Originally Posted by: dcpjon

Am i correct in that my current understanding is that a BSA Principal Designer will be required on ALL projects which involve Building Regs, not just high risk buildings?  So a CDM PD and a BSA PD would both be required on say a small, one storey, office refurbishment project (assuming more than one contractor as per existing CDM duties)?  

My understanding is that you will probably be correct, but it isn't actually any part of any law or regulations yet - the idiot politicians are too busy fannying about arguing about whether Boris is a saviour or a liability and whether Brexit is done and whether shipping vulnerable refugees to third world countries is a compassionate course of action to bother with actually deciding the laws that business will have to comply with are going to be.

There are hints to be found in the 'Consultation covering the proposed changes to building regulations under part 3 of the Building Safety Act 2022' which is now closed (see https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-implementing-the-new-building-control-regime-for-higher-risk-buildings-and-wider-changes-to-the-building-regulations-for-all-buildings).

The consultation suggests that yes, the dutyholder requirements are going to apply to “any work or matter to which the Building Regulations 2010 are applicable”.  These roles are discussed in the consulation in section 2, before discussion of higher risk buildings (in section 3), suggesting that tehy are unrelated to whetehr it is a HRB.

There is also a withdrawn 'factsheet' that says "The regulations will apply to all work to which the Building Regulations 2010 apply." - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/building-safety-bill-factsheets/dutyholders-factsheet

In principle the two PDs (and indeed the two PCs) could be the same organisation.

But until they get their fingers out and actually produce the regulations that will define all this, who knows...?

When you search the Building Safety Act 2022 c.30 or its referenced Building Act 1984 c.55 for Principal Designer or even Designer there are no results. S.I. 2010 No. 2144 The Building Regulations 2010 (as amended) similarly contains no reference to Designer.

I suspect your references may be in error.

As achrn so eloquently put it "until they get their fingers out and actually produce the regulations that will define all this, who knows...?" The secondary legislation enacting the BSA is on a proposed two year lead.

This has certainly been the case to date with conformity assessment of construction products - a can kicked several times down the road (currently June 2025) and when there was a glimmer of light the door was firmly slammed shut a couple of months later with the comment "we did not write that into regulation"

I don’t think that they will expect separate appointments under BSA and CDM. That would be insane. The aim is to ensure that these roles are covered by competent people. One of the lessons of Grenfell was that nobody took responsibility and they just passed the buck. Under CDM there is nothing to stop the client appointing themselves as PD and  PC as long as they think they are competent to do so.   

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

separate appointments under BSA

Still waiting for someone to idenify where it mentions "designer" in the Building Safety Act

Hi dcpjon

As others have indicated the devil is in detail yet to be put in front of the Commons.

But the general presumption seems to be that any current CDM Principal Designer and/or Principal Contractor would take on the same hat(s) under the regulations to be made under the BSA subject to being competent to do so.

I have seen signs of push back from H&S consultants who provide PD and other CDM "advisor" services who are reluctant to take on risks associated with fire post Grenfell, BUT if they would not be competent to be the PD for the purposes of BSA they are probably NOT competent to be PD under CDM (but continue doing this anyway!)

The only big change between CDM 2007 and CDM 2015 was to change the rules for a role (whose name progressed from CDM Co-ordinator to Principal Designer) in terms of the person specification.

The PD must meet the criteria for the CDM definition of "designer" - that means not just knowing about health and safety but having experience of DOING design and construction - by "DOING" I do NOT mean touring a construction site to look for health and safety problems!

It is notable that the Association for Project Safety changed their rules post CDM 2007 as regards the person specs for grades of membership. No longer could the long in the tooth construction health and safety professional have an easy ride straight into full membership of APS.

Exactly the same is likely to happen when the secondary legislation under BSA takes effect. The PD's skill set will need to include both an understanding of the design (and construction) process but also the fire implications of that design (and construction). 

Since very few people know EVERYTHING this means that on anything but the simplest project the role of PD will need multidisciplinary input (as should already be the case).

