When the Building Safety Act 2022 was introduced, the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) was held up as a linchpin for ensuring safer, compliant higher-risk buildings (HRBs) across England. Its creation was meant to be a landmark response to longstanding failures, epitomised by the Grenfell tragedy. But two years later, questions remain: is the BSR equipped to deliver on its promises? And what are the risks if it can’t?
With roughly 12,500 existing HRBs needing safety case reviews, 400–500 new buildings requiring gateway submissions annually, and a regulatory system struggling under the weight of its own complexity, there’s a very real possibility that delays, inefficiencies, and capacity shortfalls could undermine the Act’s ambitious goals. Here’s a closer look.
A Mammoth Task
The BSR’s staffing levels reveal a story of well-intentioned ambition meeting practical limitations. In late 2022, the regulator reported having 216 staff, with a target of expanding to 480 employees.
While the number sounds sufficient on paper, the reality is far more complicated.
Specialist Expertise Required: Reviewing safety cases and gateway submissions is not an administrative task. It demands a deep understanding of fire safety, structural integrity, and compliance legislation. Many of the roles within the BSR require highly specialised knowledge, and the pool of qualified candidates is small.
Time Pressures: A typical safety case review might take 20 hours, depending on the complexity of the building and the quality of the submission. With 12,500 cases to review, that’s 250,000 hours of work—not including follow-ups, clarifications, or enforcement.
Recruitment Realities: Public sector hiring struggles to compete with private-sector salaries for technical roles, and training recruits takes time. Even if the target of 480 staff is met, not all will have the expertise to contribute directly to reviews.
The result? The BSR is playing catch-up before it has even started, and the scale of the workload makes it hard to see how it will ever get ahead.
The Submission Problem
One of the biggest hurdles for the BSR is the format and quality of the submissions it receives. Safety case reports and gateway applications come from a variety of stakeholders—developers, contractors, and building owners—with wildly varying levels of competence.
Lack of Standardisation:
Submissions often arrive as PDFs, spreadsheets, or Word documents with no consistent structure. This inconsistency forces the BSR to spend extra time extracting, clarifying, and organising information, rather than focusing on analysis.
Inadequate Detail:
Many reports are rushed or incomplete, reflecting a lack of understanding about what’s required. This creates a cycle of rejections, resubmissions, and delays.
Manual Processes:
The reliance on outdated formats means reviews are largely manual. There’s little in the way of automation or digital integration to streamline the process, leaving the regulator bogged down in administrative tasks.
Knock-On Effects
The delays within the BSR have far-reaching consequences, affecting not just developers and building owners but also public trust and safety.
Safety Risks: With safety case reviews taking longer than anticipated, critical risks in existing HRBs—such as inadequate fire safety measures—may go unaddressed for years. For residents, this is more than a compliance issue; it’s a question of whether their homes are safe.
Project Delays: Developers face escalating costs as gateway approvals drag on. This not only stifles new construction but also reduces investor confidence in the high-rise residential sector.
Public Confidence: The BSR was meant to restore faith in building safety regulation, but delays and inefficiencies risk eroding that trust. If the regulator is seen as ineffective, it could undermine the credibility of the entire system.
Capacity Isn’t the Only Issue
While staffing levels are a critical part of the problem, they are not the whole story. Even with a full complement of 480 staff, systemic issues within the regulatory framework would remain:
Regulatory Complexity: The Building Safety Act has introduced layers of requirements that even experienced professionals struggle to navigate. The BSR often acts as a de facto guide, walking stakeholders through the process rather than enforcing compliance.
Industry Resistance: Many developers and building owners view the new regime as burdensome. This resistance leads to poor-quality submissions, last-minute compliance efforts, and a culture of doing the bare minimum.
Technology Gaps: The absence of a centralised digital platform for submissions is a glaring omission. A more integrated, tech-driven approach could significantly reduce the administrative burden, but such systems remain a long way off.
A System at Risk
The BSR’s struggles are symptomatic of a broader issue: the weight of expectation placed on a system that is underfunded, understaffed, and overburdened. The regulator has been tasked with solving problems decades in the making, but without the tools, resources, or processes to do so effectively.
This isn’t just a regulatory issue—it’s a systemic risk. If the BSR can’t meet its mandate, the consequences could be severe:
Buildings that should be deemed unsafe will remain occupied.
New developments will face prolonged delays, exacerbating housing shortages.
Public trust in the government’s ability to ensure safety and compliance will erode further.
What Next?
As of November 2024, it’s clear that the BSR’s challenges are not going away anytime soon. The question now is whether the government will step in to address these issues—whether through increased funding, streamlined processes, or a greater emphasis on technology.
For the industry, the message is clear: delays are inevitable, and patience will be required. But for residents, developers, and all those invested in building safety, patience is a luxury that comes with a cost.
At Building Passport, we understand the challenges of managing building information in a fragmented and complex regulatory environment. Our platform helps building owners and operators organise, categorise, and securely store critical building information in one place, making it readily accessible for safety case preparation and compliance submissions.
By simplifying information management, we enable faster, more efficient collaboration with regulators like the BSR, reducing delays and improving outcomes for everyone involved.
Comments