{"id":420,"date":"2024-07-10T13:34:08","date_gmt":"2024-07-10T13:34:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/?page_id=420"},"modified":"2024-07-10T13:57:13","modified_gmt":"2024-07-10T13:57:13","slug":"design-working-group-meeting-03-07-2024","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/design-working-group-meeting-03-07-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"Design Working Group Meeting 03-07-2024"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n\t

DESIGN WORKING GROUP MEETING 03-07-2024<\/strong><\/h2>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 I think the gentleman you sent it to sounds, based on the name, Sri Lankan so maybe there is an added connection there.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I\u2019ve met him and he seems very good. Basically, he was speaking from the heart and he said that he grew up on a council estate and in his home there was mould and he said he\u2019s quite passionate about sorting that out.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 That\u2019s great, because that Chandru Dissanayake, that\u2019s definitely a Sri Lankan name. Is that the person that you\u2019re referring to?<\/p>\n

GEORGE Yes.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 (shares screen<\/em>). What I did, following on from what Jarek had done, you\u2019d set all of the pages up beautifully. On the left hand side is what Jarek, predominantly, had done, and other people had commented onto the Miro board. I then, on the right hand side, suggested some amendments, just to reduce the number of pages and also remove things which are not relevant necessarily because they\u2019re to do with pre-transitional period and registering of buildings, which we\u2019re just taking the assumption that it should already have been done anyway, rightfully or wrongly. So that the document is predominantly purely about going forward from the end of the transition period. So, that\u2019s why I\u2019ve just copied it across and moved some information.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK Did you explain that somewhere, it the introduction or something?<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 No, I haven\u2019t, do that\u2019s something that we\u2019ve got to do.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK But maybe it doesn\u2019t need explanation if the title of the document will be self-explanatory. But if not then we may need to explain that.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Yeah, I\u2019ll make a note of that as well. You\u2019re right, it\u2019s something we\u2019d need to write into this column here because that\u2019s the introduction and then into the title itself. So the aim really is that on the first page we\u2019re giving a brief update or commentary about what happened with the Grenfell and where the Building Safety Act came in. On this column it\u2019s about the kind of key impact of the introduction of various things, under the Building Safety Act. And then it talks about the main changes that are applicable to all buildings or high-rise buildings. So that\u2019s the introduction page, then it\u2019s got a link for people to continue to comment.<\/p>\n

And then what I did was in terms of the key legislation, I\u2019ve shared this with Devonshire\u2019s Catherine, George. I think once we\u2019ve redone this and we\u2019re happy with it I\u2019ll share it again because there are some things that they will know as legal teams and legal professionals, just to make sure that we have got legislation arrows and relationships correct. But there is nothing really major that I changed here, Jarek, I just put the title on the left hand side to read left to right. And the other thing I did graphically was I started to refer to go to process diagram 1, rather than pages\u2026it made it not page related, but process diagram related.<\/p>\n

There was a couple of questions in terms of clarity now on the fact that registered building control advisors, they come under different classes. And I\u2019ve been in a couple of the Bureau Veritas seminars given my Andy Lowe. And I was just looking back at the, that\u2019s what I had here which is some of the slides from the Bureau Veritas and I was going to go through this and add additional bits of commentary into our one. Because I think Andy\u2019s presentation was quite good and quite clear, and competency, for example, is one thing that I actually noticed that we hadn\u2019t necessarily mentioned the need for the client to make sure that everyone has got the right competency, including themselves. I think we can probably stress on that a bit more in the diagrams.<\/p>\n

So this page is really more kind of setting the scene, how different things related. So with some of these I just wanted to get legal help from Catherine from Devonshires just to make sure that our arrows are pointing at the right thing. This was the page that I took out because this is really more of the timeline leading up to the 6th of April, on the left hand side, and again on the assumption that we obviously beyond that milestone. And although I think some things have been extended, I think the deadline for registering yourself, if you're a building control\u2026person, then that's been extended to later on this month. And then on the right hand side, and this is again to do with registering existing buildings if they fall within the definition.<\/p>\n

So this page I\u2019ve sort of taken out on the assumption that what we're trying to do is to produce a document that's valid going forward, not necessarily what should have been done.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK Do you think there is any mileage in keeping that as a separate document? Like a\u00a0one page reference for what should already happen.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Maybe, it could be like an appendix. In case people haven\u2019t yet, or are trying to backfill their knowledge.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK I\u2019m not trying to clutch to it, by the way, I\u2019m just wondering.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 And then when we get into these, the diagrams I really haven\u2019t changed that much. We\u2019re had some comments from others which are quite useful, and I\u2019ve yet to go through all of them in detail. But some of them, Jarek, I need your help because you see where you\u2019ve got these little hyperlinks. For example, here, this visitor was suggested that this is the correct link, rather than the one here. I wasn\u2019t quite sure how we replaced that one, so maybe after the call you can show me and then we can put the right image in. There are a couple of comments that have been made and I need to go through that as well as looking at it with Andy Lowe\u2019s slides.<\/p>\n

But this one, I\u2019ve just made into pink main titles and all of the process diagrams so that they relate to the kind of ends and the beginnings of each page. I think it\u2019s correct to call them process diagrams. This is really about determining whether the building is a higher risk building, or not, whether it\u2019s existing or something new. One of the comments that was made about this\u00a0 was about actually just because it\u2019s 18 metres or its more high level, we must be careful about checking that when it comes to complex multi-building developments. There\u2019s been quite a lot of discussions on things like the architectural technical leads group where people are testing and getting varied feedback. Because they. For example, have two buildings and they may be connected by a podium or a basement and they\u2019re trying to understand and they\u2019re getting slightly different feedback.<\/p>\n

So, I\u2019ve just added that as a caution for people, that just because it may not fall within the 18 metres it doesn\u2019t necessarily mean that it may not be considered (audio drops out<\/em>)\u2026because of the interconnectivity. And that\u2019s something I\u2019ve just added in there\u2026<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK So maybe we should add that to the process. Where your note is, go from the gateway to the left and then to consider this as, rather than caution to be part of the process of checking whether this complex structure is to be considered as high-risk or not. Or we can leave it as a caution, but as a process it would be better, I think.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 It sort of applies to both, really, so this almost needs to be in this middle bit somehow.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK I\u2019ll think about it, if we can somehow maybe incorporate that into the process.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Yeah, but I think you\u2019re right because whether it\u2019s an existing building or a new development, that complicated development and interface between buildings is relevant. So you\u2019re right, it should go somewhere, I\u2019ll just put it overlapping here so we don\u2019t forget. Somewhere in that position making bit. I think the actions for us are to have a look at updating the links based on the comments that have been made in this page.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK To paste a link, you just copy the hyperlink and paste into Miro and this will be embedded, as you can see, in that format.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Then we go to the next one. Again, I just said process diagram 1 continued. The main difference that I\u2019ve done is feeding back from what Ben Orem? 13mins 8secs sent through, I think he was reading the fact that this is the gateways on this page, rather than the gateway 1 approval at the end of this page. So, I\u2019ve moved everything up, and I\u2019ve also added, just so it\u2019s clear that all of this in reality, gateway 1 process, typically at RIBA stages 03. I put typically because theoretically it could be at different stages, because there is a bit of flexibility in that when you go to planning it could be at stage 2, for example rather than stage 3. So, graphically they\u2019re the main changes in terms of the gateway approval I\u2019ve put to the bottom of that particular page.<\/p>\n

