{"id":736503,"date":"2024-04-05T07:00:20","date_gmt":"2024-04-05T06:00:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/?p=736503"},"modified":"2024-04-05T10:01:29","modified_gmt":"2024-04-05T09:01:29","slug":"why-is-building-safety-failing-to-follow-judith-hackitts-prescription","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/opinion\/why-is-building-safety-failing-to-follow-judith-hackitts-prescription","title":{"rendered":"Why is building safety failing to follow Judith Hackitt\u2019s prescription?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017 sent shockwaves across the UK. Yet, seven years later, we still find ourselves grappling with persistent safety risks in building design. The response on many fronts so far has been inadequate, not yet addressing the core issues at hand.<\/p>\n

The Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities recently announced updates to Approved Document B<\/a>. These updates advise the inclusion of two staircases for schemes over 18m tall, without requiring a second stair core. Adding a second staircase is less onerous than designing a second core, and is a more expedient decision for developers, whose projects have been left in limbo. In London alone, more than 38,000 homes have been halted while we await clarity from the government. However, there are now inevitable questions about the guidance\u2019s efficacy in enhancing safety.<\/p>\n

Will an additional staircase truly increase safety in the event of fire? From a fire safety engineering first principles perspective, the answer is no. Building safety cannot be achieved by a one-size-fits-all tick-box approach.<\/p>\n

How did policymakers come to perceive further specificity in Approved Document B, for example the inclusion of two staircases, as a panacea for building safety? And how did they veer so far from the principles of outcome-driven measures set out by Judith Hackitt in 2018?<\/p>\n

Hackitt advocated for a radical overhaul of the building safety regulatory system. She pintpointed systemic failures stemming from ignorance, lack of competence, and inadequate oversight. She also championed a cultural shift away from a compliance-focused mindset towards an outcome-based approach.<\/p>\n

However, as we look at yet another update of Approved Document B, it’s evident that the rules are deviating from Hackitt\u2019s vision. The more specificity in guidance, the less likely the industry will apply first-principles fire-safety engineering, which is the only way to determine compliance with functional requirements of building regulations.<\/p>\n

Approved Document B offers a systemic route to the presumption of safety, allowing for potential complacency, with building safety still at stake. Contractors and designers alike can simply add an extra staircase without meticulous scrutiny, assuming that adherence to the guideline alone suffices for safety standards. It can be argued such complacency is a greater risk to safety than the provision of a single stair.<\/p>\n

How do we design for safety?<\/strong><\/p>\n

While guidance provides a framework, a building can only be considered truly safe if it adheres to functional requirements, which are legally binding standards ensuring safety. In theory, it is possible to design a building that arguably fulfils the guidance, yet still poses a risk to its occupants in the event of a fire.<\/p>\n

The only way we can assess whether a building is truly safe is by demonstrating that its occupants and the fire and rescue service remain safe in the case of fire. Only competent professionals are able to prove this and approve such a design. The work of the Industry Competence Committee and Building Safety Regulator is crucial here. Their importance cannot be underestimated under Hackitt\u201ds recommendationst.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, a comprehensive assessment of safety entails examining various factors, such as means of escape, sprinkler systems, and combustibility of materials among many others. When all these factors are designed correctly as a whole then, in many cases, where a second stair may now be recommended, a single staircase would be demonstrably safe.<\/p>\n

Given the need to get all these elements right, a second staircase could be seen as a universal remedy, which may lead to other facets being neglected. There is a danger that people could become less attentive to the detail within the building \u2013 a blanket prescription does not consider the nuances of building safety design.<\/p>\n

How do we shape a future beyond bureaucracy?<\/strong><\/p>\n

In high-risk industries, such as the petrochemical industry, waiting for civil servants to dictate rules is unimaginable as expert professionals handle these matters. However, in the built environment, we appear reliant on bureaucrats to advise engineers on crucial safety measures.<\/p>\n

We see a tendency to strictly adhere to guidance, which can be far too specific, perhaps out of fear of liability. We need to evolve beyond this.<\/p>\n

This year is poised to be a defining year for the UK and many countries across the world, marked by elections at both local and national levels. The industry looks to the incoming government for effective leadership in driving a cultural shift and developing a responsible approach to delivering building safety. We urge a collaborative approach, working with other sectors to learn from best practices and implement these within our own. Most importantly, we need to emphasise the necessity for continuous improvement in competency levels and how we conduct peer review and approval of design.<\/p>\n

