Building standards - compliance plan manager role: development of scope

Executive Summary

Research background and aims

1. In 2017, Professor John Cole’s independent inquiry into the construction of Edinburgh schools, identified a number of failings including (but not limited to) poor construction, inadequate supervision, an over-reliance on contractors to do what they are supposed to do, and the absence of independent scrutiny. Also in 2017, the tragic Grenfell Tower fire in London placed the spotlight on the issue of inadequate regulations, guidance and compliance processes, notably in the English system.

2. In the wake of these high-profile failures, the Scottish Government set up a Review Panel on Fire Safety, and a separate Review Panel on Compliance and Enforcement. Recommendations from the latter included the development of comprehensive Compliance Plans (CPs) for higher risk and more complex categories of buildings.

3. The Building Standards Futures Board was formed in 2019, which set up a Compliance Plan Working Group to direct a new Compliance Plan Approach. This included outline proposals for a new Compliance Plan Manager (CPM) role to oversee projects and ensure compliance from start to finish in relation to High Risk Building types (HRBs).

4. A 2021 Scottish Government consultation found favourability towards the introduction of the CPM role; its intended independence from the contractor; timing of appointment of the CPM no later than pre-application stage; and that a standardised competency framework should be introduced for the role. It also revealed favourability towards the proposed definition and scope of HRBs, notably buildings over 11 metres in height; educational, community, sport and non-domestic public buildings under local authority control; hospitals and residential care buildings.

5. The Scottish Government also proposes that the new CPM role should be appointed by the Relevant Person (RP) – typically the building owner – no later than pre-assessment stage on all HRB projects.

6. In August 2022, the Scottish Government commissioned Pye Tait Consulting to build on existing proposals for the CPM role and research/further develop the scope of the role, potential market and insurance needs, and outline proposals for supporting initiatives and guidance to aid its implementation.

Summary of methodology

7. The project was guided by a small Professional Body Group (PBG) which met virtually at two key junctures – the early scoping stage and final ratification stage. In between, the research involved detailed desk research and analysis of related job roles; as well as 34 stakeholder interviews spanning professional and industry representative bodies; certification scheme providers; local authority verifiers; industry professionals; insurance industry representatives; and wider built environment stakeholders.

CPM role and responsibilities

8. The research achieved broad consensus from the PBG on the role, responsibilities, competences and other pre-requisites required of the CPM. These are set out in detail in the form of a CPM Role Document (chapter 5). It is intended for this document (once approved) to be taken forward on a standalone basis as a national template job description/person specification.

9. The CPM role is seen as a guardian of construction projects for HRBs, and stakeholders consulted propose that the CPM should be responsible for demonstrating the achievement of compliance under the Building (Scotland) Act 2003; reducing the risk of non-compliance during construction and once a building project is complete; and exercising all reasonable skill and care to ensure process and procedural compliance is followed during a construction project. The CPM role would therefore be primarily oriented around coordination, oversight and information management. On that basis, existing responsibilities and liabilities associated with compliance held by other project stakeholders would not be “transferred” to the CPM.

10. The question of limitation of liability for the CPM was an important discussion point throughout the research and it is felt that demonstrating the achievement of compliance is preferable to the CPM being made accountable for the work undertaken by other project stakeholders to meet compliance requirements. This approach is considered ‘proportionate’ and is well justified by stakeholders (section 2.1). The main rationale is that if the CPM were to have full responsibility for construction compliance, this could go beyond the breadth and depth of knowledge possible for a single role; that they would not feasibly be able to observe every single detail on site; and that this could hinder the CPM’s ability to obtain professional indemnity insurance (PII) – discussed further below.

11. It will be important that the CPM’s liabilities are made clear, do not stoke confusion, are not perceived as an additional layer of bureaucracy and complexity, and are considered carefully in relation to the risk of any significant legal complications should an accident or other building failure occur. For it to work effectively, the CPM’s role would need to be legally defined and the CPM would need to be able to communicate clearly to other project stakeholders what changes are needed to overcome compliance shortcomings and to help encourage a culture of collective responsibility in that regard. This would be encouraged by the fact that, without the CPM's satisfaction with the information as presented to them, and that the CP has been fully discharged, the building owner and likewise the contractor would not be able to apply for the legal completion of the building through the completion certificate process.

CPM competences and pre-requisites

12. Stakeholders feel strongly that the CPM should have strong knowledge of building regulations and knowledge of design, construction, different uses of buildings and building typologies. There is some concern that these might be difficult to find in one person.

13. All interviewees stressed the importance of the CPM holding prior experience in a relevant related field, such as an architectural, engineering, surveying, fire engineering or local authority building standards profession with knowledge/understanding of building design and compliance issues. These are cited as providing the requisite underpinning knowledge, competences for the CPM role. Further details about potential pathways into the role are discussed in section 3.4.

14. Attempting to quantify or mandate an experience requirement in years, or a qualification requirement by type/level, are considered difficult and undesirable. Instead, proven competences, experience and professional body membership are valued more strongly by stakeholders, with due consideration to each individual’s background.

15. There is strong favourability to creating a bespoke competency scheme for the CPM role to support the knowledge and skills requirement (discussed further in section 6.2). This would involve input from professional bodies and use a common framework of “bolt-on” standards/training for work on HRBs. It is felt that such a scheme would need to be perceived as credible, sufficiently rigorous and achievable to secure trust and buy-in, whilst not leading to insufficient take-up.

CPM implementation considerations

16. Based on the Scottish Government’s estimation that approximately 5% of 40,000 building warrant applications (on average) per annum are classified as HRB projects, that would equate to 2,000 such projects. Looking across a sample of four professional bodies (not intended to be an exhaustive list), membership numbers would appear to be just short of 20,000 individuals in Scotland (see section 4.1 for further details). If 10% of these individuals were to meet the requirements of the CPM role and become role-holders, that would equate to a pool of 2,000 individuals.

