Making housing targets discretionary has led to fewer local plans
The Competition and Markets Authority’s investigation into housebuilding noted that councils’ local plans were crucial for gauging the number of permission approvals needed to meet housing need. The HBF has pointed out that since housing and levelling up secretary Michael Gove’s decision to make housing targets ‘discretionary’ last Autumn, 64 councils have paused or withdrawn their plans. The number of plans adopted last year was the lowest for a decade. Planning consultancy Lichfields’ research points to the fact that this could cause a drop of 77,000 homes a year. The trade body said most councils who have done this are concentrated in southern England and accused Mr Gove of pandering to ‘nimbyism’. The Housing Pipeline Report shows the number of units approved in 2023 was the lowest since 2015 in the Southeast, the lowest since 2013 in London and the lowest since 2012 in the Southwest. Year-on-year, each of these regions saw falls of 13, 26 and 18 per cent respectively. The same regions have already seen annual falls of more than ten per cent in new build completions. Unit approvals for the North of England dropped 18 per cent for 2023 compared to 2021, 23 per cent for the Midlands and 28 per cent for the South of England. Brokers Hank Zarihs Associates said development finance lenders were concerned the planning process had become so complicated and underfunded causing unacceptable delays for SME housebuilders. Developers were disappointed the chancellor Jeremy Hunt failed in last week’s budget to help first-time buyers with getting a deposit together to enable them to get their foot on the property ladder. They argue this is a further blow to the government’s target of building 300,000 a year by the mid-2020s. The construction industry is also blaming Natural England’s policy on maintaining nutrient neutrality of rivers across different parts of England for halting 150,000 new homes. They argue that intensive farming rather than housebuilding is the main pollution culprit. Building, Design & Construction Magazine | The Choice of Industry Professionals
Fire union warns government of Grenfell-style risk over weak high-rise evacuation policy
The union representing the overwhelming majority of firefighters has slammed new government guidance on building evacuation, saying that failings have left residents vulnerable to further Grenfell-style tragedies. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommended in October 2019 that the government develop guidelines for the evacuation of high-rise buildings. It finally published these in February 2024, more than four years later. Now, in a letter to Home Secretary James Cleverly, Fire Brigades Union leader Matt Wrack said it was a “disgrace” that it had taken so long and described the guidance as containing “little of real substance”. The guidance was based on live tests of an evacuation conducted by the London Fire Brigade (LFB) and the National Fire Chiefs’ Council (NFCC), but these did not take place on anything like the scale of Grenfell Tower. They also did not use smoke. The letter describes the guidance as a “tick-box exercise” which “adds almost nothing to improve evacuation policy for high rise buildings”. Commenting on the letter, Matt Wrack, Fire Brigades Union general secretary, said: “This evacuation guidance is too little and too late. Nearly seven years on since the Grenfell Tower fire disaster, very little has changed on the regulations covering this critical area of safety. “The Home Office has left residents in high rise flats vulnerable to a repeat of the Grenfell Fire tragedy. Ministers have engaged in what looks like a tick-box exercise to evacuation guidelines for people’s homes. “The Grenfell Tower fire was a tragedy created by politicians and big business. For decades, the profits of developers were prioritised over human life. Cutting corners on regulation, funding and firefighters’ health and safety will not keep people safe. “It may only be a matter of time before we face another tragedy, unless there is a dramatic policy shift. Ministers must wake up, and listen to the voices of firefighters and residents.” THE FULL LETTER CAN BE SEEN HERE — CLICK Building, Design & Construction Magazine | The Choice of Industry Professionals
Leading charity rebrands, as UK net zero transition propels its mission of UK homes’ electrical safety up national agenda
Leading UK safety charity, Electrical Safety First (ESF), today unveils a new visual brand identity. Click here to access a selection of the brand assets. The rebrand comes as electricity increasingly plays a bigger role in people’s lives than ever before due to the UK’s climate objective of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Even at present, over half all UK domestic fires are caused by electrical faults. With the charity’s mission propelled into more significance than ever, ESF is expanding its ambitions accordingly, to ensure people avoid deaths and injuries caused by electricity. The rebrand was informed by an extensive brand audit, comprising quantitative and qualitative research among key audiences and stakeholders, as well as market and competitor analysis. The branding agency, Garden, led both the brand audit and brand development project, working with ESF’s Head of Communications, Rory Carroll. AI software-supported colour analysis that showed Electrical Safety First’s existing primary colour, red, was by far the most used amongst charities