Why building control competence cannot be taken for granted

If you had asked me three years ago whether my competence as a principal designer fulfilled the requirements of Building Regulations Part 2A then I would confidently have answered yes.

However, three years on – having completed two diplomas and becoming a registered building inspector (RBI) – I can see my competence was based on perceived ability rather than measured assessment. This is why I believe such competence should not be self-certified.

Our main activities were project work, including principal design, cost consultancy and technical due diligence. What prompted me to become an RBI was the most problematic project we were ever involved with.

In 2016, we were appointed as consultants and principal designers for the fit-out of an industrial food storage warehouse, which also incorporated public access for retail.

The occupancy type and risk profile at base-build design stage was always known and should have been considered during this assessment process. Complications arose because the original risk profile had to change which meant key fire safety installations were now required but to be retrofitted. What also compounded the issue was the use of insulating core panel systems to construct cold food stores throughout the building.

We reviewed the base build design and realised very early that these issues could not be mitigated by the fit-out works; in fact, it was going to be prohibitively costly to the prospective tenants to do so. Consequently, they took legal action against the landlord – being the local authority – and developer to challenge the poor design, the incompetence, the lack of due diligence and the failure to provide a compliant base build. We were appointed the defence's technical experts.

The case was due to be heard the week following the Grenfell Tower fire. However, days after the fire the landlord and developer offered an out-of-court settlement.

After this, I began to consider whether I wanted to continue in business, and even if being a surveyor was for me. Rising business costs, the volatility of the professional indemnity insurance market and a race to the bottom on the fees charged by surveyors who were not chartered highlighted the decline in competence.

It was a difficult decision, but I chose to leave the business and took a post with Warwickshire Police as estates building surveyor. I didn't regain my appetite to stay in the profession, so I decided that I needed a break to give me time to reassess my direction.

I began letting my business network know; but in a casual conversation with the building control provider I was working with, he suggested that becoming a regulator may better align with how I felt about the construction industry.

It was also a time when vast numbers of inspectors were leaving the building control profession; ironically, because of their exasperation at the thought of themselves being regulated.

While I believe regulation is necessary, it did feel that there was a lack of understanding on the part of the panel reviewing building control and fire safety, as part of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, of the impact such regulation would have on an ageing profession.

So when Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council offered me the chance to train as a senior building control inspector in 2022, I took this up. The offer included training, although a significant amount of personal study was required as well; but I could see the benefit of this, as it would mean I would be one of few that could call themselves an all-round Building Regulations principal designer and RBI.

More importantly, I could earn and learn. I attended 14 months of weekly webinars delivered by LABC Training Academy, and achieved a distinction in the subsequent Chartered Institute of Building level 5 diploma in building control surveying and level 6 in fire safety in complex buildings.

In the past two years I have thus accrued thousands of hours of CPD, sat exams, and submitted six assignments totalling more than 20,000 words, all to become an RBI.

The act specifically introduced the role of principal designer under the Building Regulations. No one can assume this role without significant training, just as they cannot automatically become a principal designer under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM).

The industry adapted after the CDM Regulations were introduced, recognising the value of appointing an organisation or individual with the competence to plan, manage and monitor compliance with the regulations to support the dutyholder role.

Principal designers under the Building Regulations can also adapt, instructing consultants in an advisory role to ensure a design is compliant before review, whether by the local authority's building control team or a registered building control approver.

Inspectors who have left the profession could even be invited back to fulfil such a role, providing they can complete the necessary competency matrix to demonstrate skill, knowledge, education and behaviours as per BS 8670-1: 2024 and the accompanying PAS documents.

This is far from being a simple solution to the issue, though, and the industry-wide change we are undertaking is complex and fluid. Industry representatives, including RICS and Dame Judith Hackitt, recently gave evidence to the House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee remarking that, although industry had been slow to change, it is finally now accepting the necessity of doing so.

This is why it is so important for designers to engage now with Building Regulations advisers reviewing the compliance of their designs as part of the procurement route, before submission to the relevant building control provider or authority, which may be the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) if the building is an HRB.

Dutyholders – whether organisations and or persons – need to ensure they are familiar with BS 8670-1: 2024 – TC Competence frameworks for building safety – Core criteria. Code of practice, PAS 8671 – Framework for Competence of Individual Principal Designers, and PAS 8672 – Framework for Competence of Individual Principal Contractors.

With changes continuing, the government is providing regular updates on progress. Dame Judith recently told the Lords Industry and Regulators Committee that the industry should adapt and embrace the change, although she acknowledged that improvements are already happening.

Rather than protest so publicly about the impact of the new regulatory regime, we should instead all channel our energies into responding to calls for evidence from the Building Control Independent Panel review, alongside the review of how the BSR has performed since its inception, due to report to Parliament this autumn.