{"id":220,"date":"2024-06-03T15:12:15","date_gmt":"2024-06-03T15:12:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/?page_id=220"},"modified":"2024-06-03T15:12:41","modified_gmt":"2024-06-03T15:12:41","slug":"bim4housing-development-working-group-meeting-30-05-2024","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/bim4housing-development-working-group-meeting-30-05-2024\/","title":{"rendered":"BIM4Housing: Development Working Group Meeting 30-05-2024"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n\t

BIM4Housing: Development Working Group Meeting 30-05-2024<\/strong><\/h2>\n

MANDEEP SINGH GILL Is everybody familiar with the category of Tranche 1 buildings released by the Regulator? What it is, the Building Safety Regulator, all the 12,000 0r so existing buildings, they\u2019ll be assessing them in five tranches, and what happens is in Tranche 1, they\u2019ve done it from highest risk buildings to the lower ones. So, all of the taller buildings or those buildings with ACM cladding or large panelling systems, they\u2019re all put in Tranche 1 and this is the first one that they\u2019ll be assessing. They plan to do it over five years for all existing 12,000 buildings and when new buildings are registered they\u2019ll be assessing those in silos. Obviously they haven\u2019t come up with timelines or deadlines yet for how they\u2019re going to be dealing with new buildings, but they\u2019ll be releasing that soon, maybe.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT I\u2019m technical manager at Notting Hill Genesis and it\u2019s fallen to me over the last couple of years to chair these conversations. There\u2019s too many in the room to go through introductions, however, there are a couple of key players, the first one being George.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I chair BIM4Housing and also the Golden Thread Initiative Asset & Survey Information Group. What we\u2019re doing at the moment is pulling together information and feeding that back to the department. When I was at the Building Safety Regulator conference DLUHC were very interested in what we\u2019re doing. So they\u2019ve asked us to provide a report back to them which we\u2019re going to do after we have the workshops at Digital Construction Week next week. So that\u2019s dealing with the four barriers to the golden thread that we\u2019ve been working on for the last year.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve also started something called BIM In Asset Management which is to take the learning that we\u2019ve had for residential and apply it to all types of buildings. We held the first of those events last Monday and it was extremely well attended and I think we\u2019ve got some very good engagement there. A lot of the stuff that we\u2019re doing here, in particular things like fire. are relevant to all buildings. And then my day job is Active Plan, we\u2019re a software company providing asset information management systems.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT For those of you who have been with us before for the conversations that we have, then welcome back. For those of you who are new, similarly welcome, and I hope you find this mornings conversation of interest and of use. As with all of these sessions, we haven\u2019t got anything to talk to you about, our role here is to try and facilitate a conversation. So that conversation will only be as good as people choose to participate, so I would urge you to participate if you can.<\/p>\n

Over the last number of years we\u2019ve been reviewing a number of topics, and one of the topics that has come up in the past but we haven\u2019t really explored in a huge amount of detail is the emergence of the Principal Designer role. And we\u2019re very keen to have a conversation about everyone\u2019s perspectives on that because that perspective will be different depending on how you\u2019re looking at it. Whether you\u2019re a client, whether you\u2019re a contractor, whether you\u2019re a consultant etc. So we circulated a series of questions that were just an attempt to start some dialogue. My plan this morning is to go through those questions, if anyone has other questions that they want to add to the list that\u2019s absolutely fine. I know George has got a couple of AOB items that he wants to get into at the end as well.<\/p>\n

If people do have stuff to contribute, there are two ways to do that. Put your hand up and I\u2019ll bring you in to the conversation, or just drop stuff into the chat and we\u2019ll pick that up. Starting with the first topic of conversation, the first question is at what point do we think it relevant to start appointing Principal Designers into the process? You\u2019ll have seen from the notes that were circulated, one of our participants on the call has offered up a response that seems to suggest that employing Principal Designers earlier in the process is advantageous for all of the reasons that they\u2019ve described. I\u2019m going to play Devil\u2019s advocate and offer up a slightly different perspective which is we probably don\u2019t need to employ Principal Designers until the Gateway 2 design process has started. Because it\u2019s the kind of Gateway 2 process that sets the line in the sand in terms of a building regulation compliant design.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not suggesting that that is the answer, I\u2019m just suggesting it\u2019s an alternative answer. And as I say, it will depend on your perspectives. So, two topics of conversation: one, what are people\u2019s experiences in terms of appointing and when; and do people have a view on what constitutes being compliant in terms of regulatory requirement versus what probably is a good idea and best practice.<\/p>\n

VICTORIA FINN I was just thinking that under the regulations though, it\u2019s not just applying now to HRBs, it\u2019s applying to domestic properties as well. So I guess there\u2019s two ways to look at this, if we\u2019re doing major high-risk works then the sooner the better to employ the PD. If you\u2019re doing the smaller works or extensions or one of works to houses, to homes, then I\u2019d look to be a bit later in the project because you\u2019ve not got that high-risk design element. That\u2019s the sort of way that I\u2019d look at it and that seems to be the natural flow for me. Considering if it\u2019s on high-risk buildings as well, and i know they\u2019re saying look at Gateway 2, but the design element is so important and the PDs feed into that could be quite important as well.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT I suspect we're on different stages in our journeys in terms of appointing Principal Designers. For me, within our organisation we\u2019ve not got to a point, obviously we\u2019re thinking about it and we\u2019re preparing the documentation, but we haven\u2019t actually physically appointed anyone in to that role as of yet. Have others got other experiences? Has anyone appointed a Principal Designer yet?<\/p>\n

MANDEEP SINGH GILL We haven\u2019t appointed any Principal Designers, but I would just like to add to that the Principal Designer role now just apples to HRBs and the duty holder regime applies to all buildings now, not just HRBs. So even if you\u2019re doing other projects you\u2019ll have to come to do that. I think the other main consideration, there\u2019s government guidance on the website which nicely splits up the additional duties you have to do with HRBs as a duty holder and the kind of duties that you\u2019re expected to complete on all projects.<\/p>\n

