Written evidence from the Building Safety Regulator (BSR0156)
Executive Summary
Overview
The Building Safety Regulator (BSR), and the regulatory framework that BSR administers on behalf of Government in England, was set up through the Building Safety Act 2022 (the Act), and its associated regulations.
This framework consists of several distinct regulatory elements.
The Act was based on the recommendations made by the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety, chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt in response to the Grenfell Tower fire. The review aimed to tackle the key issues identified in the industry, including: ignorance of regulations and guidance; indifference towards the quality and safety of homes; a lack of clarity on roles and responsibilities; and inadequate regulatory and enforcement tools.
The policies underpinning the Act and associated regulations were subject to extensive public consultation by Government, as well as parliamentary scrutiny, and give BSR numerous responsibilities. They are designed to support the delivery of high-quality new HRBs, improve the safety of existing HRBs, and ensure residents across the built environment are safe and feel safe.
BSR must regulate within these laws.
During the set-up phase of the regime and regulator, BSR worked extensively with multiple partners and stakeholders to develop regulatory procedures and approaches that were practical, met the expectations of the Regulators’ Code (as reproduced in Section 3(2)(a) of the Act) and would achieve positive, sustainable change.
These stakeholders included regulatory partners in local authorities and fire and rescue services (through the Joint Regulators’ Group), industry representatives (through the Early Adopters’ forum), residents (through the Statutory Residents’ Panel and the interim panel that preceded it), other government departments, and markets (through the then Market Access Panel). BSR also engaged stakeholders through formal consultations, such as that on the draft Building Inspector Competence Framework.
Nevertheless, it was always clear that the new regime, processes and procedures would not emerge fully formed and without flaws. Therefore, we also set out to be a learning regulator, working in an evidence-based, proportionate manner, and have made changes to our processes based on stakeholder feedback and experience operating the new framework.
This has included subjecting our regulatory services to ‘end-to-end’ reviews at around the 12-month point, and responding to interim feedback (for example, on issues with the digital portals and difficulties in reimbursing regulatory partners for work done on behalf of the BSR).
In the following paragraphs, we seek to outline the regime and HSE/BSR’s roles, and how the safety of buildings is being improved.
Planning stage
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is a statutory consultee for developments that include tall residential buildings or educational accommodation such as purpose-built student accommodation in England. This requirement was brought into legislation in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 by amendments in 2021, and as such is not directly connected to HSE’s role as the BSR.
These buildings are referred to as “relevant buildings” at the planning stage. The definition of a relevant building is the same as an HRB under the in-occupation part of the Act. It therefore does not include hospitals and care homes. The focus of HSE’s role at the planning stage is on a “development”, which may be just a single building or multiple buildings and their immediate environment.
This stage, known as Planning Gateway One (PGO), provides advice to Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) about fire safety matters relevant to land use planning in developments that include a relevant building or are within the curtilage of a relevant building. It is for the LPA to consider HSE’s advice and decide what weight to attach to it in the context of making their decision on whether to grant planning permission for the development. HSE also offers a non-statutory pre-application advice service to applicants and LPAs.
The policy intent behind PGO was introduced into Planning Practice Guidance by MHCLG in June 2021, “The changes are intended to help ensure that applicants and decision-makers consider planning issues relevant to fire safety, bringing forward thinking on fire safety matters as they relate to land use planning to the earliest possible stage in the development process and result in better schemes which fully integrate thinking on fire safety”.
PGO began operating on 1 August 2021, before the Act was passed. In the first full calendar year of operation (2022) we objected to 57% of planning applications. In 2023 this fell to 35%, and in 2024 it fell again to 17%. We estimate the objection rate to again be 17% in 2025 based on current projections.
The main factors which have influenced the drop in objections are that industry has gradually improved its thinking about fire safety earlier in the design development process because of scrutiny at the planning stage. Also, changes in fire standards and guidance have introduced an expectation that tall residential developments will be provided with at least two stairs. Most objections in the early days of PGO were focused on single stair designs that typically offered insufficient connections between the only means of escape/firefighting access and areas of higher fire risk such as covered car parks and refuse stores. The revised guidance on second stairs has had a profound effect on the quality of fire safety design by ensuring that enough space in and around the development is devoted to fire safety.
