Proposed ‘Building Safety Bill’ is a missed opportunity - Lesley McLeod

It wasn’t so long ago you could have any car you wanted as long as it was black. Then we started to make outrageous demands for brakes and lights and seat belts. Now you’d not leave the forecourt without checking emissions, airbags, and any number of other things.

Lesley McLeod, CEO, Association for Project Safety

I’d still like a new car in my colour of choice. Just as I am sufficiently shallow to want appliances that match my kitchen décor and spend as much time considering the design as researching the energy efficiency tables. I’m sure many of us want the luxury of choice for the trivial things. But it’s not likely to be an indulgence many of us can – or perhaps even should – enjoy when it comes to major purchases. There is too much at stake.

So, why do we do so little about buildings?

At the moment my brother and I are selling our mum’s house and so I’m currently well-versed in overwritten guff about feature walls and light-flooded double-aspect rooms, local amenities, and kerb appeal. But, if I was the one doing the buying, I’d quite like a house – or office for that matter – that was safe and not just one with a delightful mature garden to the rear and a detached single garage. You might have thought that the people designing something called the ‘Building Safety Bill’ might have agreed with me. Sadly, my members think the parliamentary draughtsmen and women may have missed an opportunity to take a wider and more inclusive look at construction safety.

I work for the Association for Project Safety (APS), an organisation representing a bunch of construction professionals dedicated to planning out accidents and ill-health not just on building sites and during the life of any project but before mouse ever meets the mat at the planning and pre-construction stage. Their contention is simple: no building can be beautiful if it is not safe. And for that to happen, you have to build safety in right from concept stage because lives depend on it and not the colour pallet used for the doors, the floors, and the windows. Safety is simply not something you can retrofit easily or without huge costs being involved.

For APS, the proposed legislation fails to slot all the safety pieces together. It not that my members disagree with the stated desire to make projects safer – no one would do that. And there is much the association likes: the Golden Thread handing on specific responsibility for safety throughout the lifecycle of any building; more rights for residents and leaseholders; and a new Building Safety Regulator and competence committee. They welcome emphasis on approving and specifying the materials that can be used and greater clarity on the documentation. But the narrow focus on height, spread of fire and structural safety risks losing a sense of the whole picture by concentrating only on individual pieces.

I know Grenfell spooked everyone – and rightly raised alarms. I also believe living and working somewhere pleasing can enhance our lives. But we need to discuss how we balance these competing demands. Looking at construction in little boxes simply risks failing to see the buildings for the bricks.

Lesley McLeod, Chief Executive, Association for Project Safety.