but was particularly associated with health issues, echoing blood and danger. Whilst the latter connotation was relevant to ESF as a safety charity, the decision was made to break with this in favour of electric green, with a distinctive ‘glowing’ effect to symbolise ‘power on’ common amongst electronic items and to represent consumers making a positive change in their electrical safety. This was not a common association with green when red was chosen as the charity’s primary colour. This chimes perfectly with the creation of a new primary brand mark that replaces the previous ‘coil’-like icon, with a distinctive logo that represents both ‘e’ – being short for “electrical” – and the ‘power on’ icon universally seen in all electronic devices for many decades, whether on laptops, smartphones or televisions. The previous colour palette of red, brown, blue, green, yellow and grey reflected colours of different types of electrical wiring. Whilst this was an innovative idea, in practice it was rare for all colours to be seen together and therefore for that connection to be made with audiences. The colours also did not complement each other in execution. A vibrant primary and secondary colour palette of electric tones has now been created that work in harmony with each other. A new set of photography guidelines sees a unique treatment of imagery that combines a raw, grainy effect, with wash of colour from the new brand’s colour palette. Added to these will be one of a wide range of iconography that has been created, as a key component of this new brand. These icons are modern, leading-edge but simple in style and can act as shorthand for many common electrical scenarios, such as fire, shock, explosion, toxic fumes, and the danger of water combining with electricity. They are created with digital marketing communications in mind and are fully animated. They will also integrate in execution with the sonic brand that Electrical Safety First is developing as the next key phase of its new brand roll out. The new strapline, “Powering change + saving lives,” addresses the life-and-death nature of the charity’s work and highlights its triple-approach of: campaigning for legislative change; improving industry standards; and influencing consumer behaviour. The choice of using the positive ‘+’ icon rather than “and” or ampersand also symbolises a positive electric charge. The brand audit exposed a lack of consistency in brand application across ESF’s conferences, campaigns and microsites. A clear sub-brand architecture has therefore been created, which ensures brand synergy across the charity’s many and varied activations and ensures the charity benefits from brand recognition derived, and these initiatives in turn benefit from leveraging the brand equity of this well-regarded charity. Finally, the previous brand’s typeface was dated and failed to convey the charity’s reputation for world-class technical expertise. A modern, clean typeface, hinting at digital displays on electronic devices, has replaced it. These new brand elements provide Electrical Safety First with a unique, ownable visual identity that cements it as a forward-looking, leading-edge organisation of national significance. One of ESF’s core brand values is inclusivity, with ensuring accessibility for all being paramount. The new brand has been tested against DDA and W3C standards and braille versions of our logotype have been developed, ensuring that ESF’s message is universally reachable. Rory Carroll, Electrical Safety First’s Head of Communications, explains: “Our new identity represents our charity’s leading edge technical expertise. It’s a radical departure from the previous brand, propelling us into the AI digital age. “Before a second was spent in the design studio, we conducted a comprehensive brand audit, which really built a deep foundation of learnings that steered the creation of this new brand world. “Eight strong brand routes were considered, but there was one clear, unanimous winner. This concept our agency, Garden, developed is so clever. The glowing green ‘on’ graphical device looks stunning and has had similarly glowing feedback. Combined with the unique iconography, modern typeface and vibrant colour palette, we have an ownable brand and a clear brand strategy that will be relevant for decades to come. “Tens of millions of us across the UK live with electricity coursing through the walls, ceiling and floors all around us, without even considering it. As we move towards net zero, electronic items will become an ever-increasing part of our existence. “We are putting in place all the elements to ensure Electrical Safety First is there, as a resource, for everyone to safely enjoy this new electric age. Armed with the right information, people can avoid the dangers of electric shocks and fires. “This new brand identity represents a new era of ambition for our charity. In an increasingly electric world we aim to be the go-to for expert guidance, protect users of electricity and electrical products and save lives.” Sam Fraser Steel, Garden Head of Strategy, explains: “The Electrical Safety First re brand was a fascinating and important challenge, where a clearly understood and defined brand purpose has led to a strategic shift in visual identity. “Our close collaboration with the ESF team has resulted in the creation of a dynamic and contemporary brand, that is both versatile and compelling, drawing individuals in with the allure of technological excitement, whilst at the same
