The impact of two world wars and the ‘golden era’ of the public sector architect: A history of building regulations (part II)

Last month I started the story of the UK’s building regulations. This month I will continue, following their progression from the beginning of the First World War to the dawn of the privatisation and de-regulation of the 1980s.

By the time war broke out in 1914, local building byelaws based on a national template were commonplace. However, this semi-local system began to come under pressure in the aftermath of the First World War when the Departmental Committee on Building Byelaws recommended that the government publish new national codes every 10 years and require local authorities to redraft and amend their byelaws to ensure they remained up to date.

This would give a more standard system across the UK and help to mitigate against local variations that caused friction in the industry and inconsistencies of standards between postcodes. However, the case for stronger national controls was overridden by the urgent need for new housing following David Lloyd George’s “homes fit for heroes” speech in 1918.

The destruction of significant proportions of the UK’s urban fabric as a result of wartime bombing, the scale of rebuilding work and the public desire to envision a better future after the war however translated into more sympathetic conditions from which national building codes could emerge

New housing guidance booklets were released largely following garden city planning principles, but it would not be until 1939 that local authorities were required to write their own byelaws based on a model series written by the Ministry of Health.

Building regulations and planning for better housing continued to be studied during the war years – but the labour and resources of the country were tied up elsewhere. The destruction of significant proportions of the UK’s urban fabric as a result of wartime bombing, the scale of rebuilding work and the public desire to envision a better future after the war however translated into more sympathetic conditions from which national building codes could emerge. Town planning was even mentioned alongside the NHS in the 1942 Beveridge report.

The thinking that had happened during wartime led to the The Town and Country Planning Act of 1947, which introduced a nationalisation of development rights – for the first time private landowners needed to seek planning permission for almost all development. The new system also taxed land value increases as a result of this planning permission at 100%.

This lasted for six years before the development tax was abolished – even in times of deep economic despair, it was felt that a 100% land tax was slightly unreasonable. However, though not without some bureaucratic issues, broadly speaking the 1947 system was a success, ushering in the greatest level of housebuilding in the history of the UK with an almost unprecedented concern for coordination and design.

In terms of building regulations however, it took until 1952 for significant reforms to be enacted, the most drastic of which was that the byelaws were amended, removing “deemed to satisfy” provisions (which mandated prescriptive construction details) with “standards of performance” (as we have now – with functional requirements but exact detailing largely absent). This gave much greater flexibility in construction as well as helping an industry hamstrung by material shortages and rationing.

In addition it allowed architects and contractors to begin to experiment with newer materials and components, some of which had developed from military technologies. The 1952 byelaws also contained a more precise assessment of fire risk, specifying fire resistance periods relating to building type and size, and establishing the principle of compartmentation in large buildings with shared access, for example, blocks of flats.

The nationalising trend continued with the 1961 Public Health Act, which removed the power to make byelaws from local authorities, instead centralising control under the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (now the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government). Housing had moved from being a matter of public health to a concern worthy of its own ministry.

The new Building Regulations were phased into operation in 1966 extending the model byelaws to all of England and Wales with the exception of the part of London which was administered by the Greater London Council. In the 20 years following, these regulations were consolidated twice and amended 14 times, largely in response to a tragedy – such as a rule to give structural protection to accidental loading on tall buildings following the Ronan Point collapse in 1968, or one to provide emergency escape exits and routes following the Summerland leisure centre fire of 1973.

The levels of experimental thinking and willingness to try new details and techniques led to some fascinating outcomes, some of which were spectacularly successful, others less so

This was also the “golden era” of the public sector architect. Not only was the government increasing its oversight of planning and building, it was a direct player, with over half the architectural profession employed by the state sector at certain points between the 1950s and the late 1970s engaged in building housing, schools, hospitals and public facilities.

Though post-war architecture has its detractors, it cannot be denied that the levels of experimental thinking and willingness to try new details and techniques led to some fascinating outcomes, some of which were spectacularly successful, others less so. Legislation raced along in this period as an industry boomed and, where in the Victorian era this was powered by industrialisation and the private sector, post war this growth was driven by a state desperate to re-build a shattered and bankrupt country after two debilitating world wars.

In both eras the way we considered our built environment was shaped by a revolutionary energy building at scale under transformational social conditions. Next month I will consider the era that follows, when construction slowed and the government felt that it had overstepped its mandate, and that perhaps reform was better driven by private initiative, rather than by state decree.