Industry News HubFive workers have been removed from the HS2 rail project after an air rifle was brought onto a site and fired by night-shift workers. The incident took place at a West Ruislip site run by the Skanska, Costain and Strabag (SCS) joint venture. SCS is…
The post Five SCS workers removed from HS2 job after air rifle incident appeared first on Construction News.
United Utilities has launched market engagement for a design and integration role potentially worth up to £600m on its proposed Windermere wastewater overhaul. The initial four-year phase was valued at £60m-£100m, with optional construction-phase roles worth £100m for system integration or £500m including detailed design.…
The post United Utilities seeks partner for potential £600m Windermere wastewater role appeared first on Construction News.
As part of Kirklees Council’s wider Dewsbury Blueprint programme, the refurbishment of Dewsbury Market builds on the venue’s proud heritage and aims to attract more visitors, businesses and investment into the town centre.
Construction is expected to finish in early 2028, with the revitalised market and surrounding public spaces opening shortly after.
Cllr Hardie, cabinet member for regeneration, highways and transport, stated: “This is an important moment for Dewsbury. The market is part of the town’s identity, and this investment protects that heritage while creating a space that works for today and for generations to come.
“Alongside the Arcade and other improvements across Dewsbury, this is about creating a town centre with a bright future, supporting local businesses and giving residents and visitors even more reasons to spend time here.”
The project will sensitively restore the historic market hall, preserving and enhancing its iconic glazed roof structure and distinctive metal architecture.
Image: © HBC Construction
It will deliver a significantly enhanced day-to-night market experience, alongside a new outdoor events space and town park featuring a children’s play area, water fountains, extensive planting and local artwork. Together, these improvements will create an open, accessible, family-friendly destination where people can shop, socialise, and spend time in the heart of Dewsbury.
To ensure existing traders can continue operating throughout the construction period, a temporary market has been created across Market Place, Longcauseway and Foundry Street. Kirklees Council has worked closely with traders to plan the relocation and allocate spaces, helping ensure continuity of trade as work progresses on the main market site.
Lee Powell, Managing Director of HBC Construction, said: “It’s always exciting to get the first spades in the ground and start bringing a project to life. A lot of work and planning goes into bringing developments to site, and we look forward to working closely with Kirklees Council and local partners to deliver a new anchor destination for Dewsbury.
“As with all our projects, we are committed to delivering wider social and economic benefits throughout construction. We have developed a strong social value and employment programme and are keen to leave a lasting legacy in Dewsbury, just as we have in other towns and communities across Yorkshire.”
The post Construction underway on £18m Dewsbury Market refurbishment appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
M&E contractor Kane Group Building Services has paid a £6.2m dividend after increasing its pre-tax profit by almost 45 per cent to £6.4m. The Northern Irish company reported turnover of £100.9m for the year to 31 March 2026, up 15 per cent from £87.6m. Its…
The post Kane pays £6.2m dividend as profits jump 45% appeared first on Construction News.
Construction projects can involve multiple tiers of contractors, subcontractors, labour providers and self-employed operatives, making it increasingly important to understand who is responsible for Right to Work checks. New requirements introduced under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (BSAIA), which came into force on 1 October, have widened the definition of an employer and extended liability across certain contracting arrangements.
For a sector where responsibility for engaging workers can sit across several organisations, understanding where accountability lies and how compliance can be evidenced is therefore critical. Getting this wrong can have significant consequences. In 2025, the Home Office issued 2,438 civil penalties for illegal working, with fines totalling more than £130m.
Employers can face penalties of up to £60,000 per illegal worker, alongside criminal consequences for knowingly employing someone without the right to work. Enforcement activity has also increased within construction. In 2025, there were 290 illegal-working visits to construction businesses, resulting in 588 arrests, compared with 118 visits and 165 arrests in 2024.
For construction organisations, the changes make it particularly important to understand how Right to Work responsibilities apply across different working arrangements and where accountability lies when multiple organisations are involved.
