Let's talk about the new Building Safety Act. We all want it to work but prolonged approval processes mean higher costs for developers and challenging refinancing until a build contract is signed. Combined with interest rates and rising construction costs, this uncertainty is pushing project viability to the brink. New post 👇on building safety from Tina John. #housing
Agree with this. I am involved with a number of schemes for developers and funders scratching their collective heads on how to manage the Gateway 2 process in particular. In a year or so (assuming these do get through GW2) we will end up with the same bottleneck at Gateway 3 of course. Needs re-thinking urgently to increase the flow of approvals but the problem is that it is easier to say "no" than "yes" in case something goes wrong.
Not sure “brink” is right. Its more the straw that has been placed on the already shattered back of a camel. Yes I have the hump!
I have never been a fan of the Approved Inspector regime. And the staggering thing about the post-Grenfell world is how few AIs have been challenged over their failure to identify the dangers of external composite cladding systems and how few of their PI insurers have had to pay out for remediation. However, there was just the same difficulty getting LA Building Control to approve/inspect prior to the AI regime, so I think a hybrid solution might be the way forward. First, much more codification is needed with approved designs and tested systems (not individual products) being approved by default. A job for the BRE, which should be beefed up not slimmed down. Second, All initial BC application should go to the LA. Then the AIs can manage the process from 'plans approval' to completion. Finally, at completion the AI report must go to the LA for final sign off.
Great piece - growing tales of PC ready schemes awaiting sign off - another semi scandal awaiting to hit the national media - need to focus on getting new schemes approved as the priority
Well written Tina John! We found out that 4 out of the 147 are actually new build schemes... It's going to take a lot of industry collaboration indeed to gain clarity and improve on these programme prolongations indeed. Prolonged programmes added to post covid interest rates are not the combo we need to bring more homes forward!!
When 12 weeks becomes 12 months….. it is totally unworkable. Another contract negotiation point where the issues this can cause are endless…Nice FOIA insight Nick..
Totally agree 👍
Entrepreneur
1wNothing is going to get built. The process is that first you agree with the LPA the design then the HSE consider gateway 1. You have no one to talk to you make submission and they have 21 days to come back to you for each submission. In reality they’re coming back in 28-35 days. It takes 3-5 submission so six month u til you get a scheme they approve and then the LPA needs time to consider. This prolongs the planning application by 6-9 months before talking about gateway 2. This is madness. No one will apply for planning this way