In a post-Grenfell world, we need to put people first and mandatory competence for builders is an obvious step. Glyn Thomas casts his eye at this and the other elephants in the room
Speak to anyone who is heavily involved in the Building Control profession at a senior level and you get what is commonly known as the Vietnam stare. A distant look that shows confusion, desperation and in some case despair. Aside from the lack of competent staff, the glacial pace of the BSR, changing legislation and the threat of a National BC body, the regular reheating of the debate about housing numbers is hiding a general malaise in the country for any construction work caused by rising taxes, job instability and house price variations.
Each month there appears to be more change and tinkering with the system and whilst intentions are good, the lack of stability is debilitating. A lot of talk, a lot of changes to processes and ways of working but in the meantime, in the real world, we still have:
- Phone call. “Hello, I’ve just bought an office block with planning for flats. Can you come out and talk us through it”
- Phone call. “Hello, I need a completion certificate, but my builder has disappeared”
- Site notes. “Attended site to inspect foundations and found 2 boys not wearing PPE in trench 2m deep. Told builder to get them out and shore trench. Advised Director – to contact HSE”
Having watched Gill Kenrick speaking at a CABE conference a few months ago, perhaps we should sit back and instead approach this and the myriads of other issues from a different viewpoint. Perhaps we should consider the human factor. Processes, procedures and legislation have all gone a long way to ensuring Grenfell is not repeated but its rather like a post-Titanic world where there’s going to be sufficient lifeboats on every liner, albeit we don’t know how many, their size, shape or colour. Yes, the lifeboat shortage issues may be solved strategically but people will still drown. In small boats, by rogue waves, by falling into the sea. In a post-Grenfell world they’ll still be electrocuted and fall from heights; They’ll be injured by poor manifestation to glazing; children will continue to suffer from mould in damp rooms. And it will be the poorest of society that will have to endure this.
The human factor
At the conference, Gill eloquently and almost tearfully led us all through the last minute of a family’s life in the upper floors of Grenfell and the audience were left with the clear message that this was ultimately about people. Ordinary people.
It’s not too late for that to happen now. All it takes is for the pyramid of blame and responsibilities and accountabilities to be turned upside down and for the flat plane to be brushed clean. Then starting with the simplest of buildings just write down what is important to the person who commissions it, builds it and lives in it.
What would you include?
Let’s start with a house
It needs to be safe, well-designed, efficient, warm, value for money, attractive, warranted for defects. Any argument to that?
So, we therefore need a regulatory process that controls those (with the exception of attractiveness) and to a degree we have them in the form of Building Regulations and warranties. What can’t be controlled though is the quality of the design (liveability, which like attractiveness is a personal issue to a degree) and the build itself – particularly in between inspections.
Remember a few paragraphs up… we were talking about people?
Well, if you ask the consumer what they would like to have controlled it would be the build quality. Why? Because that determines the adequacy of the rest and even the eventual resale value. Warranties are good for washing machines but let’s face it buy a Bosch and the add-on warranty is not as important as the one for the Acme Washumatic from China. It’s about the quality of the build. Bosch, Airbus – big tick. Your house… well, it’s the luck of the draw.
Why? Well because there is no quality standard, no competence check, no examination results or trade body stamp that truly guarantees your builder has not just bought a van and started his / her company yesterday, assuming there is one. That builder won’t have a warranty at least from a reputable company as they don’t want the risk. The builder will build anyway.
If the work is shoddy, the client is let down. They have no comeback. The world is full of stories of rogue builders and no builders – the ones that vanish post-deposit. Are they controlled? No, not really. They change company name, go abroad, pitch up in a different town with new livery on the van.
Now let’s scale it up
You want to refurbish your office or pub. Or build a four-storey block of flats. You’ll employ an architect, engineer, a fire safety engineer. All will be led by a Principal Designer. The design will comply. The Principal Contractor will be vetted but ultimately the quality of their work and their subcontractors will not be guaranteed. Yes, you can have a contract. Yes, you can try and enforce it, but ultimately the contractor and sub-contractors are only as good as their last job.
But, these are professionals I hear you cry.
Yes? So what about those people caught in flats with poor cladding? What about the developers being prosecuted by the BSR and fire service?
Now, let’s get back to the consumer again…consider the couple who have a new kitchen extension with a leaking roof.
Or, the widow with a leaking roof that was supposedly repaired but wasn’t touched, or in fact wasn’t leaking in the first place – the roofers just “happened to dislodge” a tile.
The common theme for all of this is that:
- People want to be able to confidently appoint / rely on a builder who is capable of doing the work whether it’s a kitchen extension, roof repair or them living in their new house or a block of flats.
- They can’t. Building Control is only there for minimum requirements and certainly not finishes whilst BC and warranty visits are sporadic… the bad work is usually concealed.
How can this be remedied?
Simple – in theory anyway and in no particular order:
- Introduce a compulsory warranty scheme for small builders backed by insurance – let it be government-backed and tied into the registration.
- All builders to be licensed and have a registration and VAT number referenced in the Initial Notice. Let that sink in.
- Let the premiums for the insurance be linked to competence. Use the period of say 24 months in the run up to introducing this to introduce a scoring system by BC (private and public) for the builder on works carried out (major warranty companies already do this)
- Introduce a compulsory training programme for domestic builders that proves competence – we have already seen it can be done for RBIs. Yes, it will weed out those that don’t want to prove competence – so what?
- Registration for Principal Designers.
- Widen the focus of the BSR from HRBs to the whole construction industry. Let the BSR have a firm control on life safety for HRBs in particular but a more encompassing role for overseeing the quality of all work – with an emphasis on domestic. It’s not exactly wonderful out there in some of our regions that are poor – the quality at times is woeful. The HSE did a great job in improving H&S on building sites – it could do the same for the improving quality in the domestic building industry. (yes, I know the BSR has been shifted but a rethink on this particular issue would not go amiss)
- Get rid of Building Notices – they are a licence to make it up as you go along.
- No start on site until a full plans approval has been granted. This is key as a good set of plans means a builder has a head start and all BC has to do in theory is check that the work matches the design.
I’m sure there are others…. But even without a committee or parliamentary debate, this would be a good start.
The post Put people first: why mandatory competence for builders is essential appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
