1.73 As this recommendation impacts Architectural Technology professionals directly, it is essential that CIAT is a lead within this work; CIAT has skills and experience in undertaking such reviews and improvements. 1.75 & 1.82 This describes the QDR process. Please refer to this the industry understands it and the – answer is already being enacted by the quality end of the market. [See Appendix 3 page – 23] 1.76 Consideration to be given to building manuals/BIM centralising (accurate) records – – maintaining/accuracy/ownership and the risks in these processes. – 1.77 The golden thread appears to be fire engineer (strategy); architectural technologist (design and detail design); Clerk of Works (third party, independent oversight of construction); management (ensuring documentation is updated, cascaded and properly catalogued). 1.80 This has to be able to work over the lifetime/lifecycle of a building (see above) 1.81 Residents should not carry out repair work that could compromise neighbours unless they are demonstrably competent. Otherwise an Achilles heel emerges in the chain of safety. 1.84 Support needs simple definitions for the owners of and those who live in the building i.e. – what is and what are the implications of seemingly simple renovations eg. If, for “significant” example, a front door is replaced? What would the occupier have to comply with and the risks of failing to comply? Guidance/information/process etc. must be accessible for all stakeholders and suitable language used for different users. 1.90 to go further than this in practice. 1.93 Desktop studies are reasonable if they are adequately underpinned by calculation or other quantitative means. Desktop studies can be extensive, up to and including computational fluid dynamics (CFD). This needs factoring into the final recommendation. Chapter 3 Methodology Figure 3.1 This could go further; as it does not clarify how this would apply to owners undertaking their own refurbishment and the possible impact. Reference needs to be made to change of use and the potential impact. Figure 3.3 Remove reference to architects and replace with something generic such as “designer”. 3.31 Findings: Approved Documents are seen as to satisfy’ solutions. This is not an ‘deemed English & Welsh regulatory issue: it is global. Only the building design elements not meeting
1.73 As this recommendation impacts Architectural Technology professionals directly, it is essential that CIAT is a lead within this work; CIAT has skills and experience in undertaking such reviews and improvements. 1.75 & 1.82 This describes the QDR process. Please refer to this – the industry understands it and the answer is already being enacted by the quality end of the market. [See Appendix 3 – page 23] 1.76 Consideration to be given to building manuals/BIM – centralising (accurate) records – maintaining/accuracy/ownership – and the risks in these processes. 1.77 The golden thread appears to be fire engineer (strategy); architectural technologist (design and detail design); Clerk of Works (third party, independent oversight of construction); management (ensuring documentation is updated, cascaded and properly catalogued). 1.80 This has to be able to work over the lifetime/lifecycle of a building (see above) 1.81 Residents should not carry out repair work that could compromise neighbours unless they are demonstrably competent. Otherwise an Achilles heel emerges in the chain of safety. 1.84 Support – needs simple definitions for the owners of and those who live in the building i.e. what is “significant” and what are the implications of seemingly simple renovations eg. If, for example, a front door is replaced? What would the occupier have to comply with and the risks of failing to comply? Guidance/information/process etc. must be accessible for all stakeholders and suitable language used for different users. 1.90 to go further than this in practice. 1.93 Desktop studies are reasonable if they are adequately underpinned by calculation or other quantitative means. Desktop studies can be extensive, up to and including computational fluid dynamics (CFD). This needs factoring into the final recommendation. Chapter 3 Methodology Figure 3.1 This could go further; as it does not clarify how this would apply to owners undertaking their own refurbishment and the possible impact. Reference needs to be made to change of use and the potential impact. Figure 3.3 Remove reference to architects and replace with something generic such as “designer”. 3.31 Findings: Approved Documents are seen as ‘deemed to satisfy’ solutions. This is not an English & Welsh regulatory issue: it is global. Only the building design elements not meeting
b6a80bff-8b94-4d17-8b32449b16bdf629.docx