Development Working Group Meeting 06-11-2025

BIM4HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WORKING GROUP MEETING 06-11-2025

DAVID POAT I have the pleasure of chairing these sessions and I’m from Notting Hill Genesis and I work as a technical manager. We’ve got a few topics to put to you today. As always I’d suggest these sessions are only as good as the participation that we get. The topics that we’ve got on our lists to talk about, George has got a number of workstreams that are ongoing in other parts of the BIM4Housing organisation.

RICHARD FREER We’ve had real nightmares for the last three meetings with Teams. People have not been able to get on, the audio going off for 5 minutes and everybody scrambling to rejoin. And it’s not just us, I’ve checked with a lot of people. So if something happens during the meeting it’s not us, just hang in there because it will come back.

DAVID POAT George has got some things to update us on. I think in this group we’ve talked about Regulation 38 documentation before and there’s been some further work done in that area that George will update us on. Similarly, there’s been some work done in the assets workstream on the potential overlap and ambiguities around combining access strategies with fire strategies that we felt would be worth raising. And then there’s also been some work done on a response to Awaab’s Law and the management of damp and such like and the use of sensors.

For me if we get time, I’d also like to start a conversation about the Gateway 3 process. I know we’re probably all up to our necks in Gateway 2 stuff right now, but I thought it might be worth getting your views on some of the Gateway 3 stuff that we should be preparing ourselves for…So, being open and honest with the group, myself, Richard, George and Jiss, we get together before these sessions and we scrabble around for topics that we feel would be relevant to share with the group and get you engaged with. It struck me that we’re all on our own journeys in terms of navigating the Gateway 2, Gateway 3 processes.

And whilst the focus at the moment is Gateway 2 I was very conscious that if we’re going to be successful at Gateway 3 applications, we’re particularly thinking about principal designers and principal contractors that have got to sign off or make statements at Gateway 3 that they’ve fulfilled their roles and are confirming that what they’ve actually built meets building regulations. I was just curious as to what our experiences are to date of what contractors are doing differently on our schemes now in order to be able to make those sorts of statements when they come to make the Gateway 3 applications.

Just to give that some context, and again we’ve spoken about this before. We’re still struggling to get contractors to provide us with a set of drawings that have got as-built written on them. And it’s very clear in the Gateway 3 process that those sorts of statements needs to be made. It needs to be very clear that the drawn evidence that’s provided truly represents what’s been built. And as a client we do an awful lot of work around quality assurance and we are starting to see contractors behave in a slightly different way towards the collection of that information. And around the kind of quality assurance processes where they’re gathering evidence of what’s actually been built.

So I just wanted to open it up to the group as to question number 1 is do we perceive there to have been a bit of a step change in terms of how that’s been managed, even at the early stages in projects? So I wanted to open it up to the floor to see what experiences there are out there and whether as clients we need to be doing more in terms of driving that agenda. Victoria, thank god someone has got an opinion.

VICTORIA FINN Yeah, similar to yourself I think. It’s so hard to get as-built drawings, as-fitted drawings. The most that we seem to be able to get is them using the old drawings and scribbling on it, so we’ve had pretty much that same issue. And also just something as simple as getting the specifications of exactly what’s there and evidence. So, we’ve used Fieldview on some of our things that we’ve been doing to try and capture the evidence with the text, with the photographs as well. But it still doesn’t feel like it’s coming naturally, it still feels like we’re having to pull that information out of contractors all of the time. I’m from Wythenshawe Community Housing Group.

DAVID POAT We have got it as far as a contractor is prepared to sort of sign a letter confirming that the final construction issued drawings do represent what has actually been built. So, they’re kind of prepared to make that declaration. I suspect where they’re struggling is if they’ve employed an architect or they’ve employed a team of engineers to do their design, for those organisations to be able to then produce an as-built drawing it needs them to have been onsite and have done the inspections to be able to give them that guarantees. And all of that costs money. That might be a slightly cynical view of life.

But I wonder if the root cause of the problem is they can’t get their consultants to actually sign up and produce a drawing that say as-built. I don’t know, I throw it out there as a comment for people to add to.

VICTORIA FINN Yeah, you’d think if that was on your tender information and if it was a condition of handover, that information is provided. And you would think that I’ve got a good case, wouldn't’ you? But, I don’t know.

DAVID POAT Yeah, but maybe again as clients we’ve got a part to play in that. But as I say, I guess that no one has made a Gateway 3 application yet, right?

VICTORIA FINN We did one on Soil Stack scheme, but that was pretty simple and basically you’re going through the whole block with the same information, so once you’ve done it in one area you’re OK. Still, it took an awful long time to get through. And it did still require the as-fitted section through and plan. But we did get those in the end from a subcontractor. So things like that, it still took an awful long time. Anything a bit more complex, I think people are really going to struggle.

DAVID POAT There’s a counter argument, certainly we’ve witnessed more comprehensive O&M documentation coming through in terms of specification information. Sometimes it can be a bit too generalistic and it isn’t necessarily project specific.

IAN WILLIAMSON I just left McClaren, or I’m leaving McClaren and i’m looking for adventures new. What I wanted to say is I’ve been reviewing over the last 7 or 8 months now what they call the McClaren way which is a full process system from start to finish. And I’ve been looking at the Building Safety Act and overlaying it on the McClaren way, looking at gap analysis etc. What that has led to going from, and you mention about the consultants appointments and scopes etc, all the way through processes and how we register things on the likes of Asite and using Dali and all of the rest of it.

We, as McClaren, have had to look at everything from top to bottom. And the consultants are also having to look at everything top to bottom because there are insurance implications, process implications etc. So I think whilst it sounds all very easy and you say oh yeah, as-built drawings, put it on Asite, tick the box and away you go, you’re absolutely right. The strategy of getting there with an official tick in the box that ticks all of the boxes of the requirements of Gateway 1, 2, and 3, it has thrown I wouldn’t say spanners in the works, but everyone is having to reset and just consider a lot more carefully about how everything operates.

