What architects need to know about the latest Grenfell Tower Inquiry response

The Government’s response last week to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 recommendations includes a number of matters that designers and contractors need to be aware of. The inquiry recommendations were based on much supporting evidence, and every one of them would not have been made if it was felt that the proposed change was not required to improve the overall safety of residents in their homes.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the Government accepted the majority of the recommendations in full and is committed to implementing responses to the other recommendations. Some of the recommendations will need careful consideration as to how they are implemented and what the most effective and efficient way is to undertake that implementation, including the ongoing management and operation of the proposed change.

An example of the need for careful consideration and development is the recommendation for a single construction industry regulator. While the Government is committed to this proposal, it understandably requires time to assess, plan and implement. The inquiry’s recommendation and the Government’s response suggest that the new regulator will oversee key responsibilities, including building regulations, building control oversight and the licensing of principal contractors for Higher Risk Buildings.

Will the Building Safety Regulator (BSR), therefore, take on wider duties to act as this new regulator, or will a new overarching regulator be formed, with operational responsibilities for some requirements sitting with other public bodies such as the BSR? We are unlikely to know until the Government’s plan for the new regulator is published for consultation later this year.

The twentieth recommendation in the Phase 2 inquiry report proposed that a senior manager in the organisation undertaking the Building Regulations Principal Designer role provide a statement with the Gateway 2 application on Higher Risk Buildings (HRB) projects, stating that the design, if built, will be ‘as safe as required by the Building Regulations’. The Government has accepted this recommendation, but the published response appears to suggest that the recommendation will not be implemented exactly as the inquiry proposed.

>> Also read: The government’s response to the Grenfell Inquiry: Key proposals at a glance

>> Also read: Super-regulator to be introduced from 2028 as government sets out Grenfell response

The response states that it will be a statutory requirement for the Principal Designer to submit a statement with the building control approval application, confirming compliance with their existing duties. I understand this proposed statement to be the same or very similar to the one currently required from the Principal Designer at Gateway 3, with the Government now proposing that it also be provided at Gateway 2. Additionally, the Government is considering whether this duties statement should accompany all non-HRB building control approval applications as well.

During the development of the Building Safety Act legislation and related changes to the Building Regulations, the Government proposed that the Building Regulations Principal Designer sign a declaration at Gateway 3 of an HRB project to say that the building complied with the Building Regulations. This proposal was changed following consultation with the industry and indemnity insurers to be a statement confirming that the Principal Designer had complied with their duties under the legislation.

My assumption is that the Government’s response to recommendation 20 is related to the previous change and that it expects those providing the Principal Designer service would not be willing to sign a statement saying the building is as safe as required by the Building Regulations. Furthermore, it is unlikely that insurers would support the completion of such a statement.

The anticipated changes will not occur immediately, with the policy development and industry consultation occurring this year as required, followed by a phased implementation between 2026 and 2028. The changes are needed and are, of course, absolutely justifiable, but given that the industry – particularly the housing sector – is suffering from new regulation fatigue, anything that the Government can do to streamline the introduction of the changes will be very much welcomed by the industry.