Building Control
Summary: BSR acts to ensure the safety of residents in both existing and future HRBs. BSR assesses whether building control applications demonstrate compliance with the Building Regulations, thus preventing buildings that do not comply with safety requirements and other standards from being built and preventing potentially unsafe homes from being occupied.
BSR has been the Building Control Authority for HRBs in England since 1st October 2023. This involves ensuring that dutyholders (clients, principal contractors, contractors, principal designers and designers) comply with the regulatory requirements established under Part 3 of the Act. We check that dutyholders demonstrate compliance with all applicable building regulations’ requirements, and that building safety is considered at every stage of design and construction.
The Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (England) Regulations 2023 (HRB Regulations) set out the procedural requirements that dutyholders must meet in relation to HRB work such as securing BSR approval before work can commence.
These stages include:
The ‘hard stop’ at Gateway 2 was recommended by Dame Judith Hackitt in her Independent Review and accepted by the Government. Dame Judith Hackitt intended that this “…should drive a culture change where dutyholders apply more rigour and upfront investment in detailed plans before building work actually commences”.[6]
Notably, the Act and the HRB Regulations did not change the functional requirements of the building regulations, which remain largely the same for HRBs and non-HRBs.
These requirements establish outcome-based performance standards for buildings and building works. They cover a wide range of elements, including structure (Part A), fire (Part B), transfer of noise (Part E), prevention of falls (Part K) and electrical safety (Part P).
The BSR has faced challenges in delivering timely determinations on Gateway 2 with many applications taking far longer to process than should be the case. We have been open and honest about these challenges and set these out, alongside the actions we have now taken to address them, in our response to Question 2 below.
Whilst it is clear that BSR’s operational performance needs to improve to support the sector, our experience to date is that a significant proportion of applications do not sufficiently demonstrate how the proposed building will comply with the Building Regulations. We continue to work with the sector to be clear on what level of evidence is appropriate, but it is clear that the Gateway 2 process is demanding more clarity and rigour from the sector than was previously the case.
A particular example of a building where the BSR’s approach helped identify and resolve critical fire safety issues has been provided here. This was a newly completed building that had been transferred into the new regime under the transitional provisions in the legislation. An inspection by the Principal Fire Engineer at the London Fire Brigade (LFB), during final safety checks before occupation, found multiple failures in the fire safety systems. These included:
BSR refused the approval until all the safety issues were resolved, and worked closely with the LFB, the developers, and fire safety engineers to resolve these systematically. BSR issued formal compliance notices on the developers and conducted additional site inspections. BSR also facilitated technical discussions between developers, fire engineers, and the LFB, which helped come up with practical solutions for the safety concerns.
Once the developer had completed all the required corrective actions, BSR granted approval for residents to move in. This ensured they would occupy a building that met legal standards, and that their safety needs were put first.
Register of HRBs
BSR has a register of HRBs to ensure that the location and all accountable persons of these buildings is known, and critical information about the buildings is available.
Under Part 4 of the Act, all existing occupied HRBs were required to be registered with BSR by 30th September 2023, and all new HRBs must now be registered before they can be occupied. This ensures that BSR has basic information on all HRBs and the details of those responsible for ensuring building safety, known as Principal Accountable Persons (PAPs) and Accountable Persons (APs). Residents and the wider public can search the register by postcode on GOV.UK to find information such as the PAP and AP(s) for an HRB. As of 29th August 2025, there were 13,075 HRBs registered.
In this context, building safety is defined by the Act as structural failure and spread of fire. Matters such as anti-social behaviour, security and ventilation are covered by other legislation and regulatory bodies.
Building Assessment Certificates
Summary: BSR is assessing how those who own and operate HRBs are managing the risks of spread of fire and structural failure so that the people who live in their buildings are safe in their homes. In a significant proportion of cases, BSR is having to take action to secure improvements in order to protect the safety of residents and/or to make sure that they are properly involved in decisions that affect their safety.
BSR is required to assess all occupied HRBs for their Building Assessment Certificate (BAC).
The BAC is an assessment of whether the PAP, and any other APs for the building, are complying with specific duties in Part 4 of the Act and associated regulations. These include duties to assess and manage building safety risks, preparing a residents’ engagement strategy, and establishing a system for recording and reporting certain building safety incidents.
