Agenda item

The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the council’s approach to maintaining and ensuring high build quality standards across the Borough.

(Agenda republished to include this item on 15 April 2025).

Councillor Benea (Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Property) was invited to introduce the report relating to Build Quality in Brent, which focused on how the Council sought to uphold build quality in new build council housing, as well as the refurbishment of community and social infrastructure and facilities for children and young people. The Committee was reminded that the Council delivered a significant portfolio of construction-related projects, including affordable housing, mixed-use developments, and facilities for children and young people.

Three main categories of project delivery were outlined for the construction-related projects, namely council-led schemes, open market acquisitions and developer-led schemes. For council-led schemes, the Council had greater control over its own projects to ensure and deliver high-quality buildings and facilities. By working through the Royal British Institute of Architects Plan of Work, the Council undertook activities, functions, and mechanisms to deliver its capital projects through the pre-construction stages, construction stage, and handover and building operation stages. These included procurement considerations, external professional services, support, and contractual mechanisms. In relation to acquisition schemes, the Council was not directly responsible for build quality requirements, as these were the responsibility of the developer and their appointed consultants and contractors. However, the Council employed its own professional service providers to monitor the developer's progress, supervise construction, and report to the Council, which in turn would cover any issues to be raised with the developer. Similarly, with regard to development agreement schemes, the build quality was the responsibility of the developer, but they were accountable to the Council. The Council also employed its own professional service providers to monitor performance, and in long-term partnerships, the incremental release of further sites helped incentivise positive behaviours regarding build quality.

It was acknowledged that the Council had experienced build quality issues in the past, such as with Granville New Homes and contractors going into administration during live projects. However, the Council, through the measures discussed within the committee report, aimed to reduce the risk of such occurrences to ensure the delivery of high-quality buildings to its residents. Alice Lester (Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration) advised that the report effectively set out the different touchpoints where the Council had accountability and governance mechanisms to scrutinise the progress of schemes on sites and the quality being delivered and referenced the mitigations available when issues arose. In citing the example of Granville New Homes, recognising it as a considerable failure of build quality, it was noted that oversight and scrutiny had significantly improved since that time. It was hoped that the measures established within the committee report provided the Committee with reassurance that the Council had been taking the necessary actions to continually address such issues. Tanveer Ghani (Director of Property and Assets) further added that there was a fine line between build quality, wear and tear, and mismanagement or the use of substandard products or features.

Having thanked Councillor Benea, Alice Lester and Tanveer Ghani for introducing the report, the Chair then moved on to invite questions and comments from the Committee in relation to the Build Quality in Brent report, with the following comments and issues discussed:

• A member expressed concern with the report, stating that while the report discussed processes and precautions, it lacked an analysis of performance. The member highlighted significant defects in build quality within various blocks in their ward and expressed disappointment at the absence of an evaluation of the system's effectiveness. In response, Alice Lester (Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration) requested specific examples of the problems identified by the member for further investigation. Following up, the member cited the lack of analysis regarding the issues with Granville New Homes, noting that the roof had been installed incorrectly. Recent developments in South Kilburn were also referenced, where blocks signed off in the last four to five years were experiencing serious problems. The member referred to a survey conducted approximately eight years ago with an architect and a surveyor, which detailed numerous defects in new blocks developed in the preceding six to seven years. The findings had been sent to Brent Council, but the response was to only remedy the identified defects rather than address the underlying issue of poor build quality. Alice Lester (Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration) acknowledged the need for more detailed information and noted that some issues might be related to building maintenance, which fell outside the Council’s remit, rather than initial build quality. Gerry Ansell (Director Inclusive Regeneration and Employment) stated he had not been made aware of the case mentioned but expressed willingness to investigate further if more details were provided. The Chair explained that the report had been submitted for review concerning design and build practices as well as management of repairs with concern expressed that the report did not address why the buildings were initially constructed to a substandard quality, leading to ongoing repair and maintenance issues. Both Alice Lester and Gerry Ansell stated that they were not aware 2017 report referred to, which had been circulated before either of them were in posts relating to South Kilburn.  The Chair emphasised the need for a robust approach to identifying trends and gaps in build quality to improve future designs. The Chair noted that while the report indicated an interest in feedback and improvements, there was evidence that feedback had not been treated as a learning opportunity in the past three years.

