Mark Hillier, BYL Group Surveyor, says it makes sense to consult people who could have an impact on your project as early as possible in the design process. He provides some examples of the possible consequences if you don’t and suggests who should be on your ‘A List’.
The design stage is a crucial part of any new building project and decisions made at this time can have a huge impact on the final outcome. But several parties vital to the process often get overlooked, even though their input could save a lot of time and trouble, not to mention cost.
It is never easy to foresee problems with new building projects, so it makes sense to consult those whose involvement may have an impact as early as possible in a bid to save time and money later. But whilst some architects consider early input on complex schemes essential, so they can get the best and most economical solutions from the design, others continue to ignore this vital information resource.
Top of the list to invite to the design table is the Approved Inspector (AI), whose input saves time both in having to produce unnecessary revisions to the drawings and the inevitable drawn out correspondence that accompanies them.
Involving AI surveyors at the design stage also has benefits when it comes to submitting plans because any problems in terms of complying with the Building Regulations will have been identified, discussed and rectified beforehand. Surveyors use all available design guides and codes to find a safe and economical solution that complies with the requirements of the Building Regulations.
Additionally, because surveyors have then been involved with a project from the outset and have a full understanding of what the designer is trying to achieve, they are in a much better position to assist its smooth running through construction to completion. Each little saving in time and money as the project progresses can add up, and can make a big difference to whether it comes in on time and within budget, and whether the final building reflects the initial design aspirations.
Architects also frequently make the mistake of overlooking two other key parties when it comes to consultation on design issues – insurers and the fire authorities.
Insurance implications
The important role that insurers can play in building design was highlighted on a recent schools project, where BYL Group advised on Building Regulation compliance and the accessible environment, but where the client overlooked the role of its insurer and its requirements.
In this particular case, the fire alarm design within the schools was proposed as an L3 system, as specified in the British Standard code of practice for fire detection and alarm systems (BS5839-1), which for purposes of the Building Regulations was more than adequate. However, on completion, the insurance company assessor visited the site and requested that a P1 property protection system be incorporated within the building. This retrofit of automatic fire detection cost the client in excess of GB pound 50,000 to install in order to satisfy the insurers.
Unfortunately, this was not the only thing the insurer took issue with. The wall construction of the school was of a composite nature, with the external face being rigid polyisocianate board being used under an EML mesh and render finish. This was acceptable under the Building Regulations as there were no boundary or fire spread issues, but the insurance assessor was not happy with this wall construction. He felt that if there was an arson attack on the building, the insulation might propagate the fire under the render. As a result, the remaining schools under construction had to change their design at a late stage to incorporate an inert insulation – increasing the cost.
It is not surprising that insurance companies are looking for better protection. In 2003, there was in excess of GB pound 96.6 million cost as a direct result of arson attacks in schools and many insurance companies now want to see the introduction of sprinklers within school buildings as standard.
While this may come in the future, at present the Building Regulations do not require it. They require compartment sizes to be restricted to 800m2 in schools to prevent excessive loss of property through fire damage. Some insurance companies wish to reduce this compartment size, and they also want either a P1 or L1 automatic fire detection system included in schools, which cannot be requested under the Building Regulations unless there is a deviation from the guidance and an enhanced system is provided as compensation.
Guidance on this subject can be found on a number of websites, for example www.arsonpreventionbureau.org.uk or www.zurich.co.uk.
These issues are not new; it is well known that the insurance companies look for enhanced property protection and indeed the Loss Prevention Council Design Guide makes recommendations. Yet they still arise all too often.
It is worth remembering that the Building Regulations are only a minimum standard. In order to get insurance or even considerably reduce your premiums it is advisable to contact your buildings’ insurer at the design stage, as this problem is not just restricted to schools but applies to all types of commercial, industrial and office properties.
There could be many areas of design relating to passive and active fire precautions your insurance company may want to comment on, that could have significant cost implications to the project. But it may be possible to offset these against reduced premiums at a later date.
Fire fighting considerations
Another problem that has recently come to light is the provision of water supplies for fire fighting purposes.
Fire brigades have a duty under the Fire Rescue Services Act 2004 to ensure that there are sufficient water supplies for fire fighting purposes, and most brigades have a water supplies officer who will make comment on the provisions that should be made for new building projects.
Unfortunately, it seems many projects are falling through the planning net, and are not being seen by the fire brigade until the Building Regulation consultation process.
On some projects, the cost implications of this can be quite large. In a recent case, the hotel in question was on a green field site in the middle of nowhere: there were no fire hydrants within two miles of the hotel and there was insufficient standing water to supply a fire-fighting appliance for any period of time.
Under regulation B5 of Approved Document B it was not possible to request water supplies be laid on, and access for the fire brigade was more than adequate. As the consequences of an insufficient water supply could result in greater damage to the building in the event of a fire, the architect approached the insurance company to discuss the issue. Ultimately, it was decided that hydrants must be supplied, but by this time the project was already well under way and their inclusion resulted in delay and extra cost.
Conclusion
In cases such as those referred to above, the solution is simple. Next time you plan a new building, make sure to put your insurer, the fire brigade and a Building Control surveyor on your ‘A List’. They may not solve all your problems at once, but at least you will know what those problems may be in plenty of time to put things right. In addition, their early inclusion will almost certainly save you time and money in the long run.
