In July the ACA held its second event covering the Principal Designer role. It provided the opportunity for us to reiterate our position that architects should be acting as Principal Designer for both BR & CDM where possible. However the afternoon sessions focussed on the practicalities of what is involved in acting as BRPD on different types of project.
Highlights of the day
Our President (now Immediate Past President) Patrick Inglis welcomed the group and provided a state of the nation in terms of both Principal Designer roles for CDM and BR; reiterating lead designers which are the architect on projects are best placed to act as both roles and not third parties.
Principal designers’ duties
“It is important you are part of the design team and not a third party without any influence over design decisions. You must plan, manage, monitor and co-ordinate matters related to the design work. This means you must:
- take reasonable steps to make sure all designers comply with their duties under building regulations
- assess design work to make sure all designers produce designs that comply with relevant building regulations
- work with the principal contractor and share information about planning, managing, monitoring and co-ordinating the design and building work
- assist the client in providing information to others, if requested
You must take reasonable steps to make sure anyone working on the design co-operates, communicates and co-ordinates their work with the client, the principal contractor, and other designers and contractors.” GOV.UK – Design and building work: meeting building requirements (Building Safety Regulator)
Patrick’s discussion then covered the issue of competence and who can act as Principal Designer:
- Individuals – skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours (SKEB). Organisations – organisational capability
- PAS 8671 – competence framework for the PD (BR) role
- Enhanced attainment threshold for Higher-Risk Buildings
- Registers evidence competence – ACA (principaldesigner.uk), RIBA, CIAT
- New ARB Code (September 2025) – competence standard, PD terms of engagement guidance
Furthermore, the requirement to maintain experience and CPD qualifications in order to continue the adoption of the Principal Designer role was reiterated. However, take up by architects remains cautious and there is persistent confusion between the CDM and BR roles. Regardless, there are several opportunities for architects:
- Reclaiming the lead designer role – the architect at the centre of the project
- Additional control – over design, compliance and the golden thread
- Additional fees – a distinct, chargeable service
- Government intent favours the lead designer as Principal Designer
“A principal designer is not expected to be an expert in every design specialism. However, they are expected to know enough about building regulations to assess whether a building design will comply with all relevant regulations.” – GOV.UK – Principal designers: competence requirements
Andrew Catto was next to present and his discussion was centred on managing the risk when taking on the Principal Designer role; in particular the importance of written appointment agreements to define scope of works, duration and which Principal Designer role(s), with the ACA offering both PSA22 and SFA24. The importance of only taking on projects within your competence and you are able to evidence it; as well as documentation of all decisions as the golden thread applies to you!
To accompany your evidence, there is the ACA’s Building Regulations Principal Designer Competence Statement hosted on the ACA Members Area of the website; this supporting document is encouraged for use in order to demonstrate your competence to clients. The reverse side is clients are not fully aware or understanding their responsibilities and duties as clients when commencing projects; as a result, the ACA has developed ‘A Guide to Your Role and Responsibilities as a Domestic Client’ which outlines the considerations to be factored in from a client perspective.
Richard Harrison then talked the group through his experience of taking on the Principal Designer role (BR) for a small scale project in a High Risk Building. He was appointed in May 2024 to prepare a scheme to internally alter a 3-bed flat in Westminster, and apply for Landlord’s Consent to Alter. The flat was in a registered Higher Risk Building in the ‘English Moderne’ style in a pair of separate but adjoined purpose-built flats, up to 10 stories, constructed in 1936. The scheme was agreed with the Clients and submitted to the Landlord for approval on 13 December 2024. Landlords approval was agreed in principle in July 2025 and a formal Licence prepared by solicitors in September 2025.
The process then followed with a preparation of several documents:
- Pre-Constructions Health & Safety File – the combination of CDM and Building Regulations
- Building Control Compliance Document prepared by Registered Building Inspector
- Building Regulations Compliance Statement
The Building Regulations Compliance Statement (BRCS) is a mandatory declaration confirming that your construction project meets all statutory building standards. It must be jointly signed by the Client, Principal Designer, and Principal Contractor within five days of completing the work, which is a requirement for the BSR to issue a Completion Certificate.
It must set out the approach taken in design for each element and provision and confirm the reasons for adopting the approach together with relevant standards applied/followed to determine compliance with all applicable parts of The Building Regulations. This document is to be monitored and updated through the construction process from Pre-Commencement Approval to Final Completion Certificate.