There IS a problem that is only going to get worse with this extension of the role of the PD.

Designers and the Co-ordinators who sit above them (Planning Supervisor, CDM Co-ordinator, now PD) have largely escaped any serious scrutiny for over 25 years. You just need to look at the HSE prosecutions database to see how rare it has been for these duty holders to end up in Court - and on the few occasions that this has happened almost invariably it has been the microbusinesses who don't have the resources to say "No, we are pleading not guilty".

This reflects that in the main the Regulator doesn't have the resources to scrutinise what these duty holders are doing - because to do the scrutiny the Regulator would need to be able to think as a Designer without applying hindsight bias 

The health and safety professionals who have often taken on the Co-ordinator role (however named) have faced exactly the same hurdle since 31 March 1995. 

Digging a bit deeper the explanatory notes for the Building Safety Act comment:

The Act allows for a new dutyholder regime to be incorporated across the lifecycle of higher-risk buildings. When buildings are designed, constructed or refurbished, those involved in the commissioning, design, construction or refurbishment process will have formal responsibilities for compliance with building regulations. These provisions will apply to all work to which building regulations apply, and these dutyholders will include those appointed under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015).

So the appointment will be under CDM with duty holder responsibilities described in secondary regulation to the Building Safety Act.

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

Digging a bit deeper the explanatory notes for the Building Safety Act comment:

The Act allows for a new dutyholder regime to be incorporated across the lifecycle of higher-risk buildings. When buildings are designed, constructed or refurbished, those involved in the commissioning, design, construction or refurbishment process will have formal responsibilities for compliance with building regulations. These provisions will apply to all work to which building regulations apply, and these dutyholders will include those appointed under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015).

So the appointment will be under CDM with duty holder responsibilities described in secondary regulation to the Building Safety Act.

Great spot and post Roundtuit.  I guess what confuses me a little (and it's not hard to confuse me!), is why i read reference to the focus on "higher-risk buildings", but then reference that it will apply to all work to which building regulations apply.  If these requirements will apply to low risk works, surely that dilutes the whole point in the aim of the act?  Why have a BSA PD and these gateway requirements for a small one storey shop or office refurb, that's works might only last a month.

Do be kind if i'm missing something obvioius, it's been a long week1

Edited by user 19 May 2023 10:23:21(UTC)  | Reason: Grammar error

Originally Posted by: Kate

"Higher risk" in this context refers to buildings where the consequences of a fire could be especially severe (like Grenfell).  It's nothing to do with the risk of the works themselves but is all about the risks of the completed building.

Thanks Kate, really appreciate your feedback.  I guess i sort of get that.  It's more a case of, if you and i agree the consequences of a fire would be low risk (associated with a particular proposed project), would that mean the BSA PD role would not be required (irrelevant of the fact the building regs apply to that project)?  

If thats not the case, and the BSA PD role would apply to all building reg related projects, including those where the consiquences of a fire is low risk, then whats the point in these changes?

Or on the flip side, if it is the case that the BSA PD role will only be required on those projects where the consequences of a fire would be high risk, are we expecting some sort of definition to explain how someone would define the consequnces as low/ medium/ high?

Apologies, just assume i'm stupid when replying!  

You are confusing yourself by presuming there are different designers.

The roles are defined and appointed under CDM for all construction. BSA seeks to define additional responsibilities upon those CDM roles where they are also to be considered a duty holder for high risk and/or relevant buildings.

“higher-risk building” means a building in England that is at least 18 metres in height or has at least 7 storeys, and contains at least 2 residential units.

“relevant building” (for sections 119 to 125 & Schedule 8) means a self-contained building, or self-contained part of a building, in England that contains at least two dwellings and is at least 11 metres high, or has at least 5 storeys.

For your example of a single storey office refurbishment without residential dwellings - It will require a CDM designer but will not present that designer with duty holder responsibility under BSA.

If your refurbishment was a single storey office within a nine storey building that also contained two or more residential units it will still require a CDM designer - this time they would have duty holder responsibilities.