That’s from a Tier 1, when you go down to Tier 2s, Tier 3s, I have no idea how they’re looking at this. I’ve been having constructive conversations with Construction Line Gold in terms of the formal tick in regards to the competencies and all of the rest of it that goes with this. A lot of the smaller contractors and subcontractors that are on Construction Line are raising their hands and saying well, we don’t need to do any of this because we don’t do HRBs. Not realising that whether it is or not you still need to go through a) a process and b) compliance and c) a Gateway 3 at the end of it. So, people are still not fully educated as to the needs of what’s needed.

DAVID POAT Yeah, and I guess my concern is there is so much focus on Gateway 2, and quite rightly so, preparing for Gateway 3 isn’t something that you can do three months before you make the application, you need the process in place.

IAN WILLIAMSON You’re absolutely right, you need to start looking at Gateway 3 at the point of Gateway 2 because of the Golden Thread and all of the rest of it that goes with that.

DAVID POAT Tim, you’ve asked a question in the chat. When you receive a document package how long does it take to verify the status? Is it manual, or are people using automation? Tim, would you mind elaborating on that a bit?

TIM AIKIN One of the things that we get very large gigabytes packages thrown at us. And obviously being in software we’re developing ways of being able to rip through them to analyse them. And it occurs to me that one of the problems is that if you are overwhelmed with data or documents and drawings, particularly when it comes to the as-built status. And particularly when somebody has just scribbled on as-built. It’s really, really annoying when they put across a PDF construction approved and you go you’re not having that as handover data.

So if you get a thousand documents, are you going to have to go through manually and open every single one? Or is there another way of doing it? Now, George I hope you won’t mind me saying, we’re looking at and trying out using AI which is using what’s called the RAG database. So basically ingests it and reads all of the information that’s in the PDF, including drawings, so that you can then ask the questions. And you can run these questions as a task or you can run it as a frequent thing, so every time you get new documents come in it starts the check.

So that you can quickly feedback a very concise acceptance or rejection and why you are rejecting it. So that the person sending it realises that what they’re up against is a very sharp, sophisticated rule based system that’s going to say you’re not getting this. And if you don’t get this, you don’t get paid. But also then to say look, you could run these things yourself. So, if you ran the same tests that we’re going to run against it then if you can’t get it past the test don’t bother sending it. And that may help them rather than hinder them, to understand what they need to do.

Because obviously they’re in the throes, not of delivering data or drawings, but of delivering a physical asset. And this whole world of the supporting documentation that goes behind it, it’s really never been put under scrutiny before. It’s never, ever had the magnifying glass on it. So, that’s what I’m asking.

DAVID POAT It might be a question for George rather than asking you to speak again, but what you’re describing there, that’s the here and now rather than something that’s available in the future. That software exists or that functionality exists where we could be doing that today, or is that something for tomorrow?

GEORGE STEVENSON Yeah, most definitely, that’s something that a number of people are doing at the moment. What we should be doing is really applying it in such a way that we’ve got a range of different perspectives of what you’re looking for. I’m going to just step through a little bit about Regulation 38 in a second, but the most important thing there is to say that different people will need different information for different purposes. And therefore what this group could help with, and the rest of the working groups and the like, is actually define what information you actually want for what purpose.

Because by doing that it means that we can be far more cost effective in capturing information that is more holistic, rather than it being in silos. And the other thing, I’ve been banging on about stuff being machine-readable for 5 years, but now with AI it just brings on a new dimension. If the information is machine-readable then it means that you can actually use them with the tools that we’re using when we’re writing reports and things like that. Because you’ve got stuff that can be tested and it does mean that you can leverage people’s expertise and make it reusable.

The important thing though is to recognise if AI doesn’t know the answer it will try and make up a solution for you and that’s really common. And therefore we need to make sure that it’s got the right guardrails on it. So if you’re using it to do audits of say Regulation 38 information you need to recognise what the answer should be so that you can check that. Does that make sense?

DAVID POAT It makes complete sense. The important thing is that there’s nothing to stop us doing that, other than the fact that we’ve got to come together and define exactly what it is that we want the AI to confirm for us. It needs some definition. Tom in chat responded to a comment that had been made and suggested that back in the heady days your experience was that if you didn’t provide accurate as-built information then you didn’t get paid.

TOM OULTON Yes, that was just the standard way of working. The main contractors that we worked with up and down the country, I used to work installation things in the North of England and down in London, you just had somebody going around and checking. And if you got something wrong they’d grab you and say look at that, that’s what your drawing says, sort it out or you’re not getting paid. And it was a really simple mechanism, do it properly or don’t get paid.

And I’ve fannied around in consultancy for several years now, but I just wonder at what point that contract got broken where you don’t have someone checking. And surely it’s easier to play for a clerk of works to go around and check everything than it is to dick about with getting everything wrong and finding problems later.

DAVID POAT We still employ a clerk of works. Back in my day there were things called resident engineers as well. As you say, that doesn’t seem to be the case anymore.

TOM OULTON Yeah, and it’s a problem that didn’t used to exist.

GEORGE STEVENSON One of the big problems that we’ve got is actually BIM. I’ve been involved in BIM for many years and what now has happened is that rather than using BIM as a productivity tool people are depending on it. So what you’ve just said there Tom is one of the things that drives me nuts and that is that people expect the outputs from the BIM models to be fully coordinated. And if everybody is using them perfectly that can be the case, but in many cases that isn’t the case.

TOM OULTON But then this is a problem of poor BIM management. I’m a bit long in the tooth in the world of BIM as well and when we first started doing this when I was at East Riding years ago before I rejoined we ran the BIM projects, we provided a fully coordinated design that went to site and it fitted. And then in the first week we had a problem. The steel work and construction, it was a new fire station. All the steel work working, all the precast concrete went in, then the services started going in and they clashed. And we said well, they don’t clash on the drawings, why are they clashing onsite?

And it’s because people were just bunging things up not to the drawings, they were doing it for ease of their service. So we got them to take it all down, got a new site manager on the job who ruled with an iron fist and said it goes in as the drawings and then we didn’t have a clash on the rest of the job. And it’s a failure in management of the contractors, not a failure of BIM, it’s a failure of people to take accountability and responsibility for making sure that things are done properly.

GEORGE STEVENSON Just to clarify, I’m not saying that BIM isn’t important. What I’m saying is that the implementation of how BIM is being used and the fact that there’s over reliance on it being perfect that’s a problem. And for example, making sure that production drawings or drawings have got the same references on them that the schedule s have got and making sure that they’re consistent is really important. But in many cases it just doesn’t happen. So, we’re often the recipients of the information at handover and we find that it’s not accurate enough in correlation.

