The Grenfell Inquiry exposed deep failures across the built environment: dishonest product claims, inexperienced design input, fragmented accountability, cost-cutting, and poorly integrated design. These failures have further eroded public trust. This piece asks how that trust can be won back, focusing specifically on the role of integrated design. It encourages designers to rise to the challenge of rebuilding industry perception. 

It builds on the following two articles in this series on Defining Trust, by the NLA's Technical Competency group: 

A building's Design Phase and Construction Phase each typically involve a large team of qualified professionals across the fields of architecture, engineering, construction and related disciplines such as planning or landscape design. 

These designers mostly have a narrow focus of specialist expertise (e.g. structural engineering, lighting design, site safety, concrete installation). As the scheme progresses through the plan of work devised by the Royal Institute of British Architects RIBA (each of 7 stages following on from the next) the designers should of course meet regularly and share information, with the outcome being that the integrated design is taken onwards at the end of each stage. The construction stage echoes this sequential, specialised process, with all construction professionals involved following appropriate codes of practice and having their competence regulated via their professional accreditations. 

The design process is collaborative, coordinated into an overall design by a design leader. But the aspects of both narrow specialisation and sequential working inherently pose challenges around box-ticking individual discipline scopes, or gaps in the continuity of approach. A greater prize lies beyond simple coordination when a single coherent design emerges out of the set of individual components. Digital design tools help coordination by avoiding design clashes but achieving this additional design integration requires specialists to work together and not just alongside each other. The impetus for this additional step, we believe, is powered by professional curiosity and the ability to think beyond an individual's discipline. It takes courage to cross discipline boundaries and skill to not step beyond competence limits in doing so. However, this is how design gaps are eliminated, and performance gains are found.  

No complex industry can claim to be free from mistakes, and construction is no exception. Buildings are created through thousands of decisions made by many organisations and specialists, often working together for the first time on a unique project. Despite rigorous review processes, defects, unintended consequences and missed assumptions can still occur. The question is not whether mistakes happen, but how the industry responds when they do. Integrated design provides a framework for recognising issues early, understanding how decisions connect across disciplines, and learning from outcomes after the development is occupied. By openly sharing lessons, reviewing performance and challenging assumptions rather than defending them, the industry can turn setbacks into opportunities for improvement. 

But how can this learning be captured and shared consistently across such a fragmented industry? 

One option would be for a Single Construction Regulator, supported by a Chief Construction Advisor (CCA), to act as a central repository for lessons learned, gathering evidence from completed projects, commissioning reviews of significant issues, and disseminating findings across the sector. In doing so, insights gained from individual projects could become a shared asset for the industry as a whole, helping to prevent the repetition of known problems and accelerating continuous improvement. Trust grows not from an appearance of perfection, but from confidence that problems will be understood, addressed and learned from collectively. 

Our industry produces a built environment to be used by people. The necessary regulations that govern our work are designed to ensure that the health and safety of the public are protected alongside protecting nature and the planet. However, when the application of those regulations hasn't resulted in those outcomes, it is understandable for the public to question that process. People need to trust the regulatory system will deliver in their favour and trust that the professionals operating that system are doing more than mere box-ticking. Public trust is hard won and easily lost. As highlighted in the Technical Competency Panel's recent article on testing and holistic understanding, trust is created not through isolated acts of compliance, but through transparency, clear accountability and the ability to demonstrate how evidence has been brought together to assure the performance of buildings as complete systems. Confidence grows when people can see that risks, decisions and responsibilities have been considered collectively rather than in isolation. 

While much of this focus has been driven by Higher-Risk Buildings (HRBs), there is value in applying the same principles more widely across the built environment. Greater transparency in design assurance, construction oversight and post-occupancy learning would help reinforce that safety, quality and accountability are fundamental to all development, not just a specific category of building. 

There is also an opportunity to strengthen public engagement during construction, where visibility often diminishes after planning approval. Providing accessible project information, construction-stage updates, or a publicly available record of key assurance activities could help build confidence in how buildings are being delivered. A CCA could play an important role in championing this approach, acting as an independent and trusted voice that helps translate technical assurance into meaningful public understanding. 

Alongside efforts to diversify the professions and broaden participation in the built environment sector, these measures would help strengthen connections between communities and the places being created. Trust grows when people can see not only how places are designed, but how they are delivered, verified and maintained in their interests. 

Many of the industries that enjoy high levels of public trust do not achieve it through perfection, but through visibility and openness. Transport networks provide clear information when services are disrupted, while aviation has developed a culture of investigating failures and sharing lessons across the sector. In both cases, trust is strengthened because problems are acknowledged rather than concealed.  

We believe that buildings and public spaces would benefit from the same kind of openness. Integrated design helps make this possible by encouraging everyone involved in a project to share decisions, responsibilities and lessons learned, rather than working in isolation. It also gives people outside the industry more opportunities to understand and influence the places they use every day, whether through consultation, clearer information, education or direct conversations with the teams behind the work. The more open and easy to understand the building industry becomes, the easier it is for the public to see how places are made, why decisions are taken, and how professionals work together to make them safer, better and more reliable over time.