And then I\u2019ve added the headings, so it\u2019s a little bit clearer. Again, there are some feedback in terms of Simon\u2019s feedback and yourselves and I think another lady, so we need to look at that in a bit more detail.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK So, from diagram 1 and process diagram 2, they are not clear enough. You could mix the pages, basically. Because you need to know from what point you\u2019re going to what point exactly. If you mix the pages you wouldn\u2019t know whether you\u2019re in the right place, as in following the process.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Oh, so this should actually say from diagram 1 continued.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK Well, it needs to be clear that from that point on before gateway 1, you need to be clear what\u2019s the next step exactly.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Yeah, what I was trying to do there in terms of process diagram 2 is to go to this page which is process diagram 2.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK Ah, OK, I understand that.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Because you have continue to page 7, I was mindful that if this was somehow not a page based document then you\u2019d get lost, because there is no page 7 going forward. So, I was trying to relate that to the heading of the particular thing, so this is diagram 1 continued and this is process diagram 1 continued.<\/p>\n

JIM CREAK It could help if it was in the same colour so that the two match up.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK Yeah, I think the confusion that I had was because you\u2019re jumping from the process into the tittle, rather than to the process.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Hmmm\u2026actually this should be diagram 1 continued.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK And maybe titles a different colour and those headers that colour, or something, so it just draws you into it.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Yeah, I think that title is related to that, so that colour should be the same. The funny thing is your mind personally when you\u2019re doing it you think it makes perfectly logical sense, but it doesn\u2019t sometimes. The thing I think I need to add here, this is where actually the things to do with competency actually needs to he higher up, somewhere in this diagram. Because that really is about right from the beginning when people are appointing people, designers and principal designers etc. The thing that I was going to add into this gateway 2 was some of the things that I picked up from Andy Lowe\u2019s diagrams, he expanded on some of the things that you need to have together or collate for the gateway 2 process. So, competence declarations, construction control plan etc.<\/p>\n

Now, what I notice is that we haven\u2019t gone into listing that out, I think we may have a link somewhere, but I think it would be useful to spell those headings out at the beginning of this gateway because that is the information that everyone has to collect when they\u2019re going through this process. So, this box I put in there because the client appointing party etc, before they do any of that we\u2019ve got to remember that we\u2019ve got to generate this information. So that information is required basically before we do this submission of the application to get it reviewed, validated etc. So that\u2019s a key list that we need to add into this. Again, there was an email note from Simon about whether this answers our question. I think it probably does, so I just need to read through that and if it\u2019s another hyperlink to a document, out it here.<\/p>\n

But theoretically, by the end of this process you would get gateway 2 approval, you\u2019d have your application accepted and then you\u2019d move on to the process diagram 3. And then finally again on this page just slightly amended, so move the gateway to the end of that and then Gateway 3 process. I kind of put typically at RIBA stage 5, and then post gateway 3 RIBA stages 6, 7 and beyond because this is applicable for the lifetime of the building. And graphically I made this green output, building project completion and building can be occupied. And again, there are a number of comments and suggestions in here about things to do with some of the questions that we had. So I just need to go through that and make sure that we\u2019ve clarified that now, taking it down because there are nuances to do with when this project commencement, starting on site, all of those little definitions, which I think we've tried to capture here.<\/p>\n

I'll just double check it in combination with feedback and the notes from Andy Lowe\u2019s presentation. That\u2019s really the kind of overview of what I\u2019ve done. I think the key things for us, if anyone has got any input is really on checking things like, for example, Simon has given the link to Ben Oram\u2019s advice on how much it cost. Or, things like the notifiable changes, it can take up to 10 days to determine, changes can take up to 6 weeks.<\/p>\n

JIM CREAK One of the things about competency that came up in a number of association meetings that I\u2019ve had with specialist contractors specifically on fire protection is about whether it\u2019s the organisation or whether it\u2019s the individual, in a design term, in this document. But unfortunately I can\u2019t blow it up on my computer because I\u2019m sharing a screen. So is that clear that it\u2019s an individual and not an organisation?<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 No, that\u2019s one area that we haven\u2019t put in here which I think is what we do need to do is add\u2026if I share the notes from Andy\u2019s it\u2019s really about these slides. And I think we need to extract a couple of the headlines and I\u2019m sure we could put a reference probably to the PAS document which identifies how you may go about showing competency or proving competency. My understanding is that people talk about you\u2019ve got to show competencies as an organisation, and then the individual themselves. It has to be a named person when you\u2019re acting as the PD, really, so we do need to expand on that and put in, for example I know this PAS is out there. I know it\u2019s not necessarily considered to be really very clear, but I guess that\u2019s the only thing we have at the moment t build on.<\/p>\n

JIM CREAK Nobody is being very clear to me because bear in mind most of the competency qualifications in fire protection are done on an organisation basis and some of them are not even transferred to an individual engineer. So you may have an organisation, for instance, in under base? 23mins 45secs that\u2019s running a scheme SP205 and you might not have an engineer that\u2019s had any of the competency training for that scheme. It could well be held by the directors, the competency, and the crux of the matter is I\u2019m concerned about, because Grenfell is a classic example for the design was actually done by somebody that hadn\u2019t gone through any basic competency criteria.<\/p>\n

So it\u2019s possible without peer review that it\u2019s going to be a fault started at the beginning and as a function of an organisation being qualified under competency, but the person that\u2019s actually doing it not being so. But I took your point that you said there is a case that individuals have to sing something off.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 From an construction or manufacturing point of view\u2026I guess until we go through the realities. some sort of examples, case studies, case law sometimes, everyone is still trying to figure out for the best. I don\u2019t know, Will, if you\u2019ve had anything you can expand on that?<\/p>\n

WILL PERKINS Yeah, really interesting, you\u2019ve hit the nail on the head, we\u2019ve literally got our first interaction with a gateway 2 going through on a live project. Obviously we specialise in smoke ventilation systems, designing, manufacturing and installing, so we\u2019ve effectively got to put a subsystem of gateway 2 proposal that then goes forward. Now, the relevance being the level of granularity that we are going to go down to, including competence, including capability, including how to capture that. We\u2019re literally, to an extent, driving blind, we\u2019re trying it very openly with our client, who\u2019s a significant developer. And we\u2019re going, OK, let\u2019s try this and see what happens, so we\u2019re very much into the very early stages. But very deliberately we\u2019ve got a circular learning route so anything we learn goes straight back in and our process is evolving real time.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Ad I think that\u2019s all that we can do. It\u2019s interesting to read some of the slides that I took from Andy\u2019s things. In terms of, there\u2019s competency of designers which is talking about these things: behaviours, ethical, to comply with any codes. Some of these things are clearly slightly intangible, like behaviour, you can only prove that if you haven\u2019t been accused of something or proven. And some things are more easy to prove, I guess that you\u2019ve been to a course therefore you have the suitable competency to install X or Y, for example. As an architect, we\u2019re trying to do similar things where we are going on the RIBA course, for example, listening to these webinars by people like Andy, looking at the HSE webinars.<\/p>\n

