黑洞社区

The construction industry is undergoing a period of transformation, facing new regulatory challenges brought forth by the 黑洞社区 Safety Act. This sweeping legislation underscores the need for greater transparency, accountability and, most crucially, collaboration.

Ensuring readiness for gateway 2, a critical checkpoint in the regulatory process, has placed new demands on firms requiring them to adapt and streamline their processes. It has become increasingly clear that meeting these expectations cannot be achieved in isolation; it necessitates a collective effort from all stakeholders.

In response, industry leaders from right across the sector are seizing the oppoortunity to embrace innovative solutions that foster collaboration, enhance compliance and improve efficiency.

This was the backdrop for a recent roundtable held last month in partnership with Procore to explore the topic of adapting to the 黑洞社区 Safety Act: compliance, challenges and technology solutions.

Held in central London, the session kicked off with a presentation from Paul Nash, director of Paul Nash Consultancy, who also chaired the working group on procurement as part of the Independent Review of 黑洞社区 Regulations and Fire Safety and is still part of the the Industry Safety Steering Group, and Brett King, director for industry transformation in EMEA at Procore.

A standout theme in the presentation was what was holding up applications at gateway 2 of the planning process, which was introduced under the 黑洞社区 Safety Act (BSA), and the work that has already been done by stakeholders in the sector to tackle these challenges.

鈥淸The regulators] don鈥檛 currently have sufficient capacity 鈥� I think we are all aware of that 鈥� and are looking to recruit, but I believe they are also looking at their delivery model and outsourcing more of the process,鈥� said former CIOB president Nash.

鈥淭here are also poor-quality submissions being put into the system that are clogging up the system, and there is also a lack of proportionality in the way the regulations are written, which means the industry needs to make gateway 2 submissions for things like replacing fire doors on higher-risk buildings (HRB). They completely underestimated the number of small submissions, so that is also taking up the capacity.鈥�

On top of this, King added that the platform for submitting gateway 2 applications to the 黑洞社区 Safety Regulator is not up to par.

鈥淭he technological system, which is similar to the system for making tax returns, is part of the problem; it currently takes hours to upload a submission. From a Procore perspective we obviously want to help firms get submissions in a submittable standard, but there is also some work to be done on the regulator side,鈥� he said.

鈥淭he current system is not fit for purpose.鈥� 

A need for greater clarity

During the wider discussion, this point around the lack of clarity about what is required from both application and competency perspectives emerged as a key concern.

Justin Van Walwyk, pre-contract director at Briggs & Forrester, said: 鈥淭here is a lack of knowledge around what is needed for gateway 2 submissions, and there is a lot of scaremongering out there in the sector around what you do need to be doing.鈥�

Nash agreed on this point, saying, 鈥淧art of the issue is: when we started out there was a mindset at the regulator that 鈥榶ou are the industry; you should know what good looks like鈥�. I鈥檝e argued against that.

鈥淭he competence declaration from the client is an example of this. Some people are submitting one page; some people are submitting 300 CVs. Surely a simple win would be to turn around and show what good looks like. We need better guidance.鈥� 

There was also a consenus that the lack of clarity also extends to what buildings are required to be submitted at gateway 2.

Dan Bryant, pre-construction director at HG Construction, raised the question around apart-hotels that are more than 18m tall and whether they fall into the HRB category.

He said: 鈥淚t鈥檚 unclear 鈥� one person鈥檚 opinion around long-term tenure is different to another鈥檚. Sometimes advisers say you don鈥檛 need to do a certain part of the process and then it emerges much later you did, which puts you even further behind.鈥�

Mark Elliott, contracts director at McAleer & Rushe, agreed on this point, saying simply: 鈥淲e need to build these things 鈥� surely there should be clear guidance of whether a project falls under a certain definition and examples of what鈥檚 needed available that we can look at.鈥�   

These examples showed how much companies working in the sector were crying out for solutions, with one that was raised in the discussion as already being in place being Procore鈥檚 approach to helping with gateway 2 applications. 

King raised the point that, by enabling and supporting structured data collection to ensure records are secure, accessible and up to date, the platform provides a route to goldent thread compliance, while the tools the software company provides integrate compliance workflows into existing project management processes, meaning that it is easier to gather the information required to successfully pass gateway 2.

Is system reform the answer?

A key theme that emerged from the discussion was the growing frustration with regulatory ambiguity and delays, with those gathered emphasising the need for a louder, unified voice to drive change. The prevailing feeling was that without sufficient pressure, meaningful reforms may remain elusive.

Lack of clarity, such as on impacts on substructures, is impacting deliverability, Bryant said. 鈥淧eople used to only want to fund after planning; now no one wants to fund gateway 2. You have millions to pay in design fees, and no one has the money. They need to listen 鈥� otherwise, firms will go bust.鈥�

The financial burden of design fees 鈥� often amounting to millions 鈥� is becoming unsustainable for firms. Without clearer assurances from regulators, businesses risk insolvency 鈥� while participants such as Van Walwyk said other firms would withdraw from the HRB market without change.

鈥淐ompetence isn鈥檛 just someone that has gone and done a training scheme to tick a box; it鈥檚 the people who have the knowledge and skills to make sure a building is delivered safely.鈥�

Scott Manton, Kao Data

The discussion also highlighted concerns about insufficient communication from the regulator. Many firms rely on indirect feedback from clients to understand what has passed or failed in similar projects, creating a patchwork approach to compliance rather than a structured, transparent system. While there are conversations happening with regulatory bodies, there remains doubt about whether industry concerns are truly being addressed.