The only thing I\u2019d add to this is obviously one of the most important things to bear in mind when you\u2019re appointing for an HRB, there are some considerations you\u2019ve got to take when you\u2019re appointing a Principal Designer, such as if any serious sanctions have occurred from the five years appointment. We\u2019re working with a client now to look at their policies on processes. All of their Gateway processes, we\u2019re reviewing them to make them align with the building safety regulations. For example, on their appointments, if any serious sanctions have occurred and keeping a written record of the steps that people are taking to satisfy themselves that the person is competent and a suitable person.<\/p>\n

ROSIE SONNENSCHEIN I used to work in a building safety team at Peabody until quite recently and now I\u2019ve gone back to the private sector side, working in the Principal Designer role among other projects as an architect with surveyors. Generally, from the research that I\u2019ve been doing on projects that we\u2019re starting to get appointed on as PDs, legally you\u2019re required to be appointed prior to the start of construction onsite. Looking at it purely from an HRB and larger development experience, which is pretty much what I\u2019ve been laser focused on, the earlier the better is my professional opinion in that the Principal Designer role is one to basically facilitate everyone else to make sure that everyone\u2019s \u00a0got their competency properly evidenced, as evidenced clients in their various designs.<\/p>\n

So, even as early as pre-planning, the Gateway 1 fire strategy, that sort of information is stuff that would holistically be really good for the PDs to keep track of and just log the design intent of that. So, basically as early as possible would be my professional preference, but at the same time we have started to get requests back from clients that are panicking. They\u2019ve started onsite and suddenly realised they need to appoint a PD, so we\u2019re quite wary of taking on roles that late. So, somewhere between those two extremes is probably fine.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT That seems to be pretty consistent with the response that we documented in the agenda that there are advantages to being earlier. It\u2019s interesting, I think Victoria\u2019s point is a little bit horses for course, do so depending on the nature of the project and the risks associated with those projects. That might have a bearing around the decision of appointing early. And it feels like there\u2019s a kind of regulatory position and there\u2019s a kind of minimum, making sure that you meet the regulatory requirements position. But there is also a best practice position that says there are advantages.<\/p>\n

SCOTT SANDERSON I\u2019m from PRP. I confess I fed into the responses that are in the agenda, the blue text you may have seen. I\u2019ve got a couple of comments to add to the conversation. What\u2019s been really interesting on our dialogue with clients is the almost maturing conversation around design risk management. Obviously there is a major focus around Gateways is compliance and satisfying requirements, there\u2019s that massive focus on the Gateway 2 application, particularly as a design consultant. However, I think clients are also really interested in object deliverability so that we are better in control of deliverable planning consents.<\/p>\n

If you look at the baseline input to a fire statement it can be pretty high level if you just follow baseline minimums for those documents. But actually to achieve the deliverable of consent you want a much wider view of compliance and particularly with more and more projects being procured through a two-stage process. As clients take projects out on to the market and engage with their Tier 1, with their main contractor, but a client can demonstrate they\u2019ve got a strong grip on compliance helps de-risk that procurement engagement process and more often than not that\u2019s happening well in advance of Gateway 2 application.<\/p>\n

So, there is more to it than just de-risking Gateway 2, there\u2019s that wider view on deliverability captured in a planning consent and then procureability, if that\u2019s a word, in terms of early supply chain engagement. So, I think the commitment to the process adds value in a number of different ways to projects.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT Just a response to that, certainly one of the risks that we\u2019re very mindful of at planning stage is we don\u2019t want to be committing to a planning submission that then subsequently proves to be inadequate, from a building regulations perspective. Particularly around space usage, sprinkler tanks is a phenomenal conversation that we have on a regular basis. So, I think you\u2019re right, getting those assurances earlier in the process de-risks the project for not only the client but, as you say, for the procurement process that follows.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Just picking up on what Scott was saying, that interests be from a point of view of engaging contractors because contractors now (from the feedback that I\u2019m getting) are being quite selective about which projects they get engaged with. And if the project has got some clear\u2026if they can see that the design and the client has thought about this properly, then that\u2019s going to de-risk it for them.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT Yeah, absolutely. And again, maybe playing Devil\u2019s advocate, whether you need to formally appoint a Principal Designer in order to do that or whether you just need to demonstrate that everything is welled planned and well-coordinated. But, the two kind of go hand in hand, you can formally evidence that that process has been well managed.<\/p>\n

SCOTT SANDERSON We have a number of clients who are really committed to stage reporting and it\u2019s part of their own internal governance and reporting procedures. I guess historically, RIBA stage 2 or a RIBA stage 3 report would have captured things like bins and bikes and fire strategy. So that sort of strategy-led approach would have been there and it can still be there, it\u2019s just articulating it in a different way that rather than just making a statement about bins saying the reason that we have this number of bins is that we\u2019re satisfying a particular requirement. So, it\u2019s not positioning the strategies in its new context of demonstrating compliance with the requirements of the building regulations.<\/p>\n

MANDEEP SINGH GILL In terms of the Principal Designers, they have the plan, manager, monitor responsibility. In the BSR conference I asked a question that the BIM concepts for managing deliverables\u2026that\u2019s the best way to plan, manage and monitor so you can look at your deliverables and manage against that. Because you need some kind of a benchmark or goalpost to run against or measure up against.<\/p>\n

When I asked the BSR will you actively be checking that people are planning, monitoring, managing and monitoring their work they said that they wouldn\u2019t be, in that sense, it\u2019s only when something goes wrong. I don\u2019t know what the general impression in the room is about the kind of concepts, because this is a BIM4Housing group, so BIM concepts of using master information, delivery plans and the task information delivery plans. I don\u2019t know how many Principal Designers are using that approach to plan, manage and monitor their work.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I\u2019d like to support what Mandeep was saying and say that we need the straightforward process of capturing the evidence of the fact that that work has been done properly. My impression is from talking to Scott last year on this, one of the challenges that any Principal Designer has got is really understanding not that PRI, for example, have done the work properly, but what has the M&E people done, what have the structural people done etc. And therefore the documented evidence of that is critical and therefore I absolutely agree that we need to have tangible, auditable ways of tracking that.<\/p>\n