And obviously this whole workflow diagram has been really helpful because it helps us visualise what the flow is and identify where actually we don\u2019t know. So, at the moment in the competency we can relate to some of these things, but the nice thing about the workflow diagram is that some things are very simple, you submit this and that and you get approval. But then when you look into the detail of it like defining a high-risk building, from the discussions that I\u2019ve seen and been party to, it\u2019s actually when it gets to the nitty gritty of a particular project that the whole thing starts to unravel, a little bit. We\u2019re just about to start on acting as the building safety PD on 3 projects that are not high-risk buildings, but they are at stage 4\/5. And we\u2019ve taken the decision, which I think is the only decision that we can do is to ask for some advice from a Building Safety Act PD advisor.<\/p>\n

To be honest, they\u2019re also going to be learning because not anyone has had a huge amount, but it gives us someone to bounce discussions through and maybe they\u2019ve got some templates. I now that the RIBA released an Excel, I think DETA? 28mins 47secs has been involved in that, generating this big Excel spreadsheet about trying to demonstrate that you\u2019ve discussed every part of the Building Safety regs or functional requirements etc. Now, that may be a good way to do it, or not, and I know George that you\u2019ve got various matrixes that you\u2019ve developed to capture information in the Active Plan process as well. So that\u2019s what we\u2019re doing and it will be interesting as our first actual projects where we\u2019re looking to be appointed, we haven\u2019t been yet, but we\u2019re just negotiating fees and roles and stuff.<\/p>\n

But one thing that has just come out is the RIBA appointment document for a client to appoint a building safety regulator PD, that\u2019s come out at the end of last month and we\u2019ve proposed that to our clients, it will be interesting to see what they say about that. And ultimately a lot of project managers unfortunately are also saying, well, can you review your fee, it looks a bit high. But it\u2019s quite arbitrary because how do they know that it\u2019s high? How do we know that it\u2019s high or low? Again, from the Architectural Technical Leads Group there\u2019s been some interesting feedback about how people are trying to provide fees for this. All you can do at the moment is to understand the activities and to try and put some time against those activities to generate a fee. And because it\u2019s really early on we could be way off, we could be just about right or we could be very under.<\/p>\n

So I think that we\u2019ll take the view that we can\u2019t negotiate down our fee when we don\u2019t actually know. It\u2019s not like you can reduce the scope, the scope is defined by the Act and therefore we think this is what we need as a fee proposal or a resource profile to do that job properly.<\/p>\n

JIM CREAK I really can understand that and concur with that and that\u2019s why the work that you\u2019ve done here is so good because there is some time in all of the things that we need to check as a checklist. And I\u2019m really glad that you said that we do have to put some due diligence into when we\u2019re sourcing anything not only about the organisation, but about the individual that\u2019s going to be responsible for the contract. And then at least we can be assured by others that we\u2019ve done the work that we needed to do to comply. And so the client then has to understand that going through process is done on an individual basis because of the scope of the works that need to be dome.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Yeah, and I think the reality is again that we\u2019re looking to appoint an advisor, but they don\u2019t have a huge amount of experience, no one does. So t say how many projects have you done like this? Well, probably none, or very early or bits of the gateway processes. The biggest thing is behavioural change. Everyone has to be open, collaborative and say when they don\u2019t know because that is where the biggest problems are, when people pretend that they know everything. But I think that spirit of learning has to be completely transparent. We\u2019re saying to our clients we don\u2019t know it, so we\u2019re appointing someone to help us.<\/p>\n

JIM CREAK We\u2019ve always used contractors that are problem solvers and willing to have a go for us when it\u2019s new, everybody does. And 9 times out of 10 it works perfectly well because they are around that sort of competency and that due diligence that they would make sure that the thing comes out. But that\u2019s not dotting the i\u2019s and crossing the t\u2019s for this piece of legislation because the piece of paper or the certificate or the CPD course\u2026I\u2019m very careful now when I give a career development course that this is not providing competence. This is creating background, it\u2019s creating stuff for further learning because I see they put behavioural aspects in as a function of competency because that\u2019s what the text books say you should be looking for. But there is other work that needs to be done to prove competency, especially as specialist contractors are concerned because it\u2019s ongoing, it\u2019s a dynamic process.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Yeah, there\u2019s different to continual professional development, the CPDs that we have to maintain our RIBA register or anything like that. I think there is a bit or background work to do in terms of a) just looking at the comments that have come through and the updated links. There\u2019s a bit to add here about this whole competency and the appointment bit because that\u2019s something that is critical, right at the beginning. I\u2019m not exactly sure where we should put that so it doesn\u2019t get lost. This feels like it maybe too early because this is just determining whether the project is. I think the competency thing therefore theoretically has to start when you\u2019re looking at appointing a fire consultant, for example. So maybe it\u2019s somewhere in here at the beginning of the top of this.<\/p>\n

And then the main thing that we need to add into the gateway 2 process is the main elements of information or things that have to be done which I\u2019ve sort of extracted from Andy Lowe\u2019s onto this little bubble here. That we need to almost maybe put in and advance of this thing here, so maybe move this down and say then aim of this workflow or this diagram or this process is to generate these outputs because that\u2019s what\u2019s needed for the application. There may be a little bit of jiggling around here to do. And then it\u2019s really there\u2019s a couple of nuances about this 2 week period, the 12 week. I haven\u2019t seen someone say something different in terms of time periods, but that would be the other thing really useful to get. Will, for example, if you\u2019re going through this process whether you know actually its taking longer now.<\/p>\n

The thing that I wanted to bring up was this is the feedback that Graham King from Safer Sphere, who are a specialist building safety CDM provider. This is a presentation he gave to the Architectural Technical Leads Group and it\u2019s interesting to see the real life situation, they\u2019re seeing these 6 month delays on applications. Everything from a case officer on leave, real life scenarios I guess, lack of response from fire authorities, so on and so forth. So, I guess a bit like what we all expected, the capacity within the new Building Safety Regulator is obviously quite low. And we\u2019ve seen this, for example, AIS who were on some of our projects, they\u2019ve gone into liquidations, so that\u2019s quite a large body or a team. And then asset building control are not looking to register, so he\u2019s identifying that actually there are 50 projects that now don\u2019t have the relevant building control inspectors or registered inspectors onboard. And therefore those projects are also now falling onto the Building Safety Regulator\u2019s remit.<\/p>\n

Another thing, there\u2019s a couple of things about submission just jumping over from appeals. I think that\u2019s as we spoke about before about what does the elections mean, do you want to rock the boat? So, I think his point here is that some of the clients are just taking the view that they won\u2019t rock the boat, they\u2019ll just let it go and then deal with it. But this is quite interesting and I think it\u2019s something that we can include in the gateway 2 process is being mindful as a team, my biggest understanding is that as a design team we\u2019ve got to justify and make a little statement, a narrative, to say why we think our design of a staircase or a smoke extract system or whatever complies with the building regulations.<\/p>\n

