Independent report

Building safety: The Industry Safety Steering Group’s fourth report for the Secretary of State and the Minister for Building Safety HTML

Published 1 March 2024

Applies to England

1. Foreword

The Industry Safety Steering Group (ISSG) was established in 2018 and has reported regularly on the progress being made on driving culture change within the many groups who are part of the built environment sector. This is our fourth report. We have seen further good examples of those demonstrating best practice since we last reported but there is still not a consistent picture across industry. Industry and broader actors in the system still need to do a lot more to commit to building safety and to demonstrate that their commitment is driven by the right motivation. The period covered by this report has seen a higher level of interest and engagement but at the same time we have encountered a widespread tendency to further delay taking action on the basis that some are awaiting further detail to emerge in legislation.

By way of example, training and upskilling of the workforce is required now to fill existing competence gaps and drive up quality levels. It is for industry itself to define the competences it needs to deliver work that is fit for purpose not for this to be prescribed by the regulator.   

We are also deeply concerned by the actions of some developers where we have seen hard evidence of them continuing to proceed without considering safety in the early stages of a building’s design and continuing with the construction of buildings to standards which they know will change very soon. Not only is it disappointing that they are failing to “do the right thing” but we do not understand the mindset when they may well face serious challenge from the regulator before the building is handed over for occupation and/or they may be creating future need for remediation work.

The ISSG’s work turns over stones no one else has turned. In doing this, we inevitably reveal further issues that require investigation and where some actors have not even recognised the role they play and the difference they can make to the system. ISSG has therefore continued to delve further into the built environment and its associated areas to identify issues not immediately apparent to others.

For much of the last year we have been seeking to find ways to involve the financial community in our discussion and to explore how they might influence the sector to behave more responsibly. In doing this we have also taken time to examine how other locations around the world who are facing similar challenges have progressed. It is clear that there are initiatives underway which we should follow closely and seek to emulate here in the UK.

We have also been clear on the need for reform in the area of Construction Products regulation and very much welcome the publication of the Morrell/Day report. We will continue to push industry to act responsibly in this area whilst continuing to maintain a close watching brief of the progress of regulatory reform.

 We have also considered how the ISSG itself should evolve with the introduction of the Fire Safety Act 2021, the Building Safety Act 2022, the new Building Safety Regulator for England, and the new National Regulator for Construction Products in the Office of Product Safety and Standards. We believe there is still a need for the ISSG to guide industry and openly encourage culture change. This will be particularly important in the areas of insurance, investment and procurement, which are at the periphery of the regulators’ scope, but which have a powerful role to play in driving the right behaviours. ISSG is also very keen to follow through the new regime’s implications for residents of high-rise buildings and to ensure that the new system delivers for the people to whom building safety matters to most.

ISSG will therefore continue taking forward the message that developing and maintaining a positive culture is everyone’s responsibility and needs a continuous and sustained effort from all involved in the industry.

Finally, I would like to again thank my colleagues on the ISSG for their passion for driving change forward, which they all bring to every ISSG meeting. Their extraordinary commitment and wealth of experience makes it a pleasure and a privilege to Chair ISSG.

2. Background

The Industry Safety Steering Group (ISSG) was formed to scrutinise the built environment industry’s proposals and progress towards culture change, on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC). The role of the group is to provide constructive challenge, recommend actions, overcome obstacles and make proposals to accelerate change with all actors in the system.

Through its engagement with the broad industry, the ISSG continues to highlight the importance and relevance of the building safety agenda to the various players. Particularly supporting industry leaders to take on the necessary role and responsibility for delivering the required change. This will be key to underpinning effective delivery of the legislative changes being brought about through the Fire Safety Act 2021 and the Building Safety Act 2022. Further, the group continues to hold industry to account for delivering culture change.

The ISSG’s role is about challenging and encouraging all parts of industry involved in the built environment to collectively bring itself up to the level where it should always have been operating. We do not tell industry what to do – but we do set clear expectations and we do not accept excuses.

3. Our progress 

The ISSG continues to meet every two months with various players within the built environment industry to identify the current best practices, to seek out where progress is slow and why and to encourage a culture change. 

The pace of this cultural change remains a key priority for the ISSG. Since we published our third annual report we have worked to successfully encourage more organisations to participate in the building safety agenda and this report sets out some of these examples. Our clear message continues to be that industry needs to be proactive and show leadership to tackle these issues and not wait for solutions to be created by others. It is important therefore that everyone take on the necessary responsibility to deliver this change.  In the last year we have also engaged with some organisations who have needed our help and encouragement to see the significant role they can play in driving culture change. Previously, at best, the subject was peripheral to them. 

