Building Safety Act Principle Designer - what to do if DIY build?

Building a small oak framed orangery - completely DIY except for electrician

I wanted to hire a structural engineer to check my design / do beam calcs but they are saying:

"since the BSA can in to play, we would be considered the PD (different to the CDM PD, confusing named the same thing) and as such would have all the obligations including ensure the building meets all regs, including fire, access, etc.

Because of this our insurers ask that we avoid any projects without architects."

This legislation didn't exist the last time I did an extension. Yet more red tape strangling this country and bit of a killer for DIY builds! Any ideas on how to get calcs done, which I'd really like to do for piece of mind?

DIY does not invoke the need for a PD, as there is only one designer and contractor.

Appointing occasional trades or a professional of some sort, does technically create a situation, even if brief of there potentially being more than one contractor or designer. This is a grey area, as the Act is really intended for large commercial projects, and it's unclear if the DIYer is a designer or contractor anyway.

Appointing an SE does not automatically make them the PD, as there is no team of other designers to manage or coordinate. They merely become a designer.

As above, the BSA is a bit of a mess. Contractors and designers do not have to be 'registered' under some official body, they only need to be competent to undertake work in their respective fields. 'Competence' is not just limited to passing an exam and having a piece of paper to prove it.

However, while it is not legally necessary for anyone undertaking - eg structural design - to be chartered, insurance companies can insist on it. The only requirement under the BSA is that such persons should have the 'skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours' of someone normally expected to do this work. As an example, many people - perhaps most - who draw plans for domestic building work are not chartered architects, but many who do this can be perfectly competent - experience counts for a lot.
There is an expectation that the person undertaking the work would have their own insurance.

On completion, the form Building Control expects a designer to sign states that they confirm that the work complies with the relevant Building Regulations. As this seems to be shifting responsibility, it begs the question as to what you pay the Building Control body for?

The BSA was the result of the Report by Dame Judith Hackitt after the Grenfell fire, and who seemed to know the square root of 0 about the building industry. All the Act seems to have done is demand more paperwork and box-ticking, to the point where major projects are being held up. Its no wonder nothing gets built in this country nowadays.

There is nothing simpler as a building control officer firstly checking that plans and specifications are satisfactory, and then checking that the work is done in accordance with those plans and specification - and any additions and alterations. Nothing.

Ok, building control said that was too big a job (others would argue it was their job), but either way, the most logical and simple thing to have done is increase existing building control role and numbers if need be. Get inspectors inspecting and confirming that statutory obligations and requirements are being met. Is that too obvious?

^woody^ said:

DIY does not invoke the need for a PD, as there is only one designer and contractor.

Appointing occasional trades or a professional of some sort, does technically create a situation, even if brief of there potentially being more than one contractor or designer. This is a grey area, as the Act is really intended for large commercial projects, and it's unclear if the DIYer is a designer or contractor anyway.

Appointing an SE does not automatically make them the PD, as there is no team of other designers to manage or coordinate. They merely become a designer.

Click to expand...

Thanks - this is exactly what I thought having read around a bit. I think tbh this legislation has confused the professionals as well!

Try a different SE? Hopefully his interpretation will be less weird.

My reading of what you've been told is that they don't like DIY jobs as they'll likely get a load of newbie questions so this gives them an excuse to tell you to go away. They're probably busy enough, as most of the building industry currently is.

It's bizarre when an SE will suddenly not want to do work because of implications of being a designer under the BSA, when they have been happy for over 10 years to do the same work and be a designer under CDM and not conform to their responsibilities under those regulations - which imposes greater liabilities for them.

Agree with others that it's a mess and certainly being taken out of context for simple domestic stuff

We're just embarking on a big extension (having "downsized" SWMBO needs a project). To keep life as simple as possible I have applied in her name as the client so I can sign off as PD independently.

Then it gets complicated as we are getting one of my builder flock to co-ordinate the shell build (because I'm too old and cranky to do it!) and then we'll diy/trades from there so not clear who will officially sign off as principle contractor.

Just running throught the vet list and it looks as though I have a trainee doing that so hope that's not a sign of things to come.

I shall report progress.

^woody^ said:

It's bizarre when an SE will suddenly not want to do work because of implications of being a designer under the BSA, when they have been happy for over 10 years to do the same work and be a designer under CDM and not conform to their responsibilities under those regulations - which imposes greater liabilities for them.

Click to expand...

I read it that designing isn't the issue, but that they don't want to be responsible for the whole project as principle designer with no architect involved.

If they don't need the work then they obviously don't want any perceived hassle, whether real or not.

denso13 said:

I read it that designing isn't the issue, but that they don't want to be responsible for the whole project as principle designer with no architect involved.

If they don't need the work then they obviously don't want any perceived hassle, whether real or not.

Click to expand...

That's part of the mess.

The Act refers to designer needing the competent etc for the work they are doing, so that implies that someone who is not competent in certain aspects and does not profess to be, can't be responsible. eg the SE with training in and a lifetime of designing beams, and just being appointed to design a beam, can't by default be responsible for anything else because its outside of his competency and he never claimed that he knew anything about anything else in the first place. He can't be a Principal Designer by default.

Building a small oak framed orangery - completely DIY except for electrician

Click to expand...

Not being funny, but are you seeking an SE for your own peace of mind? or because you need it for building regs? Is it an exempt building? If it is exempt and this is just to check your design, I'd try sticking the dimensions and construction in to AI and see what it comes up with.