{"id":405,"date":"2024-02-29T16:57:15","date_gmt":"2024-02-29T16:57:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/?page_id=405"},"modified":"2024-02-29T17:45:55","modified_gmt":"2024-02-29T17:45:55","slug":"bim4housing-design-working-group-meeting-21-02-2024","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/bim4housing-design-working-group-meeting-21-02-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"BIM4Housing Design Working Group Meeting 21-02-2024"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n\t

BIM4Housing Design Working Group Meeting 21-02-2024<\/strong><\/h2>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Jarek had created a sort of workflow diagram which enables someone to check whether their project goes through the gateways, or not. It was trying to generate a one page crib sheet or work sheet which is quite a useful thing, rather than having to read lots of different documents. But obviously you want to make sure that the facts are correct and the workflow.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Jarek Wityk is an electrical engineer, project manager, and he\u2019s done a really good job in mapping out the various different elements, responsibilities and the like. he\u2019s put this on a Miro board and we\u2019re hoping that people can look at it and derive from it but also add to it and improve it.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 (shares screen<\/em>). This is what Jarek has done. I don\u2019t know how many people have used this Miro board, what he did was to generate this workflow diagram and then a couple of us have commented on it. The idea being that it should be a straightforward thing to navigate around in terms of yes\/no, go to this, do that etc. Simply what is the category, for example, does it fall into one of these, if it\u2019s not then the process ends, for example. On the back of this I\u2019ve made some comments about using the government diagrams for measuring the building height, for example. These are diagrams I\u2019ve received by another party, but I now the government documents also have their diagrams which take into account the nuances about measuring a floor that might just be sticking up above the ground level.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve added some comments and so has another gentlemen, but the thinking is that by following these parts people can understand and then if they need to in terms of gateway 1, this is what needs to be done. These are, for example, the planning advice portal for gateway 1, or if you\u2019re going through gateway 2 we\u2019ve tried to put in what we currently understand as being the cost or rates and then obviously we work the way through gateway 2, gateway 3 etc. That\u2019s essentially the workflow diagram that\u2019s created, but it will be useful to make sure that particular triggers or, for example, PAY 251, maybe that figure has changed now. And it\u2019s just making sure where we\u2019re trying to capture the most up-to-date information and knowledge in this.<\/p>\n

Jarek did a similar thing for a different exercise, but he managed to get it all on to an A3 piece of paper and that\u2019s the aim of this. I can share the link again and we can ask Jarek to share it again, but that\u2019s one thing we wanted to share across the community and make sure that everyone is happy with it. So that would be one tangible output.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD It is 251 as of a couple of days ago. I\u2019ve been doing a similar survey internally on the same topic bit from a slightly different angle, but something we\u2019ve been debating internally and we haven\u2019t been able to agree in is say, for a new build, whether it\u2019s an HRB or not it\u2019s fairly clear what the process is. But what we have, and a lot of developers will have this too, is you have an HRB and then you have a retail unit on the ground floor and it\u2019s a separate compartment and you can only access it from outside, therefore it\u2019s a separate building as is defined in the guidance. So therefore imagine you were going to do a Cat B fitout of that retail unit, it wouldn\u2019t be a gateway 2 application because it\u2019s only a retail space, it doesn\u2019t meet the threshold of being an HRB.<\/p>\n

However, we have a few nuances to that: if you want to make some changes to compartmentation or introduce some ductwork that goes through the HRB, does it then qualify and make it a gateway 2 application? That\u2019s something that\u2019s going to be applicable to a lot of people and there\u2019s definitely a 50\/50 in terms of two camps. I\u2019ve even got two London boroughs at the moment with completely opposing opinions on this.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 I think you make a really good point about these nuances in terms of compartment building etc. I know there is a session on Friday asking for people who have submitted applications. I listened to a couple of HSE webinars from the senior people, but they seem to be saying in their webinars that they\u2019re open for people to submit scenarios. They\u2019re open to people discussing the process that people need to go through, obviously not the answer to the question that they\u2019ve raised. What you\u2019re talking about is a question about the process and the relevancy of it and we\u2019ve got a similar thing looking for a local authority and they\u2019ve got a high-risk building. But they can only do the works in bits depending on when the property becomes vacant, or if it\u2019s a leaseholder it\u2019s up to them. So you end up with this patchwork quilt of works to a facade\u2026it may be the internal lining because of a listed building, but how do you go about doing that?<\/p>\n