MANDEEP SINGH GILL Obviously the BS8644-Part 1 talks about staged deliverables and monitoring against that. I think they call it interval exchange points. I know that is for fire and structural information of buildings only, I was curious because I\u2019ve moved to the consultancy side, I was at HS2 with Care. There was a comprehensive system that we\u2019d set up to manage our deliverables, just to make sure we\u2019re getting all the deliverables in time. If we\u2019re not getting deliverables that\u2019s going to affect the programme and all of that. So, it\u2019s all very well saying that you receive the information at the end and checking it, but we need some kind of mechanism in place to do the progressive checking, otherwise effectively the planning and management we\u2019re not actually doing the monitoring. We\u2019ve done the planning and then we\u2019ve got the handover, but where is our monitoring. That\u2019s the big thing that we\u2019re all missing right now.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT I think there's the summary of the conversation that we\u2019ve just had is the general consensus seems to be that the advantages of employing Principal Designers early are reasonably clear. Part of that advantage plays to what Mandeep is saying and what George is saying which is what the Principal Designer needs to bring to the table is the structured approach, not only how they\u2019re planning their work, but getting involved in the planning of other peoples\u2019 works and how that is collated, how that is evidenced. So, even though the Building Safety Regulator may not require that level of scrutiny it\u2019s something that client organisations, developers, can have in their back pockets if things were to happen in the future, to evidence the robustness of the process that\u2019s been gone through. That\u2019s my take on what we\u2019re saying here.<\/p>\n

ROSIE SONNENSCHEIN Just to explain what we\u2019re thinking about in terms of how to fulfil the monitoring part of the PD role. WE\u2019re setting up more robust internal systems, what we're aiming for is when you submit the building regulations compliance statement at Gateway 2 that's like a sort of standalone design intent of how you're going to meet the building regs. But if you have a tracker, and we're a really small company so we keep things pretty simple. You could do it in a really clever way, if you\u2019re a bit company, with Revit and you could link in drawings with a schedule of how you\u2019re complying to each part of the building regs.<\/p>\n

But we\u2019re just using Excel for now and we\u2019re starting it as early as possible so even at pre-planning you can list out the design intent for each of the regs, the guidance that you\u2019ve received, and drawings that evidence how you\u2019re going to comply with that. And then you just update that, either at key stages or at monthly site progress meetings. You keep an eye on it and make sure that any changes from the original intent are inspected, coordinated with the team. That\u2019s how we\u2019re doing it which is pretty low-tech, but if you\u2019ve got much bigger projects and you\u2019re much more clever about it you could link your drawings which evidence the design intent actually with a schedule and it would be a neat way to do it, it would reduce duplication.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT The conversation around the tech might be something that we come to later because I know George has got some AOB items that he wants to talk about some of the tech stuff. The next question we had was around who are putting themselves forward to carry out Principal Designer roles. Stereotypically you think that it\u2019s always going to be architects, but I suspect it isn\u2019t exclusively so, I\u2019m sure employer\u2019s agents are going to be putting themselves into this situation.\u00a0 What are peoples\u2019 experiences of who are the organisations who are putting themselves forward? Do we think if there aren\u2019t enough people to go around are we going to have capacity issues that we\u2019re going to come up against? What are people\u2019s thoughts about who is providing these services?<\/p>\n

BECKY MAYO I work for Peabody in the Design & Tech department. We have some projects that are at RIBA 1, RIBA 2 stages, and so we\u2019ll be going out to tender for a PD role and we\u2019re aiming that towards the lead designers, typically the architects. On some of our other projects, not necessarily within my direct development, more about the asset site, we\u2019re seeing employer\u2019s agents type organisations take on that role, just because I think it\u2019s in the absence of an architect on these projects. But then we were also looking at our main contractors to take on Principal Designer role when it\u2019s in construction, not that we\u2019ve set anything in stone but possibly even before the construction starts. If we\u2019re talking in the lead up to the Gateway 2 application, maybe the contractor is best placed at that point to take on the role.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE I\u2019m from Gravesham Borough Council. Just adding on to that comment, \u00a0I guess we're going to have to update our collateral warranties if we\u2019ve got architects taking on the Principal Designer role and think about that actual responsibility as a client. Collateral warranties are always something that\u2019s buzzing around toing and froing through design build contracts. I doubt if anybody has come to that point yet. We\u2019ve just done the same in terms of we\u2019re using contractor\u2019s architect to be the building regs Principal Designer, but I\u2019m just at that point of trying to check competency and how we evidence that, so early days.<\/p>\n

SAM REES I\u2019m from Stonewater Housing Association and we've got a few big developments on the go at the moment. We've appointed a building regulation PD who is on our employers agent framework, but we're also looking to appoint an architect. What we\u2019re finding is it\u2019s very difficult to get anybody who can demonstrate competencies (skills, knowledge, experience, behaviours) especially along the lines of 8671. We\u2019ve created SKEB assessments, but it\u2019s very vague policies or statements and blank templates. So, it\u2019s about the ongoing monitoring of them to then be able to prove they can do that moving forward. But another issue we\u2019re getting is that organisations are unable to get professional indemnity insurance to cover the role. From our perspective, it\u2019s that, and going back to the original question we tend to try and appoint them as early as we can because us as a client will take on that responsibility as the PD and we just don\u2019t have the competencies in-house, or the insurance to cover that.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT Maybe a slightly different perspective on the question, I can\u2019t talk for all of your organisations, but construction programmes are quieter than normal. So in terms of the capacity requirements for these new roles we\u2019re at a point where there probably is the capacity that once programmes start to ramp up again it will be interesting how the capacity is met for organisations that are willing to put themselves into these roles.<\/p>\n

VICTORIA FINN We are tending to use procurement bodies again quite a lot now. Again, that\u2019s around making sure that the competencies are there, so people have already been taken on to the framework. We know they\u2019ve got the competencies and we know they\u2019ve got the accreditations and, of course, the insurances as well. We want to come away from procurement bodies, we\u2019re tending to go back to them quite a bit now because of you\u2019re needing to get onsite quick and you want to make sure that everything is in place and that you\u2019re definitely playing ball with competencies. So, we\u2019ve got a reliance back on those and we do tend to use employer\u2019s agents for the PDs and that might be that they\u2019re tied up in one sort of lot on some of the procurement groups as well, so that might be where people are going because of that reason.<\/p>\n