So what Graham is saying here is that in that little narrative we should be very definitive, not ambiguous, and therefore when the Building Regulator reeds it, ultimately they can say yeah, they\u2019ve said that their design meets it for X, Y and Z reasons, therefore we move on. Ultimately they\u2019re not taking any responsibility, I think is what we realise, and therefore as a design team\u2026and I don\u2019t have a problem with that because it\u2019s what a design team should do anyway with the sub-specialist input etc. But his guidance is that we must be using these words, or respond to these words, and that\u2019s something we can put as a helpful note in the gateway 2 process.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I think this is very, very useful because this is from the ground. I\u2019m also very conscious, though, that some of the other people haven\u2019t spoken yet, so I\u2019m just wondering whether we should get some\u2026don\u2019t break off doing this because I think it\u2019s valuable, but I\u2019d just like to ask Ben, for example, what\u2019s your experience?<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD I was really enjoying this because this is bang on what we\u2019ve seen in reality. I\u2019m from Ballymore, we\u2019re at the stage we\u2019ve got 2 gateway 2 applications in at the moment for relatively large schemes and we\u2019ve got a number of other ones in preparation at the moment. We\u2019re on week 18 of the 12 week programme for 2 of them. The reasons for the delay are pretty much exactly what you\u2019ve listed there. People being on leave, members of the team uncontactable and fire brigade. There\u2019s also been a number of issues with the portals, the fire brigade haven\u2019t actually started their review yet, although we\u2019re on week 18. Not quite sure of the reasons for that, but certainly some of the other elements of the multidisciplinary team have struggled to get information that we\u2019ve submitted. And there is a number of RFIs that we\u2019ve had are all in relation to not being able to access information that we\u2019ve already submitted.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 I see, and I guess that the portal is acting as essentially a common data environment for this process.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD That\u2019s right, but it\u2019s not a common data environment. it doesn\u2019t do revision control and it doesn\u2019t allow them to download more that one document at time. So certain people are saying that it takes them the first day to download the documents and it seems to be a real foot on the pipe, that element of the process.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Ben, what would be useful, I don\u2019t know if you\u2019ve had time to look at the Miro board and the workflow before, but you\u2019re exactly the kind of people that will be useful to say actually when we went through this page, for example, actually there were somethings\u2026the 12 week is clearly the statutory period, so that\u2019s good that we got the fact right. Obviously we know that the reality may change, I don\u2019t think we need to add anything more because I think here what we\u2019re trying to deal with is pure whatever the facts are meant to be, rather than what\u2019s actually happening in real life, I think the reality is everyone is aware that things slip and change.<\/p>\n

But it would be useful if there are other steps or other bits of information or other links to useful websites. What we\u2019ve tried to do is either stick to either gov.uk<\/a> or HSE links only because theoretically they should be the most up-to-date and accurate. But it would be useful to understand whether there was anything in these 2 slides particularly and obviously going forward into the construction stage, that you\u2019ve done, or have had to do, which is different to what we\u2019ve got. Because you\u2019ve gone through it, which is invaluable information. We can share the link.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD That would be great. I do think these are really good and I think fundamentally we wouldn\u2019t have anything to add. But we could maybe provide some supplementary anecdotal evidence to show what could happen, but obviously you\u2019ve show the correct path there. If it\u2019s helpful as well I\u2019ve provided my own one which is very similar, but for existing buildings, like renovations. I\u2019ll send that to you.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Yeah, because that\u2019s sort of what we had alluded to in this diagram, which is the one which is about existing buildings which had to be both registered. But it\u2019s also what we\u2019re trying to do with things like existing buildings and understanding whether they need to, for example, one of the things that I\u2019ve got to add from Andy Lowe\u2019s presentation is about there is a list of\u2026works existing HRBs or works to buildings that may become. And there are these sort of category A, B and exempt work lists. So again Jarek, I think we just have to find links to where these are because that\u2019s quite useful because we\u2019ve got a scenario with, let\u2019s say, Westminster City Council. They\u2019re looking to do some work in a high-risk building, but to replace the kitchens or the bathrooms as part of their Decent Homes standards . But what I understand from this is actually those things would be exempt, which makes sense. Or, if they are a self-certified piece of work like someone coming into change a fuse box, for example, and that gets certified by NICU, for example.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD Yeah, a couple of interesting things that we found about that is that the guidance that they\u2019ve put there, it\u2019s not very helpful for HRBs. The examples given on the government sources are not that detailed and any questions that we\u2019ve asked the BSR to say we\u2019re changing a fire door that\u2019s been damaged using a competent Q mark BM Trada approved contractor with a like for like fire door. Is that building work and do we need a gateway 2 application? They\u2019ve said, yes you do, which was surprising. The bar for what constitutes building work is lower than what most people would expect.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 And was that a communal door?<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD Yes.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 That\u2019s where I had in my mind that essentially if it\u2019s facade or communal elements, then yes. And most people are saying that if it would normally need a building control submission\u2026now, you\u2019re right, sometimes replacement of a door, i\u2019m sure that millions of doors have been replaced without going to Building Control. But that\u2019s where I\u2019ve simply taken the view that facade works or communal corridors like in fire detectors and doors would fall into the category A, I think. But it\u2019s interesting to hear that that\u2019s exactly what\u2019s happening in real life as well. Which makes a humungous, if you think about for example Westminster City Council, our client, they may only own some of the apartments within the block.<\/p>\n

And they may only be able to do the works let\u2019s say upgrading the installation to the external walls or something at particular times when the tenants are not there or the tenants have been moved to a different place. And if you had to start the whole building gateway process for every single time a flat became available, that\u2019s quite a lot of work. So we\u2019re trying to work with them to figure out whether there is some sort of design guide or a design book like you might have in conservation projects where you agree that if these works are done they are already pre-signed off, but I\u2019m not sure if that will work.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD That\u2019s kind of analogous to the competent person scheme, but the competent person scheme only covers very limited elements of work and it\u2019s basically gas, electrics and external doors. There doesn\u2019t seem to be any other elements that are covered.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK First of all, referring to what Ben just said regarding the complexity, I don\u2019t think we can capture everything in this workflow diagram because you can\u2019t be so much detail in there. But we should have links to the categories and exceptions which you just shared, Das, incorporate them in the process, definitely, and then links to it. But then to explain that in detail, that must be separate I think because too much detail. And also that would link nicely into those examples of the existing problems that we have which should be part of lessons learned. And that somehow should be linked, I don\u2019t know how, but it\u2019s really good and valuable information.<\/p>\n

And then finally you mentioned about this competency. I think in the diagram we should have this in multiple places. First of all, generally the competency is like a strategic issue within construction, so that should be somewhere on top as a start of the process. And then we should have alluding to what Jim said, some trigger points within multiple points within the process where you have to check (or should) competency of an organisation or an individual at particular points. Where those points are, I don\u2019t know yet, but that\u2019s what I\u2019m thinking.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Yeah, maybe for the, in the first instance we can reiterate that competency on all pages, as more of a statement, before getting too granular and making the diagram too bitty. So, you\u2019re right, we can put it up here, so that on every page it reminds people have we got the right people, have we got the right checks and balances in place. And I think generally a bit like, remember back when the BIM level 1, bIM level 2, all of those discussions happened 10 years ago. One thing is obviously having the theory, which I guess is what we\u2019re trying to map out here. And then the value really comes in when we have almost a mirror page of this to say actually this is what is happening in real life, these are the benefits, these are the negatives. Which is I guess what Graham is helping us to map out, and Ben, you\u2019re also being able to help. And hopefully I will also be, from an architectural point of view, able to add to that as we go through real life projects because that\u2019s really the proof as to how these things actually map out.<\/p>\n