Do you have to put an application in every single time and wait 12 weeks for every single flat that comes up? Or we\u2019re talking about maybe talking to them about getting some sort of design approval guide which if followed to the tee will they be happy to sign it off for the whole building or the different scenarios. I don\u2019t know the answer to your question, I know in the government guidance that I saw they had a number of different diagrams about similar kind of things that you are talking about where you had a couple of blocks fixed at the ground floor, or car parks and links and stuff.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD I think that guidance, it\u2019s one of the guidance notes that\u2019s actually really good and clear, it\u2019s more the nuances within that. Taking that guidance as read, there\u2019s not really any dispute about that, it\u2019s more about what\u2019s not there: does fitting out a commercial unit and connecting to the fire alarm of the HRB then make it higher-risk work? In my view if you\u2019re not changing the principles that are established within the information that\u2019s submitted as part of the HRB application, then I don\u2019t think it is, but if you introduce some ductwork or a new entrance that effects the HRB, then it would be. This is a real problem, say a Pret A Manger\u2026they\u2019re going into a tall building and then a fitout company, they\u2019re used to doing shop fitting and then you say to them you need to do a gateway 2 application and they say we don\u2019t know what that is, we\u2019re going to go somewhere else. That\u2019s basically what\u2019s happening at the moment.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 If you\u2019re available that session on Friday may be quite useful because other people might have already done it, but listening to the webinar from the HSE I think they said that they had no applications yet because everyone is either trying to either do things quickly before the April deadline, or are just waiting to get some more guidance in terms of their staircase or redesigning or whatever.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD I did one on Monday, so it may be one of the first.<\/p>\n

MO FISHER I\u2019ve just put a link in the chat so that you\u2019ve got the contact of the Building Safety Regulator, that\u2019s a portal question system that you can ask any question. I\u2019ve used it on a number of occasions, I haven\u2019t got answers back on all of them, but some of them I have and it\u2019s quite useful. Just to be wary once you submit the question you get an email back saying thank you for the question, but it doesn\u2019t let you know what your question was, so you have to take a screenshot before. But it\u2019s useful, they\u2019ve come back with a couple of queries that we\u2019ve had on process and it\u2019s ironed it out, so I\u2019d encourage people to use it. And coming back to the diagrams, I did find them useful, there\u2019s two sets of diagrams, one for design and construction phase and one for occupation phase. So you have to be careful which set you\u2019re looking at because the occupational are very different to the design because it\u2019s to do with handover. So you can actually be designing a building that is an HRB, but then it\u2019s considered an independent building at a later stage that doesn\u2019t need to be registered as an HRB. So it\u2019s very confusing, but I just focus on the design and construction diagram and if we get any questions from clients whether on not they need to register it, then we direct them to the other.<\/p>\n

But the example that\u2019s been given with a shop, my understanding was any building work that requires a building application to an HRB has to then be submitted to the BSR and then follow that procedure. And that would be particularly if it\u2019s at the stage of construction, it\u2019s all at the same stage, you\u2019re not talking about a fitout after the building has been handed over.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD Most of these, it tends to be well after the building is all done and handed over and usually these are HRBs that were constructed under the old regime and then they\u2019ve laid empty for a while and in accordance with that guidance note you were referring to they\u2019re deemed a separate building and a fitter or contractor is coming along to do some work in there. I think what\u2019s a good idea is we submit that scenario onto the portal and see what they come back with.<\/p>\n

MO FISHER Yes\u2026but without digressing the scenario you\u2019ve explained I think that needs to be part of the construction control plan. So if you\u2019re saying this isn\u2019t being fitted out you have to put it to the BSR what\u2019s been put in place to manage that. So if a client says we don\u2019t know what the unit is going to be used for and all of a sudden you\u2019ve got mechanical ventilation for a cafe going in, does that then significantly effect the safety of the rest of the building, has it been considered compartmentation structure, all of the above. The interesting thing on that is who is the principal designer for building regs because if the principal designer is responsible for the whole building, who is the responsible for the later works? But what you\u2019ve described could potentially also form a staged application. That\u2019s very muddied, what stage application is, but you could look at it as everything above is the main application and the stage application is then the works that follow on.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 I think I\u2019ve seen one of the sets of diagrams, and maybe not the other set that you referred to. If you\u2019re able to share the links that would be useful. That session on Friday, I think that might be a good place to start in terms of these sort of scenarios and what we\u2019re personally trying to do with the local authority is at the moment I\u2019m trying to check that I\u2019ve got the question that they want to ask and the process that they want to follow correct. So I\u2019ve sent a draft to them to then share with the Regulator to see what their response is because they\u2019re meant to be able to help us and they need to help different parties understand the scenarios, then how we address the requirements is a different matter.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I\u2019ll explain what Friday is, it came out of a LinkedIn post about 3-4 weeks ago where somebody was posting about the experience that they were having in terms of making a gateway submission through Building Control, and how Building Control was dealing with it. It seemed to be very pertinent to what we were doing, so we\u2019ve set up a Teams workshop on Friday, we\u2019ve had a strong response, I think we\u2019ve got 80-90 people already signed up to it. That will probably drop to 40, but it\u2019s still very high and we\u2019ve got a lot of clients coming onto that. We've got a couple of Building Control specialists on it as well, so that might be something that you\u2019d find useful. Everybody is learning at the moment and this type of collaborative way of doing it is critical. Das, I think that some new people have joined so do you want to show the cheat sheet or the reference document that we\u2019ve been working on? Ana, you're very process driven, have you seen what we\u2019re talking about here?<\/p>\n

