A survey has revealed that Building Safety Act (BSA) compliance is placing practices under significant financial and organisational strain
Research found almost all the architects surveyed (95%) had experienced an increase in compliance-related admin tasks following the introduction of the BSA, with workloads rising by an average of 16%. For a fifth, workloads had gone up by more than 25%.
The survey, carried out on behalf of wienerberger, also showed architects now spend an average of four hours a week checking product claims, certificates and performance data. Making matters worse, more than half (58%) of those surveyed said that they didn’t fully trust product information.
Increased liability
The research also explored the extent to which architects felt more exposed under the BSA, finding four out of five (81%) had greater concern about potential indemnity claims, with 88% agreeing that the BSA’s introduction has “fuelled rising liability”. And it seems the sentiment is not unfounded, as two thirds (67%) had experienced an increase in claims personally or within their practice.
Unsurprisingly, this pressure was felt to be having a marked impact on innovation. Four in five architects agreed that the added regulatory demands are hindering creativity, while a concerning seven in ten said they felt overwhelmed by rising workloads.
Distrust of product information
When asked what would make compliance easier, those surveyed were almost unanimous in calling for a single and independently verified digital “source of truth” for product information, as well as mandatory independent testing with clear visibility of results and digital tools that can “accelerate verification steps”.
Paul Instrell of wienerberger said, “While there is consistent support across the industry for the BSA, our research has exposed what we are hearing from architects daily – that they are losing time filling the gaps when it comes to product information.
“The sector is already facing tighter budgets and increasingly complex design challenges, so there is an urgent need for us to work collaboratively and more efficiently to solve problems before they present themselves. By committing to independent assessments, and providing comprehensive documentation on compatible, compliant products for individual projects, our aim is to ease the burden of compliance for architects. This will enable them to build for what’s next – with a focus on innovation without compromising on safety.”
Challenge for smaller firms
Alan McCartney, Partner at Howells, commented, “Larger firms are more likely to have the resource, time and breadth of expertise to manage, and adhere to, the latest legislative changes. The challenge is for smaller or medium sized practices, who face bigger hurdles in demonstrating that they have the necessary experience to meet compliance demands.”
Kristofer Adelaide, Director of KA—Architecture, added, “There is so much room for interpretation that you can read through the relevant documentation and genuinely not know if what you’re proposing is acceptable or not. It also means that one building control officer might approve something that another is quick to reject. This subjectiveness creates huge uncertainty.”
The findings of the independent survey of 80 UK architects plus commentary from the Manchester School of Architecture and the Code for Construction Product Information (CCPI) have been published in a whitepaper from wienerberger called The Cost of Compliance.