DHF urges caution following shutter door near-fatality
Tamworth-based trade association, the Door & Hardware Federation (DHF), has urged extreme caution following an incident involving an elderly woman whose clothes became caught in a moving roller door shutter resulting in her being lifted several feet into the air. 71-year-old store cleaner, Anne Hughes’s coat became lodged in the rising shutter outside the Best One off-licence in Pontypridd, South Wales, on Monday. And despite being quickly rescued by store manager, Amed Akram, 44, Ms Hughes was left dangling upside down in an incident that DHF has described as a shocking and unacceptable ‘near-miss-fatality’. In addition, a video of the incident, currently being circulated on several social media platforms, has resulted in a reaction of laughter as opposed to concern. In an article in yesterday’s Mirror, New Reporter Susie Beever states: “A woman’s embarrassing faux pas with some window shutters has left people in hysterics after the hilarious moment was caught on CCTV.” “This incident is far from amusing and could very easily have resulted in tragedy had Anne’s coat fabric failed and she fell onto her head ,” explains DHF’s Training and Compliance Officer, Nick Perkins. “The two glaring issues are that there is a hooking hazard on the door on which Ms Hughes became caught. Additionally, the door was opening automatically and according to the now 24-year-old standard for roller shutter doors, either the hooking hazard should have been removed, or the door should have been operated from a ‘hold-to-run control’ that would only function within sight of the door, or the door should have been torque limited so that it could not lift more than 20kg. “There should not have been any hooking hazards on a shutter that would act in this way and questions should be raised as to why the shutter drive (motor) was so overpowered to be able to lift a person as well as the weight of the shutter? We cannot emphasise enough the seriousness of this situation, and we urge owners and managers, who have a responsibility to all users particularly when on property that is used, accessed or open to the public, to ensure that they are adhering to the legal requirements for these products.”The law relating to placing roller shutter doors on the market in the UK can be referenced here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1597/contents/made https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1387/introduction/made Similarly, the law affecting the operation of, the owning and/or managing of roller shutter doors in the UK can be refenced here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/contents/made https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/37/contents “EN 12453 has been published by BSI in the UK since 2001 and describes in detail the safety measures that must be implemented when a roller shutter door is placed on the market and hence should be in place for a door in service,” concludes Nick. “Further DHF guidance for owners and managers can be found in publication, DHF TS 013-3.” DHF publication DHF TS 013-3 can be downloaded free of charge from the DHF website https://bit.ly/DHFTechnicalSpecifications Building, Design & Construction Magazine | The Choice of Industry Professionals
Curious about the effects the BSR will have on your project?
The Building Safety Act has been described by government as the ‘Biggest Changes to Building Safety for a Generation’. Arguably, the most impactful change at project level is the implementation of the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) as the building control authority for all Higher Risk Buildings. We have identified four key factors that project stakeholders need to understand about how the BSR will operate, and how it might impact on the delivery of projects under their remit. Note: the following information will be most relevant to projects in England. KEY PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: 1.What is a Higher Risk Building (HRB)? Section 65 of the Building Safety Act 2022 states, with respect to buildings in design and construction: (1) In this Part “higher-risk building” means a building in England that – (a) is at least 18 metres in height or has at least 7 storeys, and (b) contains at least 2 residential units. Examples include residential buildings, mixed-use residential, care homes, hospitals, and student accommodation. Excluded are hotels, military barracks, prisons, and other secure residential institutions. Note: the criteria are slightly different for existing buildings. When establishing height, there are some parameters to consider: 2.Level of Scrutiny Although the BSR are focused on fire safety, which they define as spread of fire and structural failures posing a threat to life, they will have full responsibility over compliance with all parts of the building regulations, not just parts A and B. The BSR require several new documents at each of the 3 planning gateways, including construction control and phase plans, several other safety documents, and handover strategies. The BSR will essentially require a complete multi-disciplinary design, aiming for projects with no changes or variations. What this means for design and build contracts is not yet fully understood, but the type of documents the BSR requires will likely drive an increase in PCSAs being used to get to detailed designs. 