We just finished a cladding remediation project in London where ultimately they needed a EWS1 for the building. The duty holder appointed their own fire engineer and we also employed our own. Before any start on site all our drawings had to be signed off by both engineers. Then once we begin on site at every stage we were inspected. We also produced a detailed photographic record referencing to the drawings. We then provided the golden thread of info by having detailed signed off data sheets. Whilst we may not of been able to demonstrate competency via certification of our labour I feel with the above we did manage this. And obviously we had the right level of PI cover.
Great point! The challenge around certification availability is significant for stakeholders, especially contractors who often have to go the extra mile. Without clear pathways to certification, contractors end up taking a belt-and-braces approach to ensure they meet compliance standards. This can lead to added costs and complexity but may be necessary until more accessible certification options are in place. Hopefully, as the industry recognizes these gaps, we’ll see improvements in certification availability for all involved.
This was very informative. Thanks for this. As a structural engineer, I found the plan work of design being completed and approved prior to construction for high risk buildings to be very similar to the SER system used in Scotland. Construction cannot start without a building warrant being in place and for HRBs (or RG3 buildings), no items can be subject to "Contractor Design". If there are specialist items that need third party design, then specialist need to appointed prior to construction of that stage and included within the warrant. To get around programming issues, warrants are usually staged to allow specialist design to be undertaken during construction but the details must be considered as design intent beforehand.
@@MikeB-e5u Thank you for your feedback. We’ll make sure to provide more relevant content on our channel. If you have any specific topics you'd like us to cover, feel free to let us know!
Some things should never be privatised. Building regulation and inspection is one of those things. The local government needs to be funded to employ inspectors to visit every build at all the key stages of construction, inspect it according to its own approved design and the regulated codes and standards, and sign their own professional indemnity saying they've inspected it and it meets its requirements. Also, who the blazes lets them start building without having every last detail fully drawn and specified? That's just asking for disaster.
Government inspections, while essential for safety and compliance, can sometimes be time-inefficient, leading to delays on site. In an industry where most projects are already behind schedule, additional hold-ups from inspection processes can add significant pressure. Balancing the need for thorough, accountable inspections with the realities of project timelines is a challenging task, and finding ways to streamline these processes without compromising standards could make a big difference to both safety and efficiency in construction.
@@IAST-UK On smaller works, the role of Building Control and site inspections is essential. Clients on such projects seldom employ the designer to monitor the progress and standard of work. Building Control is independent. It does not rely on the patronage of clients in other parts of the building industry for commissions.
Mass builders appear to build using self certification and allow themselves to to build absolute crap. As a self build, the building inspectors were looking over our shoulders at every point. We however were making it to a standard FAR BETTER than they were expecting. The mass builders leave out as much as possible and insulation missing en masse along with cockeyed doors and windows etc the quality of these estates are terrible.
t often depends on the developer’s intentions-whether they’re building to retain the property for rental or as a main contractor constructing for a client intending to sell the units. In cases where the goal is to sell, warranty providers are usually the main parties incentivized to ensure regular inspections during construction. Unfortunately, without consistent oversight, some mass builders prioritize cost-cutting over quality, which can lead to the issues you mentioned. This highlights the need for more rigorous and standardized inspection processes across the board.
In my opinion pushing more responsibility on to both the main contractor and principal designer will result in even more detrimental workmanship. How have so many poor private building inspectors got away with charging for effectivley nothing?
Yes, another issue is definitely the competence of inspectors. When private inspectors lack the expertise or rigor to enforce standards effectively, it can lead to serious quality issues. Pushing more responsibility onto the main contractor and principal designer without addressing the competence of inspectors could result in even poorer workmanship. A stronger focus on inspector training and accountability would go a long way in improving construction quality and safety
How many of the problems go back to people being underpaid? The lowest cost rather than the best value mentality. People cutting corners and in a hurry not only decrease site safety, but also build quality. Add in form filling to off load responsibility, and training that is of questionable value, but necessary to make up the hours required. It all eats up time. Does it simply add to the initial problem? Contractors employ subcontractors, but who exactly trains apprentices? What does it take to be a bricklayer or plasterer on a building site? Is it any wonder there are not enough skilled tradesmen? The key to good build quality is proper detailed design. That design checked, quantified and tendered. Proper on site supervision is a necessity, not just by the contractor but by people who are working for the client or who are from a statutory body, or both.
We just finished a cladding remediation project in London where ultimately they needed a EWS1 for the building. The duty holder appointed their own fire engineer and we also employed our own. Before any start on site all our drawings had to be signed off by both engineers. Then once we begin on site at every stage we were inspected. We also produced a detailed photographic record referencing to the drawings. We then provided the golden thread of info by having detailed signed off data sheets. Whilst we may not of been able to demonstrate competency via certification of our labour I feel with the above we did manage this. And obviously we had the right level of PI cover.
