Operance helps building owners produce a “golden thread” of building information and comply with the Building Safety Act, which aims to improve building safety in the wake of the Grenfell Tower tragedy.   

The Act is being introduced in phases and the latest phase requires owners of ‘higher-risk buildings’ – which covers around 13,000 properties – to register them with the Building Safety Regulator and assess the safety risks and produce a safety case report to show how risks will be managed. From April 2024, further building information provisions are set to come in force.

Launching in 2020, the Operance platform has been transforming the way that building information is defined, curated, accessed and maintained. The software is used by housing authorities such as Camden, Basildon and Harrow and construction firms including Kier, Higgins, United Living, Vermont and Rider Levett Bucknall. 

Maurice Disasi, investment manager at Mercia, says:  

“The Building Safety Act will bring about major changes in the construction and property industry and will drive uptake of digital technology. Operance is the first platform that has been specifically designed to help firms meet the requirements of the Act.  

“This latest funding will enable the company to add new features and expand its presence in an industry that is ripe for change.” 

In the ever-evolving landscape of building safety, staying updated with regulatory changes is paramount. To keep our building safety-conscious audience informed, we’ve conducted a summarised review of the latest amendments to building regulations in England, specifically covered in the Building Regulations etc. (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023.

As communicated by Camilla Sheldon Deputy Director, Reform Policy, Legislation and Sponsorship Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in an open letter to Local Government Chief Executives, Heads of Building Control Approved Inspectors, The Chief Fire Officer Fire and the Rescue Authorities, these updates are set to enhance transparency, compliance, and, most importantly, the safety of our structures.

The concept of the golden thread of building safety information was born in the wake of the tragic Grenfell Tower fire, and it has continued to evolve to provide a framework of building and fire safety standards in the construction industry ever since.  

In late 2017, Dame Judith Hackitt’s interim report conveyed a crucial message:   

There needs to be a golden thread for all complex and high-risk building projects to prevent disasters, like Grenfell, from happening again.  

The final report of the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety in 2018 underscored the significance of the golden thread.   

Now, new building legislation requires developers to provide an up-to-date golden thread of information which spans the entire lifecycle of old and new facilities.   

This demand for creating, curating, maintaining and providing access to extensive information has added pressure and confusion to the construction industry, with many not knowing where to begin or what to do to comply with the new rules. 

In this guide, we aim to demystify the golden thread, looking at: 

• What is the golden thread? 
• Why is the golden thread important? 
• Who is responsible for creating and maintaining the golden thread? 
• When should golden thread information be created? 
• How should golden thread information be stored? 
• How should golden thread information be accessed? 

All higher-risk buildings (HRBs) are required to have an accurate, digital building information audit trail that spans its entire lifecycle.  

The term golden thread refers to both the building information and the steps needed to keep its residents safe, now and in the future.   

The golden thread holds the information that those responsible for the building need to:  

• Show that the building was compliant with applicable building regulations during its construction.  
• Provide evidence of meeting the requirements of the new building control route throughout the design and construction, and refurbishment of a building.   
• Identify, understand, manage and mitigate building safety risks to prevent or reduce the severity of the consequences of fire spread or structural collapse throughout the life cycle of a building.   

Examples of golden thread information includes but isn’t limited to: 

• Specifications – detailed construction products, materials and component information, including important fire performance capabilities. 
• Safety plans – relating to how fire and structural safety risks will be managed. 
• Models – digital 3D BIM representations of the building ‘as planned’. 
• Fire Statement – details on fire service access and firefighting water accessibility, which form the foundation of the fire and emergency file. 
• Construction Control Plan – how compliance with Building Regulations will be achieved and how changes will be controlled and recorded.

Weaving together critical information about a building’s safety and compliance, the golden thread has many benefits: 

Reducing and minimising risk – By proactively demonstrating that a building is compliant with building safety regulations and that the people responsible for the building have identified, understood and mitigated building safety risks, we can reduce and eliminate the risk of tragedies like Grenfell.  

Accountability – The golden thread establishes clear lines of responsibility, making it clear who is responsible for each aspect of the building’s safety.  

Transparency – Storing and managing the information digitally allows for transparency between building owners and facilities managers and their residents.  

Better, safer decisions – Developers, designers and managers can use the information to make informed decisions about maintenance and future upgrades.  

Public confidence – The commitment to building safety bolsters confidence among the public and trust in our buildings and their construction and maintenance.

Your golden thread information must be: 

• Stored digitally. 
• Kept securely. 
• Be a single source of truth. 
• Reviewed and managed so the information is accurate and up to date.  
• Accessible to many different people throughout its lifecycle, including but not limited to building managers, architects, contractors, residents and emergency responders.  
• Accessible by people who need information to do a job. 
• Readily accessible when the person needs the information. 
• Presented in a user-friendly way. 

We run through the full golden thread principles in this article. 

The person responsible for creating and maintaining a building’s golden thread changes depending on the phase of the building. 

During design and construction, it’s the responsibility of the dutyholder, which could be: 

• The client/building owner 
• Principal designer or designer 
• Principal contractor or contractor 

After handover, during the occupation phase, the golden thread is the responsibility of the Accountable Person (AP), which could be a company, partnership or person who is responsible for the building, such as: 

• Building owner 
• Building safety manager  
• Facilities manager 

The AP is the dutyholder, but they can appoint a person or company to be the Building Safety Manager (BSM) to continue maintaining and updating the information to record the ongoing safety of the building. 

We have created an in-depth guide to who is responsible for the golden thread and how to appoint dutyholders here.