Under the latest changes, the definition of an employer has expanded to cover certain individuals engaged under a worker’s contract, individual subcontractors and some arrangements involving online matching services. The legislation also introduces extended liability, meaning responsibility can, in some circumstances, extend beyond the organisation with the direct contractual relationship.
This is particularly relevant to the construction sector, where principal contractors, subcontractors, labour providers and other third parties can all be involved in delivering a project. Clear contractual arrangements should establish who is responsible for completing Right to Work checks, how compliance is monitored and what evidence must be retained to demonstrate that the relevant requirements have been met.
This makes it important for organisations to understand how their right to work processes operate across the full supply chain, rather than assuming responsibility sits solely with the organisation directly employing an individual.
Construction businesses have been among the sectors generating the highest volume of enquiries about the new requirements in recent months. We believe this reflects the sector’s particular exposure to extended liability, given the complex supply chains that can involve multiple contractors and subcontractors.
Construction businesses should review their contractual arrangements and follow the measures set out in the Home Office guidance to help mitigate the risk of extended liability. These include requiring appropriate Right to Work checks through written contractual terms, controlling further subcontracting, carrying obligations through permitted subcontracting arrangements, including rights to audit compliance and taking action where requirements are not met.
Businesses should also retain evidence that these measures are in place, including contracts, audit records, subcontractor assurances and compliance reviews. Any assurances received should be supported by reasonable steps to establish their reliability.
Hudson Contract, a construction compliance platform, shows how these measures can be implemented in practice. The company completed almost 40,000 Right to Work checks on construction operatives ahead of the 1 October deadline and introduced processes to help clients verify that subcontractors complete the necessary checks before starting work. Its system also alerts clients when a check remains outstanding, helping them identify potential compliance gaps before operatives arrive on site.
Where substitution is permitted, businesses must ensure the prescribed checks are completed before substitutes start work, with responsibility for checks remaining with the appropriate party rather than being delegated to the individual carrying out the work. They should also have controls to confirm that the person arriving on site is the person whose Right to Work was checked.
The guidance also highlights proportionate identity verification measures, which may include workplace ID cards or passes, biometric or attendance systems, facial recognition and checks against training records, qualifications or licences. Depending on the circumstances, re-verification may also be appropriate at the start of a shift or when a worker moves to a new assignment.
These measures are particularly relevant where labour requirements change quickly or workers arrive on site at short notice. Businesses need to ensure their checks and oversight arrangements work in practice across the supply chain, not just on paper.
Organisations can also consider how technology can support a more consistent approach to Right to Work checks. The updated guidance recommends digital verification through a certified Digital Verification Service Provider listed on the Office for Digital Identities and Attributes (OfDIA) register, giving employers a reliable way to complete relevant checks.
For construction organisations managing large workforces across multiple projects or sites, digital verification can standardise processes and reduce the administrative burden of manual checks. This is particularly valuable when different contractors or teams onboard workers across sites or projects.
However, technology should support a robust compliance process, not replace it. Construction organisations still need to understand who is responsible for the check, when it needs to happen and what evidence needs to be retained.
The new requirements give construction firms an opportunity to review their right-to-work processes across the workforce and supply chain. This means looking beyond whether policies are up to date and ensuring responsibilities are clear, checks are completed before work begins, and evidence can be easily retrieved when required.
Organisations working with subcontractors, labour providers and other third parties should also review where responsibility for checks sits and whether they have sufficient oversight of the processes being followed.
Ultimately, compliance goes beyond completing individual checks. Construction businesses need to ensure their processes are effective in practice, with appropriate safeguards and oversight across their supply chains. These steps can help organisations identify potential gaps, manage the risks of extended liability, and demonstrate compliance when required.