Mark Hillier, BYL Group Surveyor, says it makes sense to consult people who could have an impact on your project as early as possible in the design process. He provides some examples of the possible consequences if you don’t and suggests who should be on your ‘A List’.
The design stage is a crucial part of any new building project and decisions made at this time can have a huge impact on the final outcome. But several parties vital to the process often get overlooked, even though their input could save a lot of time and trouble, not to mention cost.
It is never easy to foresee problems with new building projects, so it makes sense to consult those whose involvement may have an impact as early as possible in a bid to save time and money later. But whilst some architects consider early input on complex schemes essential, so they can get the best and most economical solutions from the design, others continue to ignore this vital information resource.
Top of the list to invite to the design table is the Approved Inspector (AI), whose input saves time both in having to produce unnecessary revisions to the drawings and the inevitable drawn out correspondence that accompanies them.
Involving AI surveyors at the design stage also has benefits when it comes to submitting plans because any problems in terms of complying with the Building Regulations will have been identified, discussed and rectified beforehand. Surveyors use all available design guides and codes to find a safe and economical solution that complies with the requirements of the Building Regulations.
Additionally, because surveyors have then been involved with a project from the outset and have a full understanding of what the designer is trying to achieve, they are in a much better position to assist its smooth running through construction to completion. Each little saving in time and money as the project progresses can add up, and can make a big difference to whether it comes in on time and within budget, and whether the final building reflects the initial design aspirations.
Architects also frequently make the mistake of overlooking two other key parties when it comes to consultation on design issues – insurers and the fire authorities.
Insurance implications
The important role that insurers can play in building design was highlighted on a recent schools project, where BYL Group advised on Building Regulation compliance and the accessible environment, but where the client overlooked the role of its insurer and its requirements.
In this particular case, the fire alarm design within the schools was proposed as an L3 system, as specified in the British Standard code of practice for fire detection and alarm systems (BS5839-1), which for purposes of the Building Regulations was more than adequate. However, on completion, the insurance company assessor visited the site and requested that a P1 property protection system be incorporated within the building. This retrofit of automatic fire detection cost the client in excess of £50,000 to install in order to satisfy the insurers.
Unfortunately, this was not the only thing the insurer took issue with. The wall construction of the school was of a composite nature, with the external face being rigid polyisocianate board being used under an EML mesh and render finish. This was acceptable under the Building Regulations as there were no boundary or fire spread issues, but the insurance assessor was not happy with this wall construction. He felt that if there was an arson attack on the building, the insulation might propagate the fire under the render. As a result, the remaining schools under construction had to change their design at a late stage to incorporate an inert insulation – increasing the cost.
It is not surprising that insurance companies are looking for better protection. In 2003, there was in excess of £96.6 million cost as a direct result of arson attacks in schools and many insurance companies now want to see the introduction of sprinklers within school buildings as standard.
While this may come in the future, at present the Building Regulations do not require it. They require compartment sizes to be restricted to 800m2 in schools to prevent excessive loss of property through fire damage. Some insurance companies wish to reduce this compartment size, and they also want either a P1 or L1 automatic fire detection system included in schools, which cannot be requested under the Building Regulations unless there is a deviation from the guidance and an enhanced system is provided as compensation.
Guidance on this subject can be found on a number of websites, for example www.arsonpreventionbureau.org.uk or www.zurich.co.uk.
These issues are not new; it is well known that the insurance companies look for enhanced property protection and indeed the Loss Prevention Council Design Guide makes recommendations. Yet they still arise all too often.
It is worth remembering that the Building Regulations are only a minimum standard. In order to get insurance or even considerably reduce your premiums it is advisable to contact your buildings’ insurer at the design stage, as this problem is not just restricted to schools but applies to all types of commercial, industrial and office properties.
There could be many areas of design relating to passive and active fire precautions your insurance company may want to comment on, that could have significant cost implications to the project. But it may be possible to offset these against reduced premiums at a later date.
Fire fighting considerations
Another problem that has recently come to light is the provision of water supplies for fire fighting purposes.
Fire brigades have a duty under the Fire Rescue Services Act 2004 to ensure that there are sufficient water supplies for fire fighting purposes, and most brigades have a water supplies officer who will make comment on the provisions that should be made for new building projects.
Unfortunately, it seems many projects are falling through the planning net, and are not being seen by the fire brigade until the Building Regulation consultation process.
On some projects, the cost implications of this can be quite large. In a recent case, the hotel in question was on a green field site in the middle of nowhere: there were no fire hydrants within two miles of the hotel and there was insufficient standing water to supply a fire-fighting appliance for any period of time.
Under regulation B5 of Approved Document B it was not possible to request water supplies be laid on, and access for the fire brigade was more than adequate. As the consequences of an insufficient water supply could result in greater damage to the building in the event of a fire, the architect approached the insurance company to discuss the issue. Ultimately, it was decided that hydrants must be supplied, but by this time the project was already well under way and their inclusion resulted in delay and extra cost.
Conclusion
In cases such as those referred to above, the solution is simple. Next time you plan a new building, make sure to put your insurer, the fire brigade and a Building Control surveyor on your ‘A List’. They may not solve all your problems at once, but at least you will know what those problems may be in plenty of time to put things right. In addition, their early inclusion will almost certainly save you time and money in the long run.