Golden thread information spans the entire lifecycle of a building, from its initial design to demolition.  

For new buildings, there are three gateways which the dutyholder must submit golden thread information to the Building Safety Regulator:  

Before building work starts  

Before any construction begins, you need to submit a design application to BSR. Among other things, the application must include the golden thread of information about the building.  

During construction 

Ongoing requirements during construction include identifying and storing the golden thread of information.  

After handover  

Golden thread information must be accurate and up-to-date, requiring a clear change control process that sets out how and when information is updated and who should update and check the information.

1. Define – Create bespoke organisational data templates to help you create accurate, structured data required by the Building Safety Regulator. 
2. Curate – Manage and collaborate on new and legacy building projects to gather accurate information from key stakeholders.
3. Access – Share golden thread information in a user-friendly way with anyone who requires access.  
4. Maintain – Manage and update your golden thread information throughout the building’s lifecycle. 

The Building Safety Act aims to improve building safety standards, particularly in residential high-rise buildings. Housing associations in the UK must develop and maintain a golden thread of information for all buildings within their portfolios that are over 18 meters tall or contain seven storeys or more (whichever is arrived at first)

Operance CEO and co-founder Scott Pilgrim recently featured in Construction Management Magazine’s webinar on “Complying with the golden thread via ISO 19650”.

During the session, Scott highlights the significance of the collation of client information requirements for the golden thread and turning those into data templates that align with ISO 19650, IFC and COBie standards.

Below is a summary of some of the key points from the webinar, plus a chance to register for free access to the session on demand.

ISO 19650 is an international standard that provides guidelines for managing information throughout the life cycle of a built asset using Building Information Modeling (BIM). It sets out the principles and requirements for managing information from concept to demolition or decommissioning.

O&M (Operations and Maintenance) manuals – also known as building owner’s manuals – play a vital role in ensuring the long life of a building and the smooth running of its infrastructure.

However, the sheer size and detail of O&M manuals added to the fact the contents largely depends on the individual building and its assets, often results in confusion around how O&M information should be defined, curated, accessed and maintained.

In this guide, we give you a straightforward overview of what should be included in your O&M, whether you’re an architect or designer in the early design stages of a project, a contractor gathering O&M data for handover, or a facility manager/owner researching what O&M information you should receive when construction is complete.

The UK government is clear, sign the contract developers, or else. But what are the impacts on housing developers? We have broken down the requirements into handy bite-size chunks reflecting the questions you may want to ask yourselves as residential developers.

Following the royal assent and enforcement of the new Building Safety Act 2022 last year, 49 major residential property developers signed a ‘Developer Pledge’ with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC). This followed discussions between the developers and government about who would take responsibility for all necessary work to address life-critical fire-safety defects arising from the design and construction of buildings (11 metres or more in height) that they developed or refurbished over the last 30 years in England.

This pledge resulted in the creation of a 93-page ‘Self-Remediation contract‘ that makes those commitments legally binding; the ‘Self-Remediation Terms that are part of and deemed incorporated into Contracts entered into between a Participant Developer and the DLUHC’.

The new contract is designed to further commit developers to help protect leaseholders and residents.

Richard Goodman, Director General – Safer and Greener Buildings at NDLUHC sent a letter to developers on Monday, 30th January 2023, notifying that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Michael Gove, “expects developers to sign the contract as soon as possible”, with a final deadline of Monday 13th March 2023, just six weeks from the time of receipt.

Developers were requested in the letter to “inform the department by Friday 10th February 2023 of your timeline for deciding whether to sign the contract and to whom our lawyers, Slaughter and May, should send execution copies”.

Mr Goodman confirms that his team is available to answer questions about the contract and assist you in meeting this date if required. The DLUHC team and Mr Goodman himself can be contacted as follows:

• http://www.gov.uk/dluhc
• Richard.goodman@levellingup.gov.uk

The Self-Remediation Contract does not extend to any building where between 14th June 2017 and the date of signing the contract if;

• The PD has “already settled an agreement or compromise with the Responsible Persons (the owner of a superior leasehold or a freehold interest in the relevant land and building(s) that is or includes the Building, including a management company of the Building or the person appointed to manage the Building for and on behalf of such owner) and can provide evidence of this to the DLUHC”.
• The Responsible Entity (not being a PD Group Company of the PD) “has failed to co-operate with the PD to obtain an ‘Up-to-Date’ Fire Safety Assessment (FSA) and/or Fire Risk Appraisal of External Walls (FRAEW)”.
• The PD “has obtained an up-to-date FSA and/or FRAEW that assesses the level of fire-safety risk to be tolerable”.

As soon as they sign the contract, Participant Developers (PD) must (as reasonably practicable, meaning, in summary, that developers do not need to undertake a physical inspection of all buildings developed or refurbished by it or another ‘PD Group Company’);

• Identify all buildings requiring remediation works.
• Obtain a copy of an ‘Up-to-Date’ Fire Safety Assessment (FSA) for each Building (see here for HSE advice on fire safety guidance).
• Obtain a copy of an ‘Up-to-Date’ Fire Risk Appraisal of External Walls (FRAEW) for each building should it have been recommended by the FSA, or there is reason to suspect that a FRAEW is required, having regard to the guidance in PAS 9980 (see here for BSI guidance on PAS 9980).

Note also that the PD must, of course, ensure that FSA and/or FRAEW be carried out by a suitably experienced, qualified, independent and competent fire risk assessor (in the case of the FSA) or external wall assessor (in the case of the FRAEW).