TOM OULTON I understand that and I understand it’s a problem, but it’s somebody poisoning the well further upstream. And there needs to be some mechanism by which all of this is correctly managed, and I don’t know what that is. There’s been some kind of collapse somewhere in the system and trying to address it at the facilities management or at the dealing with information end is the wrong point to deal with it. It’s just putting sticking tape or fingers in the dike.

There needs to be a fundamental change upstream in what’s managed and what’s done properly, what goes into the contracts to make sure that this all happens. And it’s not a problem of the tools, it’s a problem of the people.

GEORGE STEVENSON I agree, it’s over reliance. But I guess what I’m saying is that it’s an over reliance on the technology and we’ve got exactly the same problem now with AI.

DAVID POAT I suspect the root causes of the issues that we’re describing originate in a number of places. And as you say, is it about people? Is it about training? Is it about process? Is it about systems? And the answer is it’s probably some of all of it. And I guess what the Building Safety Act at its core is trying to do is create a cultural shift in terms of how people are thinking about these. Forget what’s gone before, we need to get back to a place where delivering the highest quality is at the forefront where other things maybe have overtaken those things. It’s become a very philosophical debate from a very simple question at the beginning.

GEORGE STEVENSON In terms of the Gateway 3 bit, David, when we had a meeting a couple of weeks ago and there was a project manager on from Hexagon Housing. And he was giving an example of the fact that they had a project where in the requirements they’d said that they needed to make sure they were satisfying the Golden Thread. And the contractor said yeah, no problem, we’re including that. And it transpired what they were doing, they were just using Aconex as a document management system.

And the result was that they got to handover and they couldn’t demonstrate much of the evidence at all. And that led to a 6-8 months delay. Now, what I’d be interested in from the group is whether people are experiencing delays at Gateway 2. I think Vic’s the only one that’s saying you’ve done a Gateway 3, but are you experiencing delays? And if so what’s the implication of that?

DAVID POAT I guess I will take this away and probably talk with George as a topic how do we want to engage with this? What contribution can we make? I think as George is suggesting, and it may come out of the Regulation 38 piece that he’s about to do. I think what we can contribute is at least a starter for ten in terms of what exactly is it that we’re after as owners and operators of buildings out of this process. What exactly is the information that we need?

As a client we’ve certainly done a lot of work on that in the last 6 months and it’s not finished. But as with all of these things the devil very much is in the detail and we do find ourselves having to become a lot more detailed in our thinking than maybe we ever were before. George, are you ready to kick in to the Reg 38 stuff?

GEORGE STEVENSON Just apologies that it’s on an Active Plan Powerpoint background, that wasn’t intentional. The important thing is that one of the big challenges that everybody has got at the moment, and people are asking for more explicit requirements from the Regulator. And we’re not going to get them because a) they don’t know and secondly they don’t want to paint themselves into a situation where they are actually taking responsibility.

So we’re therefore reliant on people with different levels of expertise to look at the regulations and interpret them in such ways that we can then end up with different perspectives according to how people think that it ought to be applied. And they are in turn producing different guidance for their supply chains. So, we’re ending up in situations where different client organisations who are trying to achieve the same outcomes, are asking different things from their supply chains because the consultants have given them different advice.

And part of what I think we need to do as a group is look at finding ways that we can improve the quality of information, let’s say for fire safety, by ensuring that the supply chains have got some solutions in terms of information sets that they can prepare for any client organisation. And to a great extent those can be captured in reusable data libraries. Nothing to do with any specific software, but the information sets can then be reusable and we stand a lot better chance of those being done. Now, a couple of years ago Jarek ad Das from David Miller got together and they produced the Miro board that was their interpretation.

This actually started with Das from David Miller setting out his interpretation and then sharing it with Jarek who’s an M&E electrical engineer. And they were kicking this around and we decided to open it up to the rest of the team. And we’ve had over 100 people input to this now and it’s being updated and refined as people are interpreting things. And we find that we’re getting a common interpretation of what the legislation is requiring. For example, those are some of the people already who have been involved and you can see there is a wide range of different experts in that area.

And I’m just going to touch on the Golden Thread because again, what does the Golden Thread really mean? We’re running a session at London Build with 2 or 3 other software companies and client organisations talking about how can we interpret the Golden Thread in an easier way. But the point is it’s about systems and parts of components that work together. And to achieve that, many of you will have seen this before but I think it’s important to start thinking about the information. Why are we collecting the information on Regulation 38, for example?

It’s because we’re trying to prevent smoke getting out of a fire in a kitchen, getting into that stairwell and stopping people from being able to escape. And the prime things that we need to do to achieve that is by having the right compartmentation information about the various different asset types. And having the individual information about just fire doors doesn’t actually help. So, that’s a compliance thing, but you need to look at it in context. So, what we need to do is make sure that we’re looking at what is the measure? The measure is actually the compartment, it’s not the penetration seals.

Although it’s absolutely critical that we’ve got the right information about the penetration seals. And also we need to recognise the fact that some smoke will get out, so therefore you’ve got to have some sort of smoke control. You’ve got to have detection systems and you’ve got to have good signage to be able to get people out. And to achieve that you need the information to be auditable and machine-readable so you can check it against the manufacturer’s information. But you can also look at the way a particular asset, what is it doing in terms of protection so that that information can then be onwardly checked and audited.

So, Regulation 38 is specifically about handover information, so the focus mainly is making sure that the information that is defined in ADB is actually being provided. But once it’s been provided you’ve then got to keep it up to date because that’s under the 2005 Regulatory Reform Order, So, for the Building Safety Act you’ve got to keep it up to date, it’s not simply at handover. And therefore if people are then using a range of different software applications to keep information current, they need to be able to refer back to those items.

So if we actually look at what is in Regulation 38 and this a legal requirement to have an as-built plan of the building with all of those safety critical assets identified on it. Now, I personally have not come across any fire & emergency file that’s got that information. It’s got it in different packs of information, it’s got it in the manufacturer’s schedule in the O&M, but it’s not easily connected up. The clue is in the name fire & emergency file. You don’t want to be hunting around to try and find that information, it needs to be in a coherent state.