ANA MATIC No, I\u2019m not part of your Miro board.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 It was the one that Jarek set up, I\u2019ll just send the link he shared with me, I think you can join in as a guest. After this call I\u2019ll resend it\u2026and make sure all the team members here gets it and Jarek can help answer queries. What Jarek had done (shares screen<\/em>) was this, to create the workflow diagram for somebody to be able to follow the yes, the no, see whether it needs to be registered or whether it applies. We\u2019ve tried to put in some guidance diagrams, these are not the government ones so we need to replace them or link to them so people can evaluate whether their building falls into the category, or not. Then he\u2019s put in information to do with the gateways and there are various links that I\u2019d suggested you can go through to get advice for the gateway 1 planning applications or advice from them. We're just trying to make sure that it\u2019s as simple as possible, but also captures the key gates or checks you have to go through.<\/p>\n

I guess it\u2019s evolving because the information or guidance is evolving, but what Jarek aimed to do was create an A3 or A4 one page, like a PDF version of this that people can share I guess that can be audited and checked with any other information that might come through, like a version control of it. It\u2019s something that will be useful because for most people a little flow diagram is quite an easy way to assimilate or get through all the regulations in an easy manner. The other thing George alluded to is these crib sheets, 4 or 5 pages that I might have shared before, but what I\u2019ve tried to do here, sort of part of something I was presenting internally, is just to make a crib sheet which I\u2019d like some input on to make sure that I\u2019ve got the facts right so that we can then format this into the standard BIM4Housing format and share with the wider community, again keeping a version control.<\/p>\n

I won\u2019t go through this line by line, but as far as I understand I\u2019ve tried to assimilate the key components of various Acts that have come in. I\u2019ve tried to condense, the yellow are new things that I\u2019ve added having listened to, for example, the HSE webinar. The information that I\u2019m aware of in terms of gateway 1, again that link to where you\u2019re meant to be able to get advice, the current timelines in terms of approvals or processing, the major changes, the notifiable changes etc. In terms of looking at things which are to do with works to existing high-risk buildings, so if you\u2019re doing refurbishments to facades etc. This may come out of date quite quickly because this slide was looking at what would you have to do to demonstrate that you\u2019ve commenced on-site before this April coming, so very soon part of this slide will be redundant.<\/p>\n

I saw recently there was discussions about staircases and some guidance that\u2019s come out both from Michael Gove, but also from recommendations from the Fire Brigade which people are debating about, whether it was clear or not. One gentleman was saying that ultimately the requirements require you to assess the risks, so whether the guidance says you must have two evacuation lifts or not, you\u2019ve got to be happy that you\u2019ve followed the risks: you\u2019ve looked at the users in the building and are happy that they could evacuate at the same time as the Fire Brigade coming in and dealing with the issue. I think a lot of emphasis is clearly on the design team, the strategic team and the risks reviews to either confirm that we want two staircases or not because there does seem to be different conflicting guidance. And then this is regarding the terminology, this is the diagrams that I had extracted which talked about the definition, typically in terms of what we do which is stand alone, individual buildings, rather than having a large podium with multiple different buildings coming off it, for example, which are some of the other diagrams in that document. We can add the links that Mo has sent across to this page so that people can look at whether their project is covered in those diagrams.<\/p>\n

And then finally looking at some more things I picked up from the webinar about the process and how do we get to the final completion certificates. And then looking at the competency issues and discussions around principal designer, principal contractor, there is obviously going to be an insurance issue and how do we get to demonstrate our competency. I think I saw an architect on LinkenIn saying we\u2019ve already paid all of these fees and you\u2019re asking us to pay more fees to register to be a PD, for example, under the Building Safety Act. So there\u2019s a little bit of pushback from people so I think this element of competency and insurance is still very new to everyone. This is some of the questions I was just making a note of that we\u2019ve been asked, as I mentioned from the local authority, about how do they go about tackling multiple buildings which have different users i.e. leaseholders and tenants, and how do you go about doing works to potentially a patchwork quilt of works to a facade.<\/p>\n

Just simply because of the fact that they don\u2019t own all of the properties, they can\u2019t simply go we\u2019re going to do all of the properties in one go, so those are potential real life scenarios that are coming through and it would be interesting to hear what happens on Friday and through the link that Mo shared in terms of asking questions of the Building Regulator. If it\u2019s OK I\u2019ll share that Powerpoint as well, or PDF is easier for people to comment on, but I think a combination of things that i\u2019ve tried to extract in those crib sheets, ideally they\u2019d go into Jarek\u2019s workflow so that we\u2019re not creating lots of stuff, we\u2019re just creating one concise thing. If that includes government website links or Building Safety Regulator links, they are two sources of information that we should be referring to. So that\u2019s the aim, to make sure that between Jarek\u2019s workflow and my crib sheets we\u2019ve captured what we know to date and that it\u2019s the best advice that we can share to the wider community at the moment. I\u2019m sure other organisations are probably doing similar crib sheets, so it\u2019s really about knowledge sharing and getting something out there to help.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Has anybody else, I imagine that other people are doing a similar sort of exercise that Das has been doing. If you\u2019ve got something would you be willing to join in with that so that we can get everybody\u2019s input?<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 It might be useful for us to set a timeline to releasing\u00a0 version one\u2026the end of next month is probably a good a time as any because ultimately that brings in to the beginning of April which is when the commencement deadline for registering projects that are currently live finishes. I\u2019ll share my slides to Jiss and then if you can share that to those in this group and the wider thing and we can ask for feedback within the next couple of weeks, on top of the PDFs. And the same for Jarek\u2019s thing and then maybe me and Jarek could do a little workshop and bring that together and so maybe by the end of March we go here\u2019s what we know, version 1. I think that might help in terms of getting something out there and having a deadline for it.<\/p>\n

