Beyond the BSR blame game – learning from our Irish and Scottish neighbours

The BSR accepts that it has had issues, which it is working to address. The ongoing House of Lords inquiry and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) taking control of the regulator, with a ‘fast-track process’ bringing building inspector and engineer function directly into the BSR, are big steps in the right direction for productive change. Let’s hope this signals the beginning of more improvements and better collaboration.

We need to acknowledge that requiring everything to be submitted on day one is the key problem, as it impacts the viability of schemes and acts as a disincentive to deliver the high-volume housing and mixed-use high-rise schemes this country so desperately needs.

Two simple changes would have an immediate impact: early engagement in the form of a pre-application meeting to agree what the deliverables are, and a phased approval process. This would eliminate the current guesswork for developers about submission requirements, increase the efficiency of both sides, and speed things up significantly. 

We only need to look to Scotland and Ireland’s building approval systems for alternative solutions. Each, of course, has other unique issues facing its development sector, but, in our current deadlock, there is plenty to be learned from our neighbours’ approach. 

“While there is no silver bullet, these systems are much more pragmatic while being just as safe as the BSR’s approach in England”

While there is no silver bullet, these systems are much more pragmatic while being just as safe as the BSR’s approach in England. 

Under Scotland’s building warrant system, information is packaged in pre-agreed stages, allowing for earlier submission and approval of packages, such as demolition plans, substructure and superstructure design, to commence while other details are developed and submitted. The safeguard that work cannot progress without approval is still there, but the staged approach makes it more manageable for the design team and offers more certainty on the programme, which is essential for funding.

Ireland, too, has adopted a sensible approach. The Building Control (Amendment) Regulations (BCAR) 2014 (and the amendment in 2015) were introduced to ensure buildings are designed and built in compliance with building regulations. BCAR assigns clear legal responsibility for designers, verifiers and contractors, and requires documented inspection, certification and record-keeping. By working with the development, investment and contracting sectors, an approval process was created that has been operating successfully for over a decade now. 

The key here is certainty. Without it, it becomes more difficult to demonstrate the viability of schemes, funders are unable to commit, and contractors cannot plan.

The lack of certainty is proving costly. The economic knock-on effect of delays of up to 48 weeks is being experienced in real terms, with construction firms reporting costs of £49,000 per week during delays, and losses attributed to this beginning to appear in annual results.

Developers need early engagement, but there is no opportunity for early consultation as it stands. The ideal scenario would be that we could meet the regulator and agree specific deliverables before commencing the detailed design. Then we can work the full plans up and submit them in phases. That would unlock the system.

Understanding what the deliverables are in the first instance would save everyone time. We simply can’t keep second guessing what they want to see. Agreeing a concise list of information at the outset and at what stage of the process it needs to be submitted would enable developers to get on with it.

“Developers need early engagement, but there is no opportunity for early consultation as it stands. The ideal scenario would be that we could meet the regulator and agree specific deliverables before commencing the detailed design”

We hope the recent changes under MHCLG will help things and, importantly, improve relationships with the sector. The current finger-pointing over the ineffectiveness of the English system is helping no one.

The overwhelming majority of investors and developers want to get this right. They are interested in long-term investment and delivering developments that will stand the test of time, giving them a strong incentive to build safe and good-quality buildings. This is especially true in the build-to-rent sector, where high-quality assets are the foundation for institutional investment and long-term stewardship of buildings and places.

The problem has been exacerbated by the government’s recent threat to take land away from developers or revoke consent if they are not building fast enough. If the uncertainty and delays caused by the BSR weren’t enough to undermine the real estate sector’s investment case, the threat of losing the consent – or, at best, becoming mired in renegotiating planning – adds another layer of jeopardy to convincing investors and other stakeholders to commit.

The obvious solution for developers and investors is to build everything lower than seven storeys, as the Gateway system is only concerned with structures that are 18m high or taller. However, this means lower-density housing in less-ambitious schemes, and would hurt housing delivery.

Common sense must prevail. We all want safe buildings, and the government and industry are aligned on the need for more high-quality, volume housing. The announcement of a package of reforms to the BSR is further evidence of the government’s commitment to this, as was the £39bn allocation for affordable housing in the Spending Review. 

It’s promising to see the government’s recognition of the sector’s concerns. But there is another very simple change that can help unlock the system: early engagement. 

The ultimate solution of shifting to a fully phased approach as used in Scotland and Ireland would potentially require a change in the law, but better engagement and communication can, and must, happen now.

Damien Sharkey, managing director, HUB