• Following on, the Chair sought examples where feedback about poor build quality had been received and had subsequently influenced design, checks, and construction practices in current projects. In response, Tanveer Ghani (Director of Property and Assets) explained that all schemes involving contractors working directly for the Council included a 12-month defect liability period. During this period, any reported issues could be rectified by the contractor. The Hillside development in Stonebridge was cited as an example, where residents issues with electrical heat management had led to considerations for future systems and controls. Reference to latent defects was also made, which could be addressed even after the defect liability period, with certain contract payments retained to ensure contractor accountability. The Committee was reassured that the Council was investigating rights under defect and latent defect policies for issues such as those at Granville New Homes. The nature of design and systems was emphasised, noting that practices and technologies evolved over time.

• Members inquired whether there was any recourse against individuals who had signed off on build quality that was evidently substandard. In response, Tanveer Ghani (Director of Property and Assets) advised that the Council had appointed two forms of support for managing and supervising construction on site: an employer's agent and a clerk of works, who served as an independent supervisor on the quality of construction. It was detailed that the clerk of works ensured that critical aspects, such as fire safety and fire stopping, were signed off before proceeding with further construction stages. Following on from the previous question, members queried whether any of these functions were performed in-house, to which Tanveer Ghani (Director of Property and Assets) clarified that all such functions were subcontracted, with consultants and contractors procured based on a specification of services. In continuing the response, Neil Martin (Head of Capital Delivery) provided an example of pursuing litigation and arbitration against both the contractor and the architects for the Wembley Primary School build completed in 2008. It was noted that the Council had received compensation for poor design and construction quality, highlighting that opportunities for recourse existed through contracts with both contractors and designers. This raised related questions around whether there could be recourse against multiple entities, including those who signed off on build quality that was substandard. Tanveer Ghani (Director of Property and Assets) responded that recourse depended on the transaction between Brent and the developer at the time, specifically on the collateral warranties requested as part of the conditions to purchase the development. It was emphasised that future acquisitions now insisted on such conditions being met before deal completion, reflecting lessons learned.

• Further details were sought on the building sign off process, with concerns being raised about private firms signing off on non-compliant builds. It was questioned whether these firms were effectively regulated. Inquiries were also made regarding the Council's legal and financial recourse against private firms selling building control services. In response, Alice Lester (Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration) advised that for private developments using private building control approved inspectors, any complaints or defects were solely between those parties. For Council schemes, it would be important to seek legal advice regarding potential recourse against private firms.

• The Chair further inquired whether it was Brent Council’s current policy to use in-house building control services for all projects under its control, to which Alice Lester (Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration) responded affirmatively.

• Clarification was sought around whether issues identified in previous builds had been incorporated into future checklists to ensure they were covered in future sign-offs. Additionally, members inquired about the start of the 12-month defect liability period. In response, Tanveer Ghani (Director of Property and Assets) confirmed that the defect liability period commenced the day after the practical completion certificate was received. It was further explained that when a contractor handed over a building, it was because all contractual obligations had been fulfilled. Separate entities or organisations would then be procured for full fit-out if required.

• Questions were raised around the responsibility for subcontractors under a main contractor. In response, Tanveer Ghani (Director of Property and Assets) advised that before awarding a contract, the Council obtained a parent company guarantee to ensure accountability, supported by performance bonds and / or parent company guarantees.

• The Chair reiterated the need for performance information in the committee report, emphasising the importance of demonstrating how feedback from past projects had influenced current practices and welcomed the opportunity for any future reports to provide examples of successful identification and rectification of poor build quality.