Not quite

There is NO BSA PD

There is a CDM PD

For all construction it would be a CDM PD

For high risk / relevant construction it is still a CDM PD - on this type of construction they will have additional duty holder responsibilities under BSA

Your and my opinion about the fire risk in a building is irrelevant - "higher risk" buildings are already defined in the legislation.

I'm not surprised you're confused at being exposed to speculation about an imaginary position called BSA PD!

I am no expert on this as when I read the Building Safety Act and the regulations so far made under it, I mainly scan read them to find out which bits were relevant to my clients (who don't work in construction).

Once your headache has cleared you could restore it by scan reading the legislation yourself to find out which bits are relevant to you and then what exactly they say.  Or you might prefer not to.  It's hardly the easiest read.

Cheers!

Even the recently published Morrell report (April 2023 - construction product testing) is already out of date refering to the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) now replaced by three separate departments with the Office for Product Safety & Standards sitting under the Department for Business & Trade

Right now that link is about additional duties for Principal Designers.  Principal Designers exist under CDM - they are not created by the BSA.  All the BSA aims to do about Principal Designers is to make them more accountable.

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

You are confusing yourself by presuming there are different designers.

The roles are defined and appointed under CDM for all construction. BSA seeks to define additional responsibilities upon those CDM roles where they are also to be considered a duty holder for high risk and/or relevant buildings.

That's not what the quote you provided says.

The quote you provided does not preclude there being a CDM PD and a separate BSA PD:

"These provisions will apply to all work to which building regulations apply, and these dutyholders will include those appointed under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015)."

This doesn't say that there will be one PD dutyholder covering both CDM and BSA, it says only that there will be a number of dutyholders, including the CDM dutyholders. All the (speculative) discussion I have seen anticipates two PD dutyholder roles, which have different requirements and which may be fulfilled by the same person or organisation, but not necesarily.

As I previously posted - on a project that has large and complicated civils construction work (for example, a notable major bridge) but which includes a trivial building (the toll-takers canteen building, say), it doesn't follow that the best party to be PD is one that has knowledge of teh building regs.

Based on what has been forecast to date, I'm with achrn on this.

So, new Regulations specifically requiring appointments of PD, PC and some new duty holders, but written so as to permit the CDM PD and PC to take on these BCA derived roles IF competent to do so.

...and with the expectation that this would be the norm in order to cut down on blue/red tape.

However, also with the assumption that on all but the simplest projects - and if a higher risk project within the meaning of BCA and subsidiary Regs, then it's difficult to imagine what would be the "simplest projects" - then the appointment will usually be of an organisation, NOT any individual human.

...and if that organisation is competent to deal with the structural engineering issues associated with a major road bridge crossing (which just happenss to have a control building), it would be very unlikely that they don't have the competence to be PD and/or PC under both CDM and BCA - though they might need to beef up their fire safety expertise, particularly as regards fire engineering.

BSA (Building Safety Act) - safety in high risk & residential construction enhancing the duty holder responsibilities arising under CDM 2015

BCA (Building Control Act) - control of building & construction work

I agree it is highly possible that multiple appointments may be made depending upon the complexity of a major construction project however the BSA does not itself create the role.

The BSA assigns further duties to pre-existing CDM roles see post 12.

My Brain hurts

Originally Posted by: dcpjon

Just cant get my head round this applying to lower risks schemes involving building regs. Surely it should just focus on high risk and residential.

Because the Building Safety Act is not about lower risk schemes.

Because the Building Safety Act is all about higher risk residential.

Lower risk or higher risk residential the Building Regulations 2010 (as amended) and their associated Approved Documents apply

The Building Safety Act does have some provisions that relate to all buildings and not just higher risk ones.  For example it amends requirements relating to fire risk assessment of workplaces.

Do yourself a MASSIVE favour seek out the regulatory text as everything else (CPD, webinar's, SM videos) is someones individual opinion and/or conjecture.

