Source · Select Committees · Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee
Recommendation 15
15
Paragraph: 65
On balance, we consider the initial definition of “higher-risk building” proposed by the Government to...
Recommendation
On balance, we consider the initial definition of “higher-risk building” proposed by the Government to be reasonable and practical, though we agree with the evidence calling for the scope to be widened in the future to include a great number of risk 60 Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill factors. In particular, the scope should take account of the vulnerability of residents and their ability to evacuate the building. We also think the Government should keep under review the development of modern methods of construction.
Paragraph Reference:
65
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
40. The Government welcomes the Committee’s recognition that other factors may be suitable when exploring the future expansion of the definition of “higher-risk buildings”. While Government agrees there is a limit to the types of factors upon which the scope of major incident regimes can be expanded, Government does not agree with the Committee’s recommendation that such factors should be specified in the Bill itself by way of a ‘have regard’ requirement, however, the explanatory notes outline several factors which could determine expanding the scope of the regime (like height, size, design, use, purpose, or other characteristics) and detailed discussion continues. 41. The Government acknowledges the concerns raised about building safety arising from the quality of design and construction in buildings occupied by those unable to evacuate themselves or without assistance. Consequently, we have widened the scope of the design, construction and refurbishment elements of the regime to include care homes and hospitals which are 18 metres or more in height or at least 7 storeys. Care homes and hospitals are the two uses of building likely to be occupied by those unable to evacuate themselves or without the assistance of others, which were not included in the initial scope indicated by the draft Bill. 42. Under the Bill, the Regulator must monitor the scope of the regime continuously. This makes a specific timescale for a review unnecessary.