The post Right to work: Navigating new responsibilities across construction appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
A tree can fit perfectly into a coordinated model and still fail on site. Its planter may clear the structure, drainage, and building services, yet provide insufficient rooting volume for long-term success. The layout may not have accounted for prevailing winds exacerbated by nearby developments. These discrepancies between design and real-world conditions can cause urban landscapes to deteriorate within a few years, representing a significant financial loss for developers and building owners.
Digital construction has become increasingly capable of answering “Can we build it here?” For landscape architecture, it must also help us answer “And will it thrive?”
That second question changes what teams need to model and when they need to collaborate.
A landscape is a living ecosystem whose performance develops over years. The supporting digital information should connect site conditions, construction decisions, microclimates, and planting to future management.
Landscape BIM is extending the role of digital models beyond geometry. Tools such as Vectorworks Landmark and RhinoLands link planting and landscape objects to data and quantities, while Civil 3D supports terrain, grading and drainage analysis. Their capabilities differ, but combining software platforms can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the conditions needed for successful landscape establishment.
For a roof garden, that information should include usable substrate depth and volume, saturated build-up weight, drainage provision and irrigation zones. Plant records can carry species requirements, anticipated canopy dimensions and maintenance needs. Engineers and landscape architects can then assess whether the proposed growing environment is compatible with the structure and water systems.
Changes become easier to interrogate. Reducing planter depth should trigger a review of rooting capacity and species suitability alongside structural calculations. Model quantities can inform cost plans, while programme links can help coordinate installation and establishment watering.
For developers and contractors, identifying these conflicts during the design stage can help avoid costly redesigns, installation delays and the expense of replacing failed planting after completion.
However, these connections require agreed data fields, current prices, and clearly defined responsibilities. They do not happen automatically simply because a project uses BIM.
Existing roofs often demand better information than inherited drawings provide. In roof-garden projects, specialist drone surveys can help establish existing conditions before design progresses.
Photogrammetry and laser scanning generate three-dimensional survey information that can be registered against the project’s coordinate system and used to check the model. This can reveal discrepancies in visible levels, upstands and service positions while there is still time to respond.
Survey geometry must, however, be checked against structural records and engineering advice. For example, a scan cannot establish concealed reinforcement or load capacity.
Digital setting-out then carries coordinated information onto site. Robotic total stations locate model points, while laser projection systems can display drawing linework at full scale on suitable surfaces. These are separate processes from surveying, with their own accuracy and operating requirements.
For landscape construction, the benefit is a clearer connection between design intent and the installed landscape, from edges, drainage outlets and finished levels to irrigation systems.
Recording deviations before these elements are covered helps protect the model’s specified growing conditions, reducing the risk of expensive later corrections.
Environmental analysis isn’t just important; it is fundamental to creating successful urban landscapes. Its greatest value comes when it informs design decisions early enough to make a difference.
Sun and shade studies can identify seasonal exposure, while wind analysis reveals potentially uncomfortable or highly exposed areas. Understanding these conditions can significantly influence both landscape quality and people’s experience of it.
Developments can also create unexpected environmental challenges, with neighbouring buildings altering wind patterns, sunlight and temperatures.
Newer BIM processes are shortening the feedback cycle. Connections between tools such as Autodesk Revit and Forma can bring environmental analysis, including outdoor thermal comfort and wind assessments, closer to the design process.
However, human comfort and plant viability are not necessarily the same. A terrace that feels comfortable for people may still provide insufficient light for a particular planting scheme.
Roof-level exposure, water availability, and rooting conditions require separate assessment. Testing establishment conditions, mature canopy scenarios and increasingly extreme weather patterns can help teams understand how a landscape’s performance may change over time.
Even high-quality, well-funded urban landscapes can deteriorate within a few years if environmental conditions and long-term maintenance requirements are not adequately considered.
International projects offer useful examples of how environmental analysis and digital monitoring can inform urban landscape design and long-term performance.
Houston’s Cool & Connected Corridors project used shade analysis and pedestrian movement data to inform the positioning and configuration of outdoor landscape structures, with planting supporting the corridor’s longer-term shade strategy.