And Building Control requires, and has done for many years, the responsible person in the organisation to sign a declaration to say that they’ve had everything. Now, if you don’t have that information then you shouldn’t get a certificate of completion. And if you don’t get a certificate of completion then you shouldn’t be able to occupy the building. Now, the pressure that’s on the people that are being asked to sign this stuff off is huge. We were talking about it yesterday and we had Andy from Pinnacle on. And he was saying that the pressure that he’s under on these projects to sign it off is huge.

And that must me very, very common. But if you sign it and you haven’t been able to check all of the information, then my understanding is talking to Devonshires that you are committing a criminal offence. And correspondingly the contractor has got to confirm that they’re provided all of the information. And again, that’s not being done.

PENCHO STUDENKOV I’d just like to add something. In my recent review I noticed that the Regulation 38 declaration has been signed without any names or anything like that. So basically just a company signs the declaration that was one of my observations. But the most important bit is they have signed the declaration with missing maybe around 60-70% of the information. And most importantly fire door, there was not a single information about the fire doors rather than the fire strategy information, these are the doors.

And that was a lower rise block, it wasn’t high-rise block, but regardless this has now become actually legally required under the building regulations 2010 from April last year, regardless of the size or the height of the building.

GEORGE STEVENSON Absolutely, that’s really helpful Pencho, because the point that you’ve made there is very well made. And that is that this information, the only difference between an HRB and all of the other buildings isn’t what information you’ve got to provide at all, it’s actually how it’s going to be overviewed. Is it the Regulator that’s going to check or is it Building Control?

PENCHO STUDENKOV it’s the client, isn’t it?

GEORGE STEVENSON Well, the client ultimately is absolutely responsible.

DAVID POAT So as a client right now, we are not signing these declarations.

PENCHO STUDENKOV It’s actually the responsible person in this case.

DAVID POAT Yeah, we are the responsible person in this situation and we are saying to our contractors up to this point we will not sign. Because we do not have the processes that will assure us that everything, we cannot make a statement that says you have given us everything for us to be able to manage our building safely. What’s then happening is the contractor is making the second statement which is they’re declaring that they’ve given us the information. They’re not able to make that final paragraph, we have also received a notice from the responsible. They can’t say that, but they’re still getting Building Control signup.

So. we’re still handing over buildings at the moment but we’ve not made a declaration that we’re got given the information. Now, I can see that situation changing and we do have in place processes by which we can check. But because of the liabilities that it raises at the moment we’re not signing such declarations. Rightly or wrongly. Has anybody else got any experience about having to sign such declarations?

GEORGE STEVENSON I’ve got an example. We’re advising a large client at the moment and they’ve been asked by the big project management company. They’re arranging a review of all of the O&M information and they’ve been asked to tell the contractor or the project manager what information are they going to be looking for in the O&M. And I’ve advised them not to engage directly in that because what I’ve said to them is that what they should be doing initially, it should be for the contractor, or in this particular case it’s the project manager, that should be checking that the O&Ms comply with the EIRs and the AIRs.

I’ve said to them what they should be doing is asking where, and we know that on this particular project there is a deficit. But therefore what we’re saying to our client is that they should be asking the PM to tell them what’s missing, what they’re found that’s missing. And therefore they can take a view as to whether it’s serious or not. I said the second thing that you should be doing is asking to make sure that all of the statutory requirements are actually met because otherwise the client could end up with liability for things that were never provided.

The area that they should be providing information on is what do they need from an operational point of view to run the building. And that’s a reasonable thing for them to then contribute. But the first two, I think that’s the point really, what people are doing is they’re putting people under pressure to sign things off and nobody is checking.

PAUL WHITE I’m from Gravesham Council. All I can say is I haven’t got experience at the moment of asking about declarations and things. We’re sort of half way through contracts that are running, non HRB contracts. We all know about as-builts being a problem for a while, I just wonder what D&B and insurance changes and all of the rest of it or whether it’s just a cultural thing. But all I can say is this is really useful in terms of at least going away with those existing contracts and asking about are you going to provide us as-built drawings on what level.

But also, going back to what you’re saying about the Regulation 38 and signing declarations. And Building Control are going to be very interested in asking now about what’s coming, what are we going to be faced with now? So, I’m in support of this, this is really helpful and useful. So, I certainly will be much more mindful of it now and be asking for that and feedback.

PENCHO STUDENKOV I just found the cases where we’ve been asked to sign off Regulation 38 without obviously signing all of the Regulation 38, the Building Control signed the completion. But then we refused to accept responsibility and occupation based on the fact that we haven’t actually…so we go into legal loops here and there, but it becomes a legal issue because it’s not very clear the actual process what happens if Building Control decide to give the PC before the declaration has been signed off. I’m from Places For People.

I think what helps is because I’ve been involved in this world since 2020. So what we did is part of the contractual ERs. We have put our specific requirements to provide certain information at a certain stage, similar to Gateway 2 where you have specific requirements for a contractor to provide that information. And also we put in the contracts that without this information we’re not going to be able to take the handover, with the exception of Section 16 schemes. But when we’re in control that gives us and edge and gives us an opportunity to explore and to dictate the terms. So it’s about awareness and it’s about planning, preparation.

DAVID POAT We’ve done the same thing. What we’re still finding is the Regulation 38 as written is a great summary document, it sets out a decent scope. But we still have discussions with contractors about what is a Regulation 38 document and what isn’t. And they have a slightly different view to us about how detailed the information needs to be. And I’ve taken the view that at the core of the Regulation 38 it’s about providing the responsible person with information they need to operate and manage the building.

Well, contractors can’t define that, that’s for the people that are operating and maintaining the buildings, they’re the ones that know what information they need. So we’re doing a lot of work at the moment to try and be a lot more specific and a lot more detailed in our requests for what we will accept and what we won’t. But that takes time and I can speak to half a dozen different asset managers in my organisation and I’ll get at least three different answers. So, you’re always trying to find the best fit. But the bottom line is as a client we should be more assertive.

No, this is what we need and if we don’t get it we won’t accept PC. That’s fine, but then we suffer commercially as an organisation then as well. So even the people within my organisation who are being asked to sign these things, they’re caught between rocks and hard places as well.