Managing building safety risks involves APs taking all reasonable steps to prevent building safety risks materialising, and to reduce the severity of any incident if they do.
We are aiming to direct and assess applications from all existing HRBs over a five-year period. In order to bring greater certainty for PAPs, APs, residents and the market, BSR worked with MHCLG and our fellow regulators in building control and the fire and rescue services to group these buildings into phases of work, known as Tranches.
These Tranches are based on the Key Building Information (KBI) in the HRB Register and use broad proxies of risk, such as building height. The first tranche included the tallest buildings (50 metres plus) with the largest number of residential units, and those with particular risk factors such as Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) external wall cladding and buildings of large panel system construction with mains gas supplies. BSR began to direct PAPs in this tranche to apply for BACs from May 2024, and issued the first decisions in January 2025.
We believe that our work has already positively impacted those who live in HRBs, along with those potentially most as risk.
In a number of cases, the process has identified buildings with serious deficiencies which necessitated multi-agency interventions to ensure risks are managed in both the short- and longer-term to ensure the safety of residents.
As of 29th August 2025, of 346 applications assessed, only 78 were approved, and 268 were refused – a failure rate of over 77%. The reasons for the rejections varied. Some PAPs had not made a proper assessment of building safety risks. A small number had not given any consideration to structural failure at all. Other organisations did not demonstrate that they were taking all reasonable steps to manage risks identified.
Evaluations of this part of the new regime are still at an early stage, but initial emerging data is generally positive, alongside providing lessons on how BSR can improve its operations further. This work will be published in due course.
Building Regulations and guidance
Summary: BSR is improving the suite of guidance that supports those with duties in understanding what the law requires of them and how they can comply.
BSR advises the Secretary of State for MHCLG on the Building Regulations and produces guidance on compliance in common building situations through the Approved Documents. Since April 2023, BSR been responsible for reviewing and updating the Approved Documents.
BSR has delivered improvements to the fire safety guidance within Approved Document B. Through recent changes, additions have been made to:
BSR is committed to undertaking a continuous review of the fire safety guidance within Approved Document B. The next proposed changes will respond to recommendations set out in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report and stakeholder feedback, and are informed by research undertaken as part of the on-going technical review of Approved Document B.
BSR has also published guidance to help applicants for building control approval and those applying for BACs understand what they needed to do.
Early suites of guidance covered the new concept of the building safety case and safety case report, and reasonable steps. It was developed with support and comment from organisations and representative bodies drawn from parts of industry that designed and built HRBs and those that owned and operated them. It also had the benefit of input from our regulatory partners in the fire and rescue services, building control profession, local government, MHCLG and the fire policy teams who at that time worked in the Home Office. Much of this material preceded the Act and associated regulations and so was constructed around concepts and principles, rather than legally defined steps.
Once the regulations were in place, some 12 months later than was originally envisaged, we were able to produce guidance on the processes for making an application for building control approval. This was much later than we would have wished, but the absence of defined legal standards limited our scope to develop this material.
All our guidance has been iterated to reflect feedback and learning. This has included contributions from applicants and formal insight/social science research. We have also actively promoted and supported industry sectors to produce their own material, such as the extensive suite of guidance recently produced by the Construction Leadership Council (CLC), published July 2025.
We are currently working with CLC on their next phase of material, to include guidance on Gateway 3 applications.
Facilitating the competence of the industry and the building control profession
The role of BSR is to facilitate improvements in competence of industry as well as building inspectors. This covers all industries across the built environment, from site acquisition to design and construction to management of buildings through to decommissioning.
One of the ways it is doing this has been to set up and support the Industry Competence Committee (ICC), a statutory committee set up by the Act, to act as an authoritative voice on competence and give guidance to industry,
The ICC’s objectives are to:
BSR has supported ICC and its working groups to develop guidance, for example, guidance for building inspectors giving advice.
Additionally, BSR has written guidance for dutyholders, such as Principal Designers, on how to comply with the new duties. This guidance is aimed at all those with duties under building regulations, not just those working on HRBs.
BSR has also carried out insight research to understand how to approach and take action to improve industry culture in addition to embedding the HRB regime and regulating the Building Control profession. To this end, we have developed a framework to help articulate what culture change might look like in practical terms for everyone leading and working in the built environment industries. The framework identifies five drivers of positive change:
We are starting to pilot the approach with the support of the DfE Schools Programme and their key delivery partners. The framework has five areas of focus and associated tools for industry to use. We aim to refine the framework and toolkit and make it widely available to industry over the coming year.