Although we have seen consistent pockets of good practice, we are still waiting to see real substantive ownership and leadership from the industry in response to the reforms required to embed Building Safety.  We still observe a widespread culture of reliance, expecting to be told step-by-step by government and the regulator how to keep buildings safe. 

Industry and those who create building safety risks are best placed to manage and control them. What we had expected to see by now is industry taking ownership of the issue themselves. As observed in our previous reports, continuing to wait for the regulations or assessors to ‘catch them out’ or highlight grave errors still seems to be the norm.  Embedding building safety as an essential and intrinsic part of the entire building process is starting to happen in some organisations but is still not as widespread as it should be. Even some of those who claim to “get it” continue to exhibit a “de minimis” approach focused on compliance alone rather than the innate safety-first focus, which is fundamental to rebuilding trust in the industry.

Those who really do get it are being proactive and do truly understand how it needs to be going forward. They must be acknowledged and supported. We need them to set the standard and lead the way for others and they deserve to be recognised for their leadership. Whilst the numbers of signatories is growing more slowly than any of us would have hoped, we were pleased to see the first 10 Charter Champions recognised by the Building a Safer Future Charter in December 2022. The slow rate of take up of this scheme has led us to look further afield to see how others are trying to drive culture change in the sector.

We believe the ISSG forum has been a positive force tackling these barriers to cultural change . As well as challenging those that have not taken the necessary action, the ISSG has also provided an opportunity to identify issues and build relationships between various sectors of the industry, as well as the regulators.

At times it has been difficult for ISSG to obtain hard evidence that positive changes are having a real impact. Despite Industry saying the right things to us and providing assurance that buildings have been made safer,  this needs to be followed through with tangible proof and therefore we are also considering what metrics might be deployed to increase levels of confidence that real lasting change is occurring.

4. How to use this report

This report sets out many of the areas that are helping to contribute to culture change but is not intended to be a definitive list. The report also highlights case studies of organisations, many demonstrating good practice. We actively encourage these organisations to find routes to share their learning and best practice with the rest of industry, including through the media, in the interest of raising standards across the sector. We believe that those who are doing the right thing in relation to new build need to be recognised, so that they can demonstrate true business benefit and have the opportunity to influence the rest of industry. That recognition for doing the right thing should also be independently assessed. Doing so will also ultimately deliver greater trust from the public and from collaborators in industry. 

We recognise the sharing of good practice will only be effective when the rest of industry shows itself to be willing and wanting to learn from others and to adopt that good practice but we can also apply levers to create a clear incentive to do so. We have yet to see this happening to the extent that it needs to, and there is a need to consider what stimuli can be given to encourage others to follow the examples of real leadership within the industry. 

The next chapter sets out important work being carried out by government and regulators which ISSG supports. This report then sets out our assessment of the key industry players against these key themes:

• leadership
• collaboration
• competence
• transparency
• responsibility

5. Government

We welcome the Fire Safety Act 2021 as it encourages industry to reshape their practices, particularly the requirements for responsible persons of multi-occupied residential buildings to include the building’s structure, external walls, and flat entrance doors in their fire risk assessments. We see these fire safety requirements as an important new step when ensuring fire risks are looked at systemically, properly owned and controlled.

The Building Safety Act 2022 introduces a long-awaited regulatory regime ensuring building safety must be considered at each stage of design, construction and occupation.  We are confident this legislation provides a clear framework to deliver more high-quality, safe homes and liveable buildings, with clear responsibilities for dutyholders throughout the building lifecycle.

We have expressed some disappointment about the slow momentum of industry change prior to the Act coming into force. The presence of new legislation provides a clear incentive for organisations to either lead change or be the subject of change through enforcement. There is still much work to be done by businesses to wake up to the commercial opportunities of acting now to improve safety standards. There is evidence from other safety regimes that active leadership and tone from the top, as well as active management of risk makes good business sense and avoids costly remedial work downstream.  

Nonetheless it is clear that industry is aware that change is coming and that they need to be ready for it. The Building Safety Regulators first ever conference in March 2023 attracted a capacity audience and the recording of the event has been watched by hundreds who were unable to attend on the day. The Regulator laid out clear expectations for what would be required and when but it was disappointing to witness the extent to which industry still sought further step by step prescriptive detail, despite being told clearly that this was for them to do for themselves.

As an example, despite the clear signals which are emerging from the introduction of the Planning Gateway One process, it is deeply disappointing to see and hear of examples of developers proceeding with the build of high-rise buildings with single staircases simply because the plans were passed ahead of the new planning gateway. Actions like this show little regard for the future gateways in the process which they know are coming.