James McNay<\/em><\/a> is divisional director of fire safety at Hydrock. In August 2023, he was appointed to the Building Safety Regulator\u2019s Industry Competence Committee. McNay also chairs the BSI Committee which developed BS60080, developing fire safety mitigation strategies in hazardous industries<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017 sent shockwaves across the UK. Yet, seven years later, we still find ourselves grappling with persistent safety risks in building design. The response on many fronts so far has been inadequate, not yet addressing the core issues at hand. The Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities recently …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":81280,"featured_media":685925,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_oasis_is_in_workflow":0,"_oasis_original":0,"ep_exclude_from_search":false},"categories":[745],"tags":[2746,3147,3661,3756,4028,3021],"yoast_head":"\nWhy is building safety failing to follow Judith Hackitt\u2019s prescription?<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Making our buildings truly 'safe' involves ensuring professional competency and responsibility, not the application of blanket rules, writes James McNay\u00a0\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/opinion\/why-is-building-safety-failing-to-follow-judith-hackitts-prescription\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Why is building safety failing to follow Judith Hackitt\u2019s prescription?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Making our buildings truly 'safe' involves ensuring professional competency and responsibility, not the application of blanket rules, writes James McNay\u00a0\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/opinion\/why-is-building-safety-failing-to-follow-judith-hackitts-prescription\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Architects\u2019 Journal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-04-05T06:00:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-04-05T09:01:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/cdn.rt.emap.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2023\/01\/30095222\/shutterstock_1454643785-1024x683.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1024\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"683\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"James McNay\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"will hurst\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/opinion\/why-is-building-safety-failing-to-follow-judith-hackitts-prescription\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/opinion\/why-is-building-safety-failing-to-follow-judith-hackitts-prescription\",\"name\":\"Why is building safety failing to follow Judith Hackitt\u2019s prescription?\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2024-04-05T06:00:20+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-04-05T09:01:29+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/f7c23d4772522a5c23d6a2bc36064145\"},\"description\":\"Making our buildings truly 'safe' involves ensuring professional competency and responsibility, not the application of blanket rules, writes James McNay\u00a0\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/opinion\/why-is-building-safety-failing-to-follow-judith-hackitts-prescription#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/opinion\/why-is-building-safety-failing-to-follow-judith-hackitts-prescription\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/opinion\/why-is-building-safety-failing-to-follow-judith-hackitts-prescription#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Why is building safety failing to follow Judith Hackitt\u2019s prescription?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/\",\"name\":\"The Architects\u2019 Journal\",\"description\":\"Architecture News & Buildings\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/f7c23d4772522a5c23d6a2bc36064145\",\"name\":\"will hurst\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/edb2a9c82cf2d614f0a9a76f486cc4a3\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/05396dc4387bd2a019bed2b5a6c109fe?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/05396dc4387bd2a019bed2b5a6c109fe?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"will hurst\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/author\/will-hurst-2\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Why is building safety failing to follow Judith Hackitt\u2019s prescription?","description":"Making our buildings truly 'safe' involves ensuring professional competency and responsibility, not the application of blanket rules, writes James McNay\u00a0","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/opinion\/why-is-building-safety-failing-to-follow-judith-hackitts-prescription","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Why is building safety failing to follow Judith Hackitt\u2019s prescription?","og_description":"Making our buildings truly 'safe' involves ensuring professional competency and responsibility, not the application of blanket rules, writes James McNay\u00a0","og_url":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/opinion\/why-is-building-safety-failing-to-follow-judith-hackitts-prescription","og_site_name":"The Architects\u2019 Journal","article_published_time":"2024-04-05T06:00:20+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-04-05T09:01:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1024,"height":683,"url":"https:\/\/cdn.rt.emap.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2023\/01\/30095222\/shutterstock_1454643785-1024x683.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"James McNay","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"will hurst","Estimated reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/opinion\/why-is-building-safety-failing-to-follow-judith-hackitts-prescription","url":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/opinion\/why-is-building-safety-failing-to-follow-judith-hackitts-prescription","name":"Why is building safety failing to follow Judith Hackitt\u2019s prescription?","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#website"},"datePublished":"2024-04-05T06:00:20+00:00","dateModified":"2024-04-05T09:01:29+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/f7c23d4772522a5c23d6a2bc36064145"},"description":"Making our buildings truly 'safe' involves ensuring professional competency and responsibility, not the application of blanket rules, writes James McNay\u00a0","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/opinion\/why-is-building-safety-failing-to-follow-judith-hackitts-prescription#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/opinion\/why-is-building-safety-failing-to-follow-judith-hackitts-prescription"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/opinion\/why-is-building-safety-failing-to-follow-judith-hackitts-prescription#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Why is building safety failing to follow Judith Hackitt\u2019s prescription?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/","name":"The Architects\u2019 Journal","description":"Architecture News & Buildings","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/f7c23d4772522a5c23d6a2bc36064145","name":"will hurst","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/edb2a9c82cf2d614f0a9a76f486cc4a3","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/05396dc4387bd2a019bed2b5a6c109fe?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/05396dc4387bd2a019bed2b5a6c109fe?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"will hurst"},"url":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/author\/will-hurst-2"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/736503"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/81280"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=736503"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/736503\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":736749,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/736503\/revisions\/736749"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/685925"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=736503"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=736503"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=736503"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}