The PD is expected to take into account all “reasonable interests and concerns of the leaseholders, residents, occupiers and other users of the Building Requiring Works” and:

• Undertake at its own costs;
• Procure at its own cost through a suitably experienced and qualified sub-consultant, sub-contractor or supplier or any other person (other than the Responsible Entity), or;
• Fund the costs of the Responsible Entity (via a funding agreement or otherwise) to undertake or procure,

All necessary work in relation to each Building Requiring Works to ensure that any and all Defects are remediated and/or fully mitigated as soon as reasonably practicable.

Costs of the remediation ‘Works’ will include such costs and will include all reasonable and properly incurred costs directly arising from;

• Carrying out and completing the Works and subsequently remedying all snagging items and other defects arising from the Works, in respect of the remediation and/or mitigation of any Defects;
• Arranging access to the Building Requiring Works, including (where necessary) the grant of rights from the owners of neighbouring land or property, provided that nothing in these Self-Remediation Terms or the Contract will be taken to require the Participant Developer to pay unreasonable and unusual fees to any Third Party in order to gain access to the Building Requiring Works;
• Any cost overruns that relate to the carrying out and completion of the Works and which may arise over the course of the Works until practical completion of the Works (that are not due to the fault, negligence, act or omission of the Responsible Entity (where it is not a PD Group Company of the Participant Developer) or persons employed by it in relation to the Works);
• Moving residents out of the Building Requiring Works where reasonably considered necessary by the Participant Developer (after consulting with, and having regard to the views of, the Responsible Entity and/or any regulatory authority), including:
  • to avoid an immediate or imminent threat to life or other personal injuries; and
  • Where the Works create or are reasonably expected to create circumstances with which residents of the Building Requiring Works cannot reasonably be expected to live, including but not limited to situations where the Works create noise or other disturbances which would constitute a legally actionable nuisance and including any associated accommodation costs so the Works can be carried out;
• Costs of any professional advisers that may be appointed in relation to the Works by any Responsible Entity or by or on behalf of not less than 50% in the number of all of the leaseholders in the relevant Building;
• Costs of any professional advisers that the Responsible Entity may appoint in relation to the Works Contract and;
• Costs of obtaining any planning, building control or other statutory or regulatory permissions, consents and approvals required in respect of the Works, provided that:
  • Any costs must be agreed in writing between the Responsible Entity and the Participant Developer prior to such costs being incurred in relation to the Works (such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed by the Participant Developer); and
  • The obligations do not require the Participant Developer to reimburse any Responsible Entity or leaseholder for any adviser-related costs that have already been paid or incurred by the Responsible Entity at the date of the Contract.

Costs of the remediation ‘Works’ will not include the following;

• The cost of interim safety measures (including waking watch costs and alarm upgrades);
• Increases in buildings insurance premiums;
• Any leaseholder compensation (although there are exceptions); and
• Other works (as defined and subject to various clauses) that the PD is responsible for, including, but not limited to;
  • any works required solely as a result of any Alterations)
  • Any works identified in any survey, assessment, inspection or investigation into the design and/or construction and/or maintenance of a Building, including in any FRAEW and/or Fire Safety Assessment, or otherwise as the Works progress, the undertaking of (and the costs associated with) such ‘other’ works are not within the scope of the PD’s liability.

Once in place and submitted to DLUHC, they hold the rights to audit the FSA and/or FRAEW for a period of 2-years from the date of receipt (providing 20-Business Days’ notice) to check, amongst other things:

• The FSA assessor and/or FRAEW assessor is suitably experienced, qualified, independent and competent.
• The criteria outlined in the definition of “Up-to-Date” have been satisfied.
• The conclusions of the Up-to-Date FSA and/or Up-to-Date FRAEW (as applicable) are justified, taking into account all relevant factors as set out in the Standard as applicable at the date of the relevant assessment.

The Participant Developer (PD) will be deemed to be discharged in full and will be released from its obligations under the Self-Remediation Terms and the Contract once and only if:

• The 2-year period for DLUHC to complete the Fire Safety Assessment (FSA)/FRAEW Audit for the building has expired, or
• An FSA/FRAEW Audit has/have been conducted and has/have found that such assessment(s) is/are compliant with the Standard applicable as of the relevant assessment date.
• The PD has complied with and is satisfied with all relevant obligations under the Self-Remediation Terms.
• The relevant Up-to-Date FSA and/or Up-to-Date FRAEW indicates that the building does not require work.

In respect of that Building without any possibility of the obligations under these Self-Remediation Terms and the Contract repeating in future in respect of that Building, provided that this will be without prejudice to any rights, remedies, obligations or liabilities of DLUHC, the Participant Developer and/or any Third Party under any other agreement or at law which has arisen or may arise, and to any rights, remedies, obligations or liabilities of the Participant Developer and/or DLUHC in respect of these Self-Remediation Terms and/or the Contract that have accrued up to such date.

The PD must retain, for a minimum period of 2-years (or for the duration of a PD-DLUHC Dispute, whichever period is longer) after the date the FSA/FRAEW is provided, all documentation to enable DLUHC to carry out its own audit. Promptly following a written request, the PD will give DLUHC access to all documentation and will instruct the PD’s directors, officers and employees to promptly provide all information and explanations that DLUHC as DLUHC may request, in each case as is required to enable DLUHC to carry out the audit.

DLUHC do state that they may (‘acting reasonably’) amend the ‘Self-Remediation Terms’ from time to time, on providing not less than 10 Business Days prior written notice to the Participant Developer and always provided that any such variation will only be effective if it:

• Is of an administrative, formal, minor or technical nature or which is made to correct a manifest error; or
• Does not materially prejudice the Participant Developer.

Given the number of amendments we are experiencing with recently released legislation, not least the Buuidling Safety Act 2022, one imagines that edits to the contract should be expected as it is reviewed by developers and their legal representations, either in the short or long term.

In what was an orchestrated ‘mic-drop moment’ for Michael Gove, designed to have an immediate impact on getting his message across, it probably had the desired effect. After all, developers have just 6-weeks to respond, leaving little time for a subtle message to get through to the masses.

To his credit, Gove’s message was abundantly clear in the Sunday Times interview: sign up to the terms to repair unsafe buildings, or you’ll effectively lose the ability to keep on building.

But perhaps as, if not more striking, was his admission that the UK government shares responsibility for Grenfell. This has been clear for quite some time, but this was probably the most public admission yet.

We understand the letter may not be sent to social landlords, even the original developers, but that the government will expect them to cover the cost of defects without passing the bill on to leaseholders.

Therefore, further clarity would be welcomed; we’ll release more guidance as it is made available.

More to follow…

Following a consultation on Higher-Risk Buildings, UK Government has released its findings and new guidance. Here we summarise the consultation response, what has changed, and what hasn’t…

On 9 June 2022 the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) launched a Consultation on the Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations. The consultation sought views on governments’ full proposals for the regulations. The consultation ran for 6 weeks from 9 June 2022 to 21 July 2022. It was published on the department’s online consultation platform Citizen Space, as well as on gov.uk.

The Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations complete the definition of higher-risk building. Higher-risk buildings are buildings which will be required to meet the legal requirements of the new more stringent regime for building safety.

There are two parts of the new regime. The first establishes a new regime for the design and construction of new higher-risk buildings and building work to existing higher-risk buildings. The second establishes a new regime when higher-risk buildings are occupied.

This particular consultation was split into several sections, covering the definition of a ‘building’, exemptions and inclusion during all lifecycle stages, how to measure the height of buildings, how to count its stories, and finally, the impact, the act has on equalities. It sought views on 26 questions. This response summarises respondents’ views by considering comments made in relation to each of the questions included in the consultation document.

Overall, there were 101 respondents to the consultation: 68 responded on behalf of an organisation, 30 on behalf of individuals and 3 decided not to confirm either way. Respondents varied in terms of background and organisations from developers, building control professionals, fire engineers, local fire services, housing associations, local councils, tenants and industry trade bodies.

Following the consultation, respondents provided their views, concerns and suggestions across the various sections. As a result, the government reviewed and accepted that more clarification was required in reference to a number of areas, they are as follows (please note that changes to the regulations set out here, as released on 19 December, are still subject to parliamentary approval);

Arguably the biggest change is the inclusion of plant and machinery within the definition of a building;

Respondents’ Concerns

The most common concern was the exclusion of plant rooms and machinery from the definition, with many respondents recommending that plant rooms and machinery be included within the building definition.

The reasoning most given for this was that plant machinery is integral to the overall safety of the building. It was also raised that plant rooms could contain firefighting or suppression equipment, as well as other key infrastructure important to the overall safety of the building.

Some respondents also raised that plant rooms and machinery could be a source of potential fire or structural collapse.

Government Response

The updated (building) definition will include plant rooms and machinery within the definition of building, giving the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) the ability to regulate them as parts of higher-risk buildings.

This amendment, they state, will make sure that parts of a building which contain important fire safety equipment are included within the boundaries of higher-risk buildings.

A hot potato in terms of discussion in the industry is this particular subject. So great to see more definition provided;

Respondents’ Concerns

The proposed definition, respondents suggest, was potentially confusing and vague. They felt that the definition could define a building more clearly, and without using the word ‘building’ within the definition.

A smaller number of respondents raised comments about how several buildings classified under a single building name should be considered and how buildings attached by a wall (for example terraced buildings) should be defined.

A small number of respondents also raised that the proposed definition did not completely align with the Building Act 1984.

Government Response

They have amended the proposed definition in the regulations to more clearly set out what is and is not considered a building for the purposes of the design and construction and occupation parts of the new regime.

The updated definition is significantly more detailed and provides different definitions of building for the purposes of the design and construction and occupation parts of the new regime.

The updated definition can be found in the regulations currently being laid in parliament and a further explanation of the updated definition can be found in the related explanatory memorandum (PDF 65kb).

The government has made these changes to appropriately capture complex buildings, specifically, large, attached buildings, in the definition. The updated definition will allow the operational requirements in occupation to be met more easily.

This in particular has always created confusion amongst building owners and particularly contractors working on new projects in design and construction phases and whether or not they need to comply with the new regime;

Respondents’ Concerns

There may be potential issues with the proposed method for measuring height and suggested small technical changes to the method. They noted that the method was unclear and should be further explained including further clarification on the meaning of ground level and where this should be measured from as users may interpret ground level in different ways.

They also requested further clarification on whether roof levels should be counted, particularly in the scenario it is used as a rooftop garden or similar and whether roof levels should always be included within the height measurement regardless of use.

Intriguingly, a small number of suggestions that levels with plant machinery and basements should be included within the height measurement. This was to prevent people ‘gaming’ the system and building multiple plant levels or basements to house residents.

Others suggested that the method for measuring height better aligned with Approved Document B and for further clarification on how this method will work alongside existing methods for measuring height.

Government Response

They have made some small amendments to the method for measuring height. They have further clarified what ground level means in the regulations by setting out that buildings should be measured from the lowest part of the surface of the ground to which they are adjacent. This will make sure, they state, that owners of buildings built on uneven ground e.g. a hill, are not able to game the height threshold.