Now, with the Building Safety Act 2022 in place, industry leaders should recognise that the penalties and costs associated with breaking laws are much higher than the expense of changing practices and reacting accordingly.

There needs to be a clear statement that this is not just about penalties from the regulator but also future liability which firms will carry for poor quality work and defective buildings. This is in addition to the clear societal expectation that organisations show a duty of care for the safety and wellbeing of residents and other building occupants.

The ISSG does also believe that the new regulator needs to be supported to play an increasingly visible role, along with government, in providing clarity on issues like this. While the Responsible Actors Scheme has played an important role in getting industry to step up on remediation of existing buildings, ISSG is keen to identify ways in which a similar approach can be brought to bear to support the new regulatory regime and drive the right behaviours among those engaged on buildings currently in design and construction

The Building Safety Act’s focus on leaseholder protection is welcome but in addition to freeing up leaseholders from the burden of costs for problems which  they did not create we also want to see a more proactive approach to  building trust in the quality of new buildings .

One specific concern of the ISSG relates to the removal of the building safety manager (BSM) role within the act which was driven by a need to provide clarity in response to some concerns raised by consultees.

It has, however, been used in some quarters to undermine the building safety messages and justify delaying action. This is regrettable and should sound a warning to policy makers not to give in to those whose prime motivation is to defer or delay the need for clear responsibilities to be established in the new system.  ISSG will continue to counter this and push for everyone to act now and to preserve the integrity of the overall system.   

6. Case study – Government action: Responsible Actors Scheme (RAS) and Residential Property Developer Tax, to protect leaseholders from costs of repair

The Building Safety Act 2022 sets out the Responsible Actors Scheme allowing the Secretary of State to hold industry to account through the creation of building safety schemes. The purpose of such schemes are to incentivise industry actors to do the right thing in matters essential to building safety such as remediation of life-critical fire safety defects.

The Responsible Actors Scheme (RAS) will enable the Secretary of State to differentiate between those major developers who are willing to take responsibility for the safety of buildings they had a role in developing and those who are not.   

Eligible developers that take responsibility and do the right thing will continue to go about their business freely and with confidence, while organisations that don’t will suffer commercial and reputational consequences including not being able to carry out major developments or get building control approvals.  The government was clear that the industry that had profited from the crisis must pay to fix the problems it created, and that the wider industry must also contribute to resolving these issues.

This same thinking needs to be applied with some urgency to developers on current and future work where there needs to be a clear means to differentiate those who are truly committed to doing the right thing.

7. Regulators

The introduction of a new national regulator for construction products in the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) is another welcome development. April 2023 saw the introduction of the stronger, more integrated regulatory system to ensure buildings, and in particular high-rise residential and other in-scope buildings, are safe.

We support the OPSS planned priority-based review of standards and their work to review whether the current testing system is robust enough. ISSG welcomes steps to better identify inferior, non-compliant versions of products especially those that purport to be equivalent to those that have passed more rigorous tests.

However, during the course of the last year we have also become aware of how important it is that the two regulators, OPSS and the Building Safety Regulator (BSR), work closely together for the whole system to work effectively. There is much work still to be done to define and establish a robust Construction Products regulatory regime.  

We were very pleased to have the opportunity to hear from Paul Morrell and Annelise Day about their work in this area and welcomed the  long awaited publication of their report. We will provide our full support to the team which is now tasked with developing  the programme of substantial reform required in this area.

8. Case study Kingspan enforcement success – supporting Local Authority, Trading Standards in enforcement

Even as it prepares to take up its full role as the national regulator for construction products by 2024, we were encouraged to see the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) act decisively to intervene and remove non-compliant products from the market.

Working alongside Local Authority Trading Standards, the OPSS ran an investigation into the production of a certain type of insulation boards (K15) by Kingspan Insulation Ltd, which failed to perform at the level claimed in the product’s Declaration of Performance. OPSS’ investigation established that the company was not monitoring the K15 production process using the correct Assessment and Verification of Constancy of Performance system for reaction to fire (AVCP1).

Using its existing delegated enforcement powers, the OPSS acted swiftly and issued Legal Notices requiring Kingspan to notify customers of the non-compliant products and recover any affected products from the market. The production and placement of any further K15 products on the market was also prohibited until Kingspan implemented an AVCP1 system to verify the product’s manufacturing process. As a result, customers and wider industry were quickly made aware of the non-compliant products and could take any remedial actions as appropriate with regards to building safety.

The OPSS’ successful intervention not only resulted in non-compliant construction products being removed from the market but led Kingspan Insulation Ltd, a market leading manufacturer, to improve its production control system.  This case sets a precedent for others in the product manufacturing industry to reflect on, and we hope, will prompt a review of their own production control systems.