17. Stakeholders are of the view that demand for CPMs, coupled with the time commitment needed per HRB project, will be driven by the number, scale, complexity and geographical distribution of HRB projects, which will inevitably not be constant. These variables, combined with current uncertainty around the proportion of professionals likely to fully meet the requirements and be interested in taking on the role, make it difficult to quantify the demand/supply dynamic at this stage.

18. The majority of stakeholders feel that the CPM role should be open to an entity since this would allow professional indemnity insurance (PII) to be obtained through the organisation; ensure sufficient availability of specialist skills in the team; and take some of the accountability burden off the individual. Several stakeholders referred to the building standards certification scheme as a good model to follow, which allows individuals to find an approved designer or installer through a list of approved bodies.

19. Stakeholders stressed the need for the CPM to be impartial and independent from the developer/contractor to mitigate the risk of conflicts of interest or undue influences placed on the CPM. There are several suggestions for how this could be achieved, such as through contract documentation and/or proposing that the terms of CPM appointment by RPs be standardised (approved by the Scottish Government) and protected by Statute to be an independent function.

Professional indemnity insurance (PII)

20. Insurance industry stakeholders made the point that PII has become far more expensive and harder to acquire in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire, but broadly agree that the CPM role has the potential to reduce the overall risk level on HRBs. That said, multiple other factors, such as the CPM’s limitation of liability and other unique project characteristics could alter the risk level up or down. One insurance stakeholder indicated that the more ‘absolute’ the obligations placed on the CPM, the more PII insurers would likely react in a negative fashion.

21. The majority of other stakeholders believe that PII should be made a statutory requirement given the potential seriousness of a claim for an instance of non-compliance on a HRB. A third of interviewees feel that industry would organically drive demand for PII, while others were unsure, noting that it would depend on the availability and cost of cover within the market.

Supporting initiatives – considerations

22. Chapter 6 of this report sets out content considerations for a proposed Compliance Handbook (CHB); as well as proposals for a national framework for the CPM role, including development of a bespoke scheme and how that might be governed; and considerations for the creation and management of a CPM Register, to which stakeholders are broadly favourable.

23. Four options have emerged for how a scheme could be managed:

(1) Multiple professional bodies to cover their respective members;

(2) A single professional body with responsibility for supervising and governing the scheme as a whole;

(3) An alternative existing independent body;

(4) A newly formed body audited by the BSD in a similar manner to the SER Scheme.

24. Stakeholders are broadly favourable to CPMs working to a consistent standard but are mostly unfavourable to the idea of pursuing the development of a BSI publicly accessible standard (PAS) for the role. The main reasons are that the BSI is unlikely to consider a PAS standard for a Scotland-only role; the relatively niche market for the CPM role; and relatively low number of potential role-holders compared with other professions. This is something that could be further explored.

Forward considerations

25. The research findings provide a basis for the following:

(1) As development and implementation of the CPM role continues, maintain sight of core concept priorities, notably that the RP, who has ultimate legal responsibility for compliance, is not at risk of placing overreliance on project stakeholders who are themselves at risk of making mistakes; and that the introduction of the CPM role secures meaningful and fully independent scrutiny of work;

(2) Develop an implementation framework for the CPM role, comprising all pre-requisite information, guidance and supporting initiatives to be put in place and key actors to be involved. Include a timescale for piloting, evaluating and then rolling out the CPM role, including a transitional period as appropriate to allow time for the role to bed in and teething problems to be identified/overcome;

(3) Establish a programme of routing development meetings with the involvement of PBG members (who contributed to guiding this project) and the wider Compliance Plan Working Group, for continuity;

(4) Refine and hone the CPM Job Role Document, including a clearly defined and standalone statement on the limitation of liability for the CPM, reflecting on the issues set out in section 7.1 (Conclusions);

(5) Put in place suitable safeguards to minimise the risk of a conflict of interest in situations where the CPM cannot be fully independent of other project stakeholders (e.g. where the RP is also the builder/contractor). This might include a mandatory declaration of such a scenario to the verifier and how the risk of any conflict of interest will be mitigated;

(6) Consider the CPM role being open to entities and (through those entities) individuals to provide confidence in the collective range of knowledge and skills;

(7) Consider standardising the terms of CPM appointment by the RP, to be protected by Statute as an independent function. Due consideration will be needed as to:

• Who pays for the CPM;
• The extent of the CPM’s authority over decisions taken by the RP;
• How to ensure the CPM’s competence and adherence to contractual obligations and conduct expectations, especially where the RP – who is ultimately responsible for compliance – is not a compliance expert and puts their trust into the CPM;
• How the RP can go about replacing a CPM if there are concerns such as those mentioned above, noting that a CPM must be in place for the duration of a HRB project;
• How checks would be undertaken to ensure that there is no coercion or conflicts of interest at play;
• How independence can be guaranteed when any qualified building professional could also be looking for work in many other areas (the risk of a hidden conflict of interest might still be present, even if the CPM were to be appointed by the RP or the verifier).

(8) Take a decision on whether PII should be made a statutory requirement or left to market demand;

(9) Undertake further development work for the CP and CHB, drawing and building on considerations set out in section 6.1;

(10) Initiate the development of a CPM scheme and electronic Register of CPMs, by engaging with relevant professional bodies and other stakeholders and drawing on proposals and options set out in sections 6.2 and 6.3; and

(11) Consider implementing the CPM role in a pilot capacity, for example in a particular local authority area/region to get a better understanding of the likely resource and time demand, knock-on impact on wider work undertaken by those holding the CPM role, and other possible implementation issues.