With regards to improvements in the competence of building control inspectors, BSR has created a Competence Framework (BICoF) and set criteria for assessments schemes to assess building inspectors against the framework. These standards were developed in collaboration with the profession. Of those assessed (approximately 3,000), 70% have proved their competence at the level they were expecting.
BSR is building its capability to baseline and monitor industry improvements in competence. Information and data from this together with interpretation from the ICC should enable BSR to develop and target further interventions for improvements in industry competence.
Other duties
BSR has a duty to keep the safety and standards of all buildings under review, as part of Section 5 of the Building Safety Act. BSR is building its capacity and capability to harvest information and data, analyse and make judgements on risks to safety and standards in the built environment, and their relative prioritisation. We review these risks on a continuous cycle, and we have provided a summary report to MHCLG and ministers on a quarterly basis since the start of 2025.
As we improve and iterate our understanding and assessment of these risks, we will increasingly use data collected from our work as a building control authority and BACs to develop a picture of legacy issues, current issues and future challenges and opportunities for building safety and standards.
BSR has also supported government to respond to emerging and legacy issues across the built environment. One example of this was through engagement with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), after routine checks identified widespread cases of poor-quality solid wall insulation installed under inherited Energy Company Obligation 4 (ECO4) and Great British Insulation Scheme (GBIS). BSR provided technical advice on the severity of the issues raised with substandard and noncompliant installation work.
We also supported the response to concerns around Reinforced Aerated Autoclaved Concrete (RAAC) and continue to undertake research into the safety and standards of volumetric methods of construction (VMC).
BSR also has a duty to maintain three statutory committees – the Building Advisory Committee, the ICC, and the Statutory Residents’ Panel. This ensures that BSR engages effectively with the various industries and sectors involved in the design, construction and operation of buildings; and allows residents of HRBs to have a voice in how we regulate, ensuring they feel and are safe in their homes.
Overview
BSR must regulate in accordance with the law set by Parliament. This law requires approval by BSR before building work on HRBs can commence. Parliament deemed this to be necessary to protect the safety and standards of people's homes.
The new building safety framework was agreed by Parliament in response to the terrible loss of life in the Grenfell Tower fire. The parts of the regime that apply to HRBs seek to ensure the delivery of high-quality, safe homes for residents.
BSR is committed to continuous improvement and has made significant changes to its processes, procedures and digital systems to make the application process more efficient. Further improvements are in train.
The impact of the new regulatory regime delivered by BSR
An important element of the building safety reforms was the introduction of the new, more stringent building control regime which legally requires BSR approval as building control authority for HRBs before building work (as defined in law) can commence. Commonly known as Gateway 2, this approval process is required for both new builds and building work in existing HRBs unless one of the exemptions mentioned in Question 1 applies.
Firstly, BSR must approve a Building Control Approval Application (BCAA) including full plans and all accompanying documents required under Schedule 1 of the HRB Regulations (known as Gateway 2), before building work can commence.
Under the previous building control regime this stage was known as Plans Approval. Building work could commence without waiting for the building control authority to grant approval. This remains the case for any building work in non-HRBs.
The Gateway 2 process involves rigorous assessment by a Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) which typically includes a Registered Building Inspector (RBI), a fire safety professional, and other expert resource as required to advise BSR.
Currently, BSR uses RBIs at level 3H on the Building Inspector Competence Framework, who are among the most experienced and knowledgeable inspectors available. Sourced from local authorities or private sector building control providers, these are the professionals who are likely to have been involved in building control oversight of HRBs under the previous regime.
MDTs draw fire safety input from Fire and Rescue Services (FRS) through Fire Safety Inspectors. FRS may also provide more highly qualified Fire Engineers where the MDT decides that the complexity of the project and/or its fire prevention/control strategy requires this higher level of knowledge and qualification.
MDTs also routinely include suitably qualified structural engineers. Other professions may also be drawn in from time to time, such as acoustic specialists.
