C O N T E X T 1 7 2 : J U N E 2 0 2 2 13 REGULAT IONS AND CODES Opposite: The Rebuilding of London Act 1666 legislated for ‘the speedy Restoration whereof, and for the better Regulation, Uniformity and Gracefulness of such new Buildings as shall be erected for Habitations.’ (See page 14) Editorial Winners and losers At the time of writing, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry is examining the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the fire on the night of 14 June 2017. The inquiry’s examination of witnesses has revealed, among other things, an extraordinary catalogue of fatal decisions being taken about building regulations and their application. Politicians had insisted on deregulation without, seemingly, being concerned about the consequences. The building industry responded by seeking to maximise profits, and a range of professionals took the opportunity to cut corners, without being concerned about the consequences. The consequence of their dereliction of duty and responsibility was the loss of 72 lives. Awareness that regulations are needed often follows disaster or crisis. There is a balance to be achieved. Regulating matters that do not need to be regulated is an unjustified infringement of freedoms. Neglecting to regulate what needs to be regulated risks lives, the quality of lives, or the planet. Reducing the process of finding that balance to simple slogans is irresponsible. Decisions about what regulations are needed are always a matter of balancing conflicting interests. Leading up to the Grenfell fire, regulations had been created and applied inways that made money for some people, allowed others an easy life and caused others to die. Most such decisions are in some way political; costs and benefits need be weighed up by responsible people in the light of the necessary knowledge. This issue of Context focuses on how regulations and codes have shaped and are shaping the historic environment. The questions are always: what is important to regulate and control? Howwill the process be managed?Who will be the winners and losers? It is not just a matter of balancing private and public interests. Several competing public interests often need to be resolved: between the appearance of a historic building and its energy performance, for example. Successful solutions are always possible, but care and commitment are needed if they are to be found. The current UK government is in favour of both deregulation and regulation in the built environment. How is that possible? The answer may be that regulating through such means as design codes, pattern books and street votes will allow regulation in some local areas at the same time as allowing deregulation more generally – by relaxing local-authority-wide planning control, for example. Pilot schemes are currently testing some of these approaches, and other pilots will no doubt follow.Theywill probably conclude that innovative approaches to regulations and codes can work well if they are managed with the right democratic processes and the necessary skills. But there is no general commitment to enhancing local democracy; adequate resources are lacking (and are likely to be in the foreseeable future); and the necessary skills barely exist. So, there will be no breakthrough. The world of regulations and codes will remain a fascinating, potential nightmare.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=