PENCHO STUDENKOV I had a meeting earlier and we’ve been basically bullied in signing information which is not as-built. So those kind of things happen, but once you work proactively and specify in your contracts that certain criterias for performance. But also, most importantly, contractors’ accreditation and that actually gives us an edge here. Because if we appoint a contractor who is competent under the third-party whatever scheme you decide, then you must follow the scheme rules and you should expect this document. So, even though the main contractor does not understand that, the subcontractors understand because they need to follow it anyway.

GEORGE STEVENSON What happens from a financial perspective if you can’t occupy the building? Would that result in damages to the contractor for the fact that they’ve not provided the final information?

PENCHO STUDENKOV Both, and we’re liable obviously for those kind of damages as well9 for missing profits and stuff like that. And we have that clauses in the contract. If it’s due to their fault, then there’s legal clauses.

DAVID POAT This is where it gets difficult because if you look at it contractually then if the contractor delivers late, then normally there are clauses in the contract where we can claim back liquidated and ascertained damages. So contractually yes, you do have the mechanism. But if the contractor has received a building control certificate to say the building is signed off, then we can’t argue the Regulation 38 piece. Because according to Building Control we’ve got all of the information that we need. So, even though we’ve got the mechanism in the contract, to be able to enforce that with the contractor is hugely problematic.

GEORGE STEVENSON That’s very, very interesting because I don’t think that that’s right. The reason I’m saying that is that I’ve had many conversations with Building Control people and they tell me that the signing off on building control does not require them at all to check whether the information is there. They don’t know enough about the project itself so therefore they are not in a position to do that. And they’ve been very, very clear. Colin Blatchford-Brown and people like that, that’s the message that they’re sending out to everybody.

DAVID POAT I think we’re both right, George. I think you’re absolutely correct, because the building control certificate also isn’t a guarantee that your building is compliant with building regs. There’s a one liner in it that says yeah, we’ve signed it but. I think all I’m saying to you is in order for us to be able to enforce the clauses of the contract it becomes more problematic.

Because the contractors view of life is yes, we have given you all of the information in accordance with Regulation 38. And at summary level they’re probably right, but it’s the detailed information. So yes, they’ve given us information on the sprinkler system, but it just might not be enough information for us to be able to maintain it.

GEORGE STEVENSON Or it’s the wrong information.

DAVID POAT Or it’s a general package of information that could apply to any sprinkler system anywhere.

GEORGE STEVENSON And I guess one of the challenges that I think we should be getting to, given we’re BIM information management, the Golden Thread people, is we need to elevate the importance of the digital records. This one, for example, this is an audit that we did a little while ago and you can see that there is quite a lot of green there under the building control side of things because it’s either been provided or it hasn’t. But then you start to see a lot more red coming in. And then when we actually get to the Regulation 38 stuff there was a huge amount. Now, that has enabled the client to go back and, to be frank, ask the questions and start to nail that sort of thing.

So what we’ve done as BIM4Housing and the Golden Thread, we’ve come up with a simple way of looking at an audit process. So, if the contractor says that they’ve provided you with all of the information that you should need to be able to operate that, what we’re basically saying is these are the asset types that are mentioned in the regs. And the bare minimum, what we should be doing is having a reference against the individual asset, its location, what system or circuit it’s part of (if it is part of a system), manufacturer’s product reference and data sheets, who installed in and inspected it etc.

So that’s the bare minimum really, I think if we can start to use that as a mechanism of audit. When we were creating this we got information back from quite a few different councils and housing associations as to whether they audit it. And certainly Places For People had the best one that I came across. It’s quite detailed, which it needs to be. This is simpler. That’s probably my Regulation 38 thing.

DAVID POAT So maybe what would be useful is if as part of the BIM4Housing collective we can come up with one recommended template as this audit check. Then we can, in terms of all of the people that contribute they can use that as a template. Then we can start to get some consistency into it is my point. If we’re all approaching the contractor and their supply chains with the same requests, then over time we’re likely to get a more regular and robust response.

RICHARD FREER Is this something we should hive off to a workstream?

GEORGE STEVENSON Yes, I think we should actually.

DAVID POAT Has anyone got any closing comments on the Regulation 38?

GEORGE STEVENSON If anybody is interested in participating in the Regulation 38 stuff then just put ‘Regulation 38’ in the chat and we’ll loop you in. This is an example that hopefully quite a few of you have seen. One of the things we were trying to do was make more standard the way fire door inspections are being done. Because procurement teams are going out to people and asking for things that were different. So this is something that we inherited or robbed from the NHS and we had quite a lot of our experts working on it. A standardised way of doing fire door inspections.

Type 1, Type 2, Type 3 fire door inspections was specifically put together and we’ve got this on the website. It’s got examples of what good looks like. So, as David is saying, having something like this for the Regulation 38 audit, ideally to this sort of quality. And then what’s now happening is that we’ve also got this for fire dampers, fire stopping and cavity barriers as well, again with examples of that. So that’s the sort of thing we should be working towards.

DAVID POAT You had something about access strategies and fire strategies.

GEORGE STEVENSON This feeds off that and that is that the legal requirement for having a fire risk assessment each year is based on the premise that you should have an up to date fire strategy. And it seems that it’s quite difficult to get hold of fire engineers at the moment because everybody is busy. And if you ask them it can be very expensive and often they’ll not go down into the level of detail that probably really is needed, because of liabilities and because they can’t get the information. So, the production of the fire strategy we thought was something worth looking at.

And as we’ve drilled into it we’ve realised that there can be a real challenge between the fire strategy, which is about getting people out of the building, and the access strategy which is keeping people out of the building. So they are potentially conflicting issues. We’re doing this under the BIM In Asset Management banner where they’ve got hospitals and healthcare facilities where they’ve maybe got the health trust and they’ve sublet part of it to a local authority, maybe social care. And they’ve put maglocks on doors. And they’ve found maglocks on fire escape doors or they’ve got maglocks on doors that are part of the fire exit.

Now, that’s obviously wrong, that’s a mistake, but you can understand and see that it does happen. So we’re running a session on Monday where we’ve got some fire engineers and also we’ve got Assa Abloy coming along as well. And we’re actually going to discuss this in terms of how can we have a coherent strategy that covers the various different things. We’ve got Paul White from smoke & vent looking at smoke control as well.

VICTORIA FINN I thought maglocks could actually be fitted to fire doors if they part of a release system.

GEORGE STEVENSON Yes, I think that’s absolutely right, but you’ve got to make sure that the access mechanisms are set to be opened. I think the point is that a lot of the things with fire strategies are dependent on people providing information about who is occupying which space and what they’re using it for. And I’d be interested to know form a social housing perspective whether there are circumstances where you’ve got potentially multiple tenants.

Obviously you’ve got normal multiple tenants, but it may be that you’ve got a fitness centre or something like that and that may impact, there’s loads where there’s retailers and stores. Are too many people occupying spaces? All of these sorts of things. And if the landlord isn’t getting the information about how space is being used then that compromises the fire strategy.

VICTORIA FINN Yeah, that’s true. We do have a multifunctional space. We have an extra care centre and within it we have got a hairdressers and some retail units that are being let. And we’ve also got a bistro in there. So, it’s quite important for the risk assessors and we’ve got separate people to do the fire strategy, to work together so there is that crossover of information. And they come at it from slightly different points of view. And now our staff understand exactly how the building is used, how the essential firefighting equipment is used.

And of course we have got maglocks on and they’ll release in the event of a fire. And we have those checked weekly with the fire alarm. So yeah, it’s important that is all written down in the fire strategy so everybody knows how that happens.

GEORGE STEVENSON As ever, Wythenshawe are leading the way.

DAVID POAT George, we work very hard at keeping our tenures separate, so floor by floor or block by block. Because you’re right, quite often we can have a door that performs a security function, but then in a fire situation it needs to perform a fire function. So as Victoria said, in normal day to day operation the door is shut by a maglock performing its security function, but on fire it will release. And even will have a manual override as well if the release mechanism fails there is a manual push button.

But the problem we’ve then got is if you provide a manual push button facility, if people are determined to get through that door it becomes insecure very quickly. So we try and avoid that scenario as best we can during the design phases.

GEORGE STEVENSON Connor, what’s your experience been of this? You’re a social landlord as well, aren’t you?

CONNOR STEVENSON Yeah, I work for Wheatley up in Scotland. I’ve not had much with it yet, we’ve done start extensive work on 2D digital twins stuff with old style tenement assets, building a picture of that. So we’ve just started our first phase of adopting BIM principles and things like that. We’re in the process of identifying going out, completing surveys and gathering the information that we need to identify repairs and put them in a sort of BIM lite process between the surveyors and our team.

So it’s quite fortunate that we’ve got a joint venture with a building company called City Building. So we’re implementing a BIM lite type process of sending them out to do repairs and getting the information we need about those repairs back and building from there. Not so much from the Regulation 38 at the moment. What I’ve found that works quite well is the introduction of responsibility matrix and you get these clerk of works that go out on the site and make sure that everybody is building the thing correctly. I like to call it a clerk of information. Making sure that the information that’s being delivered is what you asked for. If that could be an AI job that would be absolutely fantastic, I don’t know if we’re at that stage that.

GEORGE STEVENSON Malcolm, you’re from Derby?

MALCOLM GREGORCZYK That’s right, yes. Talking about door control systems, I don’t see a problem with there being maglocks on doors, it’s just making sure that the release mechanism works and that someone is checking those on a regular basis. You’re really down to the management functions of the building because as we know 80% of fire safety is really about the fire safety management within that building and how it’s operated.

I’ve certainly risk assessed may buildings and had maglocks, not on final exit doors, but on storey exit doors onto a stair core and just told the responsible person to make sure that when an alarm test is done that it’s released the electronic mechanism.

GEORGE STEVENSON Yeah, I’m absolutely no expert in this at all and I wasn’t suggesting there is anything wrong with maglocks. It was more about making sure that the access strategy and the fire strategy are coordinated and aligned.

MALCOLM GREGORCZYK Yes, you’re quite right, you get to multi-use buildings with different types of tenures there and different types of occupants. A good example is a car park and then it has a leisure centre on the top storey, so different people are accessing at different times and at all times of day. And this is where you’re reliant on the technology making sure that the cause and effect is as it should be.

GEORGE STEVENSON On Monday we’ve got a fire strategy workshop and on Thursday we’ve got a workshop on Awaab’s Law, the new damp and mould legislation. We’ve got a number of people who are specialists in that area. Damp and mould, it seems to be a huge challenge for social housing providers. And I think what the government has done is vital, but there is a real danger of councils and housing associations being completely overwhelmed by the demand.

And it could also lead to a situation where, I know already that there are law firms lining up to do class actions and things like that. It could well be counterproductive. And the big challenge is that from my limited experience a lot of it is down to the behaviour of the tenant as well. So, one of the housing associations I was talking to earlier in the week on this was saying he was involved in a project where they had a real challenging situation where they managed to remediate it.

And then after they left the tenant retrieved from the rubbish the clothes that had been mould infested and washed them and probably dried them again. So therefore they reintroduced all of the spores again. Now, you can understand people perhaps doing that, particularly if they’re financially challenged they may well be, but that’s an education thing. That’s not fair to turn that on the social landlord, in my view.

DAVID POAT Yeah, it’s a very difficult situation, George. In a previous life I was head of an asset management function where I was routinely called to properties that were experiencing damp and mould. And it was a real fine line between us being able to do something about it physically in terms of the dwelling and tenants being educated to help themselves. It’s a difficult topic, but as with all of these things the more that we can learn the more that we can share the better.

GEORGE STEVENSON It would be very helpful if people on the call, I’d like to get involved next week contractors who you would be going to do the work. It may be that you don’t have the contacts here, but I don’t know if anybody would know which organisations. David, do you work with people like Mears?

DAVID POAT As an organisation we have in the past. Certainly we’ve got a massive programme of work ongoing around damp and mould. And I’m sure that we can find out which contractors we’re working with.

GEORGE STEVENSON Can anybody else help with that?

VICTORIA FINN I’ll have a look. I know that we’ve also done a big piece of work around damp and mould and we’ve got a new policy etc. And we’re doing some proactive work as well with some damp and mould companies, so I’ll find out who we’ve got on and I’ll let you know.

