Articles

The latest set of IBQC guidelines should be globally impactful for building regulatory designers as the logic that underpins the guidelines seems to me to be rather compelling.

Risk weight the building classification system

Simply put the IBQC guidelines suggest that when you design a building classification system in a building code, then risk weight the classification.

Instead of risk the IBQC uses the term ‘potential consequence’ as it is the underlying potential risk that this writer considers prescient.

The amount of human interaction with the built environment is one of the considerations

It is a fact that some buildings in light of their simplicity and non-controversiality, non-pernicious use and minimal human interaction in terms of numbers, types and frequency of human interactions pose little to no risk to life or limb in given scenarios.

It is also a fact that some buildings are at the oppostite end of the spectrum in that the size, more problem prone usage and the high level of human interaction  pose significantly more risk to life and limb in given scenarios. This of course impacts upon the resilience and sustainability of built environs.

So it is not surprising that the IBQC has resolved that the best practice approach to building classifications is to further develop a risk weighting methodology. The logic to me seems to be to reiterate rather compelling and if I was a policy architect I would be giving it serious consideration. 

But the guidelines go further as they marry risk classification with mandatory inspection interventions

Building inspectorate resources are finite, in many countries are at best stretched and in some emerging economies negligeable. I can say that as I was born in an emerging economy, Ethiopia.

So a risk based building classification system allows the responsible authorites be they the Crown, be they local government to concentrate and deploy the finite inspectoriate resources where they are most needed.

Why like in the case of the Australian jurisdiction Victoria adopt a one size fits all approach, where regardless of the risk profile of a building, regardless of whether it is a barn or an 80 story building does the legislature mandate 4 mandatory inspections for all and sundry? I just don’t get it.

The number of mandatory inspection interventions should calibrate with the risk profile of the building. This seems so incredibly obvious.

Emerging economy application 

Speaking as an African and a construction lawyer that works predominantly in construction dispute resolution, I’m of the view that this risk based building classification methodology has particular application to Africa.

The reason for this is that in African economies inspectorial resources range from the stretched to the virtually non-existent. The on the ground reality is that economic restraints simply prevent the adequate resourcing of viable inspectorates.

Further in the vernacular or subsistence setting the majority of rural buildings do not come under the umbrella of building permits and are not built in accordance with building codes. 

Building officials should be deployed where such deployment is most critical and it is submitted that it is very hard to resource a paradigm that does not operate in a codified environment.

Nevertheless that which makes a risk based codified approach increasingly important to an emerging economy is that where there is rapid urbanisation the preponderance of larger and more challenging building typology is increasing and these buildings will ‘house’ much larger numbers of citizens. So the potential for harm is greater in the numerical sense.

The IBQC guidelines are ‘green fields’ in that they cordon off the low potential consequence echelon. The medium to high consequence categories will sit well with the engineered solution paradigm in an emerging economy. If you look at cities like Addis Ababa, there are more and more tall buildings, be they commercial or multi-unit high rise and a risk based building classification system would have much to commend it in a rapidly urbanised setting such as this. 

A setting where the building inspectorate can be deployed most intensively with the construction of buildings that on the one part should be built to code and on the other part will be involved with a very high level of human interaction in terms of numbers and frequency.

Best practice

The latest set of guidelines in this writers` are best practice. Best practice not only for advanced economies but there are some important take outs for emerging economies. With regards to the latter such is the disparity between the engineered solution and the vernacular paradigms a one size fits all approach to codified building classifications is so unworkable that building regulations run the risk of being by passed in large scale.

The finite resources of building officialdom have to be used judiciously as they are as critical to the orderly workings of building ecology as they are precious. The potential consequence and mandatory inspection approach, may not be perfect but in my opinion is as good as it gets.

Tsigereda Lovegrove is a construction and planning lawyer at Lovegrove & Cotton Lawyers, Australia

Disclaimer

This article is not legal advice rather a discussion of the topic in only general terms. Should you be in
need of legal advice, please contact a construction law firm. Lovegrove & Cotton Lawyers and
our experienced team will assist you based on the facts and circumstances of your case.