"expert" = the past tense of a pressurised drip

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

Do yourself a MASSIVE favour seek out the regulatory text as everything else (CPD, webinar's, SM videos) is someones individual opinion and/or conjecture.

"expert" = the past tense of a pressurised drip

What regulatory text are you refering to Roundtuit.  The BSA PD role will apply on all schemes which require building regs, with additional duties required on high-risk schemes.  We wait on secondary legislation which is forthcoming and things should soon be clearer.  But back to my previous post, i'd love to hear peoples thoughts on reasons behind why it will be applied to lower risk schemes requiring building regs.  

Originally Posted by: dcpjon

We wait on secondary legislation which is forthcoming and things should soon be clearer.  But back to my previous post, i'd love to hear peoples thoughts on reasons behind why it will be applied to lower risk schemes requiring building regs.  

Exactly.  The BSA is merely enabling legislation - saying such things as "The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about [this that or the other]".  We are waiting for (reputedly 11 sets of) secondary legislation, which was supposedly going to be published before the summer recess - which starts a week today.

The idiots that run the place have more important things to worry about, however - like bickering about whether it's fair to quote what someone said on twitter without asking them if they mind first.

I think we are supposed to be complying with these regulations they haven't got round to publishing yet from 1 October.  I'm not sure how you comply with legislation that hasn't been published yet.

As to why it applies to low risks buildings - because it's politically expedient to do something, whether it does any good or not (like the tower cranes register before it).  However, I don't actually mind a tightening of safety consideration in the application of buidling regs - if it's proportionate, that's not inherently a bad thing.  Trouble is, in the absence of published regulations, we have no idea whether it will be proportionate or not...

Originally Posted by: dcpjon

The BSA PD

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/contents

273 pages and not one mention of Designer

Originally Posted by: achrn

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/30/contents

273 pages and not one mention of Designer

I think you've made that claim before (someone has, at any rate).  So what?

While the word "Designer" does not appear, I observe that there are references to (inter alia) "a person involved in the design of the building or of works to the building", and "persons carrying on, for business purposes, activities connected with the design ... of buildings".

My understanding is that section 34 of the BSA will be used to modify schedule 1 of the Building Act to introduce the new dutyholders, including the BSA Principal Designer - that's the implication of the consultation.  See https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-implementing-the-new-building-control-regime-for-higher-risk-buildings-and-wider-changes-to-the-building-regulations-for-all-buildings/consultation-on-implementing-the-new-building-control-regime-for-higher-risk-buildings-and-wider-changes-to-the-building-regulations-for-all-buildings (snappy title) in particular clause 2.7 - "the client may decide to appoint a Principal Designer or Principal Contractor for CDM, and a Principal Designer or Principal Contractor for building regulations purposes after considering the different statutory requirements. The same person may also fulfil both roles if competent to do so."

And now they've published teh expected secondary legislation - The Building Regulations etc. (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2023/911/contents/made) define both designer and principal designer (see reg 3) and set out competence requiremenst (reg 6 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2023/911/regulation/6/made)

In teh latter they've gone for teh catchy title 'principal designer for the purposes of these Regulations' and clause 2 of 11D of the reg makes it clear that PDftpotR is not necesarily teh same as CDM PD (though could be).

That clause 2 is well scary, in my opinion: if you are CDM PD the client can just decree you to be PDftpotR.  I observe that if your PI and PL insurance doesn't cover that work an external party has just imposed a large uninsured risk on your business, with no opportunity for you to refuse it.

There's more secondary legislation published too:

The Building (Approved Inspectors etc. And Review of Decisions) (England) Regulations 2023  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2023/906/contents/made

The Higher-Risk Buildings (Management of Safety Risks etc) (England) Regulations 2023  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2023/907/contents/made

The Building Safety Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments etc.) Regulations 2023  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2023/908/contents/made

The Building Regulations (Higher-Risk Building Procedures) (England) 2023  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2023/909/contents/made

Edited by user 21 August 2023 14:39:15(UTC)  | Reason: fix reference