Trevor Clements reflects on his long career in building control and where the profession stands in an ever-changing legislative and regulatory environment
At the risk of enhancing my reputation as an old fossil among colleagues, I start this article with the phrase “back in the day”. I am referring to when I had my first experience of the Building Control profession, joining a local authority in 1979 as a very green trainee just out of his school blazer. A very different world indeed where colleagues were a mix of ex-tradesmen and former college graduates with variations in approach to carrying out the job.
Simpler times and simpler rules to get your head around – my tape measure is showing me that the 1976 regulations measure 16mm thick compared with the 150mm-plus (on paper) of the current regs and associated documents. Luckily for me, there were some fine role models with professional ethics and sound knowledge.
The tectonic changes brought about by the 1984 Building Act heralded the shadow of private sector building control companies, later leading to local authorities upping their game so they didn’t end up with the Approved Inspectors’ leftovers.
That was no doubt one positive aspect, but I am still to be persuaded of the wisdom of a statutory regulatory function covering health and safety being able to offer commercial opportunities to the private sector.
Building Regulations
Most recently, we have undergone another major evolution following the terrible wake-up call of the Grenfell fire. The Building Safety Act 2022 and associated legislation has forced all construction professionals to demonstrate their competence and recognise statutory duties and obligations relating to the design and construction of buildings.
We now have the new and wordy part 2A in the Building Regulations to formalise that so there should be no doubt where responsibility lies when an injury or death results from a non-compliance.
I say “no doubt” but there are conflicting views on some interpretation and I have yet to speak to anyone who feels truly confident to interpret all the part 2A legislation, especially with regard to small domestic works. In the absence of that, I suppose we may need some ensuing litigation to let the courts offer a steer.
The emphasis on ensuring compliance and safety is squarely placed with the three dutyholder roles of client, principal designer and principal contractor, underlining that building control does not take primary responsibility.
The big change for building control professionals is that we now need to register with the national Building Safety Regulator and demonstrate our competence to do the job via the Building Inspector Competence Framework.
There is a code of conduct to follow, making it clear that we must restrict our involvement to work depending on the competence class for which we have been certified. Level 2 permits unsupervised work on a range of building types with Level 3 covering the more complex non-standard and higher risk projects.
Along with this has come the edict that we must not engage in giving design advice when we go about our duties. Colleagues may agree that our involvement in giving advice and assistance to the people that until recently we thought of as our clients was one of the aspects that gave us job satisfaction.
Does that put an end to the helpful building inspector turning him into a hard-nosed bureaucrat? That was certainly a view taken by some in the industry but I’d suggest that there is a middle way allowing us to continue to constructively contribute to the success and safety of the projects we get involved with. A way that doesn’t step over the line that is drawn by guidance such as the Industry Competence Committee’s Guidance Note 1.
In essence, while we should not be actively steering a design decision, there is nothing to stop us from assisting designers to source the information they need to resolve an issue and meet the requirements of the regulations.
That guide also refers to what has been a general pet hate: the words “I like” when suggesting a way that something should be constructed or designed. Our job has never been about personal preferences. The only criterion that needs consideration is does it/will it comply with the requirements? It’s only the designer who gets to exercise his preferences and take responsibility for that decision.
To give an example of the new approach: formerly we might have looked at the relevant factors for designing a foundation in a shrinkable subsoil and, using appropriate resources, suggested a minimum depth to the client or builder. No longer.
That doesn’t mean we have to stay silent while they attempt to fathom a design that we will be able to approve, though. There is nothing to stop us pointing out their need to identify relevant factors such as species, size and proximity of trees and point them in the direction of the accredited design guides on which to arrive at a sensible depth and specification.
We could also mention a possible need for anti-heave precautions and suggest that a simple soil test to determine a modified plasticity index might prove to be cost effective. That’s helpful!
Building Notices
Building Notices are particularly problematic under the changed regime and I tend to wonder why they are still allowed for anything but the most minor projects. Contractors working on domestic projects are notoriously difficult to engage with to inform about the legislative changes.
Consequently, many are oblivious to the extra design responsibility they now take on, particularly when there is not a detailed approved plan to work to.
Even for schemes with plans, the designers cannot be expected to certify as built compliance when (as is usual) they have not been appointed to supervise construction. That’s one reason why I think we should always insist on plans being submitted for most Building Notice schemes. We need a record of exactly what is being approved and built.
Hopefully Building Notice applicants (nearly said clients!) will begin to understand that their building control fees are not buying a clerk of works service or design support, and a completion certificate is not, and was never, our guarantee of a compliant building.
So a very different profession to the one that spotty schoolboy walked into 45 years ago. On the whole, I think a vastly improved one and one where the building inspector can still enjoy a fulfilling career, great job satisfaction and professional kudos equal to any in the construction industry. No regrets from this old fossil.
*Please note that this is a commercial profile.
The post 45 years in building control: A personal perspective appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
