Dame Judith Hackitt has said construction is “making a big deal” of the Building Safety Regulator’s current delays with Gateway 2 approvals and raised concerns about the industry “going backwards” on its post-Grenfell cultural change.
Hackitt, who chairs the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s Building Control Independent Panel, shared her worries during a session of the ongoing inquiry into the Building Safety Regulator led by the Lords Industry and Regulators Committee.
“[The culture change] is taking longer than I anticipated, but I think we have to recognise where we are and continue to move forward,” Hackitt told peers on 15 July.
‘I fear we will go backwards’
“What I fear most at this stage is that we will go backwards, and that would be a travesty because what I see in here is industry making a big deal of the delays that are currently taking place at Gateway 2. I recognise that, but I also recognise that they play their part in creating those delays, just as much as some of that responsibility lies with the regulator.”
Although Hackitt acknowledged that the regulator could step up on the guidance it provides on the Gateway 2 design requirements, she told the committee that applications are being rejected because they lack basic information.
“I have talked to the regulator at length about the quality of some of the applications that they are receiving at Gateway 2 and some of the problems that they are dealing with,” Hackitt said.
“Whilst I acknowledge that there is more that we can do in terms of guidance, some of the things that they are not seeing at that stage and why they are rejecting those applications are pretty basic stuff that I think any one of us would expect the people who are submitting those applications to be able to provide.”
Gateway 2.5
Hackitt added that design and build contracts are “a fundamental problem” in the current issues with Gateway 2 delays.
“That is why industry and the regulator [are] now in discussion around a staged approval process that will help to ease the process of having to have everything designed before Gateway 2 so we might end up with a Gateway 2.5 process as the building is designed and built.”
She continued: “I think there is room for the regulator to allow that to happen but I think leaving it all to Gateway 3 is simply out of the question and would be absolutely nonsensical.
“The cost of fixing things when the building is complete, immediately before occupation, that’s a no-go option for me.”
The House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee is holding a short inquiry into the Building Safety Regulator following the delays to approvals by the regulator for new high-rise buildings and maintenance of existing buildings.
Gateway 2 approvals, which should be taking 12 weeks for new builds and eight weeks for refurbishments, are currently taking double that time, sometimes up to 40 to 48 weeks.
Comments
Comments are closed.
A HRB application for a Hospital project I’ve been working on has taken 9 months to approve. Fire evaluation in a managed 24h 365 day building, is a lot different to a HR residential building, and yet the process is no different. This one size fits all approach together with the delays is preventing Hospitals from improving and saving lives. So in this instance it is a backward step
I have a tiny role in lots of different buildings. On my company’s books at the moment are about 10 HRBs and every one is stuck in Gateway 2, some since last summer.
A split review seems like a critical step. Perhaps everything in the ground, then everything else.
This is not just down to the submission quality. It is taking months even to hear back the first time with any queries.
“she told the committee that applications are being rejected because they lack basic information”. forgive me, but that’s just PR-led noise cancelling spin.
If that were the case, the ‘quality’ ones would get through quickly. However, as even high quality straightforward recladding/overcladding submissions are taking 6-9 months, I contend the evidence is plain – the issue is with lack of resourcing/lack of ability within the BSR.
My (fairly straight forward) application was finally approved without any changes or amendments and only two minor information requests – it still took over double the amount of time it was supposed to to be approved, so the delays are not down to ‘low quality submissions or lack of information’. They also charge you every time they ask for an extension of time!