In early March, the Technical Competency Panel met to discuss key issues that are impacting the built environment industries. Drawing on the diverse expertise of the panel, including the outcomes from previous years, the discussion touched on several topics, such as the changing regulatory landscape, material passports, retrofit and adaptive reuse, current guidance around Gateways 2 and 3, how the industry is adapting to the changes, and guidance that could be provided to clients to assist in navigating these topics. These issues are influenced by the Building Safety Act and the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, the changes to Building Regulations and British Standards, increasing build costs, increasing project programmes, the drive for standardisation, and the need to reduce the carbon footprint of the built environment.

This conversation was also held against the backdrop of the Government accepting all 54 recommendations of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report in late February. Guided by the New London Agenda, the panel identified the top concerns which will form the focus of the group over the next year.

Unsurprisingly, there is a lot of focus across the industry around the high number of rejections and the delays in achieving sign-off at Gateway 2. The industry is equally as concerned with how Gateway 3 will run, given occupation cannot occur until a completion certificate is issued. The panel discussion was around how feedback can be shared openly within the industry, what lessons have been learnt, how to approach the applications and what good submissions look like at both Gateways. So far, feedback has only come via Freedom of Information requests or via word of mouth. With these experiences in mind, how could the process be evolved to include engagement with the BSR at key points on a submission? Could conditional approval be considered? How could we help advise on what ‘good’ looks like? And in effect, how could we assist in making the process become more efficient to enable safer homes to be built?

The retrofit of existing buildings is a key focus of building owners currently, mainly centring around historic building stock. But can better sharing of information now prepare projects that we’re currently designing and building to be more easily and efficiently adapted or retrofitted in the future? The conversation on the panel centred around what information would be required and how it could be safeguarded to enable the process to happen effectively. This calls into question where information is stored and whether it should be in a central location. There is also value in this data to building owners: does it help reduce insurance premiums? Does it make building management and maintenance more effective? If more information is retained on the materials used, will this make the reuse of those materials and therefore retrofitting a smoother exercise? Would this encourage more building owners or investors to consider adaptive reuse or retrofit if information were more readily available and accurate?

A topic that links both of the previous discussion points is the individualistic approach that the industry has to testing materials and systems and the fragmented approach behind where this information can be found and in what form the information is offered. Under the revised secondary legislation released in October 2023, the role of the duty holders is to design in compliance with the relevant requirements. Oftentimes, the information required to fulfil these requirements is deep within complex test certifications and accompanying fields of application reports. Is there a more consistent manner in which materials and systems can be tested and the conclusions reported?

Another popular topic was the view on competency within the industry and how organisations and individuals are upskilling and responding to the need to illustrate competency. Clients are having to review this both internally and externally and also produce guidance to enable consistency across portfolios that could be widespread both geographically and in complexity. Will this lead to more partnerships or frameworks with consultants, suppliers of specialist items such as lifts, and contractors & subcontractors on CDP such as facades, MEP, drylining and fire stopping? The client list of concerns and considerations is growing, so further guidance around the topics discussed would be encouraged.