An answer to the 5 questions LABC have for MHCLG.

LABC have asked five consequences and questions that MHCLG now need to answer, most of which revolve around the inclusion of Approved Inspector under a JRG for in scope buildings, rather than the proposed regulatory structure. They perceive a conflict of interest should Approved inspectors be appointed with a developer who they work with ‘out of scope’. The government have followed the proposals by Dame Judith for a JRG and this group approach to regulation and the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) would would ensure independence and that no individual can game the system.

They are also concerned that the Approved Inspector market would cherry pick the projects they want to assess. They felt that Approved Inspectors would refuse to take on projects that would require high compliance inputs. Approved Inspectors have and deliver high levels of site supervision just like the LABC. This is because we share the same standards of service delivery via Building Control Performance Standards and Approved Inspectors are independently audited, insured and licenced to make sure they uphold these standards.

Local Authorities view the recent issues with Approved Inspector indemnity insurance as a reason not to allow them to work on ‘in scope’ buildings. It is true that a small number of Approved Inspectors have recently failed to renew Professional Indemnity insurance and new professional indemnity insurance is being issued with some restrictions, some of which are very sensible given as regulators we are not designers or specifiers. LABC ask how can AIs regulate 'in scope' buildings without proper insurance and if the government going to subsidise the private sector, underwrite a commercial enterprise's decision, or dumb down the insurance requirements that protect property owners and leaseholders?

The situation is that the AI market is the only licenced and insured Building Control system. We cannot operate without a licence and insurance. Local Authorities are not required to carry building control specific PII and are not subject to re-licencing to ensure they maintain the highest professional standards across each authority. Issues surrounding PII post Grenfell are not unique to Approved Inspectors, issues have arisen for Fire Engineers and contractors in the UK and for compliance surveyors operating in Australia. Our government can review the framework currently in place and make some minor alterations which would safeguard continued protection for consumers/designers and developers across England and Wales and support the essential regulatory function Approved Inspectors provide.

The LABC query differences in professional standards between AIs and LABC. LABC feel that CICAIR/ACAI bring the lower standards and practices to the building control sector and they state that only LABC have ISO and UKAS backed quality management systems. All Approved Inspectors have ISO/UKAS backed QM systems are and are independently audited by such bodies. Although our framework was created in the 1980s it has been developed and constantly adapts to the rigours of the demands placed upon it by insurers, auditors and CICAIR/ACAI. Within the interim findings from the Hackitt Review Approved Inspectors were credited for having a robust system of training and supervision.

It is important that building control bodies have the right competence and capability to assess compliance, including the fire safety, of complex buildings, and that this competency is clearly defined. These requirements for competency and training should be consistent across building control; currently, local authorities are not subject to formal qualification and training requirements, unlike Approved Inspectors under the Construction Industry Council Approved Inspectors Register.” Royal Academy of Engineering

LABC also query consistency in any future regulatory assessment. It is not yet known how the BSR will allocate work and ensure consistency between regulatory assessments and inspections without adding some degrees of complexity. But this complex system would apply to any group undertaking a regulatory function, it does within the AI and LABC network today. This is due to our performance based approach to regulation and the ability for building control surveyors to judge each project under the provisions set out in the Building Regulations 2010. There are different approaches but the biggest differences appear in language between private sector consultants who offer 'service levels' and local authority surveyors who 'regulate', however we both perform the same function under the same building control performance standards. I worked with Assent and the RICS in Israel. The government there created a new regulatory framework which is delivered by the private sector under a government regulatory system and they based that approach because of the success of the Approved Inspector sector we have in England and Wales.

"Don't hate the player, hate the game"

As building control providers we should all be able to find fault with the regulatory system, but not with each other as Approved Inspectors or as LABC building control providers. We should all be working towards a open and transparent regulatory system where the public and private sector co-exist to provide strong approval and oversight of all buildings.