The formal establishment of the BSR in the Health & Safety Executive is another long-awaited positive step. Its enforcement powers throughout the lifecycle of a building will be a crucial driver of cultural change. We have been encouraged by the BSR’s intention to act as an enforcer of the new regime. The BSR’s high-rise building regime has already provided some positive steps at the planning stage. The robust stance highlighted by the BSR is exactly the action the ISSG feels necessary to push back against a culture where nonadherence or negotiation around standards has been normalised.

We have heard from the BSR about the experience of introducing Planning Gateway One and the high percentage of developments on which the BSR initially raised fire safety concerns with the local planning authorities. More recent updates from the BSR indicate that the feedback to those presenting proposals is now having a significant effect on what comes forward and fewer fire safety concerns are being raised.

However, we are concerned that buildings which were already past the point where they would have received Planning Gateway One scrutiny when that was introduced in August 2021, but are still being constructed, are not being accounted for. This is a particular concern in relation to high-rise buildings over 18 metres being built with single staircases.

We also welcome the BSR’s improved oversight of safety and performance of all buildings and the BSR’s focus on improving competence levels across the built environment, along with leading the creation of a regulated building control profession.  

The BSR has presented its engagement and cultural change priorities to ISSG and we support its aims and its high-level focus on ensuring buildings are designed with the safety features integrated at the earliest possible opportunity. Nonetheless we see a clear need for planned communication and engagement to include clear guidance on future requirements for work currently ‘in flight’ to influence behaviours and decisions ahead of the new regime being introduced.

It would be beneficial for the BSR to continue to recognise and share good practice more proactively. The BSR communication objectives both internally and externally will be crucial to help promote awareness and co-ordination, drive attitude and culture change, as well as rebuild trust between industry, public, residents and the BSR.

9. Case study – BSR Planning Gateway One (PGO)

The Health and Safety Executive through the BSR is now a statutory consultee on fire safety matters for planning applications that include a relevant (high-risk) building. This Planning Gateway One (PGO) service received just over 1,300 consultation requests from local planning authorities from its inception in 01 August 2021. Approximately 30% of these cases included resubmissions following BSR’s advice to planning authorities.

BSR raised fire safety concerns related to land use planning in over half of the cases.  Issues ranged from those that could be easily rectified with straightforward modifications to building layout and access, to the need for significant changes. The majority of concerns related to single staircase representing the only means of escape for residents on upper storeys and the only firefighting access.

Other common concerns included additional firefighting shafts, the provision or relocation of fire mains, the need for improved fire appliance accessibility, escape route protection, and preventing fire spread to other buildings.

The PGO team has worked with local planning authorities to address fire safety concerns prior to consent. In a small number of cases, BSR advised the local authority to refuse planning permission.

Through this process PGO is driving a change in the behaviour of developers and designers, and is having a positive influence on the fire safety of higher-risk buildings early in the design process.

There are tentative signs that industry is gaining a better understanding of what a more stringent regime means for them. In November 2022 the number of planning applications that PGO was “content” with had increased to 52%, which was a significant improvement on the annualised average of 22%.

ISSG is also pleased that the professional institute (Institute of Fire Engineers IFE) has worked with the BSR and is amplifying its message that fire expertise is required at the earliest possible planning stage, so that the right precautions can be put in place at the start of any project.

The relationship between the ISSG and the OPSS and BSR needs to continue to be a close and supportive one, where the BSR and OPSS can focus on compliance of key players and the ISSG can support behavioural and culture change across the much wider environment for example including the investment and insurance industries.

10. Industry leadership

ISSG have always been clear that improved regulation is important, but that meaningful and lasting change requires strong leadership. Every part of the industry and at all levels of the supply chain have a responsibility to step up and demonstrate that it understands and will do what is needed to protect residents and produce good quality homes.

There are examples in the construction and other high-hazard sectors of where coordinated industry leadership has had significant impact on safety performance.  This includes setting itself clear objectives, measuring performance and openly reporting on progress.

As we continue to push for an increase in visible and effective leadership across the sector, we are encouraged by some leaders’ work to change their sub-sectors. This includes setting out the specific actions that they will take to ensure that the safety of residents is prioritised at every stage of a project. We are therefore determined to keep working with the leaders across the sector to drive this positive cultural change.

11. Case study – Construction Leadership Council

Building safety is a strategic priority for the Construction Leadership Council (CLC) and aims to champion and support delivery of safe and high-quality buildings for those who live and work in them.  The CLC completed new governance processes to support its work on buildings safety with the establishment of 5 pillars to address the industry building safety actions:

• regulatory clarity - to increase regulatory clarity and improve the understanding of the regulations and adoption by the industry
• competence - lead industry competence, development of standards, industry accreditation and drive the adoption of required behaviours
• construction products - support clarification of product information and certification including testing
• golden thread - support delivery through industry guidance (process, industry skills and digital technologies)
• professional indemnity insurance (PII) - develop partnerships and campaigns which unlock financially sustainable PII and other forms of insurance

During 2023, the Council has continued to take a leadership role for the industry on building safety. This has included convening and collaborating with government, regulatory bodies and industry on strategic building safety issues, and to support the industry to build its capability to meet the requirements of the Building Safety Act.

The CLC has worked with and co-ordinated activities with other organisations and initiatives seeking to deliver improved building safety.

In spite of the positive leadership demonstrated by CLC and others, there remains significant room for improvement in building safety leadership. It is particularly disappointing that the insurance industry still appears somewhat unwilling to support or recognise some of the changes that are occurring within the built environment industry or to engage effectively in discussion about what changes in practice they would wish to see in order for them to reduce levels of risk aversion.

The ISSG has heard over the previous 4 years from some organisations (although not all) trying to make positive change. There is a large amount of confusion and lack of clarity within the industry on exactly what insurance companies are asking of them.

One particular example of this in the last year has been the delay which occurred in the introduction of the Code for Construction Product Information. A positive step in the right direction being made by the industry on a voluntary basis was delayed by several months because of the difficulty in securing Professional Indemnity cover for a scheme which self-evidently introduces greater transparency and reduces risk. 

ISSG would like the insurance industry to be able to make pragmatic and discerning assessments of industry consumers to differentiate between good and bad organisations. This applies specifically to Professional Indemnity cover, which is vital for individuals to carry out work, but also a more systems-based approach to buildings insurance.

There is evidence that this type of behaviour by insurers is emerging in other parts of the world, and it is disappointing that we are not seeing the leadership we would expect from the UK market. We hope the insurance industry can better engage in positive ways to help to drive right behaviours, rather than dis-engaging with the problem.   

The publication of a new model insurance clause covering fire safety risks by the International Underwriting Association, developed in collaboration with DLUHC, is a positive step. We hope to see the insurance industry make use of this clause.

12. Case study – Building a Safer Future Charter

The Building a Safer Future Charter initiative has shown significant collaboration within the industry through its continued work to develop a benchmarking and verification framework that sets a high bar for organisations who go through the process and are then recognised as “Charter Champions”.

We were very pleased to hear from two organisations (MHS Homes and Persimmon Homes) that have signed up to and are living the principles of the Building a Safer Future Charter.

As BSF Charter Champions, they demonstrated how this has helped their organisations redirect and enhance their focus on building safety as well as guarding against complacency. They were encouraged through the framework to take a more holistic look in identifying blind spots within their organisations. This has led them to reflect on their projects (old and new) and take proactive measures to address building safety.

MHS homes also identified that using the building a safer future framework has been a critical part in obtaining funding from investors.

Although the underlying challenge of enacting culture change is an ongoing process, both organisations proactive measures help to put them on the right pathway. This continuous improvement journey involves learning from others and focuses on evidence-based decision making rather than a tick box exercises.

ISSG is pleased to hear how, far from being a burden/cost, the Charter has benefited these organisations and hope that other organisations will be encouraged to buy into the Charter. We believe that the changes which have been made to the charter process which allows companies to commit to a “journey” of continuous improvement are helpful in making the scheme more accessible.

We have also continued to push professional bodies to show greater levels of leadership. It is our firm belief that a number of bodies are missing opportunities here to put their weight and influence behind creating the new culture.

We heard from Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) that they believe two staircases in high-rise buildings should become standard and that they have lobbied for it to be mandated by Government. ISSG have made it clear to RIBA that we would expect them to show more leadership within the profession by setting standards for their own profession and consistently making it clear to their members that RIBA’s position is one that opposes the use of single staircases in high-rise buildings.

We also engaged with the Fire Sector Federation on the white paper they have produced. While the paper sets out further changes that they believe are required and calls for a National Fire Safety Strategy we fed back to them that we believe their focus on more change led by Government was misplaced.

The ISSG are supportive in principle of a National Fire Safety Strategy but a clear opportunity will be missed if the focus on the need for action is not placed on industry itself. There are signs that this message has landed but we will continue to monitor closely

13. Collaboration and transparency

The ISSG supports the need for different organisations and sectors to come together to address some of the complex and challenging issues relating to building safety. We still have a very fragmented landscape, which is probably best described as containing multiple siloed sub sectors. It is therefore a significant challenge for all those who are trying to effect change to reach all the relevant participants, before working with them to encourage positive action. 

