What are the proposed changes to building control and will they work?
Plus: collected thoughts on transfer slabs, AI, Theresa May, Tony Blair and potato fondants
If you have the means to do so, please consider becoming a paid subscriber, which is billed monthly at just £3.50 or annually at £35. This provides access to subscriber-only posts and the back catalogue of more than 100 articles - as well as the opportunity to leave comments and submit questions for Q&A pieces.
If you pay £40 or more for an annual subscription, I will send you a signed copy of one of my books - Show Me The Bodies: How we let Grenfell Happen (which you can buy from an independent bookshop here) or Homesick: How housing broke London and how to fix it (which you can buy here). For £50, you get them both.*
Even if you can’t support financially, liking this article or forwarding the email to friends and colleagues really helps. All of my work is completely human-made - there is no use of AI in writing or editing. Thank you for reading!
What is the latest building control reform all about?
The question of why building control in England went wrong evades easy answers.
Building control is the process by which compliance with regulations is ensured. An inspector is engaged by the builder to check that they are complying with the rules and sign the project off at the end.
Until the mid-1980s, it was the job of an officious public sector inspector based at a town hall or a municipal body like the Greater London Council.
Then, from the mid-1980s onwards, private sector inspectors were allowed to compete with councils for the work meaning we have since had a hybrid system where both public and privately appointed inspectors can carry out the work.
Some people blame the private sector for the failure - saying the introduction of competition sucked resource out of town halls and introduced inappropriate clients relationships with the building industry. Others say the public sector became staid, failed to invest in new staff and was overwhelmed by the non-negotiable statutory responsibilities they continued to hold even as their resource wore down.
Others still say that blaming building control is something of a red herring - the reason we got a generation of poorly built and dangerous buildings was a combination of poor government guidance, dishonesty among product manufacturers and commercial incentives which pushed the construction industry away from careful, professional process to a save-money-at-all-costs dash.
Nonetheless, a lot of focus since the fire at Grenfell Tower and the subsequent revelaton that thousands of other buildings have serious fire safety problems, has been on building control. This week saw a big step forward in answering how it may be reformed.
A panel chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt reported on how to reform the system, and the government’s initial response is to say that it agrees with the findings and will consult on steps forward.
The changes, if implemented, would be substantial. The panel criticises the current system as one which “cannot provide reassurance that this public safety role is being met consistently” raising “risks to health and safety and the potential for substantial future remediation costs”. This is a serious criticism of a major function of the state. The panel do not limit their criticism to the private or public sector, but criticise both for different reasons.