SCOTT SANDERSON I just wanted to pick up on Becky's comment, it\u2019s quite positive that a number of different scenarios are emerging. Whether it\u2019s consultant taking the role, or indeed Tier 1 main contractors, especially under D&B. I think it needs to be flexible to suit a number of different procurement strategies and attitudes, preferences, capabilities of client organisations. So, there\u2019s a number of different viable models from my perspective and it\u2019s really just a client having a strategic view early of how they see it playing out. Planning it out through the project is really important and we and others can fit in as clients need.<\/p>\n

CORY GREGG I wanted to jump in around using the Principal Contractor, particularly when it\u2019s on a design & build contract. It\u2019s something to be aware of just to make sure that the contractor doesn\u2019t have a biased view towards their Principal Designer checks and making sure that everything meets building regs. I suppose that will depend on, from a client point of view, who\u2019s running the project and what their experiences are. I work for Gentoo, quite a large housing association in the North East, and our schemes are run by building surveyors, so we have quite a good grip on what should meet building regs and things like that. But if you were a client that was running a project that maybe that isn\u2019t your expertise and you\u2019re relying on that Principal Contractor, I guess it\u2019s about making sure that they are very open and honest and that there is that trust there to highlight any issues.<\/p>\n

BECKY MAYO Just responding to Cory\u2019s point, I think that\u2019s really important and maybe when you\u2019re checking the competency of them if you are intending to appoint the same organisation as both roles then there should definitely be a piece on that within the information that they give you to assess competency they should definitely be addressing about how they\u2019re going to avoid that. So, is it two separate teams within the business that operate both roles, or whatnot.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT Really good points, and we\u2019ll come on to this a little bit, but it\u2019s interesting the change in liabilities from a legal perspective. Yes, there is a potential conflict of interest between being Principal Designer and Principal Contractor, but ultimately at the end they are signing a piece of paper that says this is compliant and that\u2019s pretty conclusive. So, it will be interesting how design & build contractors particularly respond to that challenge. That\u2019s a nice little segue way into the next question which is one of the requirements of this role is really about ensuring compliance.<\/p>\n

So, at the end of it there needs to be a signature on a piece of paper that says to the best of our knowledge this building is compliant. Probably more for people who are fulfilling the role or planning to fulfil the role, what impact is that having on working procedures? That need to be able to ensure compliance and sign to that effect, how is that changing working practice? How is it changing internal controls processes and those sort of things?<\/p>\n

SCOTT SANDERSON My short answer to that is a massive shift, we\u2019re seeing a really significant shift on projects, number of levels. Mandeep flagged earlier looking at responsibility and how that\u2019s documented with regard to compliance, there is a whole shift in conversation around DRMs around appointments. We\u2019re seeing heavier and heavier use of trackers to track and monitor compliance. My major concern about the growing use of trackers, and I have to say I support the methodology, is that they challenge analogue systems, including Excel. So, we need a database and much more intelligent responses to the volume of information that we\u2019re managing, particularly on large projects.<\/p>\n

And the other big shift I think we\u2019re seeing is increasing focus on design programming because design is on the critical path in a way that it hasn\u2019t been previously. And what I mean by that is last year our major Tier 1 clients, if they had a glitch on the design programme they\u2019d just start piling and they could probably have three or four months of work whilst the design team are catching up, and that can\u2019t happen now because we can\u2019t start without Gateway 2 approval. So, there is a massive shift of focus on design programming.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT And just thinking about that programming, the need to ensure the compliance at the backend presumably requires of the process a bit more due diligence, a bit more scrutiny, a bit more governance. What, if any, is the likely impact on project programme timelines? So, from a client perspective can we expect design programmes\u2026they\u2019re lengthening it anyway for the reasons you just described, but is the process, because it\u2019s more arduous, it could take more time.<\/p>\n

SCOTT SANDERSON I think there is a kind of administrative overlay on any existing programme so that if the start point should be that everybody was achieving compliance already, all of our clients were already procuring compliant designs, the step change is the demonstrable compliance and the paper trail that sits with that and how to capture it. So there is a kind of an overlay that, if it\u2019s resourced properly, shouldn\u2019t necessarily elongate programmes greatly.<\/p>\n

The biggest programme impact in my experience to date is the decision making on the level of design completion to be achieved at Gateway 2 and what\u2019s your attitude to prescriptive versus performance-based design in the context of any one project and the extent to which it\u2019s considered necessary to procure subcontract design out of Gateway 2. and that can be zero impact, if you take a hardline approach to changing your procurement strategy, or it can be massive months and months of impact if you say we want all of that upfront.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT I guess the anecdotal thinking right now is yes, your design programme may be extended, but in theory your construction programme should reduce because there is greater certainty etc. I might be heavily relying on Scott again to respond to the next question. Design liabilities, so Principal Designers, so architects, employer\u2019s agents, not only are taking liability responsibility for their own work, they\u2019re having to plan or make sure that other designer\u2019s work is well planned, is compliant etc. So that raises the bar a little bit in terms of the liabilities that they potentially have to carry. Forgive me, Scott, for dragging you in, but I know that this is something that you\u2019ve talked about. What\u2019s been your response, or what is your thinking about how you will respond, to having to take on responsibility for other members of the design team?<\/p>\n

SCOTT SANDERSON This is such an important discussion and it\u2019s really important to be precise in this discussion. I think what the PDBR can\u2019t do, and has got to be incredibly careful to avoid, is to take on design responsibility for design, where they don\u2019t have the relevant expertise. And indeed, a client is not procuring their services to deliver that design. So, plan, manage, monitor, coordinate doesn\u2019t mean being responsible for something that is somebody else\u2019s responsibility.However, you have a responsibility to plan, manage, monitor and coordinate and I think in reality it\u2019s quite difficult. We often have conversations with clients around design development, what does that mean. That\u2019s change control, programming or options.<\/p>\n

