Discussion with BR dept

[mjc55]

Well, that was interesting!

 

To start with, I worked as an Architectural Technologist for about 10 years before I retired, put in quite a few BR applications with local council BR dept for (mostly) small scale extensions etc. I never had any involvement with new build.

 

We have purchased land and will be putting in for PP in the next few weeks once a boundary issue has been sorted out.

 

So yesterday I thought I would touch base with BR person who is responsible for the area where we are building, have a chat and specifically talk about ground conditions.

 

It was a very "interesting" discussion, I could hardly get a word in and although it was really useful to have a chat I was left a little bewildered.

 

Specifically, she talked a lot about who had what responsibilities with regard to design of build and especially liability insurance.  She seemed to be intimating that I could not be both designer and builder and would have to get someone, an architect, with liability insurance (which have to be kept in perpetuity) to be responsible for design!  She said that new regs had come  in last October meaning that I could not (basically) design and build!

 

Now, I am quite prepared to admit that I could have completely misunderstood what she was saying.  She has sent me BR Part 2A, "Dutyholders and competence" document to read, which she says outlines what needs to happen (she did say that it was a pretty difficult document to read and comprehend) and I will read this next week.  But I would welcome thoughts of others regarding what we are planning to do.

 

So, basically, we have purchased land, I have drawn plans which will be submitted shortly.  I will then draw up BR plans and submit when PP is obtained.  Finally (!) we will do as much of the building work as we can.  

 

She did say that  a lot of this was due to Grenfell and the subsequent fallout of rights and responsibilities that have come from that terrible fire.  She also mentioned build insurance and the responsibilities that that brings and that a lot of Architects are trying to get out of "insurance" liabilities as well.

 

Comments and thoughts welcomed, have I misunderstood what she said, have things changed so much in the last few months such that we cannot do what we expected or has she misunderstood what we are planning to do and so misinformed me with respect to the the responsibilities of various parties?

 

Thanks

 

Martin

[Susie]

Hi, was that the local council BR dept or local private firm?

can’t see what the problem is, you can do your own planning and building regs, you might need a SE for some parts or some figures for the roof etc.

Part O has a spreadsheet available and that’s ok, once you get into it. 
Once BR are approved then start building. 
If you need a mortgage and/or a warranty then it’s these insurers who might want more details but it’s still all possible.

 

[mjc55]

Local council building control

[DevilDamo]

@Susie That’s generic information which doesn’t solely relate to what the OP is asking.

 

“Organisations or individuals can carry out the role of more than one dutyholder, provided they have the skills, knowledge, experience and (if an organisation) the organisational capability to carry out those roles in a way that secures health and safety.”

 

https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l153.pdf
(Page 7)

 

You may also find this of some use…

 

https://www.haspod.com/blog/cdm/can-principal-contractor-be-principal-designer#:~:text=The simple answer is yes,a breach of the regulations.

Edited May 5 by DevilDamo

[kandgmitchell]

Basically the B Regs have now got a section purloined from the CDM Regs. In effect the designer of the work has to be competant for that complexity of work and so does the contractor. This indeed does stem from Grenfell and is an attempt to put a name to who designed the building/extension and who built it, making sure they knew what they were doing.

 

However, Regulation 11G says:

11G.—(1) A principal designer must have—

(a)where the person is an individual, the skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours necessary,

(b)where the person is not an individual, the organisational capability,

to fulfil the duties of a principal designer under these Regulations in relation to the design work included in the project.

 

I'd say the OP with his experience has the skills etc to design a dwelling house. The structural elements will no doubt be designed by an SE who again will have the level of skill appropriate to to the complexity of design. It doesn't demand an architect with insurance, just someone with the knowledge.

 

The same goes for the contractor in Reg 11H:

 

11H.—(1) A principal contractor must have—

(a)where the person is an individual, the skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours necessary,

(b)where the person is not an individual, the organisational capability,

to fulfil the duties of a principal contractor under these Regulations in relation to the building work included in the project.

 

So I guess the OP will be using a builder who will assume this role, but you could have someone who could do both jobs if they had the skills, so you could well be both designer and contractor - it isn't against the rules.

 

From what you have said I'd be looking for an alternative BC supplier!

 

[mjc55]

6 hours ago, kandgmitchell said:

Basically the B Regs have now got a section purloined from the CDM Regs. In effect the designer of the work has to be competant for that complexity of work and so does the contractor. This indeed does stem from Grenfell and is an attempt to put a name to who designed the building/extension and who built it, making sure they knew what they were doing.

 

However, Regulation 11G says:

11G.—(1) A principal designer must have—

(a)where the person is an individual, the skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours necessary,

(b)where the person is not an individual, the organisational capability,

to fulfil the duties of a principal designer under these Regulations in relation to the design work included in the project.

 

I'd say the OP with his experience has the skills etc to design a dwelling house. The structural elements will no doubt be designed by an SE who again will have the level of skill appropriate to to the complexity of design. It doesn't demand an architect with insurance, just someone with the knowledge.

 

The same goes for the contractor in Reg 11H:

 

11H.—(1) A principal contractor must have—

(a)where the person is an individual, the skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours necessary,

(b)where the person is not an individual, the organisational capability,

to fulfil the duties of a principal contractor under these Regulations in relation to the building work included in the project.

 

So I guess the OP will be using a builder who will assume this role, but you could have someone who could do both jobs if they had the skills, so you could well be both designer and contractor - it isn't against the rules.

 

From what you have said I'd be looking for an alternative BC supplier!

 

I will be doing both design and (most of) the construction.

 

Design - I would agree that 10+ years of design experience (backed up with degree level AT qualification) should suffice.

 

Construction - I have plenty of experience in construction.  Not just in working on houses we have lived over 40 years but also in completely refurbishing and extending two properties (and I did most of the work on both these properties - including complete rewires).

 

I have skim read the Part 2A of building regs that she forwarded to me and as @kandgmitchell stated in their post, I think that I might well look at private BC inspection for our build.  I do not like to do this, I always pushed for LABC on all my jobs as a design professional (my wife worked in our LA for getting on 20 years) but if she is going to be difficult, that is something i could do without.

[mjc55]

I just remembered that she also said that the driveway could not be granular and had to be of "compact" nature.  Again this was something that I hadn't heard of before.  Again, I may have misunderstood what she was saying and she meant that just where our driveway came onto the plot and not the whole parking area!

Edited May 6 by mjc55

[Mr Punter]

1 hour ago, mjc55 said:

I just remembered that she also said that the driveway could not be granular and had to be of "compact" nature.  Again this was something that I hadn't heard of before.  Again, I may have misunderstood what she was saying and she meant that just where our driveway came onto the plot and not the whole parking area!

 

I don't think this is a recent thing it is highways dept who don't like gravel spreading from driveways over the road.  As long as the apron abutting the road is bound material it should be fine.

[DevilDamo]

5 hours ago, mjc55 said:

she also said that the driveway could not be granular and had to be of "compact" nature.

That would come under Planning’s remit, not Building Regulations.

[joe90]

I may be wrong but feel BC are being slopey shouldered. I feel (but open to be proved wrong) BC allowed manufacturers to test and certify their own products. Car makers have to crash test news cars over seen by NCAP, 

[kandgmitchell]

The driveway thing is from Part M, the BCO is flagging a requirement to have an approach route (between the curtilage and dwelling access) with a "suitable ground surface". Some BCO's will not accept gravel as being suitable because you can't easily use a wheelchair on it ( I must admit to overfilling a driveway with gravel which trapped my car the first time I used it - much like one of these emergency bays on steep hills).