Early thermal-infrared readings from the project showed ground surfaces beneath structures averaging approximately 5°C cooler, with reductions reaching around 20°C in some locations. These are project-reported surface measurements, not equivalent reductions in air temperature.
Their significance lies in showing how design analysis can connect to observations of the built environment, helping teams understand how interventions affect the experience of outdoor spaces.
At Georgia Tech, the eight-acre EcoCommons landscape incorporates more than 20 sensors that monitor environmental conditions, including air temperature, humidity, wind speed, and soil percolation.
The project shows how monitoring infrastructure can be integrated into a landscape to support ongoing research and improve understanding of environmental performance.
For UK construction teams, the transferable lesson is to define what needs measuring during design and ensure the necessary infrastructure is incorporated during construction.
This creates opportunities to assess whether landscapes are performing as intended, rather than relying solely on assumptions made before completion.
A landscape model should remain useful to the people responsible for managing the asset long after construction has finished.
Handover information can identify irrigation zones, drainage access, substrate specifications and plant records, along with inspection and maintenance requirements. Crucially, maintenance teams need information they can access and update without becoming BIM specialists.
Where appropriate, soil-moisture sensors and weather-responsive irrigation systems can help inform watering decisions. Linking readings and maintenance records to specific locations lets teams investigate recurring plant stress and compare actual conditions with original design assumptions.
A connected digital twin, however, requires more than technology. It needs maintained data, clearly assigned responsibilities and a practical process for responding to the information collected.
Clients and project leaders should define these requirements from the outset. Landscape architects, engineers, contractors and maintenance teams all need clear responsibilities for creating, checking and updating relevant records.
Importantly, assess the commercial value of these approaches against long-term water consumption, replacement planting, maintenance requirements, and access costs, rather than focusing exclusively on the initial construction budget.
Digital construction has transformed how we plan, coordinate and deliver the built environment. The next challenge is ensuring the living elements of our developments receive the same attention and technical consideration as the buildings themselves.
For landscape architecture, the real opportunity lies not simply in modelling what can be built, but in understanding what will thrive.
By connecting digital design, environmental analysis, and long-term management, the construction industry can create greener spaces that perform as intended, not just at completion, but for decades to come.
The post From design to delivery: How digital technology is transforming landscape architecture appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
By Justin Rose, Founder, JDR Metal Art
Ask most organisations whether their safety training actually works and somebody will go and find a spreadsheet. Names down the left hand side and a long wall of green cells showing that everyone is in date.
It’s quite reassuring to look at. The trouble is it answers a different question to the one that really matters.
All a completion record tells you is that somebody sat through the course. It doesn’t tell you if the forklift driver now sounds the horn at the blind corner by goods-in, or whether the new lad on the press line properly isolates the machine before he clears a jam when the shift is running 40 minutes behind. Those are the things the training was paid for in the first place and they’re exactly the things most of us find hard to measure.
A brief guide to health and safety training lays out five steps and the last of them is simply to check the training has worked. Hardly anyone would argue with that. Far fewer put the same effort into it as they put into getting the course booked.
Some of that is because it’s genuinely hard to do. Research the Association for Talent Development put out last year found 90% of the people it surveyed saw isolating a programme’s impact on results as a challenge, and only 15% felt ready to deal with it. These are people whose whole job is training. Safety teams, who tend to be commissioning courses on top of everything else they’re juggling, are starting from a fair bit further back.
The other reason isn’t quite so flattering. Attendance is easy to count and the number only ever goes up. Behaviour is a lot messier, it shifts slowly and every now and then it tells you a course didn’t really land at all. Nobody particularly wants to put that in a quarterly report.
Most of the useful measurement work actually happens before the course has even started.
If you can’t say what people ought to be doing differently on a normal Tuesday afternoon three months from now then you won’t be able to measure it (and to be fair, the trainer probably won’t be able to teach it either).