We have seen action and engagement from organisations, who have presented the steps they are taking to drive culture change. We have also seen some good progress through a number of industry initiatives. 

14. Case study - Update on the Code for Construction Product Information (CCPI)

CPI Ltd, the not-for-profit entity set-up to administer and verify the Code for Construction Product Information, is now to begin its first wave of verifications with 15 to 20 construction product manufacturers who have stepped forward to be part of the first wave. These will begin by the end of Q1 2023 and are aimed at being completed early in Q3, with two further waves later this year.  

This will enable construction product manufacturers to come forward to have their product set information verified as clear, accurate, up-to-date, accessible and unambiguous. 

The CCPI will play a critical role in raising standards in the sector and particularly to set a level playing field for all construction product manufacturers and address the serious issue of misleading marketing claims and incorrect information regarding construction products. We believe this will limit bad substitutions and regain trust in all elements of the product sector.

The industry needs to create a safe and open environment where concerns can be raised without the fear of repercussion. This must continue throughout the supply chain with a focus on solutions rather than blame or encouraging risk-aversion. We need to see evidence that we have a maturing industry that can reject and challenge poor practices, own and challenge safety standards and recognise and share best practice. Industry will also need to work together to find and drive innovative solutions to address issues around building safety.

Specifically, we want organisations to use a “resident-centric” approach to decision-making and to take ownership of putting right past problems as well as adopting good practice in new build - with immediate effect. We want to see more companies commit to being transparent with residents particularly when it comes to funding remediation and mitigation of safety defects, including cladding.  Organisations must ensure that residents are provided with information they can trust, that they feel safe and must demonstrate they are working hard to regain their trust.

We were therefore impressed with the wealth of good practice that the housing organisations Trafford Housing, Guinness Partnership, Clarion, TPAs, Peaks and Plains, and the National Housing Federation presented regarding resident engagement, as well as their openness to share information and collaborate on initiatives. It was promising that the housing associations had recognised the need for bespoke, personalised engagement with their residents as opposed to taking the easier route of a one size fits all policy. 

As many of the issues raised by these housing associations appear to be problems that many other organisations are also facing, we certainly value the industry continuing to collaborate and work together to develop solutions.

Another example is the positive response we have seen to the collaborative procurement guidance that encourages good practice, consistent with the new regulatory regime, to help the construction industry to deliver better quality buildings. There is a need for more detail and a clear definition of what “good” looks like in construction procurement practices and we expect procurement guidance to help bring about these changes. 

There are other emerging examples of good practice guidance being developed by working groups within industry and we have asked BSR to give urgent consideration to how they might offer recognition to these helpful tools and guides where they are clearly supportive of and consistent with the requirements of the new regime.

The publication of guidance has potential to create meaningful change within the industry and we should not expect all of this work to be done by or with the direct involvement of the BSR. The ISSG is looking forward to the key themes to be adopted as evidence of a collaborative, structured and robust approach to ensuring building safety and quality.  ISSG will continue to have an interest in this area. 

The work of Collaborative Reporting for Safer Structures UK (CROSS) demonstrates how being transparent in reporting of structural safety (and now fire safety issues) can benefit the culture of organisations, promote safe practise and have a positive benefit on the wider industry.

15. Case study: CROSS-UK

The Collaborative Reporting for Safer Structures UK (CROSS-UK) has relaunched and expanded its service to include fire safety reporting as well as structural safety reporting. CROSS work includes receiving reports on concerns, occurrences and near misses relating to fire and structural safety during the design, construction, occupation and demolition of a building.

CROSS-UK promotes a no-blame culture and ensures that structural and fire safety issues can be confidently reported, assessed and shared with the wider industry and with their international networks, hence highlighting problems and avoiding reoccurrence or future issues.

CROSS’s metrics seem to indicate that people’s awareness and use of its reporting system is increasing, however ISSG would like to see a more wide spread use. 

ISSG strongly supports CROSS receipt of long-term BSR funding as we feel its role is firmly in the public interest and will help promote culture change across the industry.

16. Competence

One of ISSG’s biggest concerns is that Industry is not moving fast enough to put in place the necessary training and upskilling to meet the new building safety competency requirements.  Much has been done to provide industry with the tools and frameworks it needs to accelerate the pace of change and to rebuild trust and confidence in and across the sector. However, the lack of take up for training is a serious concern.

There are several key aspects to what a successful agenda for improving competence looks like; good quality training programmes that are standardised; good training providers to deliver the training; willingness to innovate and find new ways of delivering training, improved supervision of work in the field and a willingness to act from industry.

