Project Four Safety
Project Four separated building regulations evidence selection from plan review. Designers selected evidence in the CDE, Morta organised regulation-specific references, and the plan checker recorded applicability, decisions and comments in a separate tracker.
Separating designer evidence from principal designer review
Allan Binns, then National Director at Project Four.
Project Four had connected its building regulations tracker to live design information, but the files kept changing while the plan check was under way. Its revised workflow gave each part of the work a clearer place. Designers selected evidence in the CDE, Morta organised their file references into an exportable evidence document, and the plan checker recorded the review separately.
Executive summary
Project Four needed to coordinate evidence against building regulations requirements without asking the principal designer to search through a changing CDE or asking designers to maintain another routine input process. Its revised approach kept evidence selection with the designers in CDE dynamic folders. Morta used the file paths to create regulation-specific views and an evidence document with links to the corresponding files. The plan checker used that reference while reviewing the files, then recorded applicability, decisions and comments in a separate compliance tracker. PDF benchmarks and a Power BI dashboard carried the review status back to the client and design team. The dashboard's status and primary-owner filters helped them identify what needed attention and direct follow-up to the relevant owner. Allan demonstrated the arrangement in a test hub and presented later compliance-statement, construction-phase and other document uses as possible next steps.
- Around 2,000 drawings and reports could form part of the review in Allan's illustration of a complex project.
- Two or more weeks was the possible plan check duration he used in that example while design information continued to change.
The results
Make review follow-up visible
Project Four connected CDE file information to its review records instead of copying file names into individual Excel cells. The linked information retained the route back to the corresponding design file, while PDF exports gave the team a benchmark it could share at a point in time.
The Power BI dashboard gave the client and design team a visual account of the review. They could inspect accepted items, rejected items and requests for further information, then filter the view by status or primary owner. That made the outstanding review action and the responsible owner visible to the people following the plan check. Allan associated this visibility with greater client confidence in project progress.
Give the plan checker a defined reference
The revised workflow separated three actions. Designers selected requirement-specific evidence in the CDE. Morta organised the selected file references by regulation part in an exportable evidence document. The plan checker used that evidence document to open and review the corresponding files, then recorded applicability, decisions and comments in the separate compliance tracker.
This separation made the set presented for review clear without transferring the review judgement to the designers or the software. It also kept routine designer input in the CDE while the principal designer maintained a distinct review record.
The challenge
Organise requirements and evidence
When Project Four considered how to support the building regulations principal designer role, Allan focused on the practical evidence behind coordination and design review. He distinguished this work from the principal designer role under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations.
His first responsibility matrix linked building regulations requirements to the disciplines expected to address them. The Excel tracker that followed recorded the requirement, whether it applied, the suggested evidence, the expected information stage, the responsible party, review status and comments.
The spreadsheet reflected a real need, but maintaining file references and revisions across a large review created administrative work and opportunities for mistakes. It could also make evidence collection look like the principal designer's responsibility alone. Allan wanted the designers to identify the information that supported their own design before the principal designer reviewed it.
A live connection left the review moving
Connecting the tracker to the CDE improved access to current file information. It did not define the set being checked. A design file could be revised while the plan checker was partway through reviewing it, leaving the review and the incoming information moving at different speeds.
Asking designers to work in both the CDE and Morta would also divide their attention between two systems. Project Four therefore kept designer evidence input in the CDE and used Morta for the evidence reference, review record and reporting.
The solution
Connect evidence to the review record
Project Four's earlier arrangement brought CDE file information into a Morta tracker through an API connection. The tracker held requirements, owners and evidence references. PDF and CSV exports provided benchmark records, while Power BI presented the connected review status.
That connection reduced manual reference handling and kept a route back to the source files. The moving-design problem required another change, because access to the latest file did not by itself define the information being reviewed.
Separate designer input from review
Allan divided the workflow into a designer-input side and a principal designer review side. The input side received and filtered CDE file information, then produced the evidence reference. The review side gave the plan checker a separate compliance tracker for decisions and comments. Reporting remained connected to the review record.
Keep evidence selection with designers
CDE dynamic folders made that division practical. Allan used a general arrangement drawing as an example. It could remain in the architectural folder and also appear in the building-control folder for the relevant regulation part. Project Four could define the deliverables expected in each folder, and the responsible designers could select the files that evidenced their design.
This kept the evidence choice with the design team. The plan checker could start from the set they had identified, while retaining responsibility for deciding whether each requirement applied and what the review concluded.
The implementation
Filter the CDE file paths
Allan demonstrated the arrangement in a Morta test hub. Its integration table received file details from the CDE. A new column combined each file name with its revision, giving the evidence reference a readable label.
Views then filtered the records by file path. The path contained the building-control folder and regulation part, so Morta could create separate views for Part A, Part B and the other relevant sections.
Build the evidence document
The filtered views populated an evidence document organised by regulation part. Each entry linked to the corresponding CDE information. The team could export that document for the plan checker to use as a reference while reviewing the linked files in the CDE.
This was the boundary between provision and review. Designers selected the evidence in the CDE. The file paths organised that selection into a reviewable reference. The plan checker then assessed the files rather than treating their presence in a folder as a decision.
Record the decision separately
The plan checker worked in the separate building regulations compliance tracker. They recorded which requirements applied, whether the evidence was accepted, rejected or needed more information, and what comments the design team needed to address. The professional judgement remained with the checker.
A project-details document supplied context about the building. The review tracker could then feed a static PDF benchmark or the Power BI dashboard. Status and owner filters carried the recorded decisions into a view that the client and design team could use for follow-up.
Before and after
| Review task | Earlier handling | Revised approach presented by Allan |
|---|---|---|
| Identify evidence | The principal designer searched the CDE for information supporting the design | Designers selected evidence in requirement-specific CDE dynamic folders |
| Organise references | File names were copied into Excel and revisions maintained manually | Connected file details and path-filtered views populated an evidence document |
| Carry out the review | Incoming information and the review sat in one moving process | The plan checker used a defined evidence reference and recorded the decision separately |
| Follow up | A spreadsheet was shared with the client and design team | Status and primary-owner filters showed what needed attention and who owned the response |
| Report progress | The tracker acted as the main shared output | Static PDF benchmarks and a Power BI view presented the recorded review status |
About Project Four
Project Four Building Safety Experts Ltd., known as Project Four, provides safety consultancy across CDM and building safety.
What's next
The evidence document could provide a starting point for a building regulations compliance statement. Further work would need to add the standards being followed, explain why they applied and carry the supporting evidence into that account.
Project Four could also connect the principal designer's design review with the principal contractor's evidence of compliant building work. A later construction-phase tracker could extend the record towards completion and Gateway 3 if that process were developed and adopted.
The same organising pattern could be explored for CDM pre-construction information packs, safety case reports and project execution plans. Allan also considered whether Uniclass classifications might later help place recurring evidence against the relevant requirement. His test-hub walkthrough used file paths for that job.
