Housing secretary lays out long-awaited transitional arrangements but gives no detail on how guidance will work
Michael Gove has said developers will have 30 months to take on board new building regulations guidance calling for second staircases on buildings higher than 18 metres, before it comes fully into force.
The housing secretary, announcing promised 鈥渢ransitional arrangements鈥 for the new rules in Parliament, said that the 30-month grace period will run from the date the government formally publishes and confirms the changes to Approved Document B in building regulations.
However, 骋辞惫别鈥檚 , issued yesterday, included no further detail on how the new guidance will be formulated, and how exactly it will ask building designers to draw up plans for new residential high rises above 18m 鈥 approximately six storeys in height.
The statement comes after widespread reports of developers putting their pipeline of schemes on hold, with London projects particularly affected given that mayor Sadiq Khan said he wanted to apply the mandate in the capital immediately to major projects.
骋辞惫别鈥檚 came as a shock to the industry after the government had consulted on plans to bring in the same scheme but at a 30m threshold.
骋辞惫别鈥檚 statement said the decision to plump for 18m reflected the views of the National Fire Chiefs Council and Royal Institute of British Architects, and would bring England into line with countries.
He said: 鈥淔rom the date when we publish and confirm those changes to Approved Document B formally, developers will have 30 months during which new building regulations applications can confirm [sic] to either the guidance as it exists today, or to the updated guidance requiring second staircases.
鈥淲hen those 30 months have elapsed, all applications will need to conform to the new guidance.鈥
He said that once the new regs had been brought in, projects approved under the old regulations would have 18 months for construction to get underway 鈥渋n earnest鈥, as defined by the 黑洞社区 (High-Risk 黑洞社区s Procedures) Regulations 2023. Projects failing to do so would have to submit new plans under the new regime.
>>See also: What the second staircase rule would mean for high-rise blocks
>>Tottenham Hotspur鈥檚 towers plan hit by second staircase delay
>> Vistry鈥檚 pipeline 鈥榮tuck鈥 due to second staircase design uncertainty, director says
>> What the second staircase rule would mean for high-rise blocks
The housing secretary said he wanted to be 鈥渁bsolutely clear鈥 that buildings designed under the existing regime were not inherently unsafe, and that he expected lenders, managing agents, insurers, and others to behave accordingly, and 鈥渘ot to impose onerous additional requirements, hurdles or criteria on single-staircase buildings in lending, pricing, management or any other respect鈥.
Gove said that he will 鈥渕ake a further announcement soon鈥 on the design details of the guidance that will go into Approved Document B. 鈥淚 realise that developers and the wider market are waiting for the design details [鈥. The 黑洞社区 Safety Regulator is working to agree these rapidly鈥.
In August the Housing Forum said the failure of the government to issue detailed transitional arrangements along with some idea of how the guidance will approach the second staircase requirement risked 鈥渟ignificantly reducing鈥 housing supply. It said one of its members had put plans for 38 blocks under review due to the proposals.
Developers including , and have all admitted to having put schemes on hold or into redesign due to the second staircase mandate, while has said it could shift to low-rise building.
An in May said up to 125,000 homes across 243 schemes could ultimately end up mothballed by the new rules.
The Housing Forum鈥檚 said that the lack of technical requirements meant designers and developers had no guidance from which to draw up alternative plans, and the lack of even a 鈥渃ore purpose鈥 for the second staircase meant it was impossible for their designers to use their own judgment to redesign schemes. 鈥淭hose designing or constructing tall buildings [鈥 are unable to make sensible evidence-based decisions on risk for themselves, because they are not clear on the core purpose of the two staircases,鈥 the letter states.
No comments yet