Construction time again

When the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act came into force late last year, it marked the first time that the physical security of buildings had been enshrined by UK legislation. Despite its significance, however, the Act hasn’t topped the industry’s discussion agenda. Worse still, it has passed by relatively unnoticed by those providing security consultation and management services.

Exactly how much of an impact the Act will have remains unclear, but the changes it brings to the long-established Building Regulations warrant consideration.

The Act – which has been championed by the Liberal Democrats’ energy spokesperson Andrew Stunell MP – has two primary objectives: making buildings both safer and more environmentally friendly. Its roots lie in the fact that, historically, the environmental performance of buildings hasn’t been afforded due consideration (despite the fact that buildings are responsible for 54% of the UK’s current carbon dioxide emissions).

Not only that, responsible professionals from the architectural, facilities and security management disciplines will always be looking to make buildings safer in order to combat vandalism and crime.

What does the Act mean for security and facilities managers? Under the Act, Parliament is given powers to create new Building Regulations covering security and sustainability issues. When the Act came into force last November, a raft of additions were concurrently introduced to the 1984 Buildings Act for England and Wales. The key changes under the Act are:

• l the introduction of new powers to improve the crime resistance and security of buildings where there are (at present) no statutory requirements to comply with police advice;
• l powers to require that, under certain circumstances, large-scale repair and renovation work should comply with the same standards of sustainability and crime resistance as any equivalent new building work (at present, work must simply be completed to no worse a standard than prior to any repairs being instigated);
• l a desire to bring into the scope of the Building Regulations certain types of building that are currently exempt (schools and operational buildings owned by public utility operations being two cases in point);
• l the placing of a duty on the Government to report to Parliament at regular intervals on the progress being made in making the building stock more crime-resistant, and improving upon lines of accountability that ensure building standards are always met;
• l extended powers for the police to ensure that security is built-in to plans at all times, as has always been the case for fire resistance (this marks a significant shift from their previous role, whereby law enforcement officers and the police have only been able to offer ‘advice’ to developers when it comes to anti-crime designs).

Security: is it really on the agenda?

These changes mark a step change in how security issues are considered, both in the construction and lifecycle of a building. The question remains as to why this topic has thus far been kept off the Parliamentary and industry agenda?

Due to the Government’s commitment to sustainable housing and the creation of sustainable communities, much of the discussion to date concerning the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act has necessarily focused on residential property. The main emphasis has been about making buildings ‘greener’, to the point where the security implications have taken a back seat.

However, changes under the Building Regulations extend to all types of building. As stated, that includes schools and other public buildings currently exempt from the legislation. How the rules extend to the owners of commercial buildings remains to be seen.

At this stage, changes to the Building Regulations focus mainly on ensuring that security provision is ‘adequate’, concentrating on the physical resilience of doors, windows, perimeter fencing and gates. In most cases, due to the way in which security provision in new commercial premises is assessed it will already be adequate. This is true of high risk buildings. That said, there are several areas where question marks may arise.

Some buildings currently considered low risk could not now meet the terms of the Building Regulations under the changes. Further confusion arises from the fact that repair and renovation works should comply with the same standards of crime resistance as equivalent new building work. What was acceptable when the building was first constructed will no longer continue to be so.

How the new legislation impacts upon building design will ultimately be determined by the latter’s size, function, risk assessment and locality – in truth, the very factors that affect the provision of security.

Design, construct, manage

By making a level of security provision a legal obligation, the Act looks set to create a sea change in attitude whereupon building security is much more firmly on the agenda.

The potential for confusion and the importance of meeting changing legislation provides a strong case for security managers to work closely with a specialist security consultant. This offers an effective solution for managing security

In a social climate where effective security provision and crime reduction continue to be important issues, driving security further up the agenda can only be a ‘positive’ for security specialists.

Given this opportunity to address security at the design stage – which is always the best policy – it’s then the responsibility of security managers, consultants, architects and facilities professionals (and all others involved in the provision of building security) to be aware of the changes brought about by the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act, and to understand the likely impact they’ll have on designing, constructing and managing buildings in the longer term.

At this point, it must be said that the Act has the potential to create confusion. The amendments to the Building Regulations are difficult to follow, and as such could easily be misunderstood or misinterpreted. End users need reassurances that all current legislatory terms and conditions are met, and confidence that their own buildings’ security design meets the specific need.

Is it sufficient for a building simply to meet the new regulations, or is a more proficient level of physical security configuration required? How soon will this become out-of-date? Will it be suitable if the building is adjusted and/or extended? Fundamental questions that demand to be answered.

Above all else, by making security a mandatory consideration at the outset of a building’s lifecycle, the Act also strengthens the argument for far greater collaboration between architects, security managers, facilities advisors and all those parties interested in the security function.

No more retrospective management

All-too-often, security professionals find themselves trying to retrospectively implement security in a building where little or no consideration has been given to the topic at the planning and design stages. Many professionals will be familiar with this situation, and the frustration that retrospective measures never seem to meet the necessary requirements. There are downsides for the building occupier, too, as the cost of retrospective add-ons is much higher than if they’d been included from the outset.

To ensure that security design meets a building user’s needs and risks while remaining efficient and cost-effective, it’s vital – regardless of legislation – that competent security professionals are engaged from the outset. This approach means that both a building’s and occupier’s risks can be properly assessed. Also, the means of mitigating these risks is at the core of the building’s design, rather than being an afterthought.

Building operators must also be involved at the design stage so that adequate facilities and measures are included from the beginning. This will enable them to manage the building effectively throughout its life cycle or, at the very least, the period of the occupant’s anticipated tenancy.

Conditions are right for change

Collaboration is an approach that has already been proven to pay dividends. In a recent major building project involving Johnson Controls and Barclays, collaboration has been integral at every stage of the project. As part of a relocation to new headquarters at Canary Wharf in the Capital, architects, developers, security practitioners, specialist building risk advisors and facilities management professionals worked together with Barclays from the outset to devise solutions that would meet their needs and perceived security risks.

Collaboration has been essential in meeting Barclays’ vision to drive down property costs and induce a highly productive, technologically advanced, flexible, safe and secure workspace. This strategy helps Barclays create a team environment to foster a high performance culture embodying interaction and collaboration, and develop an innovative new workstyle for increasing productivity for the 5,000 occupants of One Churchill Place.

The Act doesn’t consider further issues, which is somewhat disappointing. Non-fire evacuation from large and high risk buildings is covered only for certain types of building such as sports stadiums, while it’s apparently down to security professionals and consultants to influence the design of large office towers.

It’s now high time that Government legislation accounted for such vital elements.