They also amended the definition to make sure not all plant machinery levels are excluded and set out that only levels which consist exclusively of rooftop plant rooms or rooftop machinery are excluded from the height measurement. This makes relative sense given that these exclusive plant areas are/should be out of bounds and inaccessible by residents.

The chosen method for measuring height also makes sense as it is a known standard for the sector and is effectively the vertical distance a person would need to ‘travel’ to escape a building from the top floor. These amendments can be found in the regulations currently being laid in Parliament.

As with building heights, industry sought views on the method for measuring the number of storeys in higher-risk buildings and further definition on ‘galleries’ for the purpose of measuring higher-risk buildings;

Respondents’ Concerns

The method for measuring stories was unclear and should be further explained. Requests were also made for further clarification on the meaning of ground level and where this should be measured from, particularly in reference to buildings built on sloping sites and whether roof level should be counted, and what would be considered a finished roof level.

Another interesting suggestion was that plant machinery and basements should be included within the height measurement in order to prevent people again ‘gaming’ the system and building multiple plant levels or basements to house residents(!).

Concerns also that gallery floors could be used to game the system if they are not counted. Whilst some respondents suggested that gallery floors be counted as storeys regardless of their floor area, others suggested that the definition of gallery should be amended so that smaller galleries are counted as storeys.

Government Response

They have made some small amendments to the measuring of storeys, aligning with the changes made to the method for measuring height. They also further clarified the meaning of ground level and set out that the number of storeys in a building should be measured from the lowest part of the surface of the ground to which they are adjacent. This should make sure that owners of buildings built on uneven ground, e.g. a hill, are not able to ‘game’ the height threshold.

As again with heights, they also amended the definition to make sure not all plant machinery storeys are excluded and set out that only storeys which consist exclusively of rooftop plant rooms or rooftop machinery are excluded from the storey measurement.

In respect of ‘gallery’ floors, they also amended the definition to set out that ‘galleries are floors whose internal floor area is less than 50% of the internal floor area of the largest storey vertically above or below’. This is instead of defining galleries as storeys whose floor area is less than 50% of the largest storey in the building. This is to further prevent ‘gaming’ the regime.

Whilst some definitions were hoped for, this was the one definition most people we have spoken with just assumed the minimum height requirements would be lowered from 18m down to 11m, in line with related legislation, such as the Fire Safety Act 2022. But surprisingly, this was not the case;

Respondents’ Concerns

Some respondents also provided comments outside the scope of this consultation with many respondents suggesting that the 18-metre or 7-storey height thresholds should be lowered. Some suggested this should be 11 metres or 4 storeys. Particularly, these respondents felt that care homes and hospitals should be included at a lower height threshold of 11 metres or no height threshold at all.

A smaller number of respondents suggested there should not be any height threshold during the design and construction part of the regime for any building type.

Government Response

While the government recognise that height is not the only indicator of risk, they chose height as evidence shows the risk to multiple households is greater when fire does spread in buildings which are at least 18 metres.

They are therefore including hospitals and care homes which meet the 18 metre, or 7 storey height-threshold in the design and construction part of the new regime as this means high-rise buildings which may be occupied by those who are unable to evacuate quickly, or without assistance, are designed and constructed with more stringent oversight by BSR.

Hospitals and care homes are also regulated as workplaces through the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 so they are already subject to duties placed on those in control of these buildings to make sure these premises are safe. They are also subject to the local Fire and Rescue Authorities’ and the Care Quality Commission’s inspection regimes, who will take action if required.

This was possibly the most anticipated definition, with many expecting a widening of the building types, with hotels specifically expected to join the cast. But alas, no change, just simply a further definition of what buildings are not currently classified as Higher-Risk Buildings;

Respondents’ Concerns

Some respondents raised concerns with the government’s proposal to exclude secure residential institutions (e.g. prisons), temporary leisure establishments (e.g. hotels) and military premises (e.g. military barracks) from the definition of higher-risk building during the design and construction phase.

They also raised concerns about the proposals to exclude care homes, hospitals, secure residential institutions, temporary leisure establishments and military premises from the definition of higher-risk building during the occupation phase. Although, in the interest of a balanced debate, some respondents were also supportive of the exclusion of military premises on the basis that these buildings have their own safety requirements and that building owners will liaise with the BSR as appropriate, although a small number of respondents did raise concerns about the safety standards of military accommodation.

There were specific concerns about buildings which may have people sleeping in them or house vulnerable people being excluded from the scope of this part of the regime, with some responses suggesting these buildings should be included within scope. This included those housed in secure mental health facilities or secure local authority accommodation. A small number of respondents also felt military premises should be included in the regime.

Hotels and aparthotels were a particular concern with some respondents feeling they should be included within the scope of the new regime as people sleep overnight within hotels and may be unfamiliar with their surroundings in the event of a fire. There were concerns about the boundary between hotels and aparthotels and how and where this would be defined. A small number of respondents felt that apartment style hotels specifically should be included within scope on the reasoning that they are similar to residential buildings.

Government Response

The Government states that they have always been clear the focus of the regime is on high-rise residential buildings. As such, they are not proposing to amend the types of buildings excluded from the definition of higher-risk buildings through these regulations.

All building work must meet building regulations requirements. Some elements of the new design and construction regime will also apply to all buildings. There will be dutyholder requirements on all those involved in the procurement, design and construction of buildings intended to proportionately address risks for all building work in the design and construction phase.

