Building control and the project managers / QSs should have specced / checked it right. What responsibility they have to exceed building regs is another matter. Building regs are the responsibility of government and seem to be lacking.
Er, whilst project managers and quantity surveyors may control the cost and overall management of a project, they very rarely have design responsibility for the specification of products. So even if they may insist that 'value engineering' is carried out on the specification of products, i.e. finding cheaper alternatives that meet the contract specification, the contractor (and their subcontractors) will carry design responsibility. Building control have zero input, their only concern is the approved documents. You are right that the regs may be lacking, but in reality even local council inspectors visit site so infrequently it is easy for them to miss fundamentals like fire stopping.
This type of refurbishment work is usually carried out under design and build contracts, which offer clients fixed costs and timeframes, hence their popularity. It goes without saying that such contracts encourage cost reductions wherever possible. As architects and specifiers are employed by the contractor they often find themselves overruled by contractors, because if products meet the performance criteria laid down in the contract and building regulations, they have no basis to reject changes in specification. I would imagine on a project such as this it was ultimately the cladding subcontractor who proposed the specification of the product.
@Prole.
Er, whilst project managers and quantity surveyors may control the cost and overall management of a project, they very rarely have design responsibility for the specification of products. So even if they may insist that 'value engineering' is carried out on the specification of products, i.e. finding cheaper alternatives that meet the contract specification, the contractor (and their subcontractors) will carry design responsibility. Building control have zero input, their only concern is the approved documents. You are right that the regs may be lacking, but in reality even local council inspectors visit site so infrequently it is easy for them to miss fundamentals like fire stopping.
This type of refurbishment work is usually carried out under design and build contracts, which offer clients fixed costs and timeframes, hence their popularity. It goes without saying that such contracts encourage cost reductions wherever possible. As architects and specifiers are employed by the contractor they often find themselves overruled by contractors, because if products meet the performance criteria laid down in the contract and building regulations, they have no basis to reject changes in specification. I would imagine on a project such as this it was ultimately the cladding subcontractor who proposed the specification of the product.