MO FISHER I\u2019ve got nothing like what Das has done, but once that\u2019s sent out I\u2019m more than happy to comment on it and come back.<\/p>\n

ANA MATIC A really amazing diagram on the Miro board. We haven\u2019t got anything that visual, but we are starting to try and define some rules and workflows for our teams and also trying to find where our responsibilities stop and start. I have to say ashamedly only working Excel so far, so I don\u2019t have anything for today, but I will try and catch up with our team who are specifically looking at BSA stuff and to try and share something next time to show what we\u2019re thinking, what we\u2019re struggling with. Projects are very different and in very different stages as well. Thank you for sharing, really impressive.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 I think Jarek has done a great job, he\u2019s clearly very good at workflow diagrams. It\u2019s interesting because you\u2019re right in terms of responsibility, if you keep the fact that we\u2019re in this sort of design group we\u2019ve got to be mindful of advising clients on certain things, but also what is the requirement across the board on all projects from a principal designer under the Building Safety Act because that obviously as a competency thing is required for all projects. So there\u2019s all projects and then there\u2019s the high-risk building projects and at the moment in terms of our practice our view is that we would like to build like when CDM came many years ago, is to be guided by those who are specialising in with the label Building Safety Act PD because they should have the insurance and the guidelines.<\/p>\n

I think George, I shared with you that gentleman from Armour & Griffith who is in that PI kind of world, because it would be useful to understand what they\u2019re doing and learn from those who are the specialist, have got the correct insurance etc and then absorb it as we become more competent and able to take that role, which is a similar thing we did for the CDM PD role, for example. That\u2019s our general view. At the moment we don\u2019t have projects which fall into the high-risk buildings, but we are working on projects full stop, so that PD role extends across all projects now. So, I think that would be useful. Previously, Ana, you were working on a project which you\u2019re trying to get to gateway 2 and was doing all of the right things, what happened to that? I think a fire stopping issue and the details, they went bust. They\u2019re the kind of real life scenarios which are really useful.<\/p>\n

ANA MATIC That project has gone on hold for other reasons, not necessarily the fire safety issues. We actually got as far as nearly submitting gateway 2 and then some rethinking had to be done. I\u2019ll definitely update you as soon as we know more about what is going on. We\u2019re hoping it\u2019s going to come back online, we haven\u2019t submitted it, basically.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 (referring to MIKE SMITH\u2019s chat comment \u2018we\u2019ve got a Miro Board that we have been developing so great to collaborate\u2019<\/em>). I guess if you\u2019re happy to share that on this we can then cross-share Miro boards with Jarek and then maybe come together. If I put a timeline in terms of two weeks to get comments back that gives us maybe a couple of more weeks to bring it together and polish it up.<\/p>\n

I think the only other one, George, was whether going back a number of months to the original 4 questions that we had in terms of asking the wider community. I don\u2019t know whether you\u2019ve had a chance to share them and have got any thoughts, or do we need to just re-share that to see whether a) the questions are relevant? I suspect they are because they were fairly high level questions.<\/p>\n

RICHARD We did send then out and we got some response back which Jiss sent through to you, I think. We\u2019ve not had anything since. To be fair the working group meetings have been very busy, so I can understand why that happened, we\u2019ve had a lot of stuff going on over the last few months. We\u2019re happy to obviously put that out again. We do find that we don\u2019t always get a response when we just send an email out, people often don\u2019t see the email. So I\u2019m wondering if you\u2019d be better off doing a workshop kind of thing and getting a couple of people from each working group and thrash it out during the meeting.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 No, agreed, I guess lots of emails coming to everyone, so if we do dedicate a thing and get even if it\u2019s one person from the six different groups. It may be one or two bullet points that we generate per question\u2026<\/p>\n

RICHARD It\u2019s a start, and then you can do it again. It\u2019s very difficult to get anything actually finished, nothing is ever finished in this realm. And then also once you\u2019ve done that, you\u2019ve got a lot of people who wanted to come to the meeting but couldn\u2019t, and they then are engaged and you\u2019ll get responses back from them.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 That\u2019s what I\u2019m conscious of in terms of getting something out, output, it\u2019s certainly not going to be finished because everyone\u2019s learning still, but if it\u2019s 90% accurate with 10% errors that\u2019s, in a way, great because then those things can be flushed out. If you want to share any feedback you\u2019ve had that would be great and then I could either include that or exclude that from my little 5-6 crib sheet thing in the Powerpoint that I just shared and then we can share that with this team and the wider team again. If anyone can come back in the next couple of weeks, and it doesn\u2019t matter necessarily because well then still issue it and then people can react to it and say you\u2019ve got it wrong or I actually didn\u2019t realise that or here\u2019s another link, here\u2019s our experience.<\/p>\n

