黑洞社区

Within 20 minutes of Dame Judith Hackitt鈥檚 156-page report into building regulations and fire safety being released, Tottenham MP David Lammy 鈥� a personal friend of Grenfell Tower victim Khadija Saye 鈥� had already branded it a betrayal and a whitewash. Shortly after, survivors group Grenfell United professed itself to be 鈥渟addened and disappointed鈥�. 

Hackitt can hardly be surprised at the response. Because, while the report contains many widely supported recommendations for improving the system, it is at heart guided by a profoundly controversial conclusion: that the tragic blaze was a result of building regulations being too prescriptive, not too lax. 

Hackitt has come to her conclusion given years of experience in the chemicals and oil and gas industries, which she says have successfully followed a model where it is the organisations that create risk, rather than the government, that set the rules. Hence she recommends handing control of creating building regulation guidance to the construction industry, an industry she herself admitted in January has a 鈥渕indset of doing things as cheaply as possible and passing on responsibility for problems and shortcomings to others鈥�.

But for those arguing for more prescription, this simply adds insult to injury. And it is not only social housing residents who are worried. Many in the construction industry itself are voicing doubts as to whether it is capable of stepping up to the plate, and what kind of outcome it will create. Meanwhile there are huge concerns over what on earth the owners of unsafe tower blocks should do now to make blocks safer.

Responsibility

Launching her report last week, Dame Judith made clear her recommended approach was one that had worked in other sectors. Her vision is that less prescriptive building regulations would sit within a beefed-up regulatory process for high-rise housing, new systems for ensuring individual professional competence, and much tougher sanctions 鈥� including imprisonment 鈥� for those that flout the rules. All of which, in her view, will force the industry to take proper responsibility for fire safety as an issue, rather than attempt to push the guidance as far as it will go. Hackitt says: 鈥淣o longer can the building industry look to others to tell them what is and is not acceptable. Those undertaking building work must recognise their fundamental responsibility to provide a safe building, not just comply with rules.鈥�

She adds: 鈥淚t鈥檚 regrettable that perpetual governments have fallen in to this trap of continuing to provide more and more prescription rather than facing up to a forcing the industry to take responsibility.鈥�

Andrew Lancaster, construction partner in law firm Anthony Collins, says: 鈥淭he idea behind it is admirable. Her point is that construction is so complex it鈥檚 not possible to regulate with a rules-based system for every eventuality. In principle the idea of moving to outcomes-based regulation is very good.鈥�

However, whether it is practically achievable is another question. Hackitt said at the report launch: 鈥淚 know that delivering such a culture change will be challenging, but I also know that it can be done.鈥� But others doubt it.

Lancaster says: 鈥淚n theory she鈥檚 right but in practice she could be wrong. This is going to be really difficult for the sector.鈥� 

No changes to guidance

This is because, consistent with her conclusion, her report included no specific recommendations for changes to building regulations or building regulations guidance, which meant ignoring the issues seen by many to be at the heart of the failure at Grenfell: what standards should cladding and insulation panels be held to? How many means of escape should a tower block have? When must it have sprinklers? Should these be retrofitted?

Amid the controversy over the report, communities secretary James Brokenshire did quickly announce the department was considering banning combustible cladding, seen by campaigners as Hackitt鈥檚 most egregious omission. But this concession to public concern didn鈥檛 change the overall direction of travel indicated. 

The most immediate problem posed by the report is faced by those landlords who own tower blocks with similar cladding systems to Grenfell, and who had been hoping for clarity on what to do next to best reassure their tenants. Lord Porter, chairman of the Local Government Association, immediately branded the report a disappointment, and said only a ban on combustible cladding panels 鈥渨ould provide the clarity for building owners who need to know what they can use to replace dangerous cladding and insulation and immediately help keep buildings safer鈥�.

As of last month just seven of the 158 social housing tower blocks identified as having unsafe cladding systems had completed improvement work, with landlords citing both funding and lack of a clear regulatory steer as an issue. The chief executive of one social landlord responsible for more than 20,000 homes said of the report: 鈥淭his has simply handed the problem back to us to sort out. There鈥檚 no clear guidance, and it鈥檚 not clear what we should replace unsafe cladding with.鈥� 

Hackitt鈥檚 report also gave no indication as to how long the transition to the new system will take. Adrian Dobson, executive director for members at the RIBA, says: 鈥淭he industry doesn鈥檛 know what to do, and people living in the buildings don鈥檛 feel safe. You鈥檝e got to provide more clarity but this is yet more mush.鈥�

Missed opportunity

It is not only the length of time it will take to implement Hackitt鈥檚 recommendations that is concerning people, but also the direction of travel itself. One industry expert said it 鈥渂eggared belief鈥� that the response to such a horrific tragedy could end up being the relaxing of rules. 