• In response to further questioning, the Committee heard that at present, there was only one contractual dispute related to a large development similar to Granville New Homes. Additionally, there were outstanding Parent Company Guarantee (PCG) claims on schemes built under the school capital programme. These represented the broad scope of current disputes involving completed developments, with issues arising from contractors either not being present or responsibilities shifting.

• The Chair inquired when it had been Brent Council’s practice to exclusively use in-house inspectors, to which Alice Lester (Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration) advised this had in place for been approximately two years. However, it was noted that during procurement, the decision on appointing a building control inspector lay with the contractor, although the Council strongly encouraged the use of its own inspectors. It was clarified that it could not be made a condition of procurement. Tanveer Ghani (Director of Property and Assets) further added that, during his tenure at Brent Council, the advice given to all bidders was to liaise with building control, as it was the Council's preference. However, it was reiterated that the Council could not obligate contractors to use its services, as they operated in the commercial world and sought the best value in appointing a building control inspector. It was noted that for schemes where the Council was self-delivering, the Council had managed to use their own building control services, whereas developer-led schemes tended to be more flexible in their approach.

• Further details were also sought on whether the Council had ever terminated a contract with a private firm for failing to meet building inspection standards. In response, Tanveer Ghani (Director of Property and Assets) explained that while the Council could not terminate a contractor and their supply chain, it could appoint its own employer's agent and clerk of works to oversee the project. It was further stated that payments to developers were withheld until all checks and balances were agreed upon on-site, ensuring accountability.

• Following up, details were sought on whether the Council had any knowledge of private firms being removed from the register by the building safety regulator for failing to fulfil their legal duties. In response, Alice Lester (Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration) informed that she was not aware of any such removals and noted that the building safety regulator had only been operational for a short time and had faced significant challenges and backlogs. It was further mentioned that no schemes had yet been signed off by the regulator at Gateway 3 and she was not aware of any  accredited inspectors operating in Brent having been disbarred. It was acknowledged that one or two accredited inspectors had gone into administration, causing problems on private schemes, not any Council schemes.

• Members were keen to seek details on the role of the fire brigade in inspecting buildings and how their checks differed from building control inspections. In response, Neil Martin (Head of Capital Delivery) explained that the London Fire Brigade was a statutory consultee on the fire plan as part of building control sign-off. For non-high-risk buildings (below 18m or seven storeys), Building Control and the Council used internal services, with the London Fire Brigade consulting on the Fire Strategy, potentially involving site visits. For high-risk buildings, the responsibility lay with the building safety regulator. Following up, members expressed concern about buildings failing fire inspections and inquired about the responsibility for addressing these failures. In response, Neil Martin (Head of Capital Delivery) detailed the process of building control application and sign-off, involving the submission of plans to Brent Council Building Control and consultation with the London Fire Brigade. It was explained that once a building was signed off, any subsequent fire incidents would be investigated to determine responsibility, whether due to accident, arson, or building faults. The responsible body, whether that be a tenant, occupier, or the building owner or operator, would then address the issue based on the investigation's findings. In providing further details members heard that the London Fire Brigade (LFB) served as a consultee to the broader building control application. It was the responsibility of building control, whether through a private approved inspector or internally via Brent Council's building control, to sign off on the building. This process was complemented by the Building Safety Act (BSA) principal designer and the BSA principal contractor, who signed a document affirming that the principal design had been executed in accordance with building regulations. Similarly, the principal contractor confirmed that the construction had adhered to building regulations. These three bodies collectively signed off to certify that the building had been constructed in compliance with building regulations, which included a fire safety assessment.