“Improved awareness of manual handling” is far too vague to observe.
“Two person lifts for the long pipe sections on the delivery bay” is something you can go and look for, and so is “permits signed back before an area gets handed over”.
Two or three of those per course is plenty.
Then comes the bit people tend to skip, which is finding out how often those things happen now. Without a baseline you end up comparing behaviour after the training against a hazy memory of how bad things used to be, and that memory has a habit of being kind to everyone involved.
In the Kirkpatrick model this is Level 3 (behaviour on the job). It’s the level organisations struggle most to put numbers on, which is why so many of them stop at Level 1: the feedback form asking whether the trainer was engaging that gets handed round just before everyone heads off to the car park.
Observation is the obvious way to find out whether the training has carried over into the job. The catch is that it’s very easy to fool.
People work differently when the safety manager is standing at the end of the aisle holding a clipboard. Most of us would. So one planned observation the week after the course mostly proves that people know what the safety manager looks like.
A few things help with this:
Spread your observations out across shifts (nights and weekends included) because that’s when supervision is thinner and people’s real habits come through.
Get trusted peers to do some of the observing, since a colleague from the next team along gets a lot less of a performance than somebody down from head office.
Bring in some evidence that doesn’t rely on anyone standing there at all, like the quality of the permits that come back or defect reports showing somebody picked up on a problem early.
The best method is often the simplest one. Ask someone to talk you through the task and listen to the reasons they give you. If they can explain why the isolation sequence goes in that order then they’ve learned something. If they can reel off the steps but go quiet when you ask why, there’s a good chance they’ll skip one when the pressure’s on.
A lot of the best evidence turns up when nobody’s talking about training at all. After a decent working at height course, you might hear a scaffolder query a ladder that’s been “fine for years”. Near-miss reports start getting more specific, the cracked bracket on line two or the valve that sticks after a cold start. Toolbox talks can get a bit more argumentative too, which is normally a good sign.
Stopping a job is about the clearest signal you’ll get. If people have been trained to spot a hazard and told they’ve got the authority to stop work, then how often they actually use that authority tells you whether they believed the training or just sat through it.
If the stop-work count on a busy site is sitting at zero I’d want to know why.
Supervisors make a huge difference here. A course can teach the right way of doing something in a morning and a team leader saying “we haven’t got time for that today” can undo it all by lunch.
HSE puts its training guidance alongside advice on supervising workers for good reason. If you want an early idea of whether the training is going to stick, keep an eye on what supervisors do in the fortnight after it.
Checking a week after the training mostly tells you about short-term memory. What really matters is what’s left six months down the line when nobody has mentioned the course since.
Skill fade shows up pretty much wherever anyone’s bothered to test for it. A 2025 review of school-based CPR training found compression quality dropped off markedly within 6 to 8 months. CPR just happens to get studied closely enough to track that sort of decline, and there’s not much reason to think rarely used workplace skills (spill response, say, or rescue from height) hold up any better.
Light check-ins at around 30, 60 and 90 days give you a feel for the drop-off. They also tell you something quite practical, which is when refresher training is actually needed, and that’s rarely the same date the certificate runs out.
Sometimes you do all of this properly and the behaviour still doesn’t move. That’s frustrating, but it doesn’t automatically mean the course was poor.
No amount of training will fix a procedure that can’t be followed with the kit people have been given. It won’t get around a bonus scheme that rewards speed, or a rota that leaves one person doing what’s really a two-person job. When people clearly know what they should be doing and still aren’t doing it, the obstacle is usually somewhere in the work itself. Sending them on the same course again will mostly just teach them that nobody was listening.
This is where measuring properly earns its keep. Honest data on how people behave after training is one of the few reliable ways of telling a learning problem apart from a design problem, and those two need very different fixes.
None of this needs a big platform or a team of analysts. Mostly it needs a clear picture of what should change and the patience to keep checking long after the certificates have been filed away.