A potential catalyst for change may come from the government鈥檚 ambitious housing targets. The commitment to building 1.5 million homes underscores the need to address bottlenecks in the regulatory process, with gateway 2 currently acting as a major constraint on capacity.

Alternative models from other regions were also examined. The warranty system in Scotland and the BCAR (黑洞社区 Control Amendment Regulations) framework in the Republic of Ireland provide more flexibility, allowing some work 鈥� such as substructures 鈥� to commence before achieving the full level of detail required at gateway 2. This approach alleviates financial strain and ensures projects can progress without undue delays.

Ultimately, the discussion underscored the urgency of refining the current system. The ability to obtain regulatory approvals within a predictable timeframe is crucial. If the existing framework cannot deliver clear and timely responses, significant reforms must be considered to ensure the viability of the industry and the successful delivery of much-needed housing and infrastructure.

Managing competency challenges

The importance of ensuring, recording and managing competencies was another topic that emerged as central to BSA compliance, with many saying that competence cannot be defined simply as what is regulatorily required.

While everyone of course agreed on the importance of having the correct competencies on project teams as identified under the BSA, there was a discussion around the deeper challenges.

鈥淲e could open up access to the regulator so they can engage directly with the contractors around things such as notifiable changes.鈥�

Thomas Richardson, Procore

Scott Manton, HSE director at Kao Data, said: 鈥淐ompetence isn鈥檛 just someone that has gone and done a training scheme to tick a box; it鈥檚 the people who have the knowledge and the skills to make sure a building is delivered safely.鈥� 

It was noted by Dino Nanopoulos, head of design at VolkerFitzpatrick, that competency requirements vary from project to project, making a one-size-fits-all approach ineffective. Instead, firms must assess what specific competencies are required for each project to ensure safety and compliance.

This shift also requires a cultural change within the industry 鈥� simply meeting the minimum regulatory requirements is no longer enough. Industry mindsets and behaviors must evolve to prioritise meaningful competency development over box-ticking compliance.

Another challenge discussed was the difficulty of tracking and managing professional competencies. While personal development plans help internal staff and management teams upskill over time, monitoring the qualifications and skills of subcontractors remains a more complex issue. Given the transient nature of subcontractor work, ensuring ongoing competency across multiple projects can be particularly challenging.

On this point, Paul Woodhams, managing director for building safety and refurbishment at McLaren Construction, said: 鈥淧eople do grow and change. Someone might commit to doing the work needed to become a principal designer. That鈥檚 where personal development plans come into it, and that鈥檚 fine for the management teams or internal staff. It鈥檚 the people that are physically carrying out the work that is often the more challenging part, as they are subcontractors.鈥�

鈥淭here is a lot of scaremongering out there in the sector around what you do need to be doing.鈥�

Justin Van Walwyk, Briggs & Forrester

To address this, some firms, such as Briggs & Forrester, have centralised health and safety training records, allowing supervisors to verify the credentials of anyone entering a site.

Others, including Kao Data鈥檚 Manton, emphasised the need for a digital system to track individual competencies across projects. This would enable a worker鈥檚 experience and qualifications to follow them from job to job, ensuring continuity and accountability, while another suggestion was made to integrate such a system with existing tools like CSCS cards via the CITB, further streamlining competency tracking.

What was absolutely evident was the integral role of technology in facilitating this process, with digital solutions being seen as essential in enabling seamless competency management across different employers and projects.

The discussion highlighted that, while regulatory compliance is critical, true competency goes beyond meeting the minimum standards. To enhance safety and efficiency across the sector, firms must adopt robust tracking systems and foster an industry-wide shift towards continuous professional development and accountability.

What can be done now?

While there was a prevailing feeling that the current system needs adjustment, the conversation also explored what could be done to tackle it now. 

King reiterated that, while doubtless there are technological restrictions posed by the current regulator platform, there are things firms can do to make sure their systems are as efficient as possible. 

He said: 鈥淲hoever your software or tech partner is, they should be working with you to make sure that the process for pulling together an application is as simple as possible.鈥�

A key example provided was how Procore is co-creating the solution with the industry, not just reacting to the sector鈥檚 demands. He said the firm is partnering with regulators, industry bodies such as Build UK (see panel, How Procore is supporting BSA compliance), and clients to shape best practices, as well as having systems in place to allow for continuous feedback and new iterations.

He said the process of engaging clients and stakeholders in order to refine the approach to solutions is key to ensuring firms are well-positioned to tackle the challenges the BSA poses.

Thomas Richardson, strategic industry adviser for Europe at Procore, added that the systems being used should be able to help remove human error from the process. 

鈥淲e could open up access to the regulator so they can engage directly with the contractors around things such as notifiable changes,鈥� he said.

鈥淲e can see there is a better solution 鈥� and part of this would certainly be the regulator opening APIs to the portal, as this would help remove manual errors.鈥� 

Driving clarity, innovation and collaboration for a safer future

The discussion highlighted the urgent need for clarity, system reform and improved technological solutions to streamline compliance with the BSA.

The gathered professionals stressed the importance of collaboration between regulators and construction firms to create practical, efficient processes that ensure safety without unnecessary delays, while technology was recognised as a key enabler in improving submissions, tracking competencies and reducing human error.

Moving forward, the industry must work together to overcome barriers, push for regulatory transparency while leveraging innovation to build a safer, more efficient future.