Mann Williams Consulting Civil and Structural Engineers’ Post

ONE YEAR ON – DELIVERING THE PD-BR ROLE UNDER THE BUILDING SAFETY ACT: On Wednesday 10th December, Professor Joan McCoy will be sharing White Ink’s insights, lessons learnt and overall experience of the Principal Designer-BR role with a group of architects, clients, contractors and consultants in a Roundtable hosted by Nigel Ostime and Hawkins\Brown.   The group will examine how the design and construction industry has had to adapt to the new way of delivering residential buildings to ensure they are safe to construct and inhabit and will be sharing their knowledge and experience to date as part of a drive to ensure Best Practice is understood and implemented across the architectural profession and wider construction industry. A fantastic group to be apart of, we look forward to the discussions with this exciting group. Landsec, Morgan Sindall Construction, Skanska, Galliford Try, Temporary Works Forum (TWf), Arup, EPR Architects, Gleeds, GIRI (Get it Right Initiative), Hill Group UK Mount Pleasant Masterplan in Islington, London. Photography by McAleer & Rushe

In his book How Big Things Get Done, Prof. Bent Flyvbjerg highlights that 91.5% of projects run over budget, over schedule, or both—and often by significant amounts. While many suggest keeping a 5-10% contingency, the reality is that the average holiday home construction project exceeds its initial budget by around 28%, and sometimes far more. One of the key takeaways from the book is the critical importance of thorough project planning. The RIBA Plan of Work stands out as an effective framework, helping architects and clients stay aligned throughout the construction process, and minimizing the risk of costly overruns and delays. I have attached an article below concerning how it may be best to use the RIBA Plan of Works, particularly on Rural Holiday Homes, which have their unique challenges. https://lnkd.in/e2ZYAR9A

The "Deemed to Satisfy" provisions in the National Construction Code (NCC) are crushing innovation in the building and construction industry. In doing so, they make housing more expensive than it needs to be. They allow developers and volume builders to get away with the incessant urban sprawl of ticky-tacky brick veneer houses. The NCC is a great concept, ruined by the "Deemed to Satisfy" provisions, which simply don't keep up with advances in construction methods and practices from around the world.

It is important to gather information from people working on sites, the the office. Owners, gc’s and sub contractors. Please take the time to fill the short survey in as it helps us to understand why matters to everyone in the industry. #tradecontractors #bcconstruction

Under One Roof Scotland has partnered with Mill Architects Ltd to strengthen solicitors’ knowledge around issues raised by tenement flat owners related to common building repairs, maintenance and retrofit.

The "Deemed to Satisfy" provisions in the National Construction Code (NCC) are crushing innovation in the building and construction industry. In doing so, they make housing more expensive than it needs to be. They allow developers and volume builders to get away with the incessant urban sprawl of ticky-tacky brick veneer houses. The NCC is a great concept, ruined by the "Deemed to Satisfy" provisions, which simply don't keep up with advances in construction methods and practices from around the world.

Thinking about timber buildings? Unsure what to consider in designing for fire safety? Check out Arup's new report on Fire Safe Design of Timber Buildings https://lnkd.in/ePzGk3GY David Barber Andrew Lawrence Christopher Lee

The Home Saver in Liguria. The illustration of the operating modes - Alberta Construction Magazine: Architectural prompting: MidJourney in the architectural workflow, advice and ideas for post-production · The Home Saver in Liguria. The ...

Unintended consequences with rushed legislation. Whilst the 30 year retrospective extension of defective premises liability in England was highly controversial - the current proposals in NI are much worse. The Building Safety Act brought in liability for defective product manufacturers at the same time as the extended liability period. NI is not doing this - they are just extending the liability period meaning that the construction industry which is mostly micro and SMEs can potentially be held liable for defective products in residential buildings going back 30 years even if the selection of those materials was not negligent. This is a particular issue in NI as the Mica defects in concrete blocks experienced in Ireland is likely to affect homeowners here. The minister has even confirmed his understanding that defective materials are covered - but the nuance that suppliers or manufacturers of those defective materials are not caught under the definition of those carrying out work on a dwelling is not considered. In addition - NI is not addressing the ability of companies to avoid liability by using SPVs or closing companies - meaning that the ‘last person standing’ which is likely to be the architect or sole practitioner will carry the can when their only ‘sin’ might be remaining in business or not incorporating 30 years ago. Never mind the lack of ability to get insurance or the exposure of retirees to claims. Whilst we fully understand and support that those at fault for defective housing should be held liable and not innocent householders - surely no legislator wants to bring in poorly thought through legislation without considering if there are unintended consequences and where those at fault avoid the consequences. Rather than sorting the issue - Homeowners face a risky court process with no guarantee of a successful outcome, no guarantee that someone sued for work done 30 years ago will have the funds to pay a successful claim. Defendants or claimants can’t bring in closed companies/associated companies or even live product manufacturers to the claim as they can in England, and many defendants are unlikely to have insurance to defend a claim or to pay out if the judge decides the liability is strict regardless of fault. The legal profession look likely to be the main beneficiaries of the current approach. There is no justification for avoiding proper scrutiny of legislation. The excuse that scrutiny is not needed because there was consultation in England does not stand up - as the extension of liability in England was part of a much wider, more comprehensive piece of legislation that is not subject to the same unintended consequences. There is still time to come up with well thought through legislation that fully enables homeowners to achieve the redress that they deserve. This accelerated process is not how to do it.The Royal Society of Ulster Architects Construction Professionals' Council for Northern Ireland Gordon Lyons