Next time somebody asks whether the training worked, try answering with something you’ve actually seen people doing. It takes more effort than pulling up a completion rate, and now and then the answer won’t be a comfortable one. That’s usually a sign you’re measuring the right thing.
Justin Rose is a gate designer, custom metal fabricator, and the founder of JDR Metal Art; building high-end custom driveway gates and automated entry systems for over 500 homes, farms and ranches across the US since 2011. He combines a deep understanding of advanced automation technologies, precision welding, and custom powder coating finishes to create durable, heirloom-quality entrance solutions for estates, ranches, and residential properties across the United States.
Health and Safety Executive (2012). Health and safety training: A brief guide. Available at: https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg345.htm
Association for Talent Development (2025). ATD Research: Organizations Struggle With Measuring the Impact of Training. Available at: https://www.td.org/content/press-release/atd-research-organizations-struggle-with-measuring-the-impact-of-training
Training Industry. The Kirkpatrick Model. Available at: https://trainingindustry.com/wiki/measurement-and-analytics/the-kirkpatrick-model/
Health and Safety Executive (2012). Health and safety training: Provide information, training and supervision. Available at: https://www.hse.gov.uk/simple-health-safety/training/needs.htm
Onbasilar, U., von Groote, T., Brülle, R. et al. Skill retention after school-based CPR training – a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 25, 3798 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-25024-w
The post Measuring the Impact of Safety Training on Workplace Practices appeared first on HSE Network.
Legionella Risk Assessments are a fundamental part of managing water safety, helping organisations understand and control the risks associated with legionella bacteria within their water systems.
However, a risk assessment is not simply a document to file away and forget. A good Legionella Risk Assessment provides a clear understanding of where risks exist, what controls are required and whether your current water management arrangements are effective.
Legionella bacteria can naturally occur in water systems but under the right conditions — such as water temperatures that allow growth, areas of stagnation, inadequate maintenance or poor system design — they can multiply and create a risk of exposure.
When contaminated water droplets are inhaled, legionella can cause serious illness, including Legionnaires’ disease, a potentially fatal form of pneumonia.
UK health and safety guidance, including the Health & Safety Executive’s Approved Code of Practice L8 (ACoP L8), places a legal duty on organisations to identify and manage the risks associated with legionella. A suitable and sufficient Legionella Risk Assessment is the starting point for demonstrating that these risks are being properly controlled.
A quality risk assessment should help you to:
Identify potential sources of legionella risk within your water systems.
Understand how your systems operate and whether they are adequately controlled while factoring in the susceptibility of the user.
Highlight areas requiring improvement or further investigation.
Ensure your written scheme and control measures are appropriate.
Provide assurance to those responsible for water safety.
Highlight possible requirements or gaps for training needs.
Detail information on hierarchy of control.
Give you the information needed to update current control documents.
Understand the water system visually using accurate schematics.
A Legionella Risk Assessment is more than a compliance exercise. It is an important part of understanding how water systems are designed, operated and maintained, and identifying where conditions could allow legionella to grow and spread.
A thorough assessment should consider the building, its water systems, how they are used and maintained, and the people who may be exposed. It should identify areas of risk and provide practical recommendations that can be incorporated into an organisation’s wider water safety arrangements.
Choosing a suitably qualified and competent risk assessor is an important part of the process. Organisations should consider the assessor’s experience, competence, independence and, where appropriate, whether they hold relevant accreditation.
The assessment should be proportionate to the complexity of the building and its water systems rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all approach. A good assessment should provide a clear understanding of the risks identified, explain what action may be needed and help those responsible for managing the building prioritise their next steps.
It is also important to remember that a risk assessment is not a one-off exercise. Water systems, buildings and their use can change over time so assessments should be reviewed when significant changes occur and in line with the organisation’s wider water safety management arrangements.
While many organisations offer Legionella Risk Assessments, the quality, depth and expertise behind them can vary significantly.