• Details were sought about the role of political oversight in the process of monitoring build quality. In response, Tanveer Ghani (Director of Property and Assets) informed that the officers had fortnightly catch-up meetings with the lead member, during which updates were provided on various capital programme projects, including new build housing, community infrastructure, and facilities for children and young people. It was stated that, as per the Constitution, officers were required to engage the lead member before formally awarding contracts of a certain value. This process involved consulting with the lead member on the project, propose recommendations, seeking feedback and any points of clarification before proceeding with any decision. Additionally, for matters requiring cabinet-level decisions, there was further consultation with lead members prior to presenting the issue to the cabinet. The Constitution was designed to ensure engagement with members before making decisions. Following on from the previous question, members questioned the extent to which monitoring around build quality was discussed in the fortnightly briefings with the lead member. In response, Tanveer Ghani (Director of Property and Assets) highlighted that the Council had a good track record of the schemes it had built and their quality. It was noted that all homes delivered by the Council as a developer had not encountered defects or challenges. Historical schemes within the schools programme were occasionally discussed with the lead member where there was material information to update or guidance to seek. It was acknowledged that these matters could be protracted, requiring significant time to reach a developed stage before presenting them to the lead member for review and consideration. Alice Lester (Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration) further noted that the lead member was also updated on the progress of any contractual disputes with suppliers.

• Views were sought from Councillor Benea (Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Property) as lead member to share her perspective on ensuring the highest standards of build quality. In response, Councillor Benea (Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Property) conveyed that since her recent appointment as lead member, she had engaged with officers on various issues during lead briefings and site visits in South Kilburn and Wembley. It was emphasised that political oversight involved overseeing and holding officers accountable, but it was not a full-time operational role. It was highlighted that the role concentrated focus on asking questions, being informed, and addressing residents' concerns by raising them with officers. Following up, the Chair sought reassurance that the quality of construction was a priority issue. In response, Councillor Benea (Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Property) affirmed that build quality was indeed a priority and reiterated that these matters were discussed in lead member briefings and that clarification from officers was regularly sought on these issues.

• Members sought reassurance on the mechanisms in place to ensure lessons were learned from previously identified issues. In response, Tanveer Ghani (Director of Property and Assets) articulated that the Council had employer's requirements (ERs) to ensure contractors fully undertstood the Council's expectations. The ERs were last updated in 2021 and were subject to continual revision to reflect changes in legislation, regulations, and service deliverables. The importance of maintaining updated ERs to adhere to the latest standards was emphasised. It was further noted that the issuance of practical completion certificates was contingent upon addressing all building safety issues, with the Council's building control team conducting thorough compliance checks before issuing the certificate. Any identified issues were rectified prior to the issuance of the certificate. Alice Lester (Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration) additionally mentioned that the Council had a comprehensive checklist to ensure builds met required standards and provided an example where lessons were learned from a previous issue involving incorrect bin store sizes due to Veolia not being involved in the design. This error was subsequently rectified by including bin store requirements in future checklists. This raised related questions from members around an issue in Chalkhill where bin stores were omitted from the design process and questioned how such issues were identified in the initial design phase. In response, Alice Lester (Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration) explained that the starting point was the brief to the architects, outlining the scope of work. It was acknowledged that the omission of bin stores should not have occurred and stated that full details would need to be provided if an investigation into this was required.

• Members sought examples of how residents or tenants had been engaged in the design and construction process. It was also questioned how their concerns were tracked and addressed, and how this information was used to inform future schemes. In response, Tanveer Ghani (Director of Property and Assets) explained that existing users or occupiers of sites were a fundamental part of the design and engagement journey and cited three mixed developments - Preston Community Library, Learie Constantine Centre, and the Brent Indian Community Centre - where ground floor facilities were designed in alignment with the community's needs. Regarding resident engagement, it was further mentioned that pre-planning consultation events for large schemes, which included public events, drop-in sessions, online material, and resident feedback was followed by a planning application and statutory planning consultation, providing tenants and residents with formal opportunities to raise concerns and speak at Planning Committee where necessary. The Council's responsibility to both existing and new residents was emphasised, ensuring that they were part of the development journey. Following up, members inquired how issues for existing tenants were dealt with, to which Tanveer Ghani (Director of Property and Assets) highlighted that for Council-led construction projects, periodic newsletters were sent to residents within the vicinity, including contact details for site managers and officers. Reference was also made to a recent site visit with Councillor Benea as part of the development of the new SEND school site on London Road. The distinction between issues for Neighbourhoods and Regeneration and Housing Management teams was noted, where issues relating to Housing Management within the 12-month liability period were referred back to the construction team for resolution.