Work highlighting the new competency requirements, for example the publication of the British Standards Institute’s (BSI) publicly available specifications (PAS), is positive. PAS include:

• 8671:2022 Built environment – Framework for competence of individual Principal Designers – Specification
• 8672: 2022 Built environment – Framework for competence of individual Principal Contractors – Specification
• 8673:2022 Built environment. Competence requirements for the management of safety in residential buildings – Specification

However, more is required across industry to ensure that there is the necessary supply of training and upskilling available to meet new requirements. Companies need to act on these competency requirements now. Improved practices need to be in place now not just in readiness for the new regulatory regime.  There is also significant scope for more innovation in methods of training delivery. 

17. Case study : training programme for cladding installers

The cladding sector faced numerous challenges properly training installers.  These included poor procurement practices and the limited availability of labour.

After a robust discussion with ISSG, agreement was reached between Pagabo (procurement framework provider), ProQual (qualification awarding organisation) and CITB (construction training body) to fund the National Federation of Roofing Contractors (NFRC) to implement an installer training programme. Importantly this training used innovative training solutions (such as on-line modules) to overcome the barriers.   

The ISSG is pleased that the cladding sector had reflected on ISSG feedback in 2021 and developed a collaborative solution to meet cladding installers capacity and competence needs.  Its particularly pleasing to see the use of new methods and modularised training that allowed organisations to select the appropriate training specific to their specialists’ existing skillset and knowledge.  

ISSG supports innovation and encourages the cladding sector to recognise its shortcomings regarding training and competence and embrace the opportunity to build a more skilled workforce.

ISSG also heard from Construction Industry Council Approved Inspectors Register (CICAIR) and the Local Authority Building Control (LABC) who have started a new programme to train local authority building control professionals to gain a higher level of competency. This is a good first step to improve the competence of Building Control inspectors who have a key role in ensuring buildings are designed and built safely.

ISSG also supported the work of the BSR in establishing its Interim Industry Competence Committee. We support its cultural change objectives across the built environment; and note that it is taking action now to respond to lack of movement on training and upskilling.  

We advise the fully fledged Industry Competence Committee (ICC) to learn from others both inside and outside of the built environment sector. One of the key strengths of the ISSG is the breadth of knowledge and experience of its members, who come from a broad range of industries. Bringing people in from other sectors (beyond the built environment) has many advantages we feel the permanent ICC would benefit from. This would also enable the ICC to more robustly challenge traditional thinking and attitudes within the Built Environment sector.

We look forward to working more closely with the ICC along with other BSR statutory committees in the future.

18. Standards and Accreditation

In the last year ISSG has continued to engage with standards and accreditation bodies who all play an essential and vital role in supporting regulatory systems. We are also very much aware that these bodies have been subject to significant scrutiny by the Public Inquiry.

While we commend the work done by BSI and many others to develop competency standards and to provide other important Publicly Available Specifications such as PAS9980, it is also clear that there is considerable work still to be undertaken to reform much of the system. Our engagement with BBA and UKAS in particular has demonstrated how much change is required to improve the clarity of scope and robustness of the accreditations they provide.

It has been apparent from the Public Inquiry that there is much work to do in this area and we await the Inquiry’s specific recommendations. Nonetheless it is already clear that many products are unregulated, we have standards which may well not be fit for purpose, and which are presumed to provide more assurance than is intended. The Morrell report provides further much needed recommendations on how this work needs to be taken forward.

ISSG plan to make this a focus of its work going forward.

19. Responsibility

It is vitally important that industry takes responsibility for the cultural change required to ensure the new building safety regime creates real, lasting change in industry. It should now be clear to all involved in the industry that this new regulatory regime is coming and will have significant impact on their activities.

Many of the presenters at our meetings demonstrated a real understanding of the changes and were actively preparing to bring in new practices ahead of the legislative requirements. However, we have also observed a worrying lack of preparation in some quarters.

We hope to see more ownership from the industry, as some are still failing to embed building safety as an essential and intrinsic part of their work. We feel that a safety-first responsibility is fundamental to rebuilding trust in the industry. The case study Hyde (Martlet Homes Ltd) v Mulalley Verdict may hopefully be another driver for the sector to take the required responsibility.

20. Case study - High Court Verdict in Martlet Homes Ltd v Mulalley & Co Ltd

In 2022 the ISSG learned of a landmark legal case Martlet Homes Ltd v Mulalley & Co Ltd which found a building contractor liable for costs incurred in replacing combustible external cladding.

