Original article ISPreview UK:
A new report from the cross-party House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee has warned that “unacceptable” delays caused by the Building Safety Regulator’s (BSR) approval processes are leaving residents waiting for remediation of dangerous cladding in unsafe buildings, causing increased costs for leaseholders and also impacting the roll-out of new digital infrastructure.
The idea of improving safety for building works, particularly the largest residential buildings (i.e. blocks of flats / Multi-Dwelling Units – MDU), is all well a good. But the issue here is that delays in the Building Safety Regulator’s (BSR) related processes for minor works have been starting to cause wider problems and pushing up costs, often unpredictably.
“We also heard evidence from witnesses in the telecommunications sector that they were experiencing delays in installing full-fibre broadband and mobile infrastructure since the establishment of the BSR and its slow processing of applications for minor works, potentially risking digital connectivity for households living in higher-risk buildings,” said the full report.
The problems referenced above were recently touched on by Hyperoptic, which specialises in deploying FTTP/B networks into MDUs. “These regulations have introduced new processes for connecting buildings over seven storeys or 18 metres, and we are in constructive discussions with the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government to ensure we have the clarity needed to continue delivering safe, compliant connections for residents,” said a spokesperson for the provider when announcing more job cuts (here).
Key findings of the report
After hearing from a range of witnesses including representatives of campaign groups and other organisations, developers, housing associations and regulators which work closely with the BSR, the Committee also found:
- The BSR has not given clear enough guidance on how applicants are supposed to demonstrate that their buildings are safe;
- Many applications are being rejected or delayed due to basic errors and applicants’ inability to evidence how they are considering elements of fire and structural safety, which reflects poorly on the construction industry;
- Many construction products do not have relevant product standards, leaving them entirely unregulated;
- Difficulties in local authority funding and the introduction of regulation have left an ageing workforce of building inspectors who are struggling to meet demand;
- Despite these skills shortages, smaller works such as bathroom renovations in high-rise buildings are being subject to the scrutiny of the BSR’s hard-pressed multidisciplinary teams.
The report goes on to warn that the Government could also be in danger of “missing its target” to build 1.5 million homes by 2029 unless it gets to grips with the problem.
Chair of the Committee, Baroness Taylor of Bolton, said:
“The tragic loss of 72 lives at the Grenfell Tower fire laid bare the urgent need to reform building safety regulation in England, particularly for high-rise buildings. The introduction of the Building Safety Regulator was a necessary and welcome step.
However, the scale of the delays caused by the BSR has stretched far beyond the regulator’s statutory timelines for building control decisions. This is unacceptable. We welcome that the Government and the BSR are now acting to try and make practical improvements, but this will not address the anxiety and frustration that residents and companies have experienced.
It does not improve safety to delay vital remediation and refurbishments, nor to deter the delivery of new housing in high-rise buildings. We expect to see further action from the Government and the BSR to ensure that construction projects in high-rise buildings can be brought forward more quickly, without compromising on vital safety improvements.”
Andrew Kernahan, Head of Public Affairs, Internet Services Providers’ Association (ISPA UK), said:
“Today’s report from the House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee rightly recognises that delays in the Building Safety Regulator’s (BSR) processes for minor works risk undermining digital connectivity for households in higher‑risk buildings. The telecoms industry recognises the importance of both building safety and digital connectivity, and with 72% of people saying it is important that internet providers continue to invest in infrastructure upgrades, it is vital that regulation enables, rather than delays, gigabit broadband rollout.
We welcome that the Committee has reflected our recommendation that Government remove smaller works, where approvals are needed, from the BSR’s building control approval processes or introduce a streamlined route. The report also echoes our submission on the delays our sector is facing in installing gigabit broadband infrastructure into high-risk buildings. We will continue working with Government, regulators and stakeholders to secure safe, reliable broadband for residents in higher‑risk buildings.”
The issue(s) for digital infrastructure providers have already been well covered in the ISPA’s written submission (here), which estimated that “800,000 households within [High-Rise Buildings] could be left without access to the connectivity they need in the near future” unless the problems are addressed. Mobile UK has also raised similarly concerns for the ongoing roll-out and upgrade of 5G, 6G networks etc. (here).
Core Recommendations of the Report
- The BSR to give greater guidance to its [multidisciplinary teams] MDTs on how compliance with the Building Regulations should be evidenced and assessed to ensure greater consistency;
- The Government to remove smaller works from the BSR’s building control approval processes, or introduce a streamlined approval process for them;
- The BSR to allocate the same MDTs to similar buildings or projects built by the same organisation, which could improve efficiency and consistency;
- The Government to provide long-term funding for the training of new building and fire inspectors.
The challenge for the government will be in how they effectively soften the rules, assuming they choose to do that, while at the same time trying to avoid the risk of weaker building safety.