• Concerns were raised around the placement of bins against fire alarm buttons and exit buttons, questioning why this was not considered during the design phase. In response, Tanveer Ghani (Director of Property and Assets) acknowledged the issue and argued that it could also be a matter of considerate use by those handling the bins. It was recognised that the omission at Learie Constantine Centre had been addressed by ensuring Veolia's involvement in the design process for future schemes, including considerations for drop curbs, bin opening doors, and bin sizes.

• Members sought details around how buildings were designed to be resilient to climate change. Additionally, the Chair emphasised the importance of ensuring the highest design standards, reflecting the realities of residents' lives and future pressures such as climate change, flooding, and drainage needs. It was questioned what measures were being taken to go beyond legal compliance to achieve high-quality, fit-for-purpose builds. In response, Tanveer Ghani (Director of Property and Assets) detailed that each site had a drainage strategy, including CCTV inspections of existing infrastructure to identify issues. The importance of appointing skilled professionals to design provisions for flood risk, surface water management, and general water attenuation was emphasised. Reference was made to Preston Community Library, where an attenuation tank was installed after repairing drainage in collaboration with Affinity Water. The challenge of less permeable surfaces due to increased building density was noted and the need for collaboration with statutory stakeholders to maintain existing drainage systems was emphasised. Confidence was expressed in the high quality of current schemes, citing developments in Wembley and South Kilburn. The importance of using the 12-month post-handover period to address issues and inform future schemes was also highlighted.

• Members raised concerns regarding emerging issues in the newer blocks, specifically those up to five years old in South Kilburn, with the primary issues highlighted as the failures of heating systems and hot water systems. It was noted that Unity Place was currently experiencing the worst problems, attributing these to poor build quality. In addressing the concerns regarding Unity Place, Archika Kumar (Head of Estates Regeneration) clarified that the recent issues involving the lack of electricity in eight homes over the bank holiday weekend were related to utility and substation problems. It was emphasised that these were not attributable to build quality but rather to utility provision, which was currently being resolved.

• Members inquired about future legislation and its impact on development, specifically with regards to initiatives aimed at increasing recycling in flats, transitioning from gas boilers to heat pumps, and other forthcoming changes. Concerns were expressed about the potential cost impact on residents and the need to ensure these changes did not hinder the Council's development plans. In response, Alice Lester (Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration) indicated that the Council conducted horizon scanning to anticipate future legislative changes and cited examples, such as the Edgware Road scheme, where the Council proactively included additional stair cores to comply with anticipated building safety regulations. It was noted that similar proactive measures were taken for the Wembley Housing Zone and the Fulton Road development.

• Members sought clarification on the impact of these proactive measures on the Council's build programme, particularly in South Kilburn and Wembley. Further concerns were expressed around potential delays and long-term costs associated with rethinking and redesigning developments, to which Alice Lester (Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration) highlighted that the primary factor slowing down development was viability and assured members that no current schemes required redesign due to forthcoming legislative changes. Tanveer Ghani (Director of Property and Assets) further added that the Council had two live schemes awaiting planning determination. The difficulty in securing viability for new affordable housing, particularly social rent, due to market conditions was also highlighted.

• Further details were sought about pending legislation that may come into effect within the next 2 to 5 years and its potential impact on viability. It was also questioned how requirements such as additional stair cores could affect development costs and space utilisation. In response, Alice Lester (Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration) clarified that while fire safety measures and additional stair cores did impact viability, no current schemes required such redesigns. The cost implications and loss of space associated with these measures was also acknowledged. In continuing the response, Neil Martin (Head of Capital Delivery) discussed upcoming legislation related to district heat networks and government consultations on heat tariffs and billing which would affect communal heating systems and district heating systems, particularly in South Kilburn. Members were assured that future-proofing measures were being incorporated into current developments. Additionally, the Council's efforts in the school building programme were highlighted, noting that new projects included air source pumps and solar panels to meet regulatory standards for fabric and insulation. The new SEND school on London Road, was rated BREEAM outstanding, making it potentially one of the greenest buildings nationally.