A housing association, Martlet Homes Ltd (a subsidiary of Hyde Housing Association Limited), brought a breach of contract claim against a building contractor, Mulalley & Co Ltd, to recover the costs incurred in replacing cladding the contractor had installed at four tower blocks in Hampshire between 2005 and 2008. Martlet Homes argued that there were defects in the installation, and later added a fallback argument that the cladding did not meet the Building Regulations in force at the time and that this breached contract specifications. Mulalley & Co admitted some defects but argued that these were not causative of the (post-Grenfell) decision to replace the cladding.

The judge ruled in favour of Martlet Homes on both arguments. The judge held that the defects in installation would have entitled Martlet Homes to recover the cost of repair, however success on the non-compliance argument entitled them to recover the cost of replacement. Mulalley & Co. was ordered to repay the housing association for the costs incurred in replacing the non-compliant cladding on the tower blocks, as well as other associated costs including those for interim waking watch provision (subject to reductions).

This verdict was widely seen as a test case of liability for cladding costs. Although questions remain on whether a similar outcome can be expected in future cases, the ISSG believe that the Martlet Homes v Mulalley verdict will encourage wider industry to take greater accountability for ensuring buildings are built to standards in the first place and covering the cost of remediation work on past projects or risk facing a costly trial themselves.

More recently there has been further evidence of the Court’s willingness to place responsibility where it truly lies in a ruling which gives much needed assurance to leaseholders facing demands for remediation costs which are not their fault. Batish & Ors v (1) Inspired Sutton Limited, (2) Inspired Asset Management Limited and (3) Lyons and Friis LON/00BF/HYI/2022/0002 is the first decision on an application for a Remediation Contribution Order. ISSG very much welcomes these developments.

We also believe encouraging responsible investment with good organisations committed to change is a key driver for positive action. The ISSG therefore invited lenders to our meetings to gain insight on their perspective on building safety cultural change in the built environment industry. We found that financial groups were aware of build quality issues and were carrying out due diligence assessments on the building projects they invest in, using independent third-party assessors.

Although we commend lenders for taking this action, their evidence to us also caused us to sound a note of caution on what appeared to be over reliance on third parties whose practices haven’t obviously changed since the Grenfell tragedy.

We will continue to reinforce the message that compliance with necessary standards has a direct link into commercial viability of the project and ultimately the return on their investment.  This is a good example of where ISSG raised awareness of the relevance of the new regime with a group who lacked appreciation of the changes taking place and the impact on them . 

21. Learning from others

ISSG has taken a strong interest in practices in other parts of the world and has in the last few months heard from the International Code Council (IC Council) based in the USA and also from those engaged in reforming the Built Environment system in Australia.

The IC Council were keen to offer their help and support in delivery of reform here in England and expressed a willingness to share further information on their US based codes and/re to work with policy makers here to develop codes specific to our needs. ISSG believe it will be important for both the BSR and the OPSS and their respective advisory committees to maintain good contact with IC Council going forward.

Given our strong interest in identifying ways in which independent market mechanisms can help to drive the much-needed industry culture change process, we were particularly pleased to receive an in-depth presentation on a structured approach to this which is emerging in New South Wales, Australia.

We heard from both Equifax and KPMG on how two different but related mechanisms are being deployed. Equifax have developed a system for rating of individual companies called the Independent Construction Industry Rating Tool (ICIRT) which all companies of all sizes are encouraged to apply for. The KPMG Building Trustworthy Index scheme then uses ICIRT ratings to confirm that accredited company participants were engaged in building work but combines this with assurance of the use of right materials and a robust oversight of the design and construction process to deliver a trustworthy index for the whole building.

ISSG were very impressed by the work we saw and feel strongly that there is a need to pursue a similar approach here. It should be emphasised that this approach is entirely supportive of but does not take the place of effective regulation. However, it does demonstrate that it is possible to develop a logical approach to market driven mechanisms which could significantly accelerate the pace of rebuilding trust in the industry.

22. Forward look  

ISSG is an organisation of senior people who volunteer their time to promote change and whilst we can report here on some of the differences we have seen – and contributed to - it is clear that our task is not complete. In the next year we plan to focus on:

• reform of accreditation and standards setting
• industry’s preparation and response to the BSR’s introduction of the HRB regime in practice particularly in relation to those buildings which fall into the regulatory “gap” described in this report
• the implications for our work programme of the public enquiry report findings
• the independent review of the construction products testing regime and government response
• engagement with the new BSR statutory committees - BAC, residents panel, ICC (permanent)
• exploring opportunities for evidence-based metrics to measure progress and differentiate the good/responsible actors
• pursuing an approach to recognising the leaders and developing a market based mechanism to accelerate the pace of culture change
• searching for other “stones” to turn over where the relevance of building safety reform has yet to be realised/understood