The BSR will also have wider responsibilities for overseeing the safety of all buildings, including identifying patterns of regulatory failure and making recommendations for improving standards. This will drive continuous improvement in the performance of all buildings to protect the safety of occupants.

The government have, therefore, excluded hotels and other temporary leisure establishments, as well as secure residential institutions like prisons. In occupation these buildings are also already regulated by the Fire Safety Order, and generally, these buildings are staffed 24/7, have multiple routes of escape, signage and emergency lighting to assist evacuation and have a higher level of detection and alarm systems than residential buildings.

Again, no change here at all, simply a confirmation of buildings that do not either classify as a HRB and therefore are not required to comply with the regime during either the design and construction or occupation stages;

Key

= Building does have to comply with the new regime during this particular phase.

= Building does not have to comply with the new regime during this particular phase.

* The Building Safety Act defines residential unit as a dwelling or any other unit of living accommodation, for example a flat or rooms in a university hall of residence where amenities are shared.

This was a real surprise when the act received Royal Ascent, in the sense that PEEPs were not to be made mandatory, at least not within the Building Safety Act, one assumes this is because the government assumes this to be covered in other legislation elsewhere, nevertheless, the industry seems to be still in the dark as to where this may be if indeed it does exist;

Respondents’ Concerns

Respondents raised the potential impact of the regulations on vulnerable people, particularly people who may have disabilities or older people who may be unable to self-evacuate. They felt that the scope of the new regime should consider and support the safety of vulnerable people and raised the importance of Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans and the need for these to be in place.

Government Response

Frustratingly, this was one particular concern that seems to have been… (I’m trying to think of an appropriate opposite word to ‘Respond’ without putting me at risk of being libel!), let’s say, directly unaddressed.

The government simply confirms that all the potential equalities impacts of our proposals have been carefully considered as part of our public sector equality duty requirements and that they are content there is no evidence of a negative impact on any one group which shares a protected characteristic. They confirm that they have passed any relevant responses on to relevant departments including the Home Office.

GOV.UK will be publishing full guidance on the regulations once they are approved by parliament. This will be made available before the new regime comes into force and becomes law, currently dated as 6th April 2023.

Changes to the regulations set out here, as released on 19 December, are still subject to parliamentary approval.

Secured via the NPIF – Mercia Equity Finance, which is managed by Mercia and part of the Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund (NPIF), Operance is able to grow its team further to design, build and release even more features planned for its new Building Safety Module, designed to help companies meet new building safety rules.

The latest funding round for Operance (companies house registered Bimsense), follows the introduction earlier this year of the Building Safety Act, which is designed to improve standards in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire. Operance helps building owners to meet the ‘golden thread’ requirement and show that safety has been considered at every stage of a building’s lifecycle, from design and construction to management.

Their new Building Safety Module enables building owners to comply with new legislation with features such as their Higher-Risk Building Registration, Building Safety Case and Safety Case Report features.

The latest funding will enable the company to develop more new features to meet other parts of the Act – in particular the need to develop solutions for Mandatory Reporting and the Residents Voice, the latter being a way of developing two-way communications between residents and building safety managers to report potential safety issues and share important building safety information.

To do this, Operance has already begun expanding the team by securing key senior appointments such as Ian Hetherington as CSO and Dave Peacock as Head of Digital Services. More roles are now been advertised with a focus on further developing their internal software team.

Bimsense was founded in 2016 by Ian Yeo and Scott Pilgrim as a consultancy specialising in building information modelling (BIM). They developed Operance in 2020 with the help of an initial investment from NPIF – Mercia Equity Finance. It has since won multiple industry awards and is now used by well-known industry names such as GallifordTry, Tilbury Douglas, Algeco, Morrison Construction and RLB.

Scott Pilgrim, Chief Product Officer at Operance, said: “The new Building Safety Act and Fire Safety Act have introduced the most sweeping reforms in living memory for the construction and residential property sectors. By bringing building intelligence together in one place, Operance can help them meet the challenge. NPIF and Mercia have backed us from the start and the latest funding will allow us to add new features and provide further support for the property industry.”

Maurice Disasi, Investment Associate at Mercia said: “The Bimsense team have created the world’s first purpose-built ‘golden thread’ solution and we are pleased to have been able to support them. Operance will play a key role in helping building owners to comply with the rules and creating safer, more efficient buildings for everyone.”

Sean Hutchinson at British Business Bank added: “The Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund offers businesses an alternative route to funding and we are proud to have supported Bimsense from the beginning of its journey.

“The building industry is experiencing substantial change and it is Northern companies like Bimsense that are offering advanced digital solutions to help industry leaders navigate through it.”

The Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund project is supported financially by the European Union using funding from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) as part of the European Structural and Investment Funds Growth Programme 2014-2020 and the European Investment Bank.

Short Definition: A Building Safety Case ensures that those responsible for buildings; deliver a continuous preventative and proactive approach to managing building safety risks. It is essentially, a collection of general, fire and structural safety information relevant to a Higher-Risk Building. Once a Building Safety Case has been created, it is kept up to date and summarised in the form of a Safety Case Report and submitted to the new Building Safety Regulator. It is to be created and maintained within the Golden Thread of information which provides the full body of information and evidence around the assessment and management of building safety risks stored digitally.

The Building Safety Act 2022 requires building owners to manage risks associated with structural failure or fire spread within their facilities to prevent such occurrences and limit the impact if they did occur.

