAK I\u2019ll leave you with one last thought. If you\u2019d like to go and look and Linkedin and have a look at an entry that Colin Todd did over the weekend about the HSE\u2019s advert for a fire engineer at the princely salary of \u00a355,000 per year. And then you saw that they couldn\u2019t even get the right qualifications for a fire engineer, it might bring some of the stuff that we\u2019ve talked about today into context. But I do think we\u2019ve had a very constructive meeting, so thank you everybody. <\/p>\n

MICHELE HANIOTIS Just to say at the HSE conversations this last month they\u2019ve admitted that they\u2019ve got drafting errors in the legislation and they\u2019ll be submitting revised\u2026so if you pick up any anomalies, they\u2019ve already done it. Because they rushed through it, maybe it just took too long to get through the House. <\/p>\n

RICHARD Let me just recap in terms of moves forward. George, we\u2019re going to circulate a document that presumably includes the high points from this meeting for everyone to comment on, add to and brain-dump into. <\/p>\n

GEORGE Yeah, I think the very first thing is that today we need to share with everybody Das\u2019 document and ask people to comment on that as quickly as possible so that we can then perhaps incorporate that with the high notes and all the rest of it. <\/p>\n

ANA MATIC Can we have a cheat sheet for all of this? Because just commenting on George\u2019s comment about information miserly, we are overwhelmed with so much at the moment and I wonder whether we could start working on nice a A3 sheet with don\u2019t forget these things, talk to your client about these things. <\/p>\n

RICHARD Ana, feel free to take that on as a task. <\/p>\n

GEORGE It\u2019s a really good point. One of the things that we\u2019ve done within Active Plan, we\u2019re trying to put things onto an A3 sheet so that the building safety information that you need\u2026so you can see whether you\u2019ve got all the information or you haven\u2019t, so rather than it being a bigger report. I think that approach is a good one. <\/p>\n

CHAT<\/strong> <\/p>\n

Michele Haniotis : The new title is Principal Designer (Building Regulations)
\nI think the PD role is best placed with Principal Contractor under D and B<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

BIM4HOUSING DESIGN WORKING GROUP MEETING 12-09-2023 ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 I\u2019m Das from David Miller Architects. There’s some new new people on the call which is great. I\u2019m only available for half an hour because of a commitment to another meeting. I\u2019ve had a number of phone calls and meetings and CPDs with building safety…<\/p>\n

Read More<\/span>+<\/i><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-385","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nBIM4HOUSING DESIGN WORKING GROUP MEETING 12-09-2023 - BIM4Housing Design<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/bim4housing-design-working-group-meeting-12-09-2023\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"BIM4HOUSING DESIGN WORKING GROUP MEETING 12-09-2023 - BIM4Housing Design\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"BIM4HOUSING DESIGN WORKING GROUP MEETING 12-09-2023 ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 I\u2019m Das from David Miller Architects. There's some new new people on the call which is great. I\u2019m only available for half an hour because of a commitment to another meeting. I\u2019ve had a number of phone calls and meetings and CPDs with building safety…Read More+\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/bim4housing-design-working-group-meeting-12-09-2023\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"BIM4Housing Design\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-09-18T10:29:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/bim4housing-design-working-group-meeting-12-09-2023\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/bim4housing-design-working-group-meeting-12-09-2023\\\/\",\"name\":\"BIM4HOUSING DESIGN WORKING GROUP MEETING 12-09-2023 - BIM4Housing Design\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2023-09-18T10:24:44+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-09-18T10:29:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/bim4housing-design-working-group-meeting-12-09-2023\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/bim4housing-design-working-group-meeting-12-09-2023\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/bim4housing-design-working-group-meeting-12-09-2023\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"BIM4HOUSING DESIGN WORKING GROUP MEETING 12-09-2023\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/\",\"name\":\"BIM4Housing Design\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"BIM4HOUSING DESIGN WORKING GROUP MEETING 12-09-2023 - BIM4Housing Design","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/bim4housing-design-working-group-meeting-12-09-2023\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"BIM4HOUSING DESIGN WORKING GROUP MEETING 12-09-2023 - BIM4Housing Design","og_description":"BIM4HOUSING DESIGN WORKING GROUP MEETING 12-09-2023 ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 I\u2019m Das from David Miller Architects. There's some new new people on the call which is great. I\u2019m only available for half an hour because of a commitment to another meeting. I\u2019ve had a number of phone calls and meetings and CPDs with building safety…Read More+","og_url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/bim4housing-design-working-group-meeting-12-09-2023\/","og_site_name":"BIM4Housing Design","article_modified_time":"2023-09-18T10:29:57+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/bim4housing-design-working-group-meeting-12-09-2023\/","url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/bim4housing-design-working-group-meeting-12-09-2023\/","name":"BIM4HOUSING DESIGN WORKING GROUP MEETING 12-09-2023 - BIM4Housing Design","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/#website"},"datePublished":"2023-09-18T10:24:44+00:00","dateModified":"2023-09-18T10:29:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/bim4housing-design-working-group-meeting-12-09-2023\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/bim4housing-design-working-group-meeting-12-09-2023\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/bim4housing-design-working-group-meeting-12-09-2023\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"BIM4HOUSING DESIGN WORKING GROUP MEETING 12-09-2023"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/#website","url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/","name":"BIM4Housing Design","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/385","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=385"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/385\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":391,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/385\/revisions\/391"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=385"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=385"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=385"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}