• Details were also sought about the frequency of significant drops in design quality in current council projects or recently delivered projects post-design phase. In response, Neil Martin (Head of Capital Delivery) provided context by explaining that while there might be minor reductions in quality, such as a drop from a 98.6% BREEAM rating to 95%, the overall quality remained high. It was emphasised that planning for high-quality design was essential, but practical realities, such as material shortages, could impact the final outcome. For example, the current shortage of bricks might necessitate using alternative materials, which could slightly alter the appearance but not the quality. It was assured that any changes made were to maintain good quality and meet project objectives, even if they differed marginally from the initial design.

• Following up, the members requested a general indication of the level of any drop in specification in terms of build quality from the design stage to the final product over the last five years. Performance feedback was also sought on the success of upholding high-quality design versus the final outcome. Neil Martin (Head of Capital Delivery) stated, in response, that the Council had consistently aimed to deliver high-quality buildings. It was acknowledged that while changes might occur, such as alterations in appearance, the functional quality remained intact. It was noted that assessing the drop in quality might be subjective, as changes in appearance did not necessarily equate to a drop in build quality. The Chair then expressed interest in a review to understand the extent of the drop in quality between the design stage and final delivery, emphasising the importance of having data to scrutinise the Council's performance in maintaining high standards. In response, Alice Lester (Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration) acknowledged the need for such a review and suggested that, while resources might be limited, sampling could be conducted to gather the relevant data.

• Members inquired about the Council's measures to ensure that third parties appointed under the Building Safety Act 2022 were competent and met statutory requirements. In response, Neil Martin (Head of Capital Delivery) explained that the procurement process involved setting out requirements and asking questions about the technical capacity and ability of third parties to meet those requirements. For example, under the Building Safety Act, the Council was required to appoint a principal designer under which the appointed party must demonstrate appropriate qualifications, understanding of building regulations, and experience with similar projects. This process ensured that all design disciplines and contractors satisfied the necessary scope and specifications.

• Inquiries were also made around the establishment of the building safety regulator, its impact on local authorities like Brent, and the improvements to build quality for residents. In response, Neil Martin (Head of Capital Delivery) confirmed that the building safety regulator had been established and was under the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive. It was noted that the Council's input was limited, as the role was led by the Health and Safety Executive. It was further mentioned that the Edgware Road scheme was currently at the planning stage, explaining that the first gateway of the Building Safety Act involved submitting a notification to the building safety regulator during the planning determination period. Subsequent gateways would involve submissions by the building safety principal designer. It was indicated that unless the building safety regulator employed the Council's internal building control team for a specific case, the Council's influence over the regulator was minimal. Alice Lester (Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration) added that the Council's building control officers were part of an organisational group of local authority building control officers, which engaged with the building safety regulator and the Local Authority Building Control (LABC) as the representative body. It was noted that concerns about delays had been raised, and some categories of schemes were delegated to the Council's building control to act on behalf of the building safety regulator, with associated fees.

• It was questioned whether there had been any impact on improvements to build quality as a result of the building safety regulator. In response, Neil Martin (Head of Capital Delivery) informed that decisions had been made at gateway 2, but it remained premature to ascertain the full impact on build quality. It was noted that delays in processing applications had been reported, and the true impact would only be evident once the backlog was cleared and work commenced on site.