CONNOR STEVENSON I’ll have a word with some of them, although my opinions may vary slightly from the guys that go and fix our damp and mould issues. Tenant behaviour, I used to work for a company…asset services that shut down and it is part of the reason that Wheatley hired me. We surveyed hundreds of properties and I think 5 was actually related to tenant behaviour. And then you look at building regulations stuff in Scotland and it is like oh, because they dry their clothes inside, it will be the same in England.

It’s Scottish weather, it is English weather, you can’t dry your clothes outside if it’s pouring down with rain. With the Scottish regulations you have to provide internal drying areas or capacity for the property to dry clothes internally, that’s written in building regs. It may be for predominantly in the new builds, but it’s still in the regs. I’ll ask the guys that we work with if they can come on the call.

GEORGE STEVENSON That would be really helpful. Malcolm from Derby, do you think you could?

MALCOLM GREGORCZYK I’m not involved in that area at all now, I’m focused on fire safety and fire safety management. In a previous life I actually used to work for a structural water proofing organisation and used to do basement designs and stuff like that and deal with condensation problems. But I’m not involved in that area now, so I wouldn’t even know which contractors to approach. I’m with Derby City Council, I’m working predominantly on corporate assets now. I have done a lot of housing stuff in the past, but I’m on corporate stuff at this present time so I’m not moving in those circles.

RICHARD FREER There’s some very, very exciting news.

GEORGE STEVENSON Yeah, what we’re looking to do is to have a challenge to people around Awaab’s Law, to run a bit of a competition, an award for the best innovation. So, just to think about this a minute because we think there’s going to be a lot of innovation needed to be able to address what the requirements are. And obviously everybody at the moment is putting together solutions and how they’re going to approach things, so there is a lot we could learn from each other on this.

So we’re planning something at the moment, we’ll announce it over the next week and will probably launch it formally at London Build. But I think it’s a good idea to get people to think outside of the box to come up with ways of doing things.

DAVID POAT Who’s sponsoring this event?

RICHARD FREER Various, there are quite a few people who are going to chip in some things as prizes. Serious, nice prizes.

DAVID POAT As always these sessions are only as good as the conversation that we manage to generate and it is then down to us to pick these things up and run with them. As always if there are topics that you’d like us to put on the table at these sessions please let us know. There are a few actions coming out today but it sounds like we’ve got some follow on sessions next week on various topics so it would be good to see as many of you there as possible.

GEORGE STEVENSON I had a situation yesterday where somebody had done a survey of a building for a landlord and the landlord thought that they’d be able to access the information, floor plans. But it then transpired that the surveyor had done the work for a third-party and therefore the client didn’t have access. Now, that doesn’t mean that they were refused access, but it meant that they didn’t easily have access. And what I think we should be encouraging people like Wythenshawe and Notting Hill and everybody else to do is when somebody is doing some work on your building, then I think you should have the rights to use the information that is about your building.

RICHARD FREER This is serious stuff. I’m a bit of an expert on IP and that’s what it comes down to. As soon as people have got your information and they make it into something else, they transform it into a different format, then they own that format of that information, you don’t.

GEORGE STEVENSON Even though, David, you probably will have paid for it. So the likelihood is the work that was done would have been done under a commission where you’re paying for it. I’m not saying that you should take all of the IP. Let’s say, for example, Justin is an architect. If he’s done work for you then he naturally would own the IP for the work that he’s done. But you should have the rights to be able to use the information. And I think that’s normal in contracts that the client is able to have access to the information.

RICHARD FREER It needs to be in the contract because it’s not implicit, it’s got to be clear.

VICTORIA FINN That’s often the case with CAD drawings, if you go to somebody for fire strategy, for instance, and they give you a CAD drawing of it. I always stated right at the beginning that I want the CAD files, I don’t just want the PDFs, I want the CAD files so that they can be altered afterwards. So it is something that they try to not do so that you then have to pay again. But it’s being explicit at the beginning.

RICHARD FREER Yeah, it’s really worth doing because if it does come up and bite you it can be heavy. It’s a biggy and a lot of people aren’t thinking about it. It should be something that we put some focus onto at some point.

JUSTIN GILLARD I worked with an architect a few years back. They told us an anecdote that they’d done a whole drawing package and everything for a multi-storey building in another country, sent the drawing package off only for the next morning for a letter to arrive to say the drawing package was not to the standard we said and as such we won’t be paying you a penny. And that director of the architecture company said to me the BIM world scares me because with BIM, of course, and common data environments all of your IP is in a shared space.

CHAT

Tim Aikin (External)…… When you recieve a document package how long does it take to verify the status. Is it manual or are people using automation

Tom Oulton (External)…. Back when I had a proper job in the 90's & 2000's running ductwork installation contracts, we didn't get paid if our record drawings didn't reflect exactly what we'd installed. The main contractors employed people to go round and check. When did this stop?

Dan Simcock (External)… Back when I was doing my apprenticeship the emphasis was always on procurement and construction issue drawings rather than as built and this was very much an after thought. Now working for a local authority I am trying to make sure that we do get up to date drawings and specifications in the O&Ms.

Denson Mutarah (External)…. Sorry cant make it today. looking forward to the feedback. Let me know if you need anything from me .Kind Regards Denson Mutarah - Chartered Facade Engineer

Pencho Studenkov (External)…. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2214/contents

Structured Academic Summary – BIM4Housing Development Working Group Meeting (06 November 2025)

Context and Overview

The meeting, chaired by David Poat (Notting Hill Genesis), explored key topics including Regulation 38 documentation, the relationship between access and fire strategies, Gateway 3 preparation, and responses to Awaab’s Law. Participants included George Stevenson, Richard Freer, Victoria Finn, Ian Williamson, Tim Aikin, Tom Oulton, Pencho Studenkov, Paul White, Connor Stevenson, Malcolm Gregorczyk, and others.

1. Opening Remarks and Agenda

• David Poat outlined the session’s main topics: Regulation 38 documentation, overlaps between access and fire strategies, damp and mould management in response to Awaab’s Law, and early discussion of the Gateway 3 process.
• He emphasised the importance of participation and shared that the group aimed to identify practical insights from members’ own experiences.