But I\u2019ll share this little PDF as well, but again it\u2019s just from Graham\u2019s things to do and things not to do, in terms of level of detail of the information. And then I think he also talks about where some people have tried to submit bits of information to try and get an approval, but they are misunderstanding some of the phrases like information requirements because they\u2019re trying to submit something which is not actually a complete design, I think. I\u2019ll share that on the chat\u2026Ben, there may be things that you could add to this on top of this PDF and say, actually, yeah, all of this is what happened to us, or no actually, something else happened, or there were more things that we need to keep a look out for. And that could become a lessons learned or a reel life set of markups which we can put adjacent to the theoretical.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK Yeah, that\u2019s a great idea, to have it on the side as real life lessons learned.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Yeah, and then we can build on it. Because I guess in a way we\u2019ve got a PDF version of these page, which is good for sharing, and then theoretically this Miro board can also be live which people can add into. We could obviously periodically review this as things go by. Maybe there is some tidying up to do of the Miro board, just to get rid of some things, but we can work on that separately.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Could I just ask Will, from the manufacturer\u2019s perspective is this useful for you?<\/p>\n

WILL PERKINS Massively, absolutely massively because, as I said earlier, we\u2019re working in cooperation with the design team. And we\u2019re all working not blind, but we\u2019ve all got a kind of bandwidth we\u2019re staying with on where we\u2019re going, but this is just really good information, it\u2019s just so helpful. The point is there is no answer to this, but the more information you get a momentum, you get a consensus, and from the outside looking in I think that\u2019s the way that this whole process will work, almost by industry consensus as opposed to a regulator being very specific about it. So, I think it\u2019s down to everybody in the room and manufacturers, all of us as an industry to keep going forward because ultimately what it\u2019s doing is good. Hugely frustrating and there\u2019s going to be some significant\u00a0 delays and costs etc, but the benefits in the long term are just massive.<\/p>\n

JIM CREAK It\u2019s putting back everything that\u2019s gone as a race to the bottom, it\u2019s putting back al of what I used to call the site managers responsibility of check, recheck, measure twice and cut once. It\u2019s fantastic for me because I\u2019ve just watched over 40 years the race to the bottom getting rid of all of the technical resources, getting rid of all of the specifications and just quoting for equivalent. And that equivalent coming from Taiwan, China or whatever. So, I\u2019m really pleased and i concur with you Will, great.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I think part of the issue here is that if it\u2019s all documented as to the activities that have got to be carried out, then when somebody\u00a0 is then pressing back on fees you\u2019ve got something to actually have a proper discussion on: what would you like me to drop?<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 I think the point that someone made is that there is nothing that you can drop because it\u2019s a statutory requirement to do X, Y and Z.<\/p>\n

GEORGE No, no, that\u2019s the outcomes. The beauty of what we\u2019re doing here is we\u2019re actually going into the detail of the activities that need to be carried out to deliver the outcomes. One of the things that we\u2019re doing, I\u2019ll give you a bit of feedback from the construction group. They met yesterday and one of the things that came out of that was that Lucy Craig from Mace is currently doing the RIBA principal designer qualification. Broadly what she was saying was that the way RIBA are looking at the principal designer BSA role is that you get appointed and it\u2019s for the whole scheme. So if it\u2019s a design & build that breaks that connection, and I think they\u2019re recommending to their members that they should therefore refuse the commission. Now, that\u2019s massive because if people are going through the qualification and then they are not able to work on\u2026<\/p>\n

I think most of us have got a view as to whether D&B is a good or a bad thing, but the fact is that it\u2019s still the way most procurement is done. And therefore we need to have a pragmatic way of doing that. The other thing that we\u2019re discussing at the moment is introducing government soft landings into the process because that could be a mechanism which formalises a lot of what are really slightly intangible things about the golden thread. Because there are a certain number of checks and activities that the framework of soft landings actually does bring into the process. So that might be something that we ought to be mapping in.<\/p>\n

SHARON McCLURE I think the problem is that we\u2019re so far down the food chain that all the decisions are made, all of the problems have been made and we are left to pick up the pieces. It\u2019s like broken lego pieces? 59mins 32 secs, the gaps are left over the passive fire industries expecting us to sweep in and have a magical cure for everything.\u00a0 The new builds are not being built to specifications, we\u2019ve got requirements but for some reason everyone contract to that building\u2026(incomprehensible audio<\/em>)\u2026it doesn\u2019t seem to be the same information going out to every party, so the M&E contractors are installing what suits them, but that\u2019s not compatible with fire protection measures.<\/p>\n

I think everything I hear just now is just negative\u2026by the time you get onto site there\u2019s problems left, right and centre. There seems to be no forethought, and then we\u2019re responsible to issue the fire certificate that keeps getting caught\u2026\u00a0we need your certificate, but it doesn't matter how much it's going to pay for and how much it\u2019s talked about in terms of the RIBA stages. We still feel as if we're turning up and all the deficiencies from everybody else is passed on to ourselves. Everyone is getting more nervous and we have to become more cautious in response to that, so it\u2019s a very difficult thing for us.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Sharon, what you within Avesta do and also within the ASFP is so critical to all of this. We\u2019re very keen to have your input.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD I thought I\u2019d better make a point of order. When I was reading Andrew\u2019s piece I was very excited to see how much we could identify with those comments. But now that he\u2019s sent through the document I can see who they\u2019ve come and BJY are working for us at the moment so actually that might be my own comments getting reflected back to me. I just realised I may have given the impression that they\u2019re more pervasive than they actually are, so I\u2019d better just point that out.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I thin you may be misunderstanding, Ben. I think what was done there was a presentation done by Safer Sphere to the group and the architect was just summarising what had happened at the meeting.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD Ah, OK, concern averted.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 That\u2019s right, it was basically the Safer Sphere, because they are\u00a0 a consultant, had given a presentation. So as far as I understand it\u2019s exactly what George just said is what is happening. Ben just happens to be also leading that Architectural Technical Leads Group. That\u2019s a sort of similar knowledge sharing group and they\u2019re called ATLG. It\u2019s interesting because they\u2019re talking about some of the similar things to do with definitions of what a high-rise is.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s very much coming from the architectural side, so it\u2019s quite useful for me because they\u2019ll talk about something to do with partition head restraint which goes into minutiae which is maybe a little bit too much. But then some of the other conversations is about fees to do with this role or definitions of some of their projects where they\u2019ve submitted an application, but it\u2019s been refused, but it doesn\u2019t make sense why it has been refused. That was a presentation by Graham from Safer Sphere to that group.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD Right, well something that\u2019s in a similar sort of track that we\u2019ve encountered as well as virtually every single one of those things, we have also seen where a client is unsure if something needs a gateway 2 application or not, and they\u2019ve asked a third-party consultant to give an opinion, the tendency seems to for the consultant to say yes, it needs a gateway 2 application. Then what\u2019s happened is that the client has then forwarded the consultant\u2019s response to me and said are you sure that this is right? And I\u2019d say that in 80% of cases they have been overcautious and said that a gateway 2 application is needed when it actually doesn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

The reason for it is that for example, if you\u2019ve got a refit of a shop, and a shop is under a high-rise building but it\u2019s a completely separate section with a fire compartmentation and the no access to the building, then it\u2019s not an HRB, it\u2019s a building on its own and it doesn\u2019t need a gateway 2 application. And consultancies seem to be getting that wrong.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Yeah, these are getting the good sort of case studies because I think originally there was a bit of ambiguity, what about if you touched the facade with the\u00a0 louver that might be coming out of the shop, does that actually kick in? I don't actually know what the answer to that is, but it's all these little case studies which we can add to the right hand side of this Miro board and say we've had one example where this has been the case and it has been registered. So,\u00a0 that will then almost define a new workflow or a new set of guidance for the team, more anecdotal and real life scenarios rather than theoretically what is set in the black and white documents.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK What should we do in that situation that Ben described? In our workflow diagram, what is the advice?<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD I\u2019ll send you the link, there is actually quite a good guidance note, it\u2019s one of the guidance notes that is actually very good, it\u2019s on the .gov website. It provides you with some really clear tests that you can apply and it tells you, it leaves maybe 10% where you would maybe make a judgement like in a situation that Andrew has stated. You might make a judgement and say, well, actually it\u2019s not covered, but I think this. But 90% of cases it\u2019s very clear.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 That\u2019s good to hear that it\u2019s more comprehensive than less on those scenarios.<\/p>\n

RON BURNS I\u2019m with William Cox, we\u2019re smoke vent contractors based in Ireland.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 Have you had any experience of projects? Or are you going into projects which require applications?<\/p>\n

RON BURNS No we don\u2019t, not at the moment because we\u2019re based largely in Ireland. But I\u2019m very interested in the competent person and I do do a little bit of work with people in the UK and I\u2019m concerned about the fact that the person who starts the job isn\u2019t responsible for the job, as I understand it, right until the end of the lifetime of that project. If a fire engineer designs a project and then it starts to move and then it goes to another group of consultants and they apply the fire engineer\u2019s works. When they change things,<\/p>\n

OK, they have liberty to change and the fire engineer doesn\u2019t need to approve that for the next phase. And when the fire departments signs it off, again our experience items where these changes at the fire department or building control officer. Now, that alleviates all of the responsibility on the original fire engineer and that leads to people changing products. Whereas if the fire engineer is responsible from cradle to grave on that project, there will be no changing of equipment.<\/p>\n

WILL PERKINS This is why gateway 2 is so exciting and I picked out one of the lines in what you just put round about the level of detail required. It depends on the approving authority or the individual who\u2019s looking at that case. To elaborate, Ron, what the principle of gateway 2 is is what is approved at gateway 2 cannot be changed without going through what is potentially a 6 month cycle. So therefore the question is how much granular detail do you go into at gateway 2. So, if you go into really significant granular detail so that is a very comprehensive design, the opportunity to substitute out inferior products that don\u2019t have the performance characteristics is reduced.<\/p>\n

So, Ron, in answer to your question, I believe that if gateway 2 operates correctly, go. Because the person who did the original design, if they do it properly down to a granular level, will wash all the way through. So, before it is handed over to gateway 3, the system, the installation, is proved against the gateway 2 performance specification and design. If that happens then that should alleviate the fears that you have.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK That will be beautiful if that happens, but in theory the specialists are never onboard at that point, which is a problem.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 And I think this is where picking up on Sharon\u2019s frustrations as well.For architects, again the gateway process felt like a very good thing because a lot of the time on the projects that we do which are D&B, clearly the design evolves after stage 5. Sometimes because of the procurement route because the procurement route means that you\u2019ve got to get into a contract with a fixed price before the contractor can then realistically start appointing some of the specialists, like facades or M&E. So, the procurement route also is a bigger issue as well. What the gateway process does technically for the high-risk buildings is that it theoretically means that the contractor, the client, everyone onboard the procurement team, the designers should be able to design once with the right input.<\/p>\n

So, Sharon, in your case the workflow that\u2019s been discussed again, the correct workflow that I think I agree with is when it comes to building BWICs, that\u2019s really driven by the M&E because most BWICs are related to M&E or civils. And then the passive fire specialist would come in and make sure that their designs comply with the substrate and the things that are going through that BWIC and therefore lock in that design at pre-gateway 2. We as architects would coordinate that from an aesthetic point of view, making sure that the holes are in the right place and not clashing with something.\u00a0 But, as you say, Will, that theoretically would mean that the design is suitably developed enough. Now as the role that I\u2019m looking to take on and be appointed for which is Building Safety Act principal designer, I need to therefore sign off, having discussed with the team and got reassurance. Now, I don\u2019t need to necessarily be the complete fire risk cover, but I need to make sure that the client\u2019s appointed a competent team, and basically having a workshop with them saying to be able to sign off at gateway 2 that the design complies with building regulations because X, Y and Z.<\/p>\n

And that\u2019s a high level summary following workshops and feedback from the specialist competent people. Now, the contractor at the end of the project ha to sign and say the building has been built according to the design to meet the building regulations. That again, Ron and Sharon, if they change something without telling us and without going through the change control; (the major or the notifiable) then they are 100% liable if something goes wrong because they\u2019ve signed that declaration. Because if they do want to change something then it doesn\u2019t really matter who designed it at gateway 2, that change control process would require a new passive fire consultant or specialist to then work with the team, and the PD and the PC, to then justify the change and the reasoning behind that, and put it back into the Building Regulator to get that approved before implementing that onsite.<\/p>\n

I think the stick from a carrot\/client point of view is the timeframes, 6 weeks to get a major, and we can see from the feedback that it\u2019s clearly going to take longer. That\u2019s a huge amount of change and potentially the client is not going to want to know and pay for that delay. The contractor will have to bear that, and that could result in liquidated damages and stuff. So therefore the stick is that unless there is a really, really good reason like a specialist has gone bust or something, changes shouldn\u2019t occur because actually all of the penalties should be born by the contractor who is trying to make the change, for whatever reason.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Das, could I just ask the question. One of the approaches that we\u2019re taking at the moment is looking at the technical submittal process because that\u2019s something that seems to be very widely used by most contractors. And because it\u2019s driven by money, it happens. But if we could improve that technical submittal process so that the specification for that item is adequately prescriptive and the product that is actually picked is then clearly defined, I think that ticks a lot of boxes. Ben, how do you do it, do you use technical submittal process?<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD We\u2019ve always done that is, let\u2019s be honest, the quality of documentation from some trade contractor is better than others, but our policy is that for a technical submittal for\u2026even 10 years ago, for a smoke control system the first page of that tech sub should be the specification.\u00a0 And then they should tick to indicate that they\u2019ve complied with everything and if there is something where they haven\u2019t, they have to identify it and then there should be a trade contractor\u2019s proposal. Which even historically we would have to take to Building Control and say, look, we\u2019ve already signed off all of our specifications, but here is a proposal where we\u2019re going to deviate from that, are you happy about this?<\/p>\n