The main focus of the safety case regime is to create accountability for building owners so that they (referred to as the Principal Accountable Persons or PAP) look after the buildings properly and deliver preventative and proactive processes to mitigate risk. Principal Accountable Persons and any other named Accountable Persons (a building leaseholder, operator, or facility manager, for example) will need to demonstrate and prove that their building safety risks are managed and maintained effectively for each facility or building. Previously, a lot of this information had been an assumption by those following guidance or previously prescribed standards. Transforming these previous assumptions into factual evidence will create a more efficient and proactive approach to building fire and safety.

The process or protocol behind ensuring the management structures and the processes in place are efficient and delivered across an organisation properly is often referred to as a Safety Management System.

Good question! Any existing or new higher-risk building that is at least 18 meters high or has at least 7 storeys and has at least two residential units (or is a hospital or a care home at the same height, during the design and construction stages), will need to develop and maintain a building safety case (BSC) and Safety Case Report (SCR). This report has to be completed by the Principal Accountable Persons and then sent to the Building Safety Regulator for assessment. Furthermore, the Principal Account Person will also be responsible for maintaining the Building Safety Case and Safety Case Report moving forwards, updating information when necessary and resubmitting it to the Building Safety Regulator for reassessment and approval.

To improve the safety of existing higher-risk buildings, the new legislation also requires owners of these properties to first register these properties with the Building Safety Regulator and develop their individual Building Safety Case and Safety Case Reports. Ultimately, this act aims to deliver safer outcomes for residents across the United Kingdom.

With your existing or new Higher-Risk Building (HRB) registered and a Building Safety Case and Safety Case Report in place, the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) will review these every five years beyond the occupation date. However, they could be reviewed at any time, especially if there is a complaint made by a resident concerning building safety.

Think of the BSR as Ofsted for residential buildings. Much like Ofsted will provide a review of each school to ensure it follows the required standards at set intervals, it too could carry out a surprise review at any time should they feel the need.

Every existing higher-risk building must be registered with the Building Safety Regulator. This process will begin in April 2023 and owners of HRBs have a six-month window until October 2023 to complete this process. Registering of HRBs includes both existing legacy buildings already occupied, and new buildings currently in design and construction and has been so since the bill’s release in April 2022.

Despite worries about how big an undertaking this could be, we understand the information as prescribed at the time of writing, is not onerous and includes general information such as building names, address, height, number of stories and dwellings and who are its named accountable persons.

In order to develop a Building Safety Case, the Accountable Persons will need to evidence knowledge of the building’s construction and identify and assess its building safety risks associated to fire and structural safety and create reasonable measures to ensure that those risks are reduced and controlled proportionately.

The exact detail required to do this is yet to be fully defined at the time of writing, but we have a good understanding already thanks to government and HSE guidance released so far. The government will use regulations, which will be subject to consultation, to further set out the form and content required for building safety cases and safety case reports and how the latter is to be submitted to the Building Safety Regulator for assessment.

We understand that information as currently prescribed, can be broken down into the following categories;

• Basic Building Information

• Building Construction

• Refurbishment

• Fire Safety

• Structural Safety

• Resident Profile

• Services and Utilities

• Maintenance and Inspections

All of this information will need to be documented, stored correctly, and kept up to date. Whenever this information changes, it will need to be resubmitted as a Safety Case Report to the Building Safety Regulator.

To help accountable persons assign nominated individuals to provide this information, Operance has created a world-first Building Safety Case module, providing a simple step-by-step guide to providing the information in a structured, easy-to-manage way. Not only does it clarify and break down the information into bite-size chunks, but it is also regularly updated in line with government updates, is completely digital, safe, and secure, and is recorded on our blockchain-powered Golden Thread Audit Trail. You can watch a demo of it in action here.

As you build up your Building Safety Case, your Safety Case Report also begins, in part, developing itself in the background. The Safety Case Report provides a summary of the steps the accountable persons will take to identify, assess, remove, reduce, and manage building safety risks. This report is supported by the Golden Thread of information, which provides all the information and evidence around the assessment and management of building safety risks stored digitally.

The Government has published an ‘Outline Transition Plan for the Building Safety Bill’ to support individuals and businesses in their preparations. Following Royal Assent, several changes will come into force within the first 12 to 18 months of its release in April 2022. Therefore, certain duties relevant to this article are likely to begin coming into force by April 2023. These will include:

• Establishing the Residents’ Panel within the Building Safety Regulator. (Enforceable within 12 months).

• Mandatory registration of occupied high-rise residential buildings with the Building Safety Regulator.

• New Gateways to ensure rigorous assessment of regulatory requirements to ensure building safety and regulatory compliance is considered at each stage of a building’s design and construction.

• Mandatory reporting to the new Building Safety Regulator of prescribed fire and structural safety occurrences.

• The requirement to create, hold and maintain the golden thread of information.

• Mandatory registration of building inspectors and building control approvers.

• New requirements on duty holders to have clear accountability and statutory responsibilities as buildings are designed, constructed and refurbished.

• New duties on the Accountable Person to manage building safety risks in occupied high-rise buildings, including duties to engage with residents.

• New duties on residents to ensure each other’s safety by making sure their actions do not adversely affect the safety of their building.

• New requirements for construction products included on the safety-critical list and the requirement for construction products to be safe, with strengthened oversight and enforcement powers to be used by the national regulator for construction products to operate effectively.