2. Gateway 3 Preparation and As-Built Documentation

• David Poat highlighted that while most focus is currently on Gateway 2, preparation for Gateway 3 “isn’t something you can do three months before you make the application — you need the process in place.”
• He reported continuing difficulty in obtaining accurate as-built drawings and noted that some contractors provide only “scribbled-on” construction drawings rather than verified as-built versions.
• Victoria Finn (Wythenshawe Community Housing Group) confirmed similar struggles, saying they often must “pull that information out of contractors all of the time.” She described using Fieldview to capture photographic and textual evidence, but added that it “still doesn’t feel like it’s coming naturally.”
• Poat observed that contractors may avoid producing formal as-built drawings because their consultants or engineers “haven’t been onsite to give those guarantees,” citing cost as a factor.
• Ian Williamson (formerly McClaren) discussed overlaying the Building Safety Act onto the McClaren process, noting that consultants face new insurance and process implications. He said smaller contractors often believe they are exempt, not realising they must still demonstrate Gateway 3 compliance.

3. Data Volume, Automation and AI Tools

• Tim Aikin raised the challenge of receiving “very large gigabyte packages” of documents and asked how others verify their as-built status.
• He described his team’s trial use of AI tools to analyse PDF content — checking documents automatically through a RAG database and producing acceptance or rejection feedback. This approach, he said, could help both clients and contractors by defining clear quality tests.
• George Stevenson confirmed that such automation “is something that a number of people are doing at the moment.” He noted that AI’s value depends on defining “what information you actually want for what purpose.”
• Stevenson cautioned that “if AI doesn’t know the answer it will try and make up a solution,” stressing the need for “the right guardrails.”
• Tom Oulton added that, historically, contractors’ payments depended on accurate record drawings. “Do it properly or don’t get paid,” he said, contrasting past practice with current inconsistency.
• Poat and others agreed that clerk-of-works oversight has diminished in many projects, contributing to the problem.

4. BIM, Coordination and Accountability

• George Stevenson remarked that over-reliance on BIM models has replaced direct productivity oversight.
• Tom Oulton countered that “it’s not a problem of BIM, it’s a problem of poor BIM management.” He described a past example where uncoordinated installation led to site clashes despite correct drawings — ultimately traced to poor supervision.
• Stevenson agreed, noting that production drawings and schedules must share consistent references, and that many handovers suffer from inaccurate correlation.
• Both speakers linked these issues to “failures in management and accountability” rather than technological shortcomings.

5. Regulation 38 and the Challenge of Sign-Off

• George Stevenson explained that ambiguity in interpreting Regulation 38 leads to inconsistent client and supply-chain expectations.
• He outlined BIM4Housing’s work developing a shared Miro board of expert interpretations to harmonise guidance.
• Stevenson described Regulation 38 as “specifically about handover information,” requiring as-built plans with safety-critical assets clearly identified.
• He stated that responsible persons must sign declarations confirming full receipt of such data — and warned that signing without verifying could constitute a criminal offence.
• Pencho Studenkov (Places for People) said he had seen declarations signed by companies “with missing maybe around 60–70% of the information.”
• David Poat confirmed that some clients, including his organisation, currently refuse to sign declarations until their internal checking processes can assure completeness.
• Paul White (Gravesham Council) described the discussion as “really useful,” noting he would now be more mindful of Regulation 38 in existing contracts.
• Studenkov added that including clear information-delivery milestones in Employer’s Requirements (ERs) and contracts gives clients “an edge” and enables proactive control.
• Poat said clients must be “more assertive” in requiring complete data, though commercial pressures make enforcement difficult when Building Control has already signed off projects.
• Stevenson clarified that Building Control “does not require them to check whether the information is there,” highlighting a major gap in oversight.

6. Standardising Audits and Improving Consistency

• Stevenson described BIM4Housing’s work developing a Regulation 38 audit process, defining minimum asset data (location, system, manufacturer, installation, and inspection details).
• Poat suggested producing a “recommended template” across BIM4Housing members to achieve consistency in contractor requests.
• Stevenson and Richard Freer agreed this could become a dedicated workstream.

7. Fire and Access Strategies

• Stevenson raised the conflicts between fire strategies (“getting people out of the building”) and access strategies (“keeping people out”).
• He gave examples from healthcare facilities where maglocks were installed on fire escape doors.
• Victoria Finn noted that maglocks “can be fitted to fire doors if they’re part of a release system” and described her organisation’s weekly checks to ensure functionality.
• David Poat explained how manual overrides can compromise security, requiring careful design-phase decisions.
• Malcolm Gregorczyk emphasised that “80% of fire safety is really about the fire safety management within that building.”
• The group agreed that access and fire strategies must be aligned and regularly verified.

8. Awaab’s Law and Damp and Mould

• Stevenson announced forthcoming BIM4Housing workshops on Awaab’s Law and said the new requirements could “overwhelm” councils and housing associations.
• He warned of potential class-action litigation and noted that tenant behaviour sometimes contributes to damp recurrence.
• Poat shared past experience handling damp and mould cases, describing them as a “fine line” between physical remediation and tenant education.
• Connor Stevenson (Wheatley Group) said that, from his surveys, “only five” of hundreds of damp cases were tenant-related. He noted that Scottish building regulations require “internal drying areas” for clothes, acknowledging the role of environmental factors.

9. Intellectual Property (IP) Rights in Building Information

• George Stevenson raised concerns about clients losing access to building data collected by third-party surveyors.
• Richard Freer warned that “as soon as people have got your information and they make it into something else, they own that format.”
• Victoria Finn said she always requests “the CAD files, not just the PDFs,” to allow later alterations.
• Justin Gillard recounted an anecdote from an architect who lost payment after sending a drawing package abroad, observing that “the BIM world scares me because with BIM… all of your IP is in a shared space.”
• The group agreed that IP rights and access must be explicitly defined in contracts.

10. Closing Discussion and Next Steps

• Poat summarised the session, emphasising continued collaboration on Regulation 38 audits, fire and access strategies, and Awaab’s Law workshops.
• Stevenson invited participants to join the Regulation 38 workstream and noted related resources on BIM4Housing’s website.
• The meeting concluded with appreciation for the open exchange and shared learning.

Key Insights & Lessons Learned