Building safety reform in Wales: What happens now the reforms are live

Earlier this year, we examined the Welsh Government’s plans to reshape building safety regulation in Wales and what they were expected to mean for developers, contractors and consultants. Now that the new regime has come into force, the focus shifts from understanding the legislation to implementing it in practice. As of today, those reforms are no longer on the horizon. The new higher-risk buildings regime is now in force across Wales, alongside a new dutyholder and competence framework that applies much more widely to building work subject to the Building Regulations.

The legislation itself has been discussed extensively in recent months. The more important question now is what these changes will mean in practice.

For developers, contractors, consultants and clients alike, the challenge is no longer understanding the regulations. It is adapting projects, procurement and project teams to operate successfully within them.

A shift in how projects are delivered

The most significant impact of the new regime is not simply the introduction of additional regulatory requirements. It is the change in mindset that the industry must adopt.

Historically, some aspects of design development have continued throughout construction, with technical details refined as projects progressed. Under the new regime, that approach will be far more difficult where building safety or compliance with the Building Regulations is concerned.

Developers will need to submit more mature designs, supported by comprehensive information on fire safety, structural design, competence, construction control, change management and the “golden thread” of building information.

In practice, the industry will increasingly need to move away from the mindset of “we’ll work that out during the build” where safety-critical matters are concerned.

The biggest risk may be before construction even starts

Many organisations will naturally focus on the statutory decision periods built into the new regime. However, the greatest programme risk is unlikely to be the formal approval timetable itself.

The regulations provide decision periods of up to 12 weeks for new higher-risk building applications and eight weeks for work to existing higher-risk buildings. That does not include the time required to prepare applications, respond to validation queries, deal with statutory consultation or provide additional information where requested. The greater risk is incomplete or immature submissions.

Late design changes, missing information or changes to key members of the project team may all lead to additional regulatory scrutiny and delays before work can begin.

Developers should therefore be allowing sufficient time not only for regulatory approvals, but also for preparing robust submissions, managing design changes, maintaining document control and securing completion certification before occupation.

Compliance is likely to cost more, but poor preparation could cost significantly more

It is difficult to see how the new regime will not increase project costs. Some of those costs will be direct. More detailed design work will be required earlier in the project lifecycle, alongside specialist fire engineering and structural input, competence assessments, digital information management systems and more sophisticated contractual documentation. Other costs are likely to be indirect.

Longer pre-construction periods, additional financing costs, increased contractor risk pricing and reduced flexibility to make late design changes may all affect project budgets.

However, those additional costs should be viewed in context. Early compliance is likely to be significantly less expensive than redesigning projects, facing regulatory enforcement action or finding that a development cannot proceed because critical information has not been prepared at the appropriate stage.

Clients have a much bigger role than they may realise

One misconception is that these reforms primarily affect contractors or building control bodies. In reality, clients sit at the centre of the new regime. They cannot assume that responsibility for compliance can simply be passed down the supply chain. Instead, they will need confidence that appropriate systems, competent dutyholders and robust governance arrangements are in place from the outset. The “golden thread” illustrates this shift particularly well.

It is not simply a collection of documents handed over at project completion. It is an ongoing information management process that must be maintained throughout design and construction, ensuring that accurate and up-to-date information is available whenever it is needed.

Similarly, competence is no longer something that can simply be asserted. Organisations should expect to demonstrate it through experience, systems, resources and documented processes.

The competence regime extends beyond higher-risk buildings

While much of the attention surrounding today’s reforms has focused on higher-risk buildings, one of the most significant changes has a much broader impact. The new dutyholder and competence requirements apply to building work subject to the Building Regulations generally, not just higher-risk buildings.

Clients, designers and contractors must ensure that those they appoint have the appropriate skills, knowledge, experience and organisational capability to carry out their respective roles. For many organisations, this is likely to be the more significant long-term consequence of today’s reforms.

Competence can no longer be assumed simply because an organisation has carried out similar work previously. Increasingly, clients will be expected to ask more searching questions about relevant experience, available resources, quality management systems and how Building Regulations compliance will be managed throughout a project.

This is likely to influence procurement decisions well beyond the relatively small number of higher-risk building projects undertaken in Wales each year.

Ultimately, the competence regime reflects the wider cultural shift underpinning the reforms: placing demonstrable competence, accountability and information management at the centre of project delivery from the outset.

In practice, while the higher-risk buildings regime may affect a relatively small number of developments in Wales, the competence requirements will be felt across a much broader range of projects.

Procurement and contracts will need to evolve

The reforms are also likely to influence how projects are procured and documented. Clients will increasingly want to understand who will fulfil the Principal Designer and Principal Contractor roles for building regulations purposes, and what higher-risk building experience those organisations have. Clients should also be asking what systems those organisations use to manage the golden thread, mandatory occurrence reporting and change control, and how they will demonstrate competence throughout the project lifecycle. Construction contracts are also likely to evolve.

Greater clarity will be needed around responsibility for preparing approval submissions, cooperation between project participants, programme allowances for regulatory approvals, responsibility for regulatory delay, change control procedures, golden thread information, mandatory reporting obligations and completion documentation.

At the same time, employers are likely to seek stronger contractual rights to monitor compliance, require information and intervene where dutyholders fail to meet their obligations. Contractors and consultants, meanwhile, will understandably seek to avoid accepting regulatory risks that sit outside their control. These issues are likely to become increasingly prominent during contract negotiations over the coming months.

Wales is not simply following England

Although Wales has drawn heavily on the reforms introduced in England, there are important differences. Perhaps most notably, higher-risk buildings in Wales will continue to be overseen by local authorities acting as the building control authority, rather than the Building Safety Regulator. That places even greater importance on early engagement with the relevant local authority. As the regime beds in, consistency of approach between authorities and industry familiarity with the new processes will inevitably be watched closely.

Organisations operating on both sides of the border should also avoid assuming that English experience can simply be transplanted into Wales. Differences in the Welsh definition of higher-risk buildings, the regulatory framework and transitional arrangements all require careful consideration on a project-by-project basis.

The industry now moves from preparation to implementation

The introduction of today’s reforms marks one of the most significant changes to construction regulation in recent years.cThe coming months are likely to involve a period of adjustment as developers, consultants, contractors and regulators establish new ways of working.

Those organisations that succeed are unlikely to be those that simply understand the legislation. They will be those that invest in stronger governance, more mature design, better information management and clearer contractual allocation of responsibilities before projects reach the approval stage.

Ultimately, the objective of the reforms is straightforward: safer buildings delivered by competent teams, supported by greater accountability throughout the project lifecycle. From today, that objective becomes a practical reality rather than a future aspiration.