A risk assessment should go beyond simply ticking boxes. It requires technical understanding of water systems, legislation, guidance and the practical challenges faced by those responsible for managing buildings.
An effective assessment should consider factors such as:
System design and configuration.
Hot and cold water storage and distribution.
Associated systems.
Primary or secondary control measures such as temperatures or biocide.
Areas of stagnation or low use.
Management and training responsibilities.
Maintenance and monitoring arrangements.
Building occupancy and vulnerability of users.
Historical issues and future changes to the building.
The outcome should be clear, practical advice that helps you reduce risk – not just a report that identifies problems without providing solutions.
When selecting a provider, accreditation can be one factor to consider when assessing competence and quality.
UKAS accreditation for Legionella Risk Assessment demonstrates that an organisation’s relevant assessment activities, technical competence and quality management systems have been independently assessed against recognised standards.
There are currently only a small number of organisations in the UK holding UKAS accreditation specifically for Legionella Risk Assessments. For those commissioning an assessment, checking the scope of a provider’s accreditation can help establish what activities have been assessed and accredited.
Accreditation should be considered alongside other factors, including relevant experience, assessor competence, independence and the ability to provide clear, practical and proportionate recommendations.
The post Legionella Risk Assessments: Why they matter appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
Is it responsible to encourage women to join the construction sector before meaningful change in workplace culture has taken place? This will be the one of the key talking points at CIOB’s free to join EDI day on Wednesday 18 November.
Across the sector, barriers to opportunity, representation, and inclusion continue to affect talented individuals and limit the industry’s ability to attract and retain the workforce it needs for the future. In the UK alone, 251,500 extra workers will be required to meet industry needs by 2028 (50,300 per year).
This is why, now more than ever, we must come together to acknowledge and understand that the construction sector will need to make significant changes to achieve its goals.
The built environment shapes everyone’s life; yet the industry itself does not always reflect the diversity of the communities it serves. As talent demand grows higher than ever, creating inclusive cultures is no longer just the right thing to do. It is a business, talent, and sustainability imperative.
CIOB’s EDI Day 2026 is designed for anyone who wants to be a part of that change. Whether you are a contractor, consultant, client, educator, policymaker, people professional, or emerging leader, the event will provide practical insights to help drive meaningful progress within your organisation and across the wider industry.
What you’ll learn from our event:
How inclusive workplaces improve employee wellbeing, innovation, and organisational performance
The barriers faced by underrepresented groups within the construction industry and how these can be addressed
The role of leadership, allyship, and accountability in creating lasting cultural change
How accessible design and inclusive practices can create better outcomes for employees, members, clients, and communities
Examples of successful initiatives that are driving measurable change across the built environment
The opportunities created by encouraging more women to enter the industry today
The sessions have been designed to move beyond policy and theory, focussing instead on practical actions that individuals and organisations can take immediately.
This year, we will have a debate session, putting forward arguments for and against the question: ‘Before meaningful change in workplace culture has taken place, is it responsible to encourage women to join the construction sector?’
The debate will be an interactive session, with the audience acting as the ‘jury’ and voting at the end for the argument they find most compelling.
As construction continues to evolve, attracting and retaining diverse talent will be critical to its future success. Creating environments where people feel respected, valued, and able to contribute fully benefits not only individuals but also teams, organisations, and the industry.
The event will conclude with a thought-provoking panel discussion exploring one central question: what will it take to build an industry where everyone truly belongs?
For me, that question sits at the heart of EDI. Progress requires more than good intentions. It requires action, collaboration, and a willingness to challenge the way things have always been done.
We already have over 370 people registered, so don’t miss out- join us now!
To register, visit this page.
The post What works? Join the debate at CIOB EDI Day appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
MRW News round-up October 2026 Caerphilly recycling facility approved, CIWM shuffle board, Sunderland retailer fined for waste records and Epsom & Ewell fleet upgrade News round-up October 2026 MRW Reporter Read More