I think in reality you can set out a broad framework and contracts are going to have to do that, but then you\u2019re going to have to manage your position relative to the particular circumstance, the matter in hand. But certainly in terms of where we are heading in terms of preparation of service particulars and contracts is we need to be really robust, for lots of obvious reasons, that we don\u2019t pick up responsibilities for other designer\u2019s work.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT Yeah, and I guess as client organisations we need to be very precise in our language of describing the services and what the expectations are. Anyone else who is either in a PD role or considering moving into a PD role who\u2019s got any views on this? Or any clients that have got any views on this? Yeah, it\u2019s a difficult topic, and very much a work in progress in terms of how this is going to play itself out.<\/p>\n

SCOTT SANDERSON I\u2019ll just say something else, we\u2019ve talked a little bit about trackers and being well organised. I think as a PDBR if you\u2019re concerned with the challenge that the project team design demonstrates that the requirements are met, that requirements framework is articulated at a level of detail through the building regulations, whether that\u2019s to go back to the actual requirements or you look at the guidance in approved documents. So, PDBR I think\u00a0is concerned with coverage and responses, not necessarily being expert in every specific response, but that there is a response to the requirement.<\/p>\n

So there is an element of coverage in management, without being responsible, so you can see that something is not present, that in itself is an issue. And then if you have competent designers in a competent design team, and competent contractors and subcontractors, you\u2019re entitled to rely on their competence and their statements of compliance as they populate the different bits of information that make up the project pack.<\/p>\n

CORY GREGG Just to touch on what Scott is saying, one of the projects that we\u2019re working on, we have a PD appointed who some elements of the work that we\u2019re doing are quite technical M&E elements. So they\u2019ve appointed a separate M&E consultant to almost second review on the M&E designer\u2019s designs so that it\u2019s still being checked under the PD, who\u2019s appointed a separate consultant. So, that might be something that people would look at, the Principal Designer is saying well, we\u2019re happy that there is a response from the M&E designer, they\u2019re actually getting an independent consultant to check that off as well, a sanity check sort of thing.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT Scott, is that on PRP\u2019s radar as a potential approach?<\/p>\n

SCOTT SANDERSON It\u2019s a really interesting point. I think the short answer is no, I\u2019d be wary of that, for the reasons I outlined.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT It creates liability, doesn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n

SCOTT SANDERSON Well, and also ultimately deliverability and viability is such a major issue and almost everywhere at the moment almost every return you\u2019ve got potential duplication. Now, I see Cory\u2019s point and indeed many clients, particularly on a strategic project large projects, are appointing building regulations advisors who are setting aside the PDBR to feed in\u2026if the PDBR is, for example, an architect, they\u2019re entitled to discharge their duties as PDBR within the competencies of an architect, not the competencies of an MEP consultant. But there will be circumstances where you might need to reach out for specific advice. It\u2019s a really interesting point, Cory, and I think if there were specific complexities we might consider it, but ideally not need to in day to day projects.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT And I guess we\u2019re going to continue to operate in a bit of an ambiguous world, there will be different solutions to this that emerge. And I guess clients will have to think that through quite strategically in terms of what their expectation is in terms of who\u2019s performing what roles. It will be interesting if, over time, a standard response to this emerges or whether it will end up with a number of different approaches. The last question we had on our list is a nice little thorny one about the production of as-built information. Some of us have got quite cynical about this over the years, but we won\u2019t dwell on that. Certainly, we have come across situations where design & build contractors have not been able to provide us with drawings that describe themselves as as-built because their designers aren\u2019t prepared to sign them off because their designers have played no part in the quality monitoring process onsite.<\/p>\n

And I suspect where contractors have provided them that a particular arrangement has been put in place to make that viable. We were interested in, with the emergence of Principal Designer and Principal Contractor roles in order to demonstrate regulatory compliance, clearly there is a need to make sure that as-built information that\u2019s provided is accurate. That then creates a requirement on those people that are signing off those drawings to spend more time onsite and actually evidencing the due diligence that they\u2019ve been through to be able to do that. And again, for anyone who has either experienced that or is experiencing that, whether there is evidence of changing procedure, changing process, that is enabling better quality as-built information to be produced. Just wondering what people\u2019s views of that are.<\/p>\n

VICTORIA FINN We\u2019ve\u00a0experienced it in doing some cladding remediation works. Since the build the architects have gone, they no longer want to stand by some of the drawings. Obviously years later we\u2019ve come back and done that remediation work and they don\u2019t want to update the drawings. So, we\u2019ve had that sort of issue. We\u2019re looking at getting a standard brief on a design & build contract that we\u2019re going to put into the contracts now to make sure that the regulations are being catered for. To make sure that everything that we need for the golden thread and for all of the safety cases thereafter is actually going into the tender and they\u2019re going to sign up to that and that\u2019s specifically costed for as well. I think as we know that sends the prices sky-high because they\u2019re going to up their insurances as well to cover that.<\/p>\n

But otherwise we\u2019re not going to get that and also what we\u2019ve put in there is making sure that we\u2019re using things\u2026FieldView is what we\u2019ve used for one of ours and making sure that we can definitely evidence that. So if there are issues of getting the as-built or as installed down the line at least we\u2019ve got something to evidence what\u2019s been done along the way. So it\u2019s just risk assessing really, trying to mitigate those risks as far as possible, but I think the tender is the place to do it because it\u2019s where we\u2019re going to capture it now if we can.<\/p>\n

MANDEEP SINGH GILL I\u2019m not sure if this is part of the duty holder regime or how it\u2019s introduced, but obviously whereas the Principal Designer role stops at the design phase, as part of the duty holder regime now they\u2019re obliged in the legislation to work through to the end. So that will slightly shift the culture in that sense.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT I think you\u2019re right. And not just culture, it will change process, procedure etc etc.<\/p>\n