No cost can compare to the importance of saving lives. The new regime is focused on ensuring the most serious safety risks, directly related to fire spreading and structural collapse, are eradicated with measures in place to ensure residents are safe. But of course, there are costs associated with gathering, recording and submitting your building safety case and safety case report information. We describe these steps as follows;

DEFINE: Firstly you need to define the information as prescribed by law that you require for your legacy or new higher-risk buildings. Subscribing to Operance will help with this as it is constantly updated to reflect current law and it breaks down the requirements in bite-size chunks. These requirements are assigned to the Principal Accountable Person by default but can be re-assigned to other accountable persons and their named nominated individuals, such as Building Safety Managers or external consultants and/or surveyors. This enables users to search for information that is only required by law as a minimum, but with the ability to add to these requirements as per the principal accountable persons’ requirements.

CURATE: Depending on such factors as the building’s age and the depth and quality of existing information available for the building, this could be an expensive step for the building owner in gathering the prescribed information. For instance, one of the required items of information relates to understanding the building’s primary load-bearing system (e.g. pre-cast planks on a steel frame). This information may not be accurately recorded, or even exist. It might not even be possible to determine this with the naked eye. In this instance, building owners will need to enlist and spend on specialist support, e.g. engineers, consultants, designers, building surveyors, contractors etc.

To help owners of high-risk buildings with this, Operance has teamed up with Rider Levitt Bucknall, the nation’s largest independent project manager, and one of the world’s largest, to provide not just building surveying and project management expertise, but also health and safety and CDM expertise also. Together, we can help define your legislative information and accurately curate this information by carrying out our surveys and searches to produce the information required. In order to then digitise this information, should it be in existence, but in paper or PDF format, we have also teamed up with Spectrum, our OCR partners who will scan your documents and auto-classify them using NBS Uniclass classifications and name them in line with ISO 19650 naming conventions. All this information can then be added to Operance and stored against what the information is relevant to within the golden thread.

It is also important to think about unnecessary costs. We would advise owners of HRBs to prioritise their efforts and resource on those items that strictly apply to the law. We have seen organisations spend tens and hundreds of thousands of pounds on such things as laser scanning and the creation of BIM models. Whilst these are no doubt useful visualisation tools and are very useful indeed for planning future refurbishment works, there is nowhere in the bill that states these visual 3D models are required. Organisations should therefore ask themselves just one question first and foremost before spending their resources “If we don’t do this, will we be breaking the law?”. Providing the prescribed information as requested in the bill is critical, we advise owners to concentrate on beginning by meeting the requirements and making it digital and accessible. Beyond this, it’s probably a nice-to-have, rather than a must-have.

ACCESS: With information fully defined, and curated for your higher-risk buildings, it should be stored in a digital platform, capable of providing the golden thread and the ability to store information against what it is relevant to. It should be easily accessible by owners, operators and of course occupants of the buildings too. The platform should be based on open data principles, meaning that information can be shared back and forth between different software solutions. Crucially, the platform should be providing your golden thread, for every element of your building across its lifecycle. For instance, information about the fire alarm system should be stored against the fire alarm system within the digital environment. This way, every piece of information available about this system is stored against it directly, making it easy to find and record its lifecycles history.

The cost of storing, accessing and sharing your golden thread can wildly vary across software vendors, we are seeing a gold rush of sorts, whereby vendors are over-promising their true golden thread capabilities. A lot of vendors are pre-existing software solutions that were simply not designed with the building safety act and the golden thread in mind. Therefore you have lots of vendors providing solutions such as Common Data Environments (CDE), Digital Twins, Asset Management platforms and more looking to either plugin or add on new ‘golden thread’ features or pivot into a whole new market. The problem we are seeing in either case, is buyers become more educated in what to expect of their ‘golden thread’ solution and become disenchanted with their purchase. Vendors too can become frustrated that they cannot move quick enough when trying to make changes to their existing and in a lot of cases, old technologies. We advise potential buyers to view these carefully and refrain from signing up for long-term licenses.

Operance is different, designed with the Building Safety Act in mind, built from new using the very latest technologies, it is the world’s first bespoke solution. But we are clear, we are still not the finished, final golden thread solution, as there isn’t any one such solution that exists. How can there be when so much has still yet to be defined by law?! What we do promise our customers is that we are at the forefront of Building Safety technology with teams and experts focussed on further developing our solution alongside the developing bill. By working with government, local authorities, legislative bodies, housing organisations and industry experts, we are dedicated to the vision of helping create safer, more harmonious homes for everyone.

MAINTAIN: With information curated and complying with the bill, it now needs to be maintained in the same way that the facility and its assets need to be looked after. For instance, the information supplied to register HRBs needs to be checked and updated regularly. So too, does the building safety case and safety case report. As mentioned above, you need to think of the Building Safety Regulator as ‘Ofsted for owners of Higher-Risk Buildings’. They could metaphorically come knocking on your day at any time and ask to see your very latest information. Should information be incomplete and incorrect, you will face possible prosecution. Therefore there is a cost involved in keeping this information up to date, via the use of internal or external appointed persons and their nominated individuals, responsible for keeping this information up to date. Whilst the law doe snot mandate the requirement of a Building Safety Manager specifically, it does require, in reality, several people to constantly inform, update and audit your building safety information.

There are many guidance documents available online via the UK Government and the HSE in particular, with more clear guidance promised to be released in due course. This guidance will hopefully include information regarding appropriate measures to mitigate risks in particular.

In summary, the Building Safety Bill has been updated to help increase the safety of building residents around the United Kingdom. Learning from experience, we are excited to work with everyone to transform the way building information is stored, accessed and kept up to date. Let’s continue to work together to mitigate the risk of structural or fire-related building disasters in the UK.

Should you want to discuss how you can comply with the Building Safety Act 2022, please do not hesitate to contact our Director, Scott Pilgrim.