So it\u2019s that formal issue that gets people going in terms of responding. Happy to be involved in that, Richard, in terms of that little working group to discuss the 4 questions and maybe in a couple of weeks to go through the 2 Miro boards and maybe my crib sheet in terms of finalising a workflow diagram.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Absolutely, leave that with us and we\u2019ll get back to you on the dates and stuff.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I\u2019ve got something to explain what we\u2019ve been doing within Active Plan. We\u2019ve been working with Origin and John Morrow, but also other clients as well, to look at what information is actually auditable that needs to be provided and what\u2019s essential. And one way of doing that was to look at things through the prism of Regulation 38 and also Regulation 7. These are things that we\u2019re told we need information on as far as safety critical assets and obviously the Regulation 38 thing, what becomes significant for the client or the responsible person in particular. This is the new legislation that came in in August, a lot of clients haven\u2019t yet become familiar with it, but basically the client has got to expressly confirm that they\u2019ve received the information that is sufficient for them to understand and operate and maintain the building.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s such a broad scope, that\u2019s a legal requirement now, and it\u2019s not hugely well defined. So we\u2019ve been drilling into Regulation 38 and related references to try and come up with something that\u2019s definitive. The other aspect of this is the role of the principal designer and principal contractor and again in the legislation you can see there that they have to confirm, first of all, that they\u2019ve provided everything that\u2019s needed (and again, what does that mean?) and also that they\u2019ve received notice from the responsible person acknowledging receipt of the information. I think that\u2019s quite a strong responsibility. We\u2019ve looked at what is in the Act in terms of what the basic information is and also looking at things from a point of view of the, effectively, systems that you have to ensure that you\u2019ve got the information on. It\u2019s fair to say that of all the conversations that we\u2019ve been having with client organisations, they never get this in a complete format, even though this isn\u2019t new, this is something that\u2019s been in place for almost 20 years, but in practice this information is very fragmented.<\/p>\n

So one of the things we\u2019ve been doing is going through Regulation 38 and also BS9999 to look at what information is needed for the different systems and the elements in the systems and then using this as a mechanism to be able to validate whether that information has actually been provided or not. What we\u2019re trying to get to is a situation where we can be definitive and also that\u2019s from Regulation 38 and BS9999, but what we\u2019ve done here is integrating this with what\u2019s coming through from BSRIA which is the statutory compliance checklist, largely for M&E because that\u2019s what BSRIA is about. And we\u2019ve also tried to tie it back to the clauses in the act so that we can identify what is essential information and what isn\u2019t. We\u2019ve also started to build this as a standard register of systems because one of the challenges is that everybody\u2019s O&Ms are structured differently, and if we can have things properly referenced then we stand a much better chance. And then if we can define Uniclass codes against things it means that we\u2019re in a better position.<\/p>\n

We can also then look at what documentation is required and we can build this into a set of information requirements which can then be used to test to see whether the information has actually been handed over. I can\u2019t see any other way of a responsible person or a client saying that they\u2019ve received what they need. And then this goes through the checklist of questions, so we are looking at how best to organise that. I\u2019m wondering whether people are interested in this\u2026we tried to do this in a very methodical, structured way. If you\u2019re interested in joining us on that journey we\u2019re very interested in that.<\/p>\n

JOHN MORROW I\u2019m just going to add to that, retrieving information in a timely manner is like pulling teeth and what we\u2019ve found is that the templates and those methodical checklists that we use, we put them in to our contracts on our AFLs to make it a legal requirement for them to provide that information prior to PC happening. And even then it\u2019s still very difficult because obviously there is a lot of information to scrutinise and go through and the reality of it is that we\u2019re furnished with the majority of this information literally days before practical completion. So we\u2019re just trying to force them to gather the information, share it and allow us time to scrutinise it.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Definitely, it needs to be progressive. If you\u2019re interested in getting involved in our thinking on that then put your name in the chat and we\u2019ll invite you. I think it\u2019s particularly relevant for people that are looking to provide the principal designer role because it\u2019s a tangible way that you can demonstrate that the project has actually complied. And really we shouldn\u2019t be getting to a situation which John is saying there, if the principal designer is in control of that position we shouldn\u2019t be getting to a situation where all of that information is dumped on the client at almost handover and then they\u2019ve got a huge job to actually pull it all together. It\u2019s also fair to say that construction companies themselves are exposed because at the end of the day most of this information is actually going to be provided by the specialist subcontractors who have installed things and they need a mechanism to ensure that they\u2019ve received what they need. It\u2019s all so wooly, it seems to me.<\/p>\n