3.Programme Implications It is clear that more time and effort will be required in the design stages to submit complete applications and secure the BSR’s approval. The BSR will have a 12-week statutory period to review and respond to applications. This means they will operate like other statutory parties such as planning authorities and consultees, who cannot be consulted throughout the design process and will only provide feedback once their full review is concluded. Current understanding is that all applications, clarifications, and re-submissions to the BSR will be subject to the 12-week turnaround. For example, securing approval after one round of feedback and resubmission would take in excess of 24 weeks. It is imperative that project teams account for this lengthy engagement process, making allowance for the likelihood of rejected applications, within their pre-construction programmes. To mitigate this programme (and associated cost) risk, clients/project teams are advised to retain an approved inspector as part of the consultant team to assist the design and review it for compliance prior to submitting a BSR application. It is strongly recommended that only Class 3 registered approved inspectors are engaged, as the BSR has indicated its own inspectors will be Class 3. New guidelines here: Registered building inspectors – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk). 4.Cost Uncertainties Cost planning through the design stages is likely to be more uncertain because the scope, materiality, and methodology cannot be fully frozen until final approval by the BSR is secured. Typically, the design and costs would undergo an element of value engineering as a project progresses through the stages. Project teams will either need to allow for those exercises at design freeze, prior to BSR application; or run the risk of needing to re-submit and wait a further 12 weeks for subsequent approvals. This new protracted route to design approval, driven by the BSR’s strict application and response process, will manifest a slower and more expensive pre-construction journey. Clients and project owners will need to account for this in business cases and project briefs; and may find that projects on the borderline of viability are harder to justify as a result. Finally, while only a small part of the overall costs of any significant project, there is also inherent uncertainty of the BSR’s fees. There is an up-front £180 to be paid at the time of application, with BSR inspectors then charging £144 per hour spent reviewing applications. Forecasting these fees will be difficult, and only time will tell how the BSR will justify and seek to recover those fees. Watts are currently delivering projects that fall under the BSR’s remit, and we have a good understanding of how to meet the BSR’s needs so that you can plan accordingly. Please get in touch with our dedicated team at Watts should you need support navigating this new landscape. Building, Design & Construction Magazine | The Choice of Industry Professionals
HHIC releases guide on differing carbon monoxide detector requirements across the UK
Following several regulatory changes across the different countries in the UK, the Heating and Hotwater Industry Council (HHIC) and the Council of Gas Detection and Environmental Monitoring (CoGDEM) have launched a guide on carbon monoxide (CO) detector requirements across the UK. As variation in CO legalisation across the England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland potentially opens the door to confusion among engineers, the guide has been launched to provide the best practice for each region. Property owners, including private and social landlords, must ensure that CO detectors are present in each property, in the appropriate locations and in accordance with legislation and related guidance. As a result, the role of heating engineers in maintaining CO safety throughout the industry is only growing in importance. To help prevent further confusion around a number of potential issues, the guide highlights the differing requirements including the number of CO detectors required in a property, the batteries that must be used and the position that detectors must be installed. Kevin Lowe, Technical Manager of the HHIC, said: “Following the changes to CO legislation made throughout the UK in the past year, it’s crucial that heating engineers are aware of the different obligations across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It’s just as important that this information is easily accessible, which is why we have released a quick guide to help engineers, landlords and property owners easily understand the regulations they must adhere to.” The guide also features the standards placed upon social and private landlords that differ across the UK’s nations. This includes the level of responsibility placed upon landlords for the repair and replacement of CO detectors, in addition to the need to provide detectors and information regarding use and testing to their tenants. Andy Curtis, Director of CoGDEM, said “While every social and private landlord must make sure that CO detectors are installed and operating correctly at each of their properties, there may still be confusion around the extent of their responsibility of repairing, replacing and testing detectors. Our guide has been created to put this uncertainty to rest and ensure safety in properties across the UK.” To download the HHIC and CoGDEM’s guide on differing carbon monoxide detector requirements in the UK, visit the HHIC’s website. Building, Design & Construction Magazine | The Choice of Industry Professionals