- Building Control Tracker prepared by Registered Building Inspector
The format for this is normally in the form of a chart, this can be presented in any format which the Design and Construction team will find most helpful to the project.
The Tracker prepared by the RBI is an Excel chart with a checklist and record of potentially Relevant Regulations and a Record of Actions taken through the Application process and during the Construction Phase. Whilst this is not a required document for BSR Approval, it is useful for monitoring and may have helped to demonstrate a competent approach to the project.
Richard then advised where to locate the full Government guidance and the required process:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/building-control-approval-for-higher-risk-buildings
When making the application online, you first have to register it. This provides basic information to the BSR and generates an Application Reference. The application reference is required to allow the applicant to dive in and out of the application whilst saving the record. When making your first application, this is a mind-boggling process.
Having completed one successfully, it all begins to make more sense and subsequent application will become much easier depending on the complexity of the individual project.
Applications to the BSR must be submitted online.
Do not rush into a submission.
If key documents are not included or are unsatisfactory in any way, your application will be declared Invalid and rejected.
Resubmission will require an additional £195 Fee.
Final documentation to be prepared were:
- Competence Declaration
- Construction Control Plan
This is a key regulatory document mandated for Higher-Risk Buildings (HRBs) under the Building Safety Act. It is Developed by the Client and Principal Contractor, it outlines the exact policies, procedures, and responsibilities used to manage construction and ensure compliance with building regulations.
- Change Control Log Template
- Mandatory Occurrence Reporting Plan
This outlines how the Client, PD and PC identify, record, and report significant fire and structural safety incidents. Under the Building Safety Act, this formal statement mandates notifying the BSR and is a compulsory requirement for HRBs.
- Fire and Emergency File
Richard then summarised the overall approval process to demonstrate the process and documents required:
- Application submitted 15 September 2025
- Application Declared INVALID 16 September 2025
- Application Submitted 2 October 2025 – Statutory date for approval process 8 weeks
- Application declared VALID 13 October 2025 incorporating an Extension of Time from 24 November 2025 to 22 January 2026
- RHA Request for further information 1 received from BSR on 22 December 2025 for delivery on 14 January 2026
- BSR request for Extension of Time received on 23/1/26 from 22 January 2026 to 19 March 2026
- BSR Request for further information 2 received from BSR on 23 March 2026 for delivery on 30 March 2026
- RHA requested in person meeting on teams to discuss RFI 2. (Note high £ cost of meeting to Client)
- BSR Extension of Time received on 23/1/26 from 19 March 2026 to 9 July 2026
- BSR email received 2 June 2026 requesting a Commencement Date Statement
- RHA delivered Commencement Date Statement on 11 June 2026
- BSR delivered Approval on 12 June 2026.
Paul Bussey, Council Member and Technical Design Lead across CDM / BR at AHMM discussed the challenges of Gateway 2 applications and the approval documents which need to be submitted.
a) A plan to scale of note less than 1:1250 … (location plan)
b) (i) Such other plans as necessary to show that the HRB work would comply with all applicable requirements of the building regulations; (ii) a competence declaration; (iii) a construction control plan; (iv) a change control plan; (v) a mandatory occurrence reporting plan; (vi) a Building Regulations compliance statement; (vii) a fire and emergency file; (viii) where the applicant proposes occupation of part of the building before completion of the HRB work, a partial completion strategy;
c) Where the application is made by someone on behalf of the client, a statement signed by the client confirming they agree to the application being made and that the information contained in the application is correct.
Paul also, highlighted that during 2025, approximately 70% of BSR applications were rejected for lack of legally required detail, or withdrawn and sample of reasons for rejection were listed to enforce the issue. Furthermore, Paul went onto detail the ‘The Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (England) Regulations 2023. Change control: major changes and notifiable changes’ and discussed as below.