MO FISHER Yeah, I agree, it\u2019s very wooly. I think the principal designer building regs, the onus on that is to comply with the functional requirements of building regs. So the level of information that you need to demonstrate that, nobody knows, we don\u2019t know if it\u2019s a light touch, if it is just you tick a box saying yes, we agree the design and strategies perform that functional requirement. Or do you need to dig deep because there are certainly going to be elements where you need to provide commissioning etc to show that smoke control or something that like complies. But is the principal designer just then responsible for attaining that information or making the client aware that that information is needed. So it is all wooly and we\u2019re only going to know as we go along and submit applications and see what comes out of the wash.<\/p>\n

GEORGE That\u2019s interesting, Mo. I absolutely agree that that\u2019s something that everybody is still navigating at the moment. Do you think it\u2019s possible that the scope of the principal designer\u2019s responsibility maybe only to inform that something is needed, rather than say has it been provided?<\/p>\n

MO FISHER I think it\u2019s possibly going to be a bit of both and it depends what it is because you\u2019ve got different consultants etc. Would a PD have to be competent enough to know every bit of information that a structural engineer needs to provide? Or are you relying on the competence of the structural engineer to provide the right information? But you could definitely have a minimum of drawing structural calculations etc. I just don\u2019t think that that role should be providing an exhaustive list because the BSR might actually request information that no one has thought about.<\/p>\n

GEORGE The other question I would have is does the principal designer\u2019s role or responsibility extend beyond handover?<\/p>\n

MO FISHER No, I would say. I think the principal designer is there to plan, manage and monitor, that\u2019s the terminology that they use during the construction phase. And at handover I would say that then those responsibilities go to the accountable person because they are then in ownership of the building.<\/p>\n

GEORGE But if the information proves to be missing in a year\u2019s time then\u2026<\/p>\n

MO FISHER It can\u2019t be, the BSR need to be satisfied that the amount of information that\u2019s been provided is enough for them to handover that building.<\/p>\n

GEORGE So you\u2019re saying the BSR, probably Building Control who could be an independent, the fact that they\u2019ve accepted the\u2026I don\u2019t think they are doing that though, they wouldn\u2019t confirm that everything has been provided. I think they leave it open.<\/p>\n

MO FISHER That\u2019s why the statement for compliance against the building regulations is there, that\u2019s again my understanding. If, for example, it turns out\u2026just say it turned out that data sheets weren\u2019t provided for smoke detectors or something like that. I\u2019m trying to think of an example where you\u2019re a year later, that wouldn\u2019t have affected the functional requirements and the building being deemed safe at handover under the functional requirements of the building regulations.<\/p>\n

GEORGE But if, for example, not so much the data sheets, but if there were no compartmentation drawings\u2026<\/p>\n

MO FISHER My understanding is it wouldn\u2019t be handed over. The building control application would need to cover those elements, and we\u2019re not just talking about fire and structure anymore, it\u2019s all the approved documents. I think this is all in place so we won\u2019t ever see that scenario of someone saying we haven\u2019t got compartmentation plans, that would have been formed firstly by the fire engineer with the fire strategy backed up by architectural design intent. And that\u2019s possibly all you need unless you\u2019ve got a specialist subcontractor that then produces drawing for their own purpose to demonstrate that they\u2019re complying with that compartmentation. I could be wrong, but it\u2019s how I see it.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 I guess if you look at what the CDM role is, it\u2019s that kind of orchestral reference where you can\u2019t know everything, but it\u2019s the case of making sure that you\u2019ve asked a) the right competent people to be involved in the project in the first place and then you\u2019re ensuring where your checklists and stuff come in to their own, it\u2019s the ability to systematically\u2026Ultimately the PD has sort of become the building control that normally you\u2019d go to a building control approved inspector and say here is this information, can you have a look at it, let us know if you\u2019re missing something. They\u2019ll obviously flip that around completely saying you\u2019ve got to prove that you\u2019ve met all of the things, so the PD sort of becomes essentially a building control game where you provide me this information, here is our checklist to make sure that we as a team have dealt with all of these different parts of it.<\/p>\n

Which then if you\u2019ve got that checklist, in a similar way to the CDM PD, there are various templates to make sure that you go through all of the significant hazards you could have on a site. So you work your way through and make sure you haven\u2019t missed anything, in the same way I guess the PD and team would have to go through a similar checklist, including like your one, and then satisfy themselves. And then the responsible person goes, OK, I appreciate you\u2019ve gone through all of these, you think you\u2019ve done everything, and it\u2019s that chain where you\u2019re relying on the structures, the M&E to be competent and have done all of the finite calculation reviews and stuff which the PD cannot ever possibly have all of the expertise on.<\/p>\n

