Written evidence submitted by Butler & Young Approved Inspectors Limited [BSB 357]

Butler & Young Approved Inspectors Limited (BYAI) are a market leading independent provider of building control and a recognised authority on matters regarding the Building Regulations.

Since 1997, when Butler & Young were one of the first Approved Inspectors to be licensed by the Government, our services have been delivered on over 95,000 projects of all sizes across all sectors by fully qualified and experienced staff who embrace innovation, creative design and forward thinking.

We are committed to raising standards and increasing the level of compliance for the benefit of the construction industry and wider society.

We are licensed by the Construction Industry Council Approved Inspector Register (CICIR) to provide a full building control service.

BYAI welcome the opportunity to provide this written submission on the Draft Building Safety Bill. We understand that the pre-legislative scrutiny committee are considering the following questions.

How well does the Bill, as drafted, meet the Government’s own policy intentions?

Does the draft Bill establish an appropriate scope for the new regulatory system?

Will the Bill provide for a robust – and realistic – system of accountability for those responsible for building safety? Are the sanctions on those who do not meet their responsibilities strong enough?

Is it right that the new Building Safety Regulator be established under the Health and Safety Executive, and how should it be funded?

Butler & Young Approved Inspectors Limited comments

BYAI is supportive of the establishment of the new Building Safety Regulator. Delegating oversight to a fully independent body with the right mix of flexibility and strength of statutory powers is an important step in ensuring accountability and trust in the sector.

Questions remain over how exactly the BSR will operate – whether it will impose what would be considered a more traditional HSE-style reactive system of on-site fines and sanctions or a more proactive system in supporting the delivery of safe buildings. This is, in part, a potential issue relating to organisational culture.

Should the regulator be highly active, undertaking limited inspections and raising fines in the method the HSE has universally adopted, it may result in a large, experienced and highly qualified portion of the current building control workforce being absorbed into the client/developer organisations to introduce self-regulation regimes of compliance and HSE avoidance.  This could lead to a shortfall in experienced Building Control Surveyors for the regulators to call on.

In terms of funding, the Bill in its current form provides a large number of actions and duties for the Building Safety Regulator to carry out which would need to be effectively resourced if it is to deliver the culture changes that are desired. There is general cross-sector agreement that the cost should be borne by industry through application fees, but if there is a fall in the amount of activity with in-scope buildings, a significant gap in funding may form, along with an additional cost barrier to development.

The sheer complexity of the proposed Bill is a concern. In its current form, the proposals will act to significantly increase the level of bureaucracy in the building control sector, for example in relation to transferring oversight of in-scope buildings to local authorities. This is contrary to one of the core aims of the Hackitt Review process, which called for the widespread simplification of processes in the sector. The current proposals outline three different systems of Building Control.

In line with the recommendations of the cross-sector Future of Building Control Working Group, we fully support the adoption and maintenance of a single code of conduct applicable to all building control bodies and professionals. This would be fairly applied by the new regulator to help create a level playing field of accountability across the sector.

One of the key elements of unifying the building control profession is to ensure the

operational systems of all building control bodies are aligned. The current system is not

aligned sufficiently to ensure consistency and can be strengthened further than the draft Bill

proposes e.g. Plans Certificate (AI’s) and Full Plans Approval processes (LABC), Final Certificates (AI’s) and Completion Certificate (LABC), Occupation Certificates (only available to LABC).

The introduction of Compliance Notices and Stop Notices are welcomed. Such notices would not appear to be restricted to use on High Risk Buildings where the BSR is the Building Control Authority. Clarification is necessary on who can issue such notices. Ensuring such Notices are available to Registered Building Control Approvers will further strengthen the public safety element of the Building Control function.

In summary, BYAI support the proposed changes included within the draft Building Safety Bill. There are fundamental questions regarding processes and procedures to be dealt with as the structure of the regulatory system is developed. BYAI will continue to contribute and respond to discussions within industry to help develop and implement a new, improved and simpler regulatory regime.

September 2020