So basically the gateway 2 is no different, it just means that we would do that a bit earlier and then that proposal would be baked in to the actual design that we issue within our gateway 2 submission. We do do that, for example, what Andrew was saying earlier about builders works. With the best will in the world, I\u2019ve never met any architect who would be able to be fully confident in specifying the builders work openings around fire rated duct work. Because it\u2019s hard, and unless you\u2019ve got like a specialist duct work and damper manufacturer sitting there and reviewing it, you\u2019ve got no chance of getting that right. Sharon will know how hard that is. So we tend to bring in those people early and we will have those conversations and design that out and then bake it into the design. That does require that either you pay those specialists to come in earlier then they would do, you pay them to do this work and then it goes into the design.<\/p>\n

And then they\u2019ll probably get their own information back at tender stage later, or appoint it earlier. Or quite often these specialists, you work with them for 20 years and they\u2019re quite willing to do you a favour on the chance that they might get the work. What\u2019s been a little bit unethical in our industry is previously people would do that and then give it to somebody who\u2019s cheaper using the design that\u2019s been done by the subcontractor. I think gateway 2 will actually help prevent that because if any main contractor tries to do that then there is no chance that the cheaper and maybe less helpful trade contractor will be able to provide the same level of design submission.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 George, the feeling in the industry is that when this came up was that everything moves forward a stage i.e. complete design in stage 4, when it\u2019s meant to happen, as the RIBA stages say. And the technical submissions should be also part of the design process and not in construction, which is typically when they\u2019ve always been used to substitute something.<\/p>\n

SHARON McCLURE My experience is that there doesn't seem to be any reference to any of the builders work openings. There doesn't seem to have been any reference to any manufacturers, and there doesn't seem to have been any single person that's reviewed any of the manufacturers installation guidelines. So we are being used as almost like an additional building control measure. They\u2019ll bring dampers to site and half of them you\u2019re trying to explain that\u2019s for a wall, not a floor, or it says in the manufacturers brochure that there\u2019s no fire stopping involved, that it\u2019s a plasterboard opening that needs to be created and here it is on page 72 and I've snipped it for you. I agree that an awful lot of information going about it and I can't do everyone else's job.<\/p>\n

But it just feels that by the time it gets to the end of the line, we\u2019re responsible to either fix the deficiencies, and we can\u2019t accept design responsibility, So now I\u2019m the harbinger of doom because I\u2019m the only person that gives all of the bad news because I\u2019m left with all of whatever is shaken out of the filter and whatever is left at the end of it, you\u2019re now responsible for it. And if we can\u2019t continue for our insurances we can\u2019t take on design responsibility and we don\u2019t want to be changing materials from one to another because we know that it can have an impact on somebody else up the food chain. But I\u2019[m just concerned that there seems to be all of this we\u2019re doing a really good job, but the basics aren\u2019t being covered by those responsible.<\/p>\n

WILL PERKINS Ben, thanks for raising the point, yes. Sharon, we\u2019re slightly different in as much as we do do design, we do take design liability on as a manufacturer, so kind of back to Ben is yeah, 100%. The way we\u2019re approaching gateway 2 submissions is going down to a level of granular detail in terms of sizes. So, we all know, end of corridor 1.5 square metres, so it has to go down to that level of detail as a full bill of quantities, but very clearly you don\u2019t want to only be able to procure from DE Controls. So they way that we\u2019re putting that together, gateway 2 submission, is that we\u2019re referencing the essential characteristics which come out of the European product standards that are for smoke ventilation. An NSHEV has essential characteristics. By doing that, that gives you, the main contractor the design team, full ability to go to tender to get the most competitive price, but at a level of performance that will satisfy the design. And to me that\u2019s critical because then in terms of sign-off after installation, it\u2019s absolutely clear what that product has got to do, how its got to perform. So the tools are out there, but the message is yeah, it\u2019s all down to what goes into the earlier design, I guess.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 From a coordination point of view and to avoid what Sharon is talking about, the metrical size of these things have to be defined. Because otherwise there is no point in having RC concrete with BWICs which then can be changed because the performance is the same, but you need a bigger thing, or whatever that may be. So, by definition you\u2019ve got to find the size and the performance of these elements otherwise the coordination goes out of the window, and if the substrate changes then it also impacts on the products you can choose.<\/p>\n

JAREK WITYK I just wanted to point out practical issues with all of what we discuss. There\u2019s two problems, obviously most people, every company that I work with operates through technical approvals, but there\u2019s two problems which breaks the whole process: change responsibility and increased costs. One is there is very often errors with technical design and no one seems to check this until the contractor who is about to install it points it out. Second, no one checks whether the product is actually available, and that triggers change as well. And then responsibility goes out of the window as well. Those two points should be somewhere in the process as trigger points to be checked because otherwise all of the hard work just goes into the bin, causes delays and increased costs.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Could I just float an idea. Would it be possible to have a standardised technical submittal process? The reason I say that is because if it were, picking up on what Will was saying, using the essential characteristics for example (but that\u2019s only relevant to products that have got essential characteristics). Would it be possible to have something, Ben, that that you would use that maybe other contractors like you would use?<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD I think if you\u2019re trying to do that it would need to be quite high level such that it\u2019s probably common sense anyway. I\u2019ll give you an analogy, it\u2019s really easy to, if you\u2019ve got a pedestrian door that acts as an AOV the architect could quite easily go oh yeah, that needs to be EN 10121 compliant smoke vent. Cool, yeah, no one is going to argues with that, but if I invite a smoke control specialist to the meeting Will will tell me within the first 3 minutes that there is no such thing and that that\u2019s going to cause problems. And it would be better to engineer a different solution, but engineering a different solution is probably going to make some fairly fundamental changes to the design, which are easy to do at an early stage but hard to do at a late stage.<\/p>\n

And this is how we end up with numerous things which are built onsite which, they technically look OK on the face of it, but in design terms it\u2019s a bit of a fudge. And I think there\u2019s not really any alternative to having the right people in the room at the right time and having the technical team curate the information, but based on technical input from people generally a lot earlier. And that should be crystallised in a technical submission, like you say, but I think quite often the technical submittal is more about the timing rather than the content. I suppose that\u2019s probably what I\u2019m getting at.<\/p>\n

RON BURNS I wanna make some statements that they're trying to be controversial. I think we miss a lot of the gap about the seriousness of what we\u2019re doing. So if a doctor is a rally bad doctor he mght accidentally perform some procedures and an individual may die. Maybe he does ti more than once and multiple people die over his career. When someone on the fire side makes a mistake, people die in 10s of numbers and if I were to have a heart attack now and if I were to need a bypass I\u2019d need a valve put into me. I would have something that\u2019s 110% certified. Now, these products in the smoke control, I can\u2019t speak about the fire doors, I\u2019m not an authority there. When it comes to smoke control and the problem that you\u2019re having in 12101. 2, Ben, the products exist, it\u2019s having the courage to choose the right product. The person who is responsible should be able to know are not allowed to make it function.<\/p>\n

So, it\u2019s not about essential characteristics, it\u2019s about required characteristics. And if we take the grey out of the code it\u2019s very easy to get the correct product in the right place at the right time. We looked at smoke duct, part 7 smoke duct has requirements where it can\u2019t be larger than 1250. Because it can\u2019t be larger than 1250 in one direction, it\u2019s very unlikely we can exhaust more than 10 cubic metres of smoke through that duct. Which means we\u2019re not going to use fans bigger than a 900 diameter fan because you\u2019re going to need more air. Then you\u2019ve got to have alternative solutions and that\u2019s where the engineers need to be worth their salt and actually design correctly and not necessarily rely on the suppliers for design input, but relate to the supplier for the product availability.<\/p>\n