RIBA鈥檚 Dobson says: 鈥淚t feels like she鈥檚 lost common sense, with conclusions wrapped up in the kind of pseudo-science that are part of what got us into this problem.鈥� Ben Jayes, managing director of materials reseller Vivalda Group, says he feels 鈥渓et down鈥� by a review he had hoped would ban combustible material on tall buildings. 鈥淭his all feels too weak to effect the major culture change that鈥檚 needed in the construction industry,鈥� he says.

Not content with a general move away from prescription, Hackitt also concluded her new system should only apply to buildings of 10 storeys or higher 鈥� equivalent to around 30m 鈥� which is much higher than the 6-storey (18m) height at which many existing provisions designed to protect tall buildings kick in today. Former RIBA president Jane Duncan says the decision to focus on just a small number of the tallest buildings was 鈥渁 major missed opportunity鈥�, while others called for the inclusion of lower and non-residential buildings.

There doesn鈥檛 appear to be any great clamour from industry for this relaxation in government guidance either. Steve Cooper, a director at fire engineering firm Tenos, says that as an experienced fire engineer he could himself very happily work without guidance, but that he is worried whether the industry as a whole could effectively manage that complexity, particularly given it is already facing a shortage of experienced fire engineers. 鈥淚t鈥檇 be an engineers鈥� charter,鈥� he says. 鈥淵ou鈥檇 need a fire engineer for every building 鈥� there wouldn鈥檛 be enough to do the work. As you take away prescription, you increase the need for more skills.鈥�

RIBA鈥檚 Dobson says: 鈥淵ou can see how Hackitt鈥檚 approach could work on high-end projects like the new Bloomberg building with star-architects. But a lot that will fall under this will be mid-range projects, often done on a commercial basis by ordinary architects and engineers doing their best job on a budget. We think they need some baseline prescription.鈥�

Simple guidance, of course, is as helpful to those in building control that sign off plans as to buildings鈥� designers. Hence, in a world with less prescriptive guidance, the skills question is as relevant 鈥� if not more so 鈥� for building control officers. 鈥淚f this requires industry to issue its own guidance itself, it鈥檚 going to require an experienced regulator to hold industry to account. If that鈥檚 not there, the system will be weaker than today,鈥� says Anthony Collins鈥� Lancaster.

Risk dumping

Hackitt says current 黑洞社区 Regulations guidance is confusing for the industry, written in silos and containing contradictory statements that make implementation impossible. Few would disagree. But it isn鈥檛 clear how letting industry write guidance would necessarily improve this. Tenos鈥� Cooper says: 鈥淭he industry is massive, with a huge range of bodies each with their own agenda. You鈥檇 end up with a 500-page document trying to be everything to every person, and that鈥檚 not necessarily the best guidance. It鈥檒l be guidance that suits the agenda of the people willing to spend time to get involved.鈥�

The RIBA鈥檚 Dobson adds: 鈥淗ackitt makes the analogy with the chemical industry and the car industry 鈥� but there you have sectors dominated by a relatively contained number of key players with defined supply chains.

鈥淭he construction industry is totally different, with a structure based on risk dumping on to the smallest contractors,鈥� he says, adding that taking on responsibility for its own guidance appeared to presume a big culture change that had not yet happened.

But Hackitt rejects any suggestion an unreformed construction industry might undermine her system, saying any new guidance will have to be 鈥渁pproved and signed off by the regulator鈥� and that the industry 鈥渨ill have to earn that trust鈥�.

With the government looking increasingly likely to ban combustible cladding despite Hackitt鈥檚 conclusions, landlords and residents may get some clarity in the medium term. Brokenshire鈥檚 guarded welcome for Hackitt鈥檚 report, in which he promised more detail on how it will be taken forward in the autumn, suggested he is still to decide whether to take the leap of faith required to adopt Hackitt鈥檚 proposals in full.