Building standards - operating and performance frameworks for verifiers: research summary

3. Factors influencing framework priorities

3.1 Building standards futures board priorities

In 2019, following the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower in London, the Building Standards Futures Board was set up to strategically advise and direct a programme of work following recommendations from two Review Panels: Fire Safety (chaired by Dr Paul Stollard) and Compliance and Enforcement (chaired by Professor John Cole). It should be noted that the Compliance and Enforcement Review in 2018 found that the building standards system in Scotland was not broken but would benefit from strengthening.

A significant focus of the Futures Board is on minimising the risk of non-compliance of buildings and building work delivered as an outcome of the building standards system. Another key focus is developing local authority verification and enforcement capability and capacity by delivering sufficient financial resources through building warrant fees. This is to enable verifiers to fully discharge their role in line with legislation and to deliver compliant buildings.

At present, the work of the Futures Board is being steered through four workstreams.

The compliance plan workstream has a particular bearing on KPO 2 of the current PF. For example, BSD is currently developing a new Compliance Plan Manager (CPM) job role for high-risk buildings (HRBs) building warrant projects and is exploring opportunities to strengthen compliance in the low-rise, volume housing sector. In the longer term the new compliance plan approach will be tailored to suit all lower risk building warrant projects.

The digital transformation workstream focuses on strengthening the efficiency and effectiveness of the system through increased use of digital tools, services, and ways of working. eBuilding Standards, remote site inspections and data standards are all intrinsic to this, with possible future areas being the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and integration of building information modelling (BIM) to help strengthen compliance.

The verification delivery model workstream aims to continue the pursuit of consistency in the system, along with increasing efficiency, greater responsiveness to new technologies, building of skills and capacity, and strengthening of resilience and compliance. A key development has been the piloting and soft launch of a new Scottish Building Standards Hub (SBSH), hosted by Fife Council. The Hub, which formally launched in September 2024, aims to play a key role in transformation and improvement of building standards in Scotland.

3.2 Lessons from the Grenfell Phase 2 Inquiry

In September 2024, the Chair of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, Sir Martin Moore-Bick published the Inquiry’s Phase 2 Report. In examining how the Grenfell Tower was in the condition whereby a fire could spread so quickly and fatally, as tragically happened on 14 June 2017, the report found substantial and widespread failings.

As part of its findings, the Inquiry makes clear that building control functions (within the English system) are regulators rather than service providers to applicants or their design teams and contractors; furthermore, commercial interests in building projects could lead to conflicts of interest.

The review of the national OF and PF therefore provides the opportunity to identify, consider and build in relevant changes to support the ongoing strengthening of building standards system in Scotland.

Key considerations here are as follows:

• The balance between verifiers’ role as regulators relative to service providers should be considered.
• Regulators should not be giving design advice.
• The speed at which tasks are carried out should not be prioritised as a measure of success where this could negatively affect compliance outcomes and the ability to vigorously enforce building regulations.
• Competent building standards individuals require sufficient time and other resources to deliver a competent verification service.
• Minimising the risk of conflicts of interest.

This makes it important that the review of the OF and PF includes strong focus on:

• Supporting the delivery of compliant buildings, including how those outcomes are measured
• Reflecting the growing focus on enforcement capability and capacity
• Use of building warrant fee income to provide sufficient resources and time to develop competent staff and building standards functions that meet the conditions of appointment and the wider OF and PF
• An appropriate balance between customer service and the building standards regulatory role.

It will be important that the balance between the regulatory and customer service role is handled carefully to avoid any unintended consequences of: i) customer service standards falling unnecessarily; or ii) verifiers becoming less responsive to customer requests, especially where the ability to interact easily between applicant/agent and verifier might be in the interests of strengthening compliance.

3.3 Other points raised

A key influencing factor for the future of the PF is that April 2024 saw the first uplift in building warrant fees since 2017, intended to support additional investment in local building standards services. This will be important to factor into the onward development of the KPOs, especially where verifiers to date have fed back (see chapter 5) some concerns about resourcing the service.

Feedback from Review Group members and verifiers responding to the online feedback tool has identified the following influencing factors:

• A more determined approach to compliance, more thorough inspections and the overriding principle of ‘safety’, which must not be compromised.
• A greater focus on competence (some also suggested on the part of the applicant/agent, though the PF is concerned only with the verifier).
• Ensuring sufficient resourcing and capacity.
• Reflecting developments in digital technologies.
• Managing and mitigating against commercial interests.

“We’re working at about 50% capacity because of the number of people undergoing training. There’s duplication in terms of mentoring, peer review, checking, going out on site. There must be some mechanism of acknowledging that in the performance and operating frameworks.”

Local authority verifier