GEORGE There\u2019s a couple of things here. Firstly, the clarification of what, for example, as-built means is very vague and it gets put into a contract and I\u2019d think that most contracts require the construction team to deliver as-built information. And also in many cases they\u2019ll say we want an as-built model. I would argue that almost no contracts or projects that I\u2019m aware of have any funding or any resourcing for that to really happen. And in fact actually the majority of the critical information that we need for things like Regulation 38 and to satisfy the Building Safety Regulator, the elements that are required for that in terms of actually what\u2019s been installed, are probably never going to go into a BIM model. Because typically, particularly on residential, we find that the BIM models that are being created are actually the design models.<\/p>\n

And the trade contractors that come along, particularly M&E, this is different for data centres and different for complex buildings because for their own purposes they\u2019ll produce coordinated models, which still may not be as-built, but they at least go into it. But in most cases in our experience the models that are provided as the M&E model are actually the M&E designers model. The reason I\u2019m saying this is that I think that typically what we\u2019ve seen, just by asking people, they\u2019ll say the clients deal with it by retention and effectively they financially penalise the contractor for doing it. And the main contractor often gives up.<\/p>\n

Under the new regulations I don\u2019t think that\u2019s any longer an option and we need far more transparency and probably education of clients, and even the agents that are managing this process, to actually figure out a different way of doing it.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT I agree and from a regulatory point of view just being able to evidence that you\u2019ve got a suite of as-built drawings isn\u2019t likely to be able. You probably need to be able to evidence how you know, as the client, that that is actually what\u2019s been built. Just a spin-off question that just came to me, one of the things that we\u2019ve been exploring, as I\u2019m sure that many of the clients have, is to what extent photographic evidence can play a part in evidencing the as-built condition. We\u2019ve certainly got contractors who are already starting to use photographic records with, in my experience, mixed results. Lots and lots of photographs but not necessarily organised in a way that\u2019s particularly helpful.<\/p>\n

We\u2019re also talking to organisations like Multivista who take photographic records in a kind of structured and deliberate way. Then can then pin those records to the BIM models if you need be, albeit as George says that the model is probably a design model rather than an as-built model in itself. But interesting if you\u2019ve got a BIM model that\u2019s designed but you\u2019ve appended as-built photographic evidence to it, to what extent that then becomes more of an accurate as-built record. Just didn\u2019t know whether we\u2019ve got clients out there who are also thinking about photographic evidence, how you\u2019re using it, how far you\u2019re going with it. From our point of view, we\u2019re dipping our toe in\u00a0 the water, we\u2019ve not committed to it wholeheartedly, I suspect that we will at some point in the near future.<\/p>\n

SIMON FULLARD I\u2019m from the London Borough of Ealing. In my many roles, I\u2019m an interim, in my many previous roles at Clarion, Hyde and other organisations, we\u2019ve always used Multivista and a couple of other companies in this aspect of taking photographic images and doing it line-by-line on a diagram. And having all of that information to back up all of the remediation works that we\u2019ve encountered and done to date. Even at Ealing, we\u2019ve bought Multivista onboard, there are plenty of other companies who do exactly the same thing who are really good, but evidence-backed information that you can provide to certain individuals at different stages of the progress of the build, it\u2019s a brilliant tool.<\/p>\n

They can also do it on their Revit models, so the 3D modelling, and you can go into each location and see throughout the build stages of exactly what\u2019s been installed at certain locations at certain individuals and processes throughout that actual build. So, it\u2019s brilliant.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT I\u2019m on the same page as you. We do use Multivista for our remedial work programmes, but cladding replacement is on the new build side and we haven\u2019t quite fully committed to it yet. I\u2019m with you, a picture tells a thousand words.<\/p>\n

GEORGE It is the as-built, it\u2019s not an approximate.<\/p>\n

PAUL WOMACK Photograph is not just for the as-built, it\u2019s for ongoing works and deficiencies within buildings etc. It\u2019s evidence of before, during any repairs and after repairs for your post-inspections. All of that photographic information is vital.<\/p>\n

SIMON FULLARD Even on a stock condition survey you can go back to it and look at how it\u2019s actually built and how it\u2019s dilapidated since then.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT It has to be done in a very structured and organised way. I\u2019ve got contractors who are roaming around site with video cameras on their helmets. I said to them how are you going to give me that information at the end of the job? And they said we\u2019re going to print it all out and give it to you paper-based. Oh, fantastic, that\u2019s kind of not what we\u2019re looking for here, so a work in progress. You\u2019re right, it\u2019s a very valuable tool.<\/p>\n

MANDEEP SINGH GILL About 10 years ago we did a bit of a pilot project at care when I was at Deepham. As well as the pictures we started attaching the construction completion forms and that general IT inspection testing plans to the objects. And then what you could do then is when you go to your viewer if you\u2019ve attached it all correctly you can actually then effectively monitor the kind of completion. So I could say show me all of the assets which have had concrete drawing done\u2026the final finishing done and then it will highlight them in a different colour and then it will show you any outstanding ones as well.<\/p>\n

When you\u2019re talking about plan, manage, monitor, that\u2019s what comes into my head where not just pictures but all of those forms can then be attached to assets and they help you monitor the ongoing progress of the project. And obviously if you could tie that in with a programme somehow that would make it even more powerful because you could see if you\u2019re on track. For me with BIM, that\u2019s the kind of true definition of plan, manage and monitor.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT For us, one of the things, and this plays to the Principal Designer conversation as well. We already employ an army of quality management people, we have fire guardians, we have structural guardians, clerk of works etc. One of the conversations that we\u2019re having is if we were to employ an organisation like Multivista to generate this quality photographic evidence, what impact does that then have on the role of the inspectors? So the people that can\u2019t get to site everyday, 1) because they don\u2019t have the capacity and 2) we probably can\u2019t afford it, but if we can provide them with good quality photographic evidence, and the Principal Designer would be in here as well, to what extent does that then make them more efficient in terms of being able to deliver their service. I don\u2019t know the answer to that yet and I can see on Scott\u2019s face that he\u2019s not sure either, but it\u2019s something that we\u2019re investigating and exploring.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Anybody that knows me, I don\u2019t tend to use BIM4Housing to promote what we\u2019re doing in Active Plan consciously, but on this particular point it\u2019s something that I do nee to raise. That is that we\u2019ve been using 360 photography and tagging assets and using that back to spaces for a couple of years now, in particular from the FM perspective. One of the reasons that we\u2019re doing that is because when they send somebody to site to do an inspection, you might send somebody that understands fabric but they don\u2019t understand M&E, or they don\u2019t understand electrical. So therefore you end up with a partially expert view of the condition of an asset or what that asset is.<\/p>\n