So as long as the chain is strong and the competence of the chain is strong you go through your checklist and say al of the building reg things are met, here is the evidence, over to you. The responsible person can then go yeah, I\u2019m happy I\u2019ve seen that and then everyone goes forward. In my mind the PD is acting as what would have been an approved inspector, but working obviously with the team and checklist like you do in CDM to make sure that all the bases are covered. Obviously there could be weak links, but that\u2019s going to be everywhere unfortunately.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I agree. I think one of the other things that we could maybe as a community help with is actually defining some of those scenarios that you were suggesting because if we could do that then at least people have got\u2026it won\u2019t be extensive, but it\u2019s a way that people can say, does that make sense?<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Yes. I think that people who are directly involved in the projects, similar to the CDM advice anyway, are best placed because they understand changes and dynamics of the project first hand. But it\u2019s a whole other level of, the insurance world that we\u2019ve got to get our heads around, but also then actually what is it that the role is because from the recording that I watched that you chaired with me of the advisory group one, the lady who talked about what\u2019s in the PAS and what\u2019s in the guidance for competent people is not that clear either, so there is clearly grey areas that we\u2019re all trying to figure out.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD Just to amplify your point. We\u2019re in a privileged position where we are the freeholder, the developer, the construction manager and the responsible person. So we\u2019ve been operating this sort of handover process for 18 months now trying to do the gateway 3 process as we go. I represent the client and I\u2019m the gatekeeper of the information and the way we found this handover process to work most effectively is we do reviews for the last sort of 6 months before handover, we do it monthly. I say to the construction manager unless you tell me something is ready I\u2019m not looking at it, but I\u2019m happy to look at things that are incomplete, but you have to tell me what is incomplete.<\/p>\n

And I get them to fill out a tracker which we have that basically follows the principles of the golden thread and Regulation 38 of agreed structure that the responsible person has agreed with the construction manager so that they can find the information afterwards. And we populate everything and hyperlink it all through and we go through that monthly to just check off, there\u2019s loads of things 6 months before the completion of the building you can get at least 50% of it checked off and banked. And so the day before handover you are not getting this grand-slam of having to check everything, you\u2019re just checking the last 5%. That seems to work quite well.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I absolutely agree, I\u2019d be very interested in comparing notes on that with you because that\u2019s exactly what we need to do because all too often everybody leaves it until the end.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 There is also the post that the registration process which is going to be interesting to see how long, I think they\u2019re taking about 3 weeks when they do register the building.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD We have had some issues with that. Obviously prior to the 1st of October we registered all of the occupied buildings and did all the KBI and what not. That was a body of work, but nevertheless it\u2019s done, but now, someone just offered me one as we were talking that we need to go and register. They\u2019re saying, right, this building is just about ready to handover so we\u2019ve got to then simultaneously check all of the information, register the building, upload the KBI. And we\u2019ve had a few where we\u2019ve gone to register the building and the BSR has asked is the building occupied, and we said no, obviously, because we haven\u2019t registered it yet and they\u2019ve rejected our application on that basis. So we have to say, we put in the comments a caveat that people are ready to move in and then it tends to go through. But particularly for social housing where you\u2019ve got people ready to move in the next day and then the BSR takes 3 weeks to get back to you approving your registration it\u2019s a bit of a problem so that process is still a bit sticky at the moment.<\/p>\n

JOHN MORROW In regards to that process, it\u2019s especially difficult collating that Regulation 38 items on Section 106 schemes where we\u2019ve come to the table quite late in the construction phase. But we do utilise what we call a Regulation 38 tracking document to record the gathering of information and the review and the close-out, getting as much done as we can when we get it. And that\u2019s the only way we found that we can sort of audit that review process to make sure that everything is in order at PC. But it is like pulling teeth, even to the point that we put together a discussion document as to what Regulation 38 is and where it came from because a number of developers contractors we work with thinks it\u2019s an Origin task and requirement, as opposed to one of conversation about compliance. Even now we still have that conversation and there is a certain reluctance of them to provide that information in a timely manner which breaks my heart, to be fair.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD We found you have to a little bit thick headed with all of that, but now that we\u2019ve got it into a rhythm we use a tracking document as well. And we\u2019ve got Asite, we use that as the database that sits behind it, everything is backed into it with hyperlinks, dynamic links.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 In terms of where you\u2019re registered existing buildings, is what you\u2019re having to produce to register\u2026is it correct to assume that that is essentially the same as what we\u2019d have to submit for a project that\u2019s completing? Or is it very different?<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD It\u2019s basically the same.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 And am I correct in thinking that the Building Safety Regulator hasn\u2019t issued this is the checklist of things to submit, you\u2019ve got to be happy your self etc and that\u2019s why things like the Regulation 38 is a good place to start from or work to? It would be useful if it\u2019s possible to share the headings of whatever you submitted. I\u2019m not fully versed on it, but I think there are guidance as to what a safety case needs to contain\/<\/p>\n

JOHN MORROW We\u2019ve got a draught template that we use for the gathering of that information. In our experience it\u2019s at a level greater than the core components that we currently cover within a Regulation 38 exercise. I\u2019d be happy to share that with everybody.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Just because for me, I\u2019m a visual person and if I can see a set of folders and see what needs to be, for me it\u2019s easier to visualise it than read it.<\/p>\n

