LGA Governance


Agenda item

Agenda item

Transition to the new building safety regime: what does it mean for FRAs - Peter Baker, Director - Building Safety and Construction, Health & Safety Executive

Minutes:

The Chair invited Peter Baker, Director - Building Safety and Construction at the Health & Safety Executive, to give his presentation.

 

Peter thanked the Commission for inviting him to outline the HSE’s role in the transition to the new building safety regime and what the future role of Fire & Rescue Services and their governing bodies would be.

 

Peter explained that the detail of the new system would be contained within a new Building Safety Bill which would be laid before Parliament in draft form before the summer recess with the aim of receiving Royal Assent by the middle of 2021.

 

Peter explained that the new Building Safety Regulator would have 3 specific roles:

       Implementing the new regulatory regime for high-risk buildings

       Oversight of the safety and performance of all buildings, including advising Ministers of potential risks

       Promoting competence across industry and within building control

 

Peter said that the new system would clearly define ‘duty holders’ who would have to demonstrate to the new national regulator how they intended to manage risks throughout the whole life cycle of their building, and this process would need to be carried out every 5 years. There would be 3 ‘gateways’ for high-risk residential buildings – Planning; Pre-construction; and Building Completion – which would all need to be signed off before the building could be occupied.

 

Peter then spoke about a model of how the new system could operate in relation to the existing regulatory system but emphasised that this was only one option and there was an opportunity for stakeholders to influence it.

 

Peter finished by saying that the Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick, had decided that the new regulator would be established within the Health and Safety Executive and that ahead of the new legislation, would initially be in shadow form. Dame Judith Hackitt would be chairing a board to oversee the transition to this new regime.

 

The Chair thanked Peter for his presentation and invited members of the Commission to comment and ask questions:

·       Concern was expressed about being able to control risk after a high-rise building had been occupied, in particular tracking responsibility if the building changed ownership. Peter said that this was a real concern as ownership of buildings was not clear cut in a lot of cases. However, he reassured members that there would be a statutory duty placed on building owners to notify the regulator of the identity of the duty holder and the consequences would be serious if this wasn’t done. Owners and duty holders would therefore, be obliged to have a system in place to manage risk and to ensure that residents were properly protected.

·       An example was given of a new student accommodation block that had been granted planning permission without the need to install sprinklers. Would the new regulator be able to mandate sprinkler installation? Peter said that he couldn’t comment on this specific case but in the future, developers would need to have a very strong evidence base against installing sprinklers if the regulator were to allow them to move to the next gateway. He also reassured members that the Fire Safety Order was in the process of being strengthened and this would include provisions around fire suppression systems.

·       Concern was expressed that developers were currently able to employ their own contractors in relation to fire safety advice. This was contrasted with the FRS which would give independent advice on planning applications. Peter said that developers would still be able to buy in their own advice under the new system but that they would now be accountable to the new regulator who could prevent them moving to the next gateway if there were safety concerns. FRS’s would provide expert advice to the regulator and would also become statutory consultees on planning applications for high rise buildings under the new regime. Peter added that a register of competent contractors would be established so that duty holders could be confident that they were getting sound advice.

·       It was suggested that the Fire Precautions Act 1971, which introduced deregulation of the building safety system, had caused a lot of the issues that led to fires such as Grenfell. Would the new regulatory system introduce a more prescriptive regime? Peter said that the Hackitt Review had concluded that part of the reason for the current problems was down to an over-reliance on prescription. He said that specific risks needed to be managed tightly but also there needed to be room to enable professionals to take a step back and look at the bigger picture outcomes – in other words, is the building overall safe.

·       Further clarification on the relationship between the new regulator and FRS’s was sought. Peter said that the role of the FRS under the new system would be to provide expert advice to enable the regulator to address any failures of duty holders to adequately manage risks. He added that he was talking with the NFCC about how FRS’s could take a more active role during the construction process of buildings.

Peter thanked members for their input and offered to come back to a future meeting once the Building Safety Bill had been published.

 

The Chair thanked Peter for his presentation.