Written evidence from Architecture for London Ltd and AFL Build Ltd (BSR0068)

To: House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee

Inquiry: The Work of the Building Safety Regulator

About Us

Architecture for London is a London-based architectural practice specialising in sustainable residential refurbishment and extension projects. We are a team of approximately 20 architects, designers, and support staff. AFL Build is our sister company, a building contractor delivering our design projects with a team of project managers and regular subcontractors.

Our projects typically involve private domestic clients and range in construction value from £200k to £2m. The majority are small-scale refurbishments and extensions of existing residential buildings, often with a strong emphasis on environmental performance, including upgrades to insulation, airtightness, and use of low-carbon materials.

We are currently involved in projects that fall within the remit of the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) due to their location within high-rise residential buildings.

 

Summary of Experience with the BSR

To date, we have submitted two applications through the BSR, with two more planned in the coming months:

These are modest, internal refurbishment projects within high-rise buildings — such as window replacements or layout adjustments — undertaken by private homeowners.

In our experience, the current BSR regulatory process is disproportionate for projects of this scale, lacks transparency, and imposes substantial costs and delays with no clear benefit to building safety.

 

Responses to Committee Questions

1. Has the BSR improved building safety?

We have seen no evidence that the BSR system, as currently implemented, improves safety over the previous Building Control regime, especially for small-scale refurbishment works. If anything, the delays and uncertainty introduced are more likely to lead to non-compliance or circumvention of the system, thereby reducing safety in the long term.

2. Impact on delivery and maintenance of buildings

The BSR’s regulatory framework is actively delaying routine maintenance and refurbishment of high-rise flats. For instance, one client is currently unable to replace mouldy, single-glazed windows due to the unresolved BSR approval. This is a significant health and wellbeing issue.

We anticipate that this regime will cause further deterioration in existing housing stock as owners defer or abandon works due to the costs and delays involved.

3. Implications for housing targets

While our projects do not directly contribute to new housing numbers, the BSR’s impact on refurbishment will indirectly affect supply by delaying or deterring works to make existing homes more habitable, sustainable, or efficient.

For new high-rise developments, we believe the BSR or a revised version of it, is an appropriate measure, but its impact is disproportionately burdensome on small-scale interventions, compared to more systemic issues such as planning delays, supply chain constraints, or land availability.

4. Balance of outcomes-based regulation

The BSR's approach appears highly prescriptive in practice, despite its stated outcomes-based intent. Requirements are unclear, and feedback on submissions is often impenetrable, even for experienced architects. There seems to be a rigid internal standard not shared with applicants, making it difficult to comply.

5–6. Approval process proportionality and clarity

The BSR process is not proportionate for small works. Each application, regardless of scale, seems to require a full suite of documentation and incurs the same level of scrutiny. There is no guidance on expected fees, which vary unpredictably.

Architects and clients are often unable to interpret the BSR’s comments or anticipate their expectations. The lack of clear templates, examples, or decision-making criteria makes the process opaque.

We strongly recommend:

7. Developer understanding and prescriptive guidance

In our case, the issue is not developer ignorance, but rather a lack of usable information and dialogue from the BSR. Developers and designers are willing to meet reasonable standards but need practical, accessible guidance — not vague outcomes or contradictory feedback.

8. Organisation-focused vs. building-focused approvals

We do not currently support a move to organisation-based approvals unless this is optional and properly resourced. Small-scale projects must still be addressed individually, especially where the responsible parties change per project. However, a trusted provider scheme, where proven applicants can benefit from simplified processes, could be explored.

9. Delays and resource constraints

The BSR is clearly under-resourced. Both of our applications remain undetermined beyond the stated 8–12 week timeframe.

If additional funding could expedite application processing, this may be acceptable to clients — provided there is fee transparency and service level accountability. However, fee increases without performance improvements would be unacceptable.

10. Availability of skilled staff

We believe the regulator is struggling to recruit and retain skilled, multidisciplinary staff. Pay, training, and secondment arrangements may all need to be revisited. We would support:

11. Impact on low-rise buildings and coordination with building control

We do not see evidence of the BSR improving safety in low-rise buildings at this time. The relationship between BSR and local building control appears disconnected. There needs to be closer alignment and shared understanding between BSR and building control authorities.

12. Structural issues vs. growing pains

While some delays may be attributable to teething problems, our experience suggests structural issues with the framework. These include:

These will not resolve without policy change and investment.

13–14. Construction product regulation and international comparisons

We are concerned that the BSR’s emphasis on fire performance above all else is resulting in regulatory disincentives for sustainable measures, including materials, such as wood-based materials, even when performance is robust and supported by evidence. This undermines wider government ambitions on net zero and circular economy. If we cannot meet net zero targets, this will also have a significant impact on health and longevity in the population.

A more balanced approach to material safety and environmental impact is needed.

We would welcome a comparative review of building safety regulators in jurisdictions with high standards and efficiency (e.g. New Zealand, Germany, or the Netherlands).

Key Recommendations

  1. Introduce a tiered approval process for refurbishment projects, based on scale and risk. Smaller scale projects should be referred back to the Local Authority building control. 
  2. Publish clear guidance, documentation templates, and fee structures for common project types.
  3. Cap or standardise fees to make the system viable for private homeowners.
  4. Prioritise resourcing and skills training within the BSR to meet statutory deadlines.
  5. Align fire safety with sustainability goals, allowing evidence-based use of low-carbon materials.
  6. Establish a pathway for appeals, similar to the Planning Inspectorate model.
  7. Add further exemptions or streamlined pathways for internal refurbishment works to Schedule 2 of the Building Safety Regulations.

     

 

Conclusion

We fully support the Government’s intention to improve safety following the Grenfell tragedy. However, for small-scale projects in existing high-rise buildings, the current BSR system is not delivering that goal — and may be undermining public trust, sustainability ambitions, and housing quality.

We urge the Committee to recommend meaningful reform to ensure that building safety regulation is effective, proportionate, and practical for the range of building types and project scales it governs.

 

22 August 2025