JOHN MORROW It\u2019s a lot easier, especially where we\u2019re working across teams within the organisation itself. And one thing that\u2019s become apparent is some of the terminology, even between the teams. It helps give us clarity.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD There\u2019s an easy way to cut through that, the three of us have just said we do basically the same thing and we\u2019ve independently come up with the same solution which is clearly a standard format tracker which backs into Regulation 38 and in the fullness of time the golden thread. But then the government portal is so poorly designed that you have to retype all of this information. I was having a moan at the BSR just before Christmas and saying we all have this in the same format, if you just gave us your template and we\u2019ll all just use it, it\u2019s fine and then we can just give it to you. But making people retype everything is just an irresponsible waste of people\u2019s time.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 What is that? Is that to upload information into register\u2026give me an example.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD The KBI (Key Building Information), for example, we have all of that and we\u2019ve got in various trackers and lots of other people on this call would have it in their own trackers, probably not too dissimilar. I counted up the other day, over the last few weeks we\u2019ve filled out 17,500 text boxes on the BSR portals with the same information. The gateway process is kind of similar, making people retype information doesn\u2019t help anyone and it introduces mistakes and some of the terminology on the KBI website is a bit poor. And if there was just a template that they gave to people it would make everyone\u2019s lives so much easier.<\/p>\n

GEORGE In essence, Ben, to some extent that\u2019s what we\u2019re trying to do. The fact is that the Regulator, the government generally, they don\u2019t want to explicitly tell you what to do because they don\u2019t want to take on that responsibility. So what we\u2019re trying to do, just in terms of the Regulation 38 checklist you\u2019re talking about, we\u2019ve pulled together 10 so, I\u2019ve seen Joh\u2019s checklist and it\u2019s excellent. Other local authorities or housing associations have got a similar thing, but very different, either not as detailed or whatever. I think that needs to be rationalised in some way because we need to be able to tell the construction supply chain what good looks like. I absolutely agree with you, so maybe we pick up on that.<\/p>\n

JOHN MORROW It would be great to get that consistency because I must admit our motivation was purely selfish to gather the information so we had piece of mind and certainly to ease the dialogue we had with other teams post-handover. I\u2019ve had numerous crises of confidence in the respect that are we over doing it, and then you sit back and review it again, I really don\u2019t think we are. It\u2019s a tough one, but as you say a consistency across the board and communicating that to all the relevant parties.<\/p>\n

GEORGE It\u2019s also the method of doing these things. I was talking with another big developer recently and he was saying that the process that he\u2019s implemented (and he\u2019s been doing this for many years) is a requirement\u2026he said the problem is in getting fire doors tested, for example. So the fire door installation information, it then needs to be inspected 6 months later. So he\u2019s requiring, rather than it being inspected 6 months after it\u2019s been handed over, he\u2019s built into their method is that it ought to be inspected at the same time as it\u2019s installed.<\/p>\n

JOHN MORROW Yeah, that\u2019s exactly what we do and that\u2019s a key element that we have a review during the construction phase, during the installation phase and then all of the checks and balances to follow. Because we\u2019ve had a number of schemes where part of the pre-occupation FRA process, we reviewed the fire doors and we found numerous faults and serious, serious issues with installs. And that\u2019s a mandatory practice now on all of our schemes, Section 106 or land-led, doesn\u2019t matter.<\/p>\n

GEORGE So he\u2019s been castigated by his development team saying you're making it so our cost is\u2026we\u2019re asking for things that are more expensive than other developers are. But his argument, quite rightly, is that yeah, but we\u2019ve got to do it anyway, why wait 6 months.<\/p>\n

JOHN MORROW It is more problematic to deal with it at that point than it is than to catch it as it\u2019s happening. The hard conversations I\u2019ve had, I\u2019m fortunate my group director is fully supportive of the approach that we take, but I have found that some project managers even, they just see it as an encumbrance to the delivery of the scheme. That it\u2019s me being anal about the whole process and wanting to capture everything. And the conversations I\u2019ve had with this, I said fine, if we move forward without these checks and balances you do realise that responsibility for this and fallout for this will land at your feet. And then suddenly, oh, OK, but it is a constant fight to get that. But the fire door issues, we have dedicated fire surveyors and they pick that up during the construction phase in addition to clerk of works.<\/p>\n

MO FISHER I\u2019ve just sent a link which is related to this discussion that sets out the documents that you need to prepare at various stages. So as a minimum the headings in here is what you\u2019d be looking at submitting for Building Control, certification stage, so that link is quite handy and it also describes what some of the information needs to contain, for example, the scale of a site plan etc.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 I\u2019ll share the PDF copy of the slides that I did. If I get that and some of these links to Jiss, Richard and George. I know you\u2019ve got the wider mailing list. I\u2019ll try and format it in a sensible sort of wording and then that can be shared to the whole groups, rather than just in this meeting.<\/p>\n

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

[11:14] Fisher, Mo<\/strong><\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/guidance\/contact-the-building-safety-regulator<\/a><\/p>\n

[11:20] Andrew de Silva \u2018Das\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

Fisher,\u00a0Mo\u00a0- could you share the \u00a0links to the different diagrams please?<\/p>\n

[11:21] Paul White<\/strong><\/p>\n

An HRB is a high-rise residential structure:<\/p>\n