And that\u2019s why I started saying the guy who starts the design needs to be accountable from cradle to grave and that way we stop having people die in buildings because it\u2019s an historical building and we put a window actuator on an existing window. The window is not EN compliant, take it out and put a proper window in.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD That\u2019s exactly the point, but then those windows only go up to a certain size and they\u2019re only compatible with certain manufacturers. And any engineer, even a good one, may not pick up on all of those things, so you would expect that there was going to be a design where the engineer has taken it to a point where he\u2019s saying I think this is complete, I think this is compliant, but please can you have a look at it and let me know if I\u2019ve missed anything. And that\u2019s where the specialist comes in.<\/p>\n

RON BURNS Interfacing with the specialist is one thing, but the engineer needs to know that when I look at a window in an existing building, we\u2019re so worried about the historical content of that window instead of replacing it with the correct window. We don\u2019t do it as a structural design where we\u2019ve got to use RSJ 200 x 250 and change it to 203 x 272. That size doesn\u2019t exist. We\u2019re quite happy to accommodate the structure because we don\u2019t want our building falling down, but we won\u2019t be around when people are dying in the building. So why don\u2019t we have the courage to say sorry, guys, the biggest window you can have is 1 metre by 1 metre. Modify your design to suit the certified product, don\u2019t start modifying the essential characteristics to get a window to work. I\u2019m just picking on a window, we could be picking on a fan, or a duct.<\/p>\n

So if I\u2019ve got a ceiling void, why am I throttling a duct to 1 is to 5 aspect ratio and trying to convince the world that I can now get an axial fan to work against the pressure drop, static pressure, of 1.2 kPa. You can\u2019t do that. So forget the engineering romance, we don\u2019t just put a 300 x 300 bean on a 2-storey building and then build 6 storeys because it\u2019s convenient. Why are we compromising as a fire industry? Sorry, I don\u2019t mean to rock everybody\u2019s weekend, but it\u2019s time we take it out and show everybody how big it is and say no.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 I think it\u2019s interesting going into this PD role because ultimately what everyone is talking about here, it shows the benefit of having multiple people at the same table, not in a sort of salami sliced process. Which I think theoretically gateway 2 is asking for, so that earlier design, earlier appointment of both designers and specialists and installers. So in a way D&B doesn\u2019t have to die, it just needs to move forward a stage for it to be really useful because you do get the specialist info and knowledge of the main contractor and the supply chain that they have arrangements with or agreements. So at a very high level, if I\u2019m going to be the PD those kind of questions that you picked up there are the kind of things that can only occur when you\u2019ve got the designer and the specialist and a couple of the other related parties in the same room.<\/p>\n

Because otherwise how can we make that statement that we\u2019ve gone through the correct thinking and looked at the risks and constraints and chosen the right product to be able to submit something at gateway 2 and say we believe this design is compliant. So for me, all of the things that you said there are clearly relevant, but those discussions can only happen more in a circular one room kind of scenario, rather than passing a design spec down to the person down and down and down, which is currently what\u2019s happening. And then get changed again later on.<\/p>\n

JIM CREAK I\u2019m not querying your numbers or in any way shape or form, the stuff that you talk about is absolute. But I can tell you that the guidance that we\u2019ve had over 30 years is not that specific in a number of areas and it\u2019s given latitude for these things suitable and sufficient and an engineered solution and people need to get around obstacles. And so we do need some latitude, rather than something that\u2019s very, very prescriptive. As I say, I\u2019m not questioning the ones that you quote, but in huge amounts of fire safety disciplines you need to work in some things where there is compensatory features because the optimum isn\u2019t possible. And that\u2019s all I\u2019m saying, just to counteract the very prescriptive, very rigid way we need to have some latitudes.<\/p>\n

ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 That just shows the value of the discussion and the input and I think that last point, Jim, is about the collaborative decision making that has to be baked into the narrative that we submit which is then supported with the design work, the specifications, the products etc we chose. Because we all have to stand by it, that\u2019s the whole point. Thanks for everyone\u2019s input, the Miro board has been shared by Jarek, so any comments\u2026are really helpful because it\u2019s all evolving.<\/p>\n

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

[12:15 pm] Ben Blackwood (Unverified)<\/p>\n

Criteria for determining whether a building is a higher-risk building during the occupation phase of the new higher-risk regime - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)<\/a><\/p>\n

[12:19 pm] George Stevenson (External)<\/p>\n

Could completeness (or Incompleteness) of product selection flag up as a risk?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

DESIGN WORKING GROUP MEETING 03-07-2024 ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 I think the gentleman you sent it to sounds, based on the name, Sri Lankan so maybe there is an added connection there. GEORGE I\u2019ve met him and he seems very good. Basically, he was speaking from the heart and he said that he grew up…<\/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-420","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nDesign Working Group Meeting 03-07-2024 - 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\/design-working-group-meeting-03-07-2024\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Design Working Group Meeting 03-07-2024 - BIM4Housing Design\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"DESIGN WORKING GROUP MEETING 03-07-2024 ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 I think the gentleman you sent it to sounds, based on the name, Sri Lankan so maybe there is an added connection there. GEORGE I\u2019ve met him and he seems very good. Basically, he was speaking from the heart and he said that he grew up…Read More+\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/design-working-group-meeting-03-07-2024\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"BIM4Housing Design\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-07-10T13:57:13+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=\"54 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/design-working-group-meeting-03-07-2024\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/design-working-group-meeting-03-07-2024\\\/\",\"name\":\"Design Working Group Meeting 03-07-2024 - BIM4Housing Design\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2024-07-10T13:34:08+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-07-10T13:57:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/design-working-group-meeting-03-07-2024\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/design-working-group-meeting-03-07-2024\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/design-working-group-meeting-03-07-2024\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/design\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Design Working Group Meeting 03-07-2024\"}]},{\"@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":"Design Working Group Meeting 03-07-2024 - 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\/design-working-group-meeting-03-07-2024\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Design Working Group Meeting 03-07-2024 - BIM4Housing Design","og_description":"DESIGN WORKING GROUP MEETING 03-07-2024 ANDREW DE SILVA \u2018DAS\u2019 I think the gentleman you sent it to sounds, based on the name, Sri Lankan so maybe there is an added connection there. GEORGE I\u2019ve met him and he seems very good. Basically, he was speaking from the heart and he said that he grew up…Read More+","og_url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/design-working-group-meeting-03-07-2024\/","og_site_name":"BIM4Housing Design","article_modified_time":"2024-07-10T13:57:13+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"54 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/design-working-group-meeting-03-07-2024\/","url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/design-working-group-meeting-03-07-2024\/","name":"Design Working Group Meeting 03-07-2024 - BIM4Housing Design","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/#website"},"datePublished":"2024-07-10T13:34:08+00:00","dateModified":"2024-07-10T13:57:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/design-working-group-meeting-03-07-2024\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/design-working-group-meeting-03-07-2024\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/design-working-group-meeting-03-07-2024\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Design Working Group Meeting 03-07-2024"}]},{"@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\/420","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=420"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/420\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":430,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/420\/revisions\/430"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/design\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}