26.—(1) In regulations 18 to 25— “major change” means—
(a) in relation to HRB work or a stage of HRB work—
- (i) a change which is a material change of use to any part of a proposed higher-risk building;
- (ii) a change of the proposed use of any part of a proposed higher-risk building so that after the change the part of the building is to have a use as a car park or cease to have a use as a car park (whether the car park is for the occupiers of the building or otherwise);
- (iii) a change which increases or decreases the external height or width of a proposed higher-risk building;
- (iv) a change to the number of storeys in a proposed higher-risk building (including adding or removing a mezzanine or gallery floor);
- (v) a change to the structural design or structural loading of the building;
- (vi) a change to the number or width of the staircases in a proposed higher-risk building or a change to the length of any other escape route or the number or width of any escape route (including evacuation lift) within the proposed building;
- (vii) a change to the external wall of a proposed higher-risk building including a wall tie, wall restraint fixing or support system in the wall;
- (viii) a change to any part of the active fire safety measures or passive fire safety measures in a proposed higher-risk building referred to in the fire and emergency file;
- (ix) a change to the layout or dimensions of the common parts within a proposed higher-risk building;
- (x) subject to paragraph (2), a change of any construction product or building element to be used in or on a proposed higher-risk building such that its replacement is of a lower classification under the reaction to fire classification (within the meaning in regulation 2(6) of the 2010 Regulations(1));
- (xi) a change to any assumptions made in the design of a proposed higher-risk building as set out in the Building Regulations compliance statement;
- (xii) a change proposing occupation of any part of the proposed higher-risk building before all the work is completed;
- (xiii) a change to the number of flats, residential rooms or commercial units contained in a proposed higher-risk building;
(2) Where an agreed document specifies use of a construction product or building element falling within a specified class, the change to another product or element falling within the same design specification is a recordable change.
MAJOR
To dramatise the Gateway 2 process, Paul presented an extensive case study on AHMM’s project on Albert Road, Bristol which detailed the full drawings, Gateway 2 approvals and timelines. Other documents which were over and above Building Regulations compliance were listed as below and emulated the documents highlighted by Richard for his project within a High Risk Building:
COMPETENCE DECLARATION – by Client confirming that the principal designer, principal contractor and any other stakeholders have the relevant skills and knowledge to complete their work.
BUILDING REGULATIONS COMPLIANCE STATEMENT – by BRPD (and BRA and all designers) outlining how Building Regulations requirements will be achieved
FIRE AND EMERGENCY FILE – by Fire Engineer explaining how building safety risks will be managed post-completion, including the assumptions used.
CONSTRUCTION CONTROL PLAN – prepared by contractor but a Client document explaining how the construction process will be managed to ensure compliance with the regulations.
CHANGE CONTROL PLAN – prepared by contractor but a Client document; defining the change control processes to be used during construction.
MANDATORY OCCURRENCE REPORTING PLAN – prepared by contractor but a Client document outlining how issues that are discovered during the design and construction phases will be monitored and reported.
CLIENT AUTHORISATION – from Client For others (contractor) to submit
If delivered in phases:
PARTIAL COMPLETION STRATEGY – from Client explaining how part of a project can be occupied before completed.
Key take aways were detailed as:
IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG TEAM
- Active client and development manager
- Active design manager
- Active design team
- Pro active subcontractors
- Subcontractors willing to redesign and provide a narrative
- BRPD who can help the design team
- Competent Building Regulations Advisor at early Stage
ROBUST DESIGN INFORMATION
- May need re-coordinating to suit Subcontractor Info if part of GW2 submission
- Subcontractor information beyond (typical) Stage 4 level
GOOD USE OF EXTRANET
- Significant amount of information to be collated and managed
AN AGREED DRM
- Who is doing what and when
RISKS
- Up front fees and could be a long, protracted programme + Uncertainty of cost during PCSA
- Team on standby during determination period
Paul also presented the Principal Designer Toolkit CDM & BRegs is guidance which has been produced by a working group of the Construction Industry Advisory Committee (CONIAC) comprising of industry experts from varied backgrounds, trade associations and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The toolkit provides the construction industry with advice, information, and guidance to help meet legal requirements and reflects what the industry considers current good practice.
Review the toolkit here: https://tinyurl.com/y446fr47 and let us know your feedback.
Tom Barney, Divisional Director, Head of Sales Construction & Property rounded the afternoon off with an update on the Professional Indemnity Insurance market which covered i) a recap on recent years ii) liquidation of the Wren Mutual and absorption of its members into the market iii) a shift towards a more favourable market environment which has resulted in increased competition, improved risk management, stabilising claims environment, regulatory & industry developments, broadening of policy coverage particularly around Fire Safety. In terms of implications to architects; the market will see a softening approach to retroactive dates, in some cases the elimination of consequential loss and a reduction in premium rates. The group then enjoyed drinks and canapés on the Terrace; with a stunning view of London.
Thanks to be extended to Howden for their very generous hospitality!