With the introduction of much stricter penalties under the Building Safety Act and the periods of enforcement extended from 12 months to 10 years, I have seen a significant increase in the number of architects asking: \u2018Do I need consent?\u2019<\/p>\n
This was highlighted at the recent Building Safety Conference in Birmingham, when the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) was asked that exact question several times. This prompted a big debate on LinkedIn over whether or not something as simple as replacing a fire door required formal approval.<\/p>\n
One person received a written response from BSR confirming that even this minor work required approval, which, in the case of a Higher-Risk Building, can take 12 weeks to obtain \u2013 and for a project that could be completed in as little as a day!<\/p>\n
I wasn\u2019t surprised by the response, as I have been advising for years that even minor works can require approval. So this month I thought I would take a quick look at the relevant part of the Building Regulations and explain why some very simple projects could land you in trouble if you don\u2019t obtain approval.<\/p>\n
The starting point is Regulation 3, which sets out what work counts as building work and will therefore require approval. The regulation is pretty straightforward in its essence but pivotal in its application, so let\u2019s take look at what it actually says:<\/p>\n
Regulation 3: Meaning of building work<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
3. (1) In these Regulations \u2018building work\u2019 means \u2013
\n<\/i>(a) the erection or extension of a building;
\n<\/i>(b) the provision or extension of a controlled service or fitting in or in connection with a building;
\n<\/i>(c) the material alteration of a building, or a controlled service or fitting, as mentioned in paragraph (2);
\n<\/i>(d) work required by regulation 6 (requirements relating to material change of use);
\n<\/i>(e) the insertion of insulating material into the cavity wall of a building;
\n<\/i>(f) work involving the underpinning of a building;
\n<\/i>(g) work required by regulation 22 (requirements relating to a change of energy status);
\n<\/i>(h) work required by regulation 23 (requirements relating to thermal elements);
\n<\/i>(i) work required by regulation 28 (consequential improvements to energy performance.<\/i><\/p>\n
So far so good. But let\u2019s start to delve more deeply into some of those key terms.<\/p>\n
In paragraph (c) we see the term \u2018material alteration\u2019, which means any alteration where the work, or any part of it, would at any stage result:<\/p>\n
(a) in a building or controlled service or fitting not complying with a relevant requirement where previously it did; or in a building or controlled service or fitting not complying with a relevant requirement where previously it did; or<\/p>\n
(b) in a building or controlled service or fitting complying with such a requirement to a lesser extent than it did previously (this is often known as \u2018compliance being no worse than existing\u2019).<\/p>\n
So we then need to look at what requirements are \u2018relevant requirements\u2019 and note the criteria that the work is considered \u2018at any stage\u2019. Those all-important relevant requirements are:<\/p>\n
Parts A (structure); B1 (means of warning and escape);
\nB3 (internal fire spread \u2013 structure); B4 (external fire spread); B5 (access and facilities for the fire service) and Part M (access to and use of buildings).<\/p>\n
So, going back to our original example, a fire door is likely to affect Part B1, possibly B3 and Part M, so would be controlled.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n But what if the door is the same or of better standard than before \u2013 for example when replacing a solid fire door with a glazed fire door that has a Part M vision panel? Many assume that, as the work is no worse than the existing \u2013 indeed it is an enhancement \u2013 then the work is not controlled. However, on the assumption that in order to replace the door you need to take it out of the frame, at that specific point in the works there is no fire door in place, so the level of fire protection is reduced during that time and the works are therefore controlled.<\/p>\n What if you were just improving Part M access by cutting a vision panel into the door and it stays in place? Yes, that\u2019s still controlled (and not advised, as you need to check the door could be altered in that way) as at the point when the aperture is cut out its fire-resistance is\u00a0 <\/span>clearly worse.<\/p>\n Another typical example is that you are just taking down an old lath and plaster ceiling and replacing it with a new plasterboard one. Again, when the old one is removed, the fire protection to the floor joists is made worse and therefore that\u2019s controlled work \u2013 so lots of insurance-based projects (fire and flood damage) can end up foul of the legislation.<\/span><\/p>\n So that\u2019s it for Part 1. Next month I will look at paragraph (d) requirements relating to material change of use \u2013 which may surprise you even more.<\/p>\n Geoff Wilkinson is managing director of Wilkinson Constructions Consultants (www.wilkinsoncc.co.uk<\/a>) and a Class 3G and 3H Registered Building Inspector. He will host the AJ\u2019s Building Safety Masterclasses<\/a> in October and November\u00a0<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" With the introduction of much stricter penalties under the Building Safety Act and the periods of enforcement extended from 12 months to 10 years, I have seen a significant increase in the number of architects asking: \u2018Do I need consent?\u2019 This was highlighted at the recent Building Safety Conference in Birmingham, when the Building Safety …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":80389,"featured_media":738350,"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":[5727,2746,14379],"yoast_head":"\n