So, what we\u2019ve been doing with Sodexo, and now recently Atkins have started using it as well, is that they take the 360 photo, that\u2019s input into Active Plan and they\u2019ve got a team of experts who tag the 360 photo with a standardised library so that we end up with proper COBie data actually written to the space.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve been working with Multivista for some time on this and also just last week we\u2019ve managed to do it with OpenSpace. The reason I\u2019m saying that is it\u2019s a combination of different technologies, but as David said the critical thing is making sure that you can actually reference it back to a space. And when people are walking around doing the live photography, the photogrammetry, it\u2019s not actually referencing back to spaces. So, you can only look at it and therefore you need to relate it to the space, and that\u2019s what we\u2019ve done.<\/p>\n

So, if anybody is interested in that I\u2019d be very happy to show you what we\u2019ve been doing. We\u2019re doing it at the moment for Tower Hamlets, we\u2019ve got 78 blocks that are being done.And Ridge the surveyors are going around and doing it and then they\u2019re taking the 360 photography and the spacial models. They\u2019re coming into Active Plan which they\u2019re then going to be tagged.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT That\u2019s us at the end of the question, has anyone got anything else that they\u2019d like to put on the table to discuss in the context of Principal Designer role. Because we do have a couple of AOB items that George wants to talk about.<\/p>\n

PAUL WOMACK In response to a question that was asked very early on in regards to the Tranche 1 buildings. The response is that the BSR is prioritising buildings that meet at least one of the criteria: over 30 metres to 49 point metres high with more than 217 residential units. Over 50 metres high, with more than 11 residential units clad with combustible aluminium composite material. And large panel systems built between 1957 and 1973 with the gas supply where it is unclear if reinforcement work has been carried out.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT Right, and that\u2019s how the tranches are being set up\u2026that\u2019s a helpful insight.<\/p>\n

GEORGE (shares screen<\/em>). I\u2019m always trying to get other software companies and people into BIM4Housing. This is a company, VU.CITY, that I\u2019ve been talking to for a couple of years now and a lot of councils and developers actually use it, it\u2019s part owned by Savilles and also Ramboll. And what they\u2019ve got is computer models of all of the city centres of all of these cities. I\u2019ll put this report into the chat for you to look at, but I think it\u2019s really quite exciting because they\u2019re doing things from a planning and development point of view and it\u2019s quite probable that some of your colleagues in the development department have already got software licences for this and they maybe willing to share them with you.<\/p>\n

What it\u2019s being used to do is both planning and also they\u2019ve got things from a point of view of being able to, they\u2019ve got this new tool called SiteSolve. I bumped into them at the Leeds property conference last week and it just seemed so timely to make people aware of them. I\u2019ve got some questions for everybody to see if you could find out whether any of your colleagues are using VU.CITY or something like it, are they willing to share access? What use cases could we come up with to show value? What I\u2019m thinking is, for example, this is like a gaming engine (not quite a gaming engine), but you could actually use it see where fire brigades could locate their engines and things.And then how could we integrate it with our other systems? So, if you\u2019re interested maybe put your name in the chat and we can send you some information. Is everybody aware of this tool?<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT No, I\u2019ve not seen it, George.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Ok, I\u2019m quite excited by it, I think it looks really cool.<\/p>\n

RICHARD George, this could be quite a nice subject, I\u2019m not quite sure how we\u2019d set it out. Do you remember how we\u2019ve done in the past the one-to-one meetings?<\/p>\n

GEORGE Yeah, that\u2019s a good idea.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Pulled together a lot of stuff in quite some detail through short one-to-one meetings with a lot of players. Would that be worth thinking about?<\/p>\n

GEORGE Yeah, I think that\u2019s an interesting one because one of the things I think we\u2019ve all got in organisations is silos of different people, in planning, compliance, asset management, fire safety. And drawing together people around something like this could be useful.<\/p>\n

RICHARD I did a lot of those and in some of the meetings we\u2019d have 6 or 7 people from one company or organisation and they were sharing stuff that other people in the meeting didn\u2019t even know that they knew.<\/p>\n

GEORGE That\u2019s exactly what I\u2019m thinking. I\u2019ve got two more things. The other thing is that next week at Digital Construction Week we\u2019ve got the roundtable sessions again. And one of the things that we\u2019ve been focusing on that a lot of people have been contributing to are the four barriers to the golden thread, things that break the golden thread. So, if you could make it to Excel and you\u2019re interested, then you\u2019d be more than welcome. And then we\u2019re publishing these documents. This is the result that we\u2019ve distilled from the many workshops that we\u2019ve held over this last year and we\u2019re feeding these back in to the Department.<\/p>\n

I was just going to finish off by saying that on documents, health & safety files and O&Ms, for building safety case reports being able to find the right information is a nightmare, sorting through O&Ms and health & safety files because everybody has got everything organised differently. Over the this last 9 months we\u2019ve been working with the HSE who are also trying to get to some standardised ways of holding health & safety files. So what we\u2019ve been doing is sharing some ideas that we\u2019ve been developing with them and they\u2019ve now come back to us, and they\u2019ve been feeding back their ideas, and we\u2019re now coming to, potentially, a standardised way of holding documents in health & safety files and O&Ms.<\/p>\n

In a way that is useful from an operations point of view, rather than just as it happened what the work packages were organised. Paul Oakley, could you just show us what we\u2019ve been going through with the HSE?<\/p>\n

PAUL OAKLEY (shares screen<\/em>). As George mentioned, the scope of this has changed. Initially it was looking at a folder structure of the use within Active Plan because we have a document repository as part of the solution. And then as we started then looking at the contents of different things what we realised is we were coming up with really a full schedule of content that should be included. Because there\u2019s lots of different ways of holding the information, whether it\u2019s held within databases, things like all the contacts would be delivered directly through COBie into a database, as opposed to being in a Word document or a PDF as part of the health & safety file. So, we\u2019ve generally got 8 main areas, we\u2019re also down to work packages.<\/p>\n