• In responding to further queries around the impact of infill projects on current residents, the confidence in the system of checks, climate-proofing of buildings, and the role of the building safety regulator, Alice Lester (Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration) explained that for certain categories of development, particularly larger schemes, the building safety regulator stage (known as gateway 1 at the planning stage) had recently been introduced, where the regulator would review building regulations. Neil Martin (Head of Capital Delivery) added that the building safety regulator's involvement was limited to high-risk buildings over seven storeys or 18 metres. For other projects, the Council's building control service or an approved inspector would make decisions. The Council's approach to drainage was detailed, including site surveys, CCTV inspections, and compliance with London Plan requirements for flood risk mitigation.

• Details were also sought about the status of the legislation discussed in the spring of 2022, which was expected to mandate that local authority building control teams would have the final sign-off on projects. Reasons were sought as to why this legislation had not been implemented and why local authority building control teams were not the default option. Clarification was also sought on whether this legislation had led to an increase in private developments using the Council’s building control services. In response, Alice Lester (Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration) conveyed that the earlier discussion pertained to the default option for council-led schemes. It was clarified that the accredited inspector regime had not been abolished, and private developers still had the option to use accredited inspectors if they preferred. It was further mentioned that the building safety regulator had the ability to delegate some building control sign-off responsibilities to local authority building control for certain categories of applications, effectively making the local authority the default sign-off authority on behalf of the building safety regulator. However, it was noted that there were no statistics available to determine whether the workload had increased since the changes were introduced.

• Members questioned what measures had been taken to encourage private developers to use the Council’s building control services as opposed to private companies. In response, Gerry Ansell (Director Inclusive Regeneration and Climate Resilience) acknowledged that the Council’s building control service had faced challenges, including difficulties in retaining building control surveyors, which had resulted in a loss of market share. It was noted that the Council had struggled to secure more projects and that recruitment difficulties were ongoing. Despite efforts to market the services, the Council had lost ground, particularly in smaller-scale building control applications. It was further noted that the Council had expertise in modular and tall buildings, which some larger developers preferred. It was also highlighted the Council’s efforts to develop its own staff, including the recruitment of two apprentices, but acknowledged that there was still a gap.

As a further query, members sought details regarding the reasons for the recruitment challenges. In response, Gerry Ansell (Director Inclusive Regeneration and Climate Resilience) cited a number of reasons for the recruitment challenges, including a shortage of people entering the industry and the fact that approved inspectors could offer higher salaries than local authority building control staff. It was further mentioned that the Council had implemented a market supplement to counteract this issue but still faced difficulties in retaining surveyors. It was also noted that several staff members were at or beyond the normal retirement age, and the Council was doing its best to retain the staff. It was emphasised that the recruitment challenges were not unique to Brent but were a national issue.

• As a final issue, further information was sought regarding whether contractors specified the accredited inspectors they intended to work with at the tendering stage, to which Tanveer Ghani (Director of Property and Assets) confirmed that contractors would typically provide quotes from different suppliers, including accredited inspectors, when submitting bids.

In seeking to bring consideration of the item to a close, the Chair thanked officers and members for their contributions towards scrutiny of Build Quality in Brent. As a result of the outcome of the discussion, the following suggestions for improvement and requests for additional information identified were AGREED:

Suggestions for Improvement

(1)  Where appropriate, encourage contractors for council build projects/schemes to use Brent’s building control services.

(2)  Conduct a survey to identify which council-owned buildings may fall within the scope of the Building Safety Act 2022 and/or the Defective Premises Act 1972 in relation to relevant defects, and assess whether there is potential for legal recourse.

(3)  Undertake a sampling review to assess design changes from the planning stage through to practical completion, and determine whether these changes have impacted build quality.

(4)  Undertake a sampling review to assess design changes from the planning stage through to practical completion, and determine whether these changes have impacted build quality.

Information Requests

(1)  Share examples that demonstrate how feedback on build quality issues has led to tangible improvements in design and processes, helping to enhance build quality in subsequent projects or schemes.

Please note that recommendations, suggestions for improvement and information requests  may be subject to finalisation or refinement following the meeting, with the agreement of the Chair.