Written evidence from Southern Housing (BSR0085)

1)  Has the introduction of the BSR improved the safety of the buildings it is responsible for?

The BSR is on a journey toward improved safety but remains far from the end goal.

The current framework relies heavily on trust, which creates a risk that unscrupulous landlords will exploit the system.

Without a consistent on-the-ground presence from the BSR, untrustworthy landlords may continue to operate largely unchecked particularly in cases involving illegal subletting, etc. where residents in these situations may be too afraid to speak out about building safety issues leaving them at risk.

Conversely, landlords who are actively working to improve building safety are met with continual challenges and fear of penalties if they make a mistake even when trying to work transparently.  This creates a disincentive for moral and responsible behaviour, which should instead be supported and encouraged. An example of this is the risk of penalties for late registration of HRBs – as a responsible landlord continually improving data on occasion an unrecognised HRB will need to be registered.

The complexity and volume of building-controlled works requirements, coupled with insufficient guidance and delays in Gateway 2 approvals, contribute to an environment where safety improvements are delayed. This may lead less principled landlords to proceed with works without seeking or obtaining Building Safety Regulator (BSR) approval.

There is also a lack of consideration for the resource constraints faced by landlords. The continually increasing regulatory demands risk leading to avoidance or ignorance, which in turn could result in essential safety works being neglected and ultimately making buildings less safe.

Contact channels are fragmented and there is no contact directory for specific teams making it hard get tailored advice.  There are also significant digital system limitations within the BSR.  Contact is not conducted in a proactive, collaborative approach and there are insufficient support channels with contradictory advice from different BSR teams on the same issue such as what documentation is required at Gateway 2.  This inconsistency forces duty holders to second-guess compliance decisions, increasing risk and delaying progress to improve building safety.

Recommendations:

• Increase on-the-ground enforcement to deter bad actors.
• Introduce mechanisms to differentiate between deliberate non-compliance and honest disclosures.
• Provide clearer, more timely guidance and support, for example Gateway 2 applications.
• Consider the resource implications for landlords and offer scalable compliance pathways.
• Improve communication channels.

2)  Does the Building Safety Regulator’s regulatory framework strike the right balance between providing a holistic, outcomes-based view of safety and ensuring that developers and building owners understand what they are required to do?

No.  The lack of clear, consistent guidance from the BSR is a persistent and damaging issue mitigating its effectiveness.  There is ambiguity in application requirements with many Gateway 2 submissions rejected or delayed due to unclear expectations and advice. 

The criteria for a “compliant” application are not well defined, leading to confusion about what constitutes sufficient documentation or evidence.

The BSR has not yet published comprehensive technical guidance on key aspects of the Building Safety Act 2022.

There is a lack of specialist knowledge needed for complex building safety issues within the BSR which has led to duty holders and consultants having to rely on their own interpretation, increasing the risk of non-compliance or overly cautious interpretations of the law, rather than pragmatic, risk-based guidance tailored to the construction and housing sectors.

Communication channels and support are poor (as detailed above).

Recommendations:

• Clearer guidance documents.
• Streamlined application processes.
• Better, more consistent communication and support channels

3)  What impacts could the framework have on the delivery of the Government’s housing targets?

Increasing the administrative burden, severe delays in building-controlled approvals, disconnection from stakeholders leaving them navigating a complex system alone and inconsistent advice will only lead to increased costs and viability challenges, a slowing down of construction starts and subsequent delays in achieving Government’s housing targets.

4)  To what extent are delays in approvals for high-rise buildings down to the regulatory processes used by the BSR?

Significantly.  Increasing application rejections due to regulatory complexity and documentation requirements coupled with lack of support and guidance are a major barrier.

Recommendations:

• Increase staffing with competent staff at the BSR
• Clearer guidance documents.
• Streamlined application processes.
• Better, more consistent communication channels.
• Improved fast-track for certain applications.

5)  Are the BSR’s approval processes sufficiently clear and understandable to developers?

No.  The Gateway 2 process lacks transparency and communication from the BSR around what is expected, how long approvals will take, and how the day-to-day process works. 

The guidance is unclear and what guidance there is, is poorly understood by many applicants.

6)  Does the BSR have access to the skilled staff necessary to carry out multidisciplinary assessments of safety?

No.  This is evidenced by the monumental delays in issuing/refusing of BAC’s.  There is a lack of sector-specific in-house expertise needed for building safety case report assessments within the BSR, and we understand fire and structural reviews have been contracted out to third party specialists. The ability of BSR staff and contracted specialists to provide quality and consistent reviews of BSCR’s has been brought into question as has the framework by which they operate being too limited and constricting to facilitate, delve into and properly understand a buildings safety.  Combined this equates to the slow pace of awarding BAC’s, inconsistencies in decision-making and unnecessarily high costs to applicants which charges for the inefficiencies of the BSR.

Furthermore, we understand that invoicing is not transparent, has no standardised format and it is difficult to reconcile costs against specific activities or projects.

There is no online dashboard where duty holders can track the status of applications, view correspondence history or upload or amend documents.

Recommendations:

• Increased staffing with competent assessors.
• Better approaches to ensure building safety can be understood by the assessor not just completing tick boxes.
• Clearer invoicing standards with caps or thresholds for routine interactions.

7)  Is the relationship between the BSR and building control authorities and inspectors working well?

No comment as not directly involved in this area.

8)  How does the Building Safety Regulator’s work relate to the regulation of construction products?

No comment as not directly involved in this area.

9)  How does the Building Safety Regulator’s regulatory framework compare to how building safety is assured in other countries and jurisdictions?

Unknown.

Further comments:

Key Building Information – BSR portal

Registrations are often delayed due to long turnaround times which delays occupation of new builds.  There is no published SLA for how long registration/ amendments should take.

Recommendation:

• Create and monitor SLAs

27 August 2025