General information about the health & safety file, the basic preparation descriptions etc. Residual hazards and future risks, health & safety statutory reports, demolitions, future works which covers things like plant replacement, statutory documents covering things like cleaning and maintenance requirements. Fire as a specific element, the consultants involved, so that would be your architectural structure, really depending on what you\u2019ve got within the project. And then you get down to the specific work packages. The trouble with the work packages, that is dependent upon generally how the main contractors have procured things. And that then goes down into a further level of breakdown on those.<\/p>\n

Now, on work packages sometimes an O&M document provided by a particular work package contractor will just be one PDF and everything will be based in there. Other ones, it will be a whole array of documents which make that up. So, the next tab goes down in more detail as we start to get down into the full scheduling content that go into those sorts of things. So, particular work packages, you\u2019ll have an introduction, company details, scope of works, down to the description for the particular work packages, things like COSHH. And then systems, again it depends on how particular work packages are procured. You could have one work package for the whole M&E supply, or it could be broken down to a particular work package just for the low voltage electrical.<\/p>\n

So again, there could be single systems, it could be multiple systems, but actually understanding the different systems of supply, the integrations within those and circuits within those is also a key part of the requirements on those. So again, we have breakdown per system and those systems can be expanded as and when you need it. Products requirements and how we deal with those so that their breakdown into things.<\/p>\n

The HSE have recognised that the 8 main categories that we have are similar to the HSE requirements, but what they\u2019ve come back with is it would be really great to start testing this on some reel projects and seeing where it fits into that. So I think that\u2019s some of the discussions that George was trying to push.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT Is it possible to circulate some stuff, George, that people on the call can respond to?<\/p>\n

GEORGE Yes, definitely. We\u2019re trying to make this open and free to everybody.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT That\u2019s a really interesting context.<\/p>\n

SCOTT SANDERSON Just a request for the specific timings of the roundtables next week.<\/p>\n

GEORGE 4 o\u2019clock, it\u2019s for 45 minutes, on the Wednesday.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT Thank you for your contributions. Some of you may have noticed at the beginning that there was a note that came up, and I probably should have said something, that this has been recorded. There will be some notes that are put together and circulated, so all of the useful things that we\u2019ve been talking about will be captured forever.<\/p>\n

MANDEEP SINGH GILL I\u2019ve just shared that Tranche 1 with you in a separate chat, so maybe circulate that as well.<\/p>\n

DAVID POAT It's been a very well attended session today actually which is which is great and it's been great to have multiple people contributing, so watch this space, there will be future conversations.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

BIM4Housing: Development Working Group Meeting 30-05-2024 MANDEEP SINGH GILL Is everybody familiar with the category of Tranche 1 buildings released by the Regulator? What it is, the Building Safety Regulator, all the 12,000 0r so existing buildings, they\u2019ll be assessing them in five tranches, and what happens is in Tranche 1, they\u2019ve done it from…<\/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-220","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nBIM4Housing: Development Working Group Meeting 30-05-2024 - BIM4Housing Development<\/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\/development\/bim4housing-development-working-group-meeting-30-05-2024\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"BIM4Housing: Development Working Group Meeting 30-05-2024 - BIM4Housing Development\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"BIM4Housing: Development Working Group Meeting 30-05-2024 MANDEEP SINGH GILL Is everybody familiar with the category of Tranche 1 buildings released by the Regulator? What it is, the Building Safety Regulator, all the 12,000 0r so existing buildings, they\u2019ll be assessing them in five tranches, and what happens is in Tranche 1, they\u2019ve done it from…Read More+\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/bim4housing-development-working-group-meeting-30-05-2024\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"BIM4Housing Development\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-06-03T15:12:41+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=\"42 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/development\\\/bim4housing-development-working-group-meeting-30-05-2024\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/development\\\/bim4housing-development-working-group-meeting-30-05-2024\\\/\",\"name\":\"BIM4Housing: Development Working Group Meeting 30-05-2024 - BIM4Housing Development\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/development\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2024-06-03T15:12:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-06-03T15:12:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/development\\\/bim4housing-development-working-group-meeting-30-05-2024\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/development\\\/bim4housing-development-working-group-meeting-30-05-2024\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/development\\\/bim4housing-development-working-group-meeting-30-05-2024\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/development\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"BIM4Housing: Development Working Group Meeting 30-05-2024\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/development\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/development\\\/\",\"name\":\"BIM4Housing Development\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/development\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"BIM4Housing: Development Working Group Meeting 30-05-2024 - BIM4Housing Development","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\/development\/bim4housing-development-working-group-meeting-30-05-2024\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"BIM4Housing: Development Working Group Meeting 30-05-2024 - BIM4Housing Development","og_description":"BIM4Housing: Development Working Group Meeting 30-05-2024 MANDEEP SINGH GILL Is everybody familiar with the category of Tranche 1 buildings released by the Regulator? What it is, the Building Safety Regulator, all the 12,000 0r so existing buildings, they\u2019ll be assessing them in five tranches, and what happens is in Tranche 1, they\u2019ve done it from…Read More+","og_url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/bim4housing-development-working-group-meeting-30-05-2024\/","og_site_name":"BIM4Housing Development","article_modified_time":"2024-06-03T15:12:41+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"42 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/bim4housing-development-working-group-meeting-30-05-2024\/","url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/bim4housing-development-working-group-meeting-30-05-2024\/","name":"BIM4Housing: Development Working Group Meeting 30-05-2024 - BIM4Housing Development","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/#website"},"datePublished":"2024-06-03T15:12:15+00:00","dateModified":"2024-06-03T15:12:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/bim4housing-development-working-group-meeting-30-05-2024\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/bim4housing-development-working-group-meeting-30-05-2024\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/bim4housing-development-working-group-meeting-30-05-2024\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"BIM4Housing: Development Working Group Meeting 30-05-2024"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/#website","url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/","name":"BIM4Housing Development","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/220","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=220"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/220\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":221,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/220\/revisions\/221"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/development\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}