At this stage, BSR checks that the proposed work will comply with both the functional requirements and the new management requirements of building regulations. This means that we check the client has robust processes in place to appoint competent people to work on the project and that the appointed principal designer and principal contractor have robust arrangements in place to plan, to manage, and to monitor both the design and building work necessary to realise the project. Construction cannot begin until BSR has given approval, ensuring non-compliant work is not undertaken.
The new regime acknowledges that despite this level of preparation, change through the construction phase will still be inevitable. There is provision for projects to make changes to both what they proposed to build and how they proposed to manage the work. The law now requires every change to be properly assessed to ensure the consequences and impact are fully understood and everyone can be confident the building work will remain compliant after the change.
BSR, working through the MDT, must also approve the completion of building work (Gateway 3) and can only issue a completion certificate if, after taking reasonable steps, it is satisfied that the as built building work complies with all applicable building regulations’ requirements.
In the case of new residential HRBs, buildings cannot be registered or legally occupied without a completion certificate. This ensures HRBs are not occupied without an assessment that they meet relevant standards. BSR also checks that the ‘golden thread’ of information has been received by the PAP/AP in a form that ensures they have the information needed to assess and manage building safety risks (structural failure and the spread of fire) in their building once occupied.
The new procedural requirements for HRBs have caused challenges for the construction industry, who have previously not been asked to demonstrate compliance with building regulations so thoroughly before being able to start building work.
Challenges and Delays at Gateway 2
BSR has been open and honest about the significant challenges it has faced in delivering the new regime. The processing times for Gateway 2 applications is, on average, far in excess of statutory targets and longer than the BSR would wish. The BSR acknowledges that some applications have been subject to unacceptable delays and that this has a real impact on the ability of developers to plan and conduct their work.
The BSR depends on collaboration from regulatory partners and others to assemble MDT teams to assess building control applications, and this has taken considerably longer than originally expected. In Building Control, MDTs are taking on average 5-6 weeks to convene for the first time and begin contributing to a case. This makes it extremely difficult to meet the statutory timelines of 8 weeks for applications relating to work on existing HRBs, and 12 weeks for applications for new build HRBs.
BSR operational processes were intentionally designed to rely on expertise in other regulatory organisations, supported by industry, by believing in the strength of different organisations coming together to regulate while also managing the known shortage of skilled specialists. However, we do recognise that these issues have led to impacts on some new projects starting.
BSR’s Response to these challenges
BSR has been taking steps to mitigate these impacts as much as possible, whilst continuing to operate as required by law. BSR have learned from the issues we have encountered and listened to industry. BSR continues to make improvements.
In mid-2024 we modified the processes for checking that all legally required documents have been submitted (validation) to ensure it took no longer than five working days. We also brought forward planned recruitment of regulatory leads and case officers by six months to bolster capacity and made improvements to digital systems to improve applicants’ experience and for our MDT partners.
More recently, we have reviewed our approach to staged approvals and propose to extend their use to enable initial works on some projects to start earlier. This change is planned to be introduced in the Autumn accompanied by guidance developed jointly with industry. This will accelerate the process considerably by allowing specified building work (yet to be confirmed but likely to include groundworks and foundations) to commence once approved, and for applicants to then submit an application for the remaining building work at a later stage. This will maintain the ‘hard stop’ but in two stages.
BSR has already increased the rate of ‘Approved with Requirements’ decisions, allowing work to begin while some remaining non-critical elements of the design are resolved when the information becomes available. These and other changes have resulted in June and July 2025 being the two most productive months for decisions on Gateway 2 applications so far, with decisions in June exceeding the number of applications received.
On 4th August 2025, the BSR launched a new Fast Track Innovation Unit. This will significantly accelerate the determination of building control applications initially for new HRBs and, within months, for remediation applications also. This Unit aims to make a final decision within 65 days of receipt of an application. Of the 17 decisions going through this system as of 29th August 2025, 10 are ahead of internal milestones to meet this target, and the other 7 are on time.
At the heart of this new model of delivery is the direct recruitment of dedicated Registered Building Inspectors, fire engineers and structural engineers, thereby overcoming the challenges of forming MDTs as set out above. We are also significantly increasing proactive communication between MDTs and duty holders during the application process.
BSR’s support for industry
BSR continues to carry out extensive engagement with industry to help comply with the new procedural requirements and understand how to demonstrate their buildings comply with the relevant functional requirements. This has included:
Examples of these various materials are available here - BSR’s campaign site.
Looking ahead, BSR is also supporting CLC to produce further guidance on staged approvals for new HRBs; the documents that must accompany a building control approval application (as legally required under Schedule 1 of the HRB Regulations); and the construction phase through to gateway three.
Additionally, four more webinars are scheduled to be held in the autumn, which will give more opportunities for members of the industry to clarify their understanding.
As of 29th August 2025, 163 new HRBs were represented by live applications in BSR’s Building Control processes. These contain 36,929 residential units out of the 1.5 million homes the Government wants to see built in this parliament; approximately 2.5% of the 1.5 million target.
BSR recognises the importance of the regulatory system in supporting the timely delivery of housing supply. We continue to build our regulatory capacity to expedite the building control process, whilst not compromising on the need to ensure HRBs are safe for residents. As outlined above, the establishment of the Fast Track Innovation Unit for new HRBs is a key part of this.
As an obstacle to meeting these targets, how does building safety regulation compare with other potential obstacles such as skills, supply chains and the planning system?
It is not for the BSR to make an assessment of the relative impact of building safety regulation in comparison to other factors affecting housing supply.
Decisions on whether the regulatory framework strikes the right balance is a policy matter for the Government and Parliament. BSR operates the regulatory framework defined by the Act, as developed through consultation and extensive Parliamentary scrutiny.
BSR however aims to take a holistic view when assessing BCAAs, as befitting a proportionate regulator.
Our MDT process ensures that applications are considered from different points of view by experienced professionals (RBIs, Fire & Rescue service personnel, and others) who have the skills, knowledge and experience to advise BSR on whether the building regulations have been met.
Nonetheless, some parts of industry have expressed concern that there has been inconsistency, and we have asked industry bodies such as the CLC to identify specific examples and to work with us to address any inconsistent approaches by MDTs.
BSR has also opened up more opportunities to engage during the process, with targeted engagement available for dutyholders submitting multiple applications, and the option to invite applicants to a feedback session where we see recurring themes across their submissions.
As stated in the Question 2 response, we have worked to improve our regulatory effectiveness as much as possible within the parameters set by law and have also been engaging with industry to help them understand the new information that must be provided.
BSR also aims to take an outcomes-based approach to BAC applications. Again, this is carried out by an MDT. There are also opportunities to engage with the PAP in this process – BSR may ask for a meeting to discuss parts of the application, or for a demonstration of systems used to manage building safety risks.
BSR can give applicants the opportunity to take action to fix issues and still issue a BAC afterwards rather than jumping to compliance notices.
If a dutyholder disagrees with an application decision for either process, they can request a review. Details of how to do this are communicated to the dutyholder along with the outcome. If the dutyholder still disagrees with the decision after the review, they can appeal to a first-tier tribunal, providing further avenues of redress.
As outlined previously, BSR is a new regulator, and we have/are rapidly building our regulatory capacity. We aim to listen to concerns from stakeholders, continuously improve, and recent changes include fresh investment and the establishment of a Fast Track Innovation Unit for new HRBs.
We accept that some of the previous delays to determining BCAAs have been caused by processes within the BSR. These include challenges resulting from the speed with which the BSR was set up; problems assembling MDTs to assess applications; and resourcing issues – both within BSR and its MDTs.
It should also be noted that when BSR began its role as building control authority, application volumes were initially steady. However, there was a surge of applications in early 2024 due to end of the transitional arrangements.
Furthermore, the BSR’s work to ensure the competence of RBIs and their parent organisations, exposed inadequacies in the system and contributed both to the collapse in May 2024 of AIS Building Control and the failure of Assent Building Control to register with the BSR as a Registered Building Control Approver. These two events resulted in 50 partially or nearly complete HRBs being unexpectedly passed into the new regime en masse.
BSR was unable to access years of records detailing construction progress to date, and much work has had to be undertaken to ensure that the buildings met standards. BSR approached this pragmatically, allowing building work to continue ‘at risk’ whilst the processes of the new regime were applied. In some cases, Gateway 2 and Gateway 3 were applied simultaneously to push the buildings through to completion certificate as quickly as possible. However, in some cases (such as in the example given in Question 1) there were significant non-compliances with building regulations standards which had to be addressed before residents could move into their homes.
