One of the most common findings in audits is the inappropriate use of the Schedule 1 process in projects where the warrant application has been staged. It’s also a common enquiry received by SER from Certifiers seeking to clarify the point.
Before we look at why using the Schedule 1 process in staged projects is inappropriate, it might be worth exploring some of the context.
Background
It is a fundamental feature of our legislation that the Building Warrant system is pre-emptive, the aim being that buildings are designed to comply with the relevant standards prior to their construction. It follows therefore that the design must be complete, checked and certified prior to submission of the relevant documents for warrant.
So on this basis it would run contrary to the legislation if warrants were approved for buildings for which the design was incomplete.
However, as part of the legislative process it was recognised that it’s not always possible to finalise the design of some interdependent elements of the building prior to warrant submission, and so a system of staged warrants was developed to accommodate this.
Alongside that, it’s also a fundamental requirement of our legislation that building work must not commence on any element of building for which an approved warrant has not been granted. So it also follows that staged warrants should be approved prior to commencement of construction of that particular stage.
The Schedule 1 ‘Yet to be Designed Details’ process was designed as a sub-set of warrant stages to facilitate situations where certain primarily minor elements of the design could not be finalised at the warrant stage because the subcontractor designer would not be appointed in time.
Staging Projects and the use of Schedule 1
Now, in a situation where you’ve already determined with your Design Team colleagues that the warrant application is to be staged, and having agreed the broad content of those stages, it begs the question – what’s to be gained from using Schedule 1? The answer is simple – nothing.
Any elements of structure which are yet to be designed can simply be included in later relevant stages, or could form their own stand-alone stage.
This ensures that the design is completed, certified and submitted for warrant approval prior to work commencing on site. In this situation the legislative requirements are easily met and no one’s position is potentially compromised, especially that of your Client and their Contractor.
And it stands to reason therefore that using Schedule 1 in projects in which the warrant is staged is generally inappropriate.
There are as always a few exceptions to the rule...
Piling/Vibro works and Steelwork Connections
It is recognised that to appoint certain sub-contractors in advance of the warrant submission would create significant programming difficulties. It’s also generally the case that subcontractor designs for Piling/Vibro works and for Steelwork Connections tend to be reliably completed and checked prior to the work commencing on site. So for piling/vibro and steelwork connections the use of Schedule 1 in staged projects is permitted.
Multi-plot housing developments
Another exception is on multi-plot housing developments where the stages are used solely to define individual plots or groups of plots (in other words, the warrant for any single building or group of buildings is effectively single stage.)
Agreed by Building Control
And the final exception is the rare situation where it has been agreed with the Building Control Officer that the use of the procedure is appropriate. In these situations, the Certifier must keep a record of the reasons for using the procedure and of the dialogue with the Verifier.
Further information and Guidance
Further guidance from SER on the use of Schedule 1 in staged projects is avalable in: