Industry Perspectives: Regulatory Gaps and Long-Term Reform
Arita Morris, Director at Child Graddon Lewis and NLA’s Expert Panel Chair for Technical Competency:
72 people including 18 children lost their lives in the early hours of Wednesday the 14th June 2017. All of the lives lost were preventable.
These two sentences from the Phase 2 report are gut-wrenching and profoundly moving. The despair and horror of the survivors and loved ones of the deceased at knowing this fact is unimaginable. The Phase 2 Report follows over six years of horrific and sometimes unspeakable evidence, and the pain goes on as justice is pursued. Volume 6 (Part 9) ‘The Deceased’ should be compulsory reading for the whole industry.
Many actors are held responsible for contributing to the disaster; central government, local council landlord, regulatory bodies, architects, fire engineers, building control, the council, contractors, sub-contractors, manufacturers, the fire brigade. There will have been many more, not named, but involved. The list reflects the entire system of regulating, procuring, and delivering buildings and all of us who are part of it should feel a burden of responsibility. Attention must now be on the Built Environment industry and how we respond to the report’s criticism and recommendations.
Regulatory changes have sought higher safety standards in new buildings and the approach to the specification of materials and design of fire safety has changed to a degree. But not enough has changed in the culture and process of design and construction; the current built environment system is in essence identical to pre-Grenfell. There is still so much to do.
Dr. Barbara Lane’s report Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Recommendations issued to the Inquiry panel in December 2023 contains 53 recommendations as part of a ‘Change Framework’ which is published by Arup. Some of these are included in the Phase 2 Inquiry report recommendations. The background to Dr. Lane’s recommendations make for depressing reading:
“We still see an industry that, at best, is in compliance mode rather than a leadership mode. Learning and change are critical to improving culture and as an industry it has not yet been proven or demonstrated there is a prevailing ability to learn, nor a unified commitment to change. This precedes Grenfell but continues post-Grenfell.”
Dr. Lane’s observations are rightly critical. Unless the industry is committed to a system -wide change we will find ourselves back here with more tragedies. The Inquiry panel member Thouria Istephan, visibly moved during her statement, spoke with precision about the commitment and culture required.
“If we are not professionally curious, we will not become technically competent,” she said. “If you work in the construction industry and do not feel the weight of the responsibility you have for keeping people safe, you are in the wrong job.”
We all have to ask ourselves this question and be honest and humble in our response.
Andrew Mellor, Partner at PRP and Technical Advisor on Building Regulations to the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government:
The executive summary of the Grenfell Inquiry Phase 2 report makes damning reading and is critical of several bodies and organisations for their conduct before the tragedy. The full report is expected to be even more so.
The recommendations for change and improvement are wide and far reaching. If adopted, many of the recommendations will bring significant change, but implementation could take years. As a practice, we welcome the proposal for the ARB and RIBA to review the sufficiency of the competency changes they have already implemented for architects. I have advocated for a single regulator for Building Safety for several years; we do not have that today, even with the Building Safety Regulator.
The inquiry recommendations go further and propose a single construction regulator responsible for construction product regulations, testing, fire risk assessor accreditations, building control oversight, and the licensing of contractors to work on Higher Risk Buildings (HRB). This is huge and impacts both current responsibilities and those planned for various government departments. While it's a sensible proposal, it will require a lot of resources to implement. I anticipate it will take at least two years before it can become operational.
We also welcome the proposal to review all Approved Documents, including Approved Document B fire safety, to ensure clarity and that they are fit for purpose. The proposal for a statement in the statutory guidance documents that says reliance on the guidance will not necessarily ensure compliance with Building Regulations is one that will be worrisome for many designers and contractors.
The proposed national register of contractors for HRBs will be welcomed by clients. But will many contractors sign up when a director has to personally guarantee that the building constructed is as safe as required by the Building Regulations? We will see.
There is much more to review, and the full report will need to be thoroughly examined to fully grasp the implications of the findings and recommendations.