Single Building Assessment Specification Task and Finish Group: final output and recommendations - March 2024

Summary of Outstanding Issues, Decisions and Actions from the successor SBA Specification Task and Finish Group

Issue/Question: Timeline for SBA specification

Position: Partially resolved

Note: Output from this Group will be part of the consideration for a timeline with a report / recommendation being put forward to Ministers.

May need to be further consideration once SBA process is determined with regards to prioritisation.

Concern raised by Developers that without prioritisation or scaling of the programme, low risk buildings which fall later in the remediation timelines will face challenges.

25.01.24 - timeline for completion of the SBA specification provided - due to be finalised and published in May.

Regular updates on progress of SBA specification provided at each meeting.

7.03.24 First draft of SBA specification issued to Task and Finish Group.

Action: Second draft of SBA specification expected 28th March – expected to issue to Group post-Easter break.

To be progressed within the Developer Contract Negotiation Group

Issue/Question: Timeline of SBA process

Position: Partially resolved

Note: SBA specification will outline the broader SBA process.

Action: To be progressed within the Developer Contract Negotiation Group

Issue/Question: Clarity on SBA process (including pre- assessment process, Bill etc)

Position: Partially resolved

Note: Clarity is required on prioritisation of buildings, pre-assessment process, process for Developer-led SBAs.

Pre-assessment process could be helpful to categorise buildings and prioritise for SBA to assess risk.

Likely that while some buildings underdo SBAs and remedial works, some works will cause delays or pauses – in this situation another building might be picked up and an SBA progressed.

Homeowner consent is critical to this process.

Action: To be progressed within the Developer Contract Negotiation Group

Issue/Question: How is resident / factor / managing agent / building owner liability allocated and can this be challenged? Concern that SBA process will not recognise maintenance / defects issues caused post-construction.

Position: Partially resolved

Note: SG confirmed that where there are fire risk safety defaults that is the responsibility of the homeowner then it not responsibility of developer (or SG for orphan buildings). However, realise in practice there can be severe challenges to get progress on behalf of owners / factors, which can result in holding up remediation.

This is particularly the case in any urgent mitigations where immediate action is required. Developers question where the cost for urgent mitigations should sit.

Further consideration is needed on cost recovery.

Developers advised that a means of allocating liability outside of the SBA is required given there is no legal responsibilities on homeowners or factors.

Developers noted that defects and maintenance issues related mainly to issues with fire doors, firestopping damage to install new cabling etc.

25.01.24 - pre-assessment, pre-contracting – to engage with homeowners / other parties regarding their liabilities.

Action: To be progressed within the Developer Contract Negotiation Group

Agreement that liability for remediation will be set out in developer remediation contract, not the SBA specification

Issue/Question: Cladding Assurance Register

Position: Partially Resolved

Note: Assurance from SG that there will be separate engagement and consultation on the Cladding Assurance Register.

SG advised to access the Register, buildings in scope will need a completed SBA.

Agreement on 21/03/24 by SG to meet with Homes for Scotland to discuss the Cladding Assurance Register and public consultation

Action: To be progressed within Developer Contract Negotiation Group

Confirmation from SG that there will be a public consultation on the Cladding Assurance Register

Issue/Question: What are the Building Standards warrant requirements for: a) removal of panels for assessment; b) cavity barriers and fire stopping remediation?

Position: Partially resolved

Note: Building standards have advised the following. These are matters on which the relevant building standards verifier can advise the applicant for building warrant (related to cladding remediation). General notes are noted below:

a. There would normally be no requirement for a building warrant for the investigation of cladding systems. This assumes that the points at which the cladding is opened are discrete sampling points across the entirety of the cladding system. The sample points should be made good following investigation.

b. The fire engineer may consider that the cladding system could be brought up to a safe condition by repair or addition of cavity barriers or fire stopping. There would need to be a case made to support such an assertion (e.g. the system is non-combustible, but currently has no or limited numbers of cavity barriers fitted; or some combustible materials are included, but there is evidence that the system would have complied with an acceptable BS8414 / BR135 classification if cavity barriers / fire stopping had been properly fitted). If a case can be made, then a building warrant application could be submitted to cover the work related only to the cavity barriers or fire stopping. As noted above the Verifiers view would be important and final with consideration of factors such as the amount of work required and does it affect the integrity of the cladding system.

• Regulation 8 provides a list of exemptions to A2 s1,d0 or better.
• Type 25A of Schedule 3 of the building regulations, limits the exemption for replacement external wall cladding systems to minor repairs that can be carried out to a standard no worse than existing. Clause 0.5.1 of the domestic technical handbook states “In relation to work to external wall cladding systems, minor repair means isolated repair or replacement of elements of cladding which are physically damaged or have degraded to the point that the element is no longer fit for its intended purpose.”

As with above point the Group feel in practical application of building standards / SAN then it is not as clear cut. Group feel this would be helped by adopting the PAS 9980.

Group requested clarity in regard to retention of materials in compliance with the guidance at the time of construction (Class B) – questioned if these could be retained if various Building Standards are not available.

Developers would also like to see positions prescribed to Building Control, rather than be subject to individual verifiers view.

Action: Building Standards queries to be progressed and resolved within the Developer Contract Negotiation Group

Agreement from Group that Building Standards advice and decisions agreed need to be documented

Issue/Question: Presentation of Reports.

Position: Partially Resolved

Note: Would it be possible to include a standard reporting template that all reports should conform to?

Action: SG have requested that Joule Group provide examples

Issue/Question: Worked Examples

Position: Partially Resolved

Note: Would it be possible to arrange some joint sessions with SG / Joule and homebuilders to work through some examples to give some real-life interpretation and how it should be applied?

Action: SG have requested that Joule Group provide examples

Issue/Question: Terminology

Position: Unresolved

Note: Terms 'direct' and 'indirect' risk requires more specification. Few bits of language / terminology that are not Scottish-specific

Action: To be progressed within the Developer Contract Negotiation Group

Issue/Question: Building Regulations

Position: Unresolved

Note: The document is clear with regards to compliance with current building regulations associated with life safety (Ref 2.1.5) but is silent on the other assurances given by Building Standards re other standards – e.g thermal insulation. Again if these fall out with scope of the SBA, then where do we find the written clarifications we thought we had agreed with BSD – again is this within scope of Developer Contract?

Action: To be progressed within the Developer Contract Negotiation Group

Issue/Question: Peer Review

Position: Unresolved

Note: Developers remain unclear on the process for peer review / expert panel referred to (sec 3.4).

Action: N/A