Ms Sarah Neary:

As a general statement, this is probably the most complex building work that one can do. It involves confined spaces and confined access and it is uncertain what will be discovered in the foundations, structure or whatever. Existing buildings represent probably the most complex infill. The Bill suggests a number of amendments to parts of the building regulations. That is where I have concerns about changing the legislative requirements, which are broad performance requirements. Regarding structure, they require that a building would be safe and can withstand the loadings. Part B of the regulations requires a building to have adequate fire detection and alarm systems, means of escape, resistance to the spread of fire and so on. The suggestion in Schedule 1 of the Bill before the committee is that these would change, and that would fundamentally change the level of safety. I will come back to the question of how we are addressing that in a minute. I understand the idea behind this but I am concerned about the approach to changing the legal performance requirements of buildings.

The second issue is the Bill's provision that such developments would not require a fire safety certificate. That requirement is a very powerful tool in enforcing upfront consideration of fire at an early stage. The detail must be designed in to get work approved. It is probably the strongest of the building control measures and it would be a highly retrograde step to go without it for the most complex development works about which we are talking. The third issue is the fundamental change from the system of assigned certifiers under the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014. This would be an alternative means. It is difficult to see exactly how it would work out and what fundamentally is different between the two systems. I would rather see the existing system being built upon and the available expertise being used. It takes time for industry to respond and when one form of development is different from another, complexities are created and things get lost in that.

I must come back to the main point around the difference in standards. What we are trying to do in the group that Mr. Sheridan talked about is provide greater guidance on existing buildings. Our building regulations are very much geared towards new build, and so is our guidance. In recent amendments to building regulations the guidance has dealt a little bit more with existing buildings, particularly in Part M, which concerns accessibility, and increasingly in Part L. We are moving into that area, but I admit there is not as much guidance for this kind of development and re-use of existing buildings as there is for new buildings. That is what this group is all about. If there are real problems with compliance, we are trying to identify what they are. Even in our two meetings so far, we have brought forward a number of documents on the application of building regulations to existing buildings, examining particular parts of the regulations and how they apply. To be honest, I do not think that is fully understood. We have circulated some documents on that. They are being reviewed at the moment, and even that will be a step forward in clarifying which building regulations actually apply. The next step is to drill down into the detail to ascertain where the problems are and to provide specific guidance on that.

The emerging approach is that we look at four or five typical types of urban building, see what regulations apply and determine the guidance we provide across the building regulations for that type.

That is what we hope to do within this, and it addresses the issues raised in the Bill but without changing that fundamental requirement for fire safety, structural safety, etc.