Safeguards for third party properties

I refer to the leader of August 10 and the article Residents Neighbouring Building Sites To Vet Method Statements (August 4) and note with regret the superficial way in which the recently announced proposals for more stringent building regulations have been dealt with. The announcements made by the minister were the result of a thorough consultation process which included consultation with all stakeholders, even through the BICC forum, which includes all industry stakeholders.

The process relating to the submission of the method statement provides for three safeguards to third party property as follows: A method statement is to be prepared by the architect of the developer. The architect is taking responsibility for that method statement. If anything goes wrong, irrespective of whether the method statement was seen by the Building Regulations Office, the architect will be held responsible. This is the first safeguard.

Moreover, the method statement can be seen by neighbours who may object if they chose to do so. Method statements can be very technical in nature so it is in the interest of the neighbour to appoint an architect to review the method statement. If the objection of the architect appointed by the neighbour is found to be valid, then the Building Regulations Office can stop the works on site. This is the second safeguard. Whenever any specialist technical advice is necessary it should be sought from technically qualified people - "that's life"! Incidentally, the minister's comment to the correspondent present for the press conference must be understood in the context that even in other circumstances, one has to seek professional advice or guidance whenever he needs to interpret a professional report or is seeking a technical recommendation.

The BRO will take a sample of method statements submitted and review them. Initially the sample will be a sizeable one so that the BRO as the enforcing agency will get a good feel of the method statements being prepared. BRO also intends to engage architects on a retainer basis to review those method statements which are more complex. As time goes on and architects and contractors understand better what is expected from them, the sample taken by BRO will be smaller. This is the third safeguard.

The BRO can stop works on site if the method statement is inadequate or if the method statement is not being adhered to. For certain infringements there are also fines. These are disincentives against work methodologies which do not provide adequate safeguard for third party property.

The alternative to the approach described above is for each method statement to be vetted and endorsed by technical people and for BRO to issue a "permit". This approach is not considered appropriate since it will require an extraordinary amount of manpower to vet each and every method statement. Most method statements will be of the required standard anyway because they are prepared by architects. It is best to focus the limited human resources of the BRO on those cases which are problematic and on other enforcement issues.

Added to this, it is also not considered advisable to impose another layer of bureaucracy where there is no need for it. Apart from the requirement to submit a method statement, the regulations envisage other important safeguards which the editorial fails to mention altogether.

This includes the issue of the Condition Report, which will describe the condition of all adjacent properties prior to the commencement of works on site. This report will be drawn up by the developer's architect and handed to each owner of the adjacent properties. This is an expense which will be borne by the developer. Although there are many developers who already prepare such condition reports, the new regulations will make this obligatory.

The Times editorial also fails to mention the requirement for insurance and the submission of a bank guarantee by the developer.

I must also point out the erroneous comparison the current Environment Impact Assessment included in the leader. It is totally incorrect to state that "An alternative, surely, is to make the cost of providing this technical advice the responsibility of the developer who presumably stands most to gain financially from his development. "This is what is done in the case of Environmental Impact Assessments". The facts are: Whenever an interested stakeholder needs additional technical advice resulting from the EIA, it is the stakeholder's responsibility to seek the required professional and to bear the expenses accordingly. The developer does not pay for the stakeholder's professional advice.

The ministry acknowledges that these proposals go some way into addressing the most pressing issues resulting from the activities of the construction industry. The Minister, and the ministry, would be the first to acknowledge that there are other steps to be taken but this is about bringing a cultural change which is never easy. The ministry augurs that any analysis delves into the difficulties of finding the much required and needed balance, while ensuring maximum third party protection.