Here in the UK, historically – it would seem – many small scale domestic work (extensions, loft conversions, etc.) have proceeded by an “architectural provider” drawing up plans for planning permission and documents for building regulations compliance and once building regulations approval has been obtained the architectural provider’s remit finishes and the homeowner proceeds to employ a contractor to undertake the work.
Such is the nature of most of this small scale work that if building regulation compliance issues pop up during construction, dialog between the contractor and the building inspector usually resolves any issues.
However, since the introduction of the Building Safety Act in October 2023 (BSA) additional duties are placed on the client and two roles have been established – Principal Designer and Principal Contractor.
The main thrust of the BSA is on high risk buildings following the Grenfell tragedy but domestic work is also covered by the act.
My confusion about the act is that whilst undertaking the design work, obtaining planning consent and building regulations approval, the provider is deemed to be the Principal Designer – once work starts, if the client does not appoint a Principal Designer to oversee building regulations compliance during the works, then the role of Principal Designer automatically falls to the designer in control of the design phase, namely the provider who designed and obtained the consent and approvals.
So if the original provider/designer is automatically the Principal Designer, how does this work contractually and in respect of renumeration?
Can the provider say to the client once building regulations approval has been obtained – “You now need to appoint a Principal Designer and pay them” !
I think you are over thinking this.
Let’s assume you design a project for a client, then you are the Principal Designer for that stage.
If you stop at that point you are no longer liable for future project development.
Let’s then assume that the client pays you to develop the design to Planning and Building Regs. You are also the Principal Design for the new phase. If you stop at that point you are no longer liable for future project development.
Let’s then assume you are appointed to administer a contract to realize the project on site with a contractor. You remain the Principal Designer.
BUT if at any stage you cease involvement with the project, then the client must appoint another Principal Designer to cover that next phase. This might be another designer to take the project to approvals stages, or produce ‘working drawings’ and the work on site. At those stages you have no liability beyond what you’ve already accrued. Often the contractor might employ other professionals to produce info for the approvals or construction phase… At that point the contractor needs to ensure that the new Principal Designer’s role is passed on to those new professionals.
If at any point you cease to be involved in the project, then from a professional responsibility point of view you should at least write to the client and tell them you are not longer the Principal Designer and if they proceed further with the project they need to ensure a new Principal Designer is named and appointed in some fashion…
What happens if, in the preliminary stages, you as principal designer, make mistakes in design that lead to non compliance of the act?
Can you discard your responsibility as you no longer are the principal designer?
And what about copyright? If the principal designer keeps changing depending on stage, then who is the principal designer when it comes to author attribution?
Here you are always liable for the drawings submitted to the city hall, unless the project gets changed by someone else. Even so itust change in Otherwise it is your design so you are always the principal designer, even if the construction documentation is produced by someone else. In those cases, some responsibility may be split but only when changes affect the permit can you withdraw your role as principal designer.
But the impasse I have, and what causes me to overthink this, is the part of the legislation – Part 2A 11c(2)(a) – where it states:
(2) If a domestic client fails to make the appointments required by regulation 11D (principal designer and principal contractor)—
(a) the designer in control of the design phase of the project is the principal designer
However, in 11D(5) it states that if a client fails to appoint a principal designer, then the client performs the role of principal designer until a new one is appointed.
As the designer at that stage you are responsible for your errors.
No the liability remains.
The copyright remains with its author - unless it is assigned to the client or others, if your involvement ceases.
In the UK you are liable for what you have actually produced/submitted. If a specialist designer or specialist subcontractor designs some elements after that they are responsible. You might continue to be the Principal Designer, or not - depending at what stage your involvement ceases, but you are always the Principal Designer for what you have done so far.
In the case of the Grenfell Tower disaster in London the case is unbelievably convoluted.
Architects designed a tower block many years ago. It had concrete cladding and a single escape staircase. Over time tenants changed front doors, closers etc that didn’t comply with good practice but the owner [the Local Authority] did nothing to fix the issues [so far management issue etc - not ‘design’]. It was decided to improve the building by adding external insulation to the walls. There was no improvement to other systems like fire-systems.
