Building standards - compliance plan manager role: cost benefit analysis

1. Introduction

1.1 Context

1.1.1 The building standards system in Scotland is intended to ensure that building work on both new and existing buildings results in buildings that are safe, healthy, accessible, energy efficient and sustainable. The building standards system is pre-emptive and operates in two phases – design and construction. Applications for building warrants are made at the design stage in the building process and the granting of the warrant confirms that the proposed building meets the current building regulations. As verifiers under the Building (Scotland) Act 2003, local authorities grant the building warrant. Once the building warrant is issued work can commence on the building.

1.1.2 When the owner or developer is satisfied that the building work is complete and complies with the building regulations, a completion certificate submission should be made. It is the responsibility of the building owner/developer (i.e. the Relevant Person) to ensure that the building work is done correctly. It is not the role of the verifier to monitor all construction work to check that the building regulations are being met.

1.1.3 In recent years, a number of events have focused awareness on how buildings are designed, constructed and procured. These include:

• The Grenfell Tower fire in London in 2017.
• The collapse of part of an external wall at Oxgangs Primary school in Edinburgh in 2016 and the subsequent discovery of similar defects in 16 other schools.
• The closure of the DG One leisure centre in Dumfries in 2014 following identification of a range of defects arising throughout the building.

1.1.4 Reports into the Edinburgh schools and the Dumfries DG1 leisure centre closures found that aspects of construction failed to comply with the building regulations. A Ministerial Working Group (MWG) was established following the Grenfell Tower fire to address issues of compliance and enforcement. The MWG was supported by two review panels covering fire safety and compliance and enforcement.

1.1.5 The Building Standards Review Panel on Compliance and Enforcement identified the need to establish a robust framework for the verification of complex buildings and those with a high public value. The aim of the workstreams is to provide greater assurance that the risk of non-compliance with the building standards system has been minimised. This will be achieved by considering compliance from the inception of the project through to its completion by requiring better evidence and documentation to be provided by the Relevant Person and the people they appoint to undertake the work.

1.2 Compliance Plan and Compliance Plan Manager

1.2.1 A Compliance Plan (CP) for complex and high-risk public buildings is being introduced to reduce the risk of non-compliance by improving oversight and identifying how the project will be carried out to minimise the risk of non-compliance. A Compliance Plan Manager (CPM) will be appointed by the Relevant Person to oversee all aspects of compliance on the project and to ensure that their obligations to comply with the building regulations have been discharged in accordance with the CP which has been agreed and approved at the outset of the project as part of the building warrant process.

1.2.2 The role of the CPM will be to monitor and gather evidence to provide the necessary assurances that the buildings, as constructed and completed, are compliant with the approved building warrant and the building regulations. The CPM will identify the information required and ensure that this information is documented to support the CP being discharged in full.

1.2.3 The CPM will not undertake a supervisory role for all aspects of a project, but may undertake inspections at specific stages as set out in the CP and the inspections will be based on the nature of the project and the identified risks based on the Compliance Plan Handbook which will be developed from the existing Verification During Construction guidance.

1.3 Study Aims and Objectives

1.3.1 The aim of this research is to undertake a cost-benefit assessment of the CPM role on high-risk building types. For the purpose of this research, high-risk buildings are defined as:

• Domestic or residential buildings with any storey at a height of more than 11 metres above ground.
• Educational establishments.
• Community/sports centres and buildings under local authority control or where the local authority has an interest in the building.
• Hospitals.
• Residential care buildings.

1.3.2 The main objectives are to undertake a cost-benefit analysis for the introduction of the CPM role based on:

• The examination of existing construction assurance processes in place to monitor construction and ensure high-risk buildings as constructed comply with the approved building warrant and more generally the building regulations.
• Determine the current level of independent oversight and what is the current cost of this oversight? This should include the way the cost of oversight is built into the current process. The research should examine whether or not the proposed oversight arrangements are locked-in and fulfilled.
• An analysis of the current situation to determine whether building owners at present appoint independent oversight or is it expected that the builder will do this as part of their contractual appointment.
• Identifying the cost implications of clients/building owners having to appoint a CPM – independent of the contractor to monitor and collate evidence and documentation from all those involved in the construction process on work to high-risk building types.
• Undertake a cost benefit analysis to identify the cost associated with work on high-risk buildings that have to be redone or repaired as a result of work being incorrect/non-compliant versus adopting a “right first time” approach where compliance oversight is monitored by a CPM to reduce the risk of non-compliance and therefore reduce the need to carry out redo or repair works.

1.4 Methodology

1.4.1 The approach to the study comprised two elements which informed the cost-benefit analysis:

• Literature review and data collection.
• Stakeholder engagement.

1.4.2 The purpose of the literature review was to identify any information on costs and benefits which would be helpful to the analysis. The purpose of the stakeholder engagement was to further understand the current compliance processes used by contractors and clients and how this would change with the CPM role. The consultations also sought to gather any information on costs and benefits associated with the proposed role. The outputs from these tasks have informed the development of the framework for the cost-benefit analysis.

1.5 Report Structure

1.5.1 The remainder of this report is structured as follows:

• Section 2 sets out the results of the literature review and data collection process.
• Section 3 presents the conclusions of the stakeholder engagement.
• Section 4 sets out the framework for the cost benefit analysis including the key assumptions.
• Section 5 presents the results of the cost benefit analysis and the sensitivity analysis.