Great point! The challenge around certification availability is significant for stakeholders, especially contractors who often have to go the extra mile. Without clear pathways to certification, contractors end up taking a belt-and-braces approach to ensure they meet compliance standards. This can lead to added costs and complexity but may be necessary until more accessible certification options are in place. Hopefully, as the industry recognizes these gaps, we’ll see improvements in certification availability for all involved.
This was very informative. Thanks for this. As a structural engineer, I found the plan work of design being completed and approved prior to construction for high risk buildings to be very similar to the SER system used in Scotland. Construction cannot start without a building warrant being in place and for HRBs (or RG3 buildings), no items can be subject to "Contractor Design". If there are specialist items that need third party design, then specialist need to appointed prior to construction of that stage and included within the warrant. To get around programming issues, warrants are usually staged to allow specialist design to be undertaken during construction but the details must be considered as design intent beforehand.
I would be happy to see professional regulation of all builders to ensure competency.
So necessary, even on smaller works.
This channel could be a very useful resource in the future
@@MikeB-e5u Thank you for your feedback. We’ll make sure to provide more relevant content on our channel. If you have any specific topics you'd like us to cover, feel free to let us know!
Some things should never be privatised. Building regulation and inspection is one of those things. The local government needs to be funded to employ inspectors to visit every build at all the key stages of construction, inspect it according to its own approved design and the regulated codes and standards, and sign their own professional indemnity saying they've inspected it and it meets its requirements.
Also, who the blazes lets them start building without having every last detail fully drawn and specified? That's just asking for disaster.
Government inspections, while essential for safety and compliance, can sometimes be time-inefficient, leading to delays on site. In an industry where most projects are already behind schedule, additional hold-ups from inspection processes can add significant pressure. Balancing the need for thorough, accountable inspections with the realities of project timelines is a challenging task, and finding ways to streamline these processes without compromising standards could make a big difference to both safety and efficiency in construction.
@@IAST-UK On smaller works, the role of Building Control and site inspections is essential. Clients on such projects seldom employ the designer to monitor the progress and standard of work. Building Control is independent. It does not rely on the patronage of clients in other parts of the building industry for commissions.
Mass builders appear to build using self certification and allow themselves to to build absolute crap. As a self build, the building inspectors were looking over our shoulders at every point. We however were making it to a standard FAR BETTER than they were expecting. The mass builders leave out as much as possible and insulation missing en masse along with cockeyed doors and windows etc the quality of these estates are terrible.
t often depends on the developer’s intentions-whether they’re building to retain the property for rental or as a main contractor constructing for a client intending to sell the units. In cases where the goal is to sell, warranty providers are usually the main parties incentivized to ensure regular inspections during construction. Unfortunately, without consistent oversight, some mass builders prioritize cost-cutting over quality, which can lead to the issues you mentioned. This highlights the need for more rigorous and standardized inspection processes across the board.
Really good . Worth watching
In my opinion pushing more responsibility on to both the main contractor and principal designer will result in even more detrimental workmanship. How have so many poor private building inspectors got away with charging for effectivley nothing?
Yes, another issue is definitely the competence of inspectors. When private inspectors lack the expertise or rigor to enforce standards effectively, it can lead to serious quality issues. Pushing more responsibility onto the main contractor and principal designer without addressing the competence of inspectors could result in even poorer workmanship. A stronger focus on inspector training and accountability would go a long way in improving construction quality and safety
How many of the problems go back to people being underpaid? The lowest cost rather than the best value mentality. People cutting corners and in a hurry not only decrease site safety, but also build quality. Add in form filling to off load responsibility, and training that is of questionable value, but necessary to make up the hours required. It all eats up time. Does it simply add to the initial problem?
Contractors employ subcontractors, but who exactly trains apprentices? What does it take to be a bricklayer or plasterer on a building site? Is it any wonder there are not enough skilled tradesmen?
The key to good build quality is proper detailed design. That design checked, quantified and tendered. Proper on site supervision is a necessity, not just by the contractor but by people who are working for the client or who are from a statutory body, or both.
2:58 wait am i dumb or what's exactly the problem here?
what's the origin of this mess ? .. looks like unchecked sheer laziness over decades !!
India : first time? ,
all that we design doesn't get pass😂,
I'm sure you have spotted the spelling error of Getaway, should be Gateway.
@@JohnnyMotel99 Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We'll ensure to double-check the spelling in our titles moving forward.
clickbait title "The End of Design and Build"