Architects were appointed to do the improvement work - they had liabilities for their designs and specifications and may have even been the main-designer [although the Principal Designer concept was yet to be invented].
They came up with schemes and got planning approval from the Local Authority [also the building owner at-arms-length]. The cladding at that stage was zinc-panels with mineral-wool insulation behind. The project then passed to the next phase. A Main Contractor was appointed, they appointed specialist contractors to design the cladding system in detail. As is very common with ‘design-build’ projects, cost savings were sought. The main fatal decision was to change to an aluminium sandwich panel cladding system with insulation behind. This was approved by the Building Control inspector [who can be a private firm in the UK paid by the contractor - a clear conflict of interest]. The manufacturer of the panels made 3 kinds, suitable for buildings of increasing heights - low storey, medium height and tall - this is clearly set out in there literature. Because the building was so tall the most expensive non-flammable kind were required. [So far unexplained] the special subcontractor choose one of the lesser performance panels. Although these had been [weirdly] approved and used on another over-cladding of flats in London, that survived a similar fire but which cause localized damage - but they had limited self-extinguishing properties, and that had mineral-wool insulation behind it. The next fatal error was the specialist subcontractor changing the insulation at Grenfell from non-combustible mineral-wool to polyisocyanureate foam slabs. This change was accepted by the Building Inspector, because it had an Agrément Certificate for use on tall buildings, if used in a sealed void behind a non-flammable cladding system. But no one noticed the system didn’t comply ! So it was done on a wrong premise. The subcontractor also failed to install effective cavity barriers at compartment floor and wall junctions and around windows. So when a small fire started in a faulty fridge in a flat’s kitchen if spread through the window and set fire to the surrounding cladding [which was initially minor] but spread into the cladding above upwards by the chimney effect, igniting panels and insulation above. Soon the building was engulfed in fire, with it spreading back though windows into other flats. The fire exit recommendations in tall building were to stay in place while the firefighters tackled a localized fire. That plan assumed a properly compartmented and clad block. It wasn’t, and many people died awaiting rescue. The fumes from the foam cladding also contained cyanide which wasn’t good.
All in all almost everybody was to blame in part, but the original architects were pretty much peripheral to the problem. Many others have a big share of the blame…
After much reading, I think I understand a bit more about how this may be working.
Following on from what Tig said – the roles of designer and principal designer are not linked to stages of the project as I was interpreting.
I was overthinking that at the construction phase, the client had to appoint a principal designer and that if not, the designerat the design stage automatically became responsible for any compliance issues at construction.
Principal designer – it seems – comes into play when there is more than one designer involved in a project at any given stage and that if the the client does not appoint a principal designer for the stage in question, then the designer for that stage becomes the principal designer.
So, for example, at the design stage, if there is an architect, structural engineer and fire consultant involved and the client does not appoint a principal designer, then the architect will most likely automatically become the principal designer.
And similarly at construction, if the architect is still involved and there are a bunch of other consultants, then most likely the architect becomes the principal designer if the client does not appoint one.
Thanks for the detailed explanation @TIG It’s all very interesting, though scary and I thought those kind of issues wouldn’t happen in contries more evolved than Portugal.
It makes sense to me. In here we have the figure of the Project Coordinator. This can be the Architect, usually it is, or other professional and is the person who is responsible for all the coordination work for all disciplines and overall liability. He shares responsibility with each different discipline.
In the UK the role was ‘Planning Supervisor’ - I was one of the first to get certified.
But the role of Principal Design can move on as a project evolves, but you remain responsible for your part, no matter how small - we have something called ‘vicarious liability’ where every one gets apportioned blame by the court - so you might be regarded as 5% to blame but it’s enough to be FUBAR !
TIG What a superb, concise summary of the facts that makes it so easy to understand what happened and who was responsible for what. As you rightly point out, the conflicts of interest in the ‘team’ created the conditions for this tragedy Although the knock on effect on the fire regulations since has been very significant and mostly beneficial, we continue to have these conflicts which should be outlawed.