Could these processes be made more proportionate, particularly for smaller works, without impacting the safety of high-rise buildings? If so, how?
As outlined in the response to Question 2, BSR have already made a raft of changes to make sure our processes are proportionate, whilst staying within the framework set by law. We have also worked with industry bodies such as the CLC to develop more effective guidance and have increased our engagement with the industry more widely, including through targeted engagement with applicants.
Where concerns about proportionality relate directly to the legislative framework, this is a policy matter for MHCLG and Parliament. BSR has provided advice to the Secretary of State for MHCLG outlining where concerns raised by industry might be best addressed by legislative changes, including in relation to ‘smaller’ works.
In addition, BSR continues to encourage industry to improve its processes, such as by considering where it might be appropriate to bring forward Competent Person Schemes for smaller works (for example, works on fire door sets). These allow individuals and businesses in the construction industry who have demonstrated their competence to self-certify compliance with building regulations, removing the need to go through building control.
BSR has also been exploring the possibility of using Artificial Intelligence (AI), both traditional and generative, to improve operational processes. Potential uses include:
Adoption and uptake of AI across government and the Civil Service is still in its infancy, and BSR will continue to assess its potential to improve efficiency and productivity.
BSR has carried out significant engagement with industry to support them to better understand and comply with the new procedural building control requirements for HRBs.
Across the last three years, BSR ran a series of communications campaigns in three phases: Get Ready; Step Up; and Act Now. This included two large conferences, each with over 1200 delegates, featuring plenary and syndicate sessions to allow attendees to participate in the topics of most interest to them. Sessions on building control were included, and well attended.
BSR published guidance on its Building Safety Microsite over summer 2024 and updated this material in March 2025 to gov.uk standards, modified to reflect the output of a research project on the experiences of applicants (large bodies and individuals) on the parts of the process they found most difficult to navigate.
As outlined previously, we also supported the CLC to develop and publish eight pieces of guidance on building control. We have produced 25 webinars in the last two years, with our most recent two aimed at developers and PAPs carrying out building work – with four more to come in the autumn. These materials are free to view on YouTube.
BSR have also published a ‘Getting building control applications’ right webpage to help developers submit high-quality compliant applications, which includes detailed advice about trends we are seeing.
Could this situation be improved through the BSR’s review of Approved Documents?
The Building Regulations set the minimum required standards for building work. The Approved Documents contain general guidance on the performance expected of materials and building work, including practical examples of how to achieve compliance in common building situations.
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report emphasised the need for continuous review and regular updates to ensure guidance remains relevant and effective.
We also know from our stakeholder engagement that industry want regulatory certainty. The review of building regulatory guidance is a vital step towards achieving this and making guidance simpler, compliance easier, and improving safety and quality in construction. The result will be safer, higher-quality buildings and greater confidence in the building safety system.
As stated previously, BSR has conducted extensive engagement to help applicants understand what they need to demonstrate in their applications. The HRB Regulations did not amend the functional requirements of the building regulations (e.g. the standards that must be met), only the procedures for demonstrating that the functional requirements have been met.
The proportion of applications that do not demonstrate compliance with the legal standards remain high. Some parts of the industry appear to be struggling to discharge their new responsibilities. 40% applications at Gateway 2 have been rejected at the validation stage, often because they miss basic information required by legislation.
Incomplete applications take time for BSR to assess and puts further pressure on resources. Each ‘further information request’ to applicants can add several weeks onto the determination process and lead to delays.
Whilst the BSR acknowledges that delays at Gateway 2 due to MDT issues are unacceptable, applicants can support the BSR in determining applications quicker by ensuring that all documentation required by law is provided, and that the application and accompanying documentation is clear and comprehensive. We have recently updated our digital portal to enable applicants to structure and divide their submissions to help with this.
BSR regularly sees applications with significant building safety issues. Under structure (part A), we have had applications fail to give details on:
Under fire (part B), we have had applications where:
The Approved Documents set out what, in ordinary circumstances, may be accepted as one way to comply with the Building Regulations. However, Section 7 of the Building Act 1984 indicates that following the guidance in approved documents may be relied upon as tending to negative liability, while failing to follow the guidance may be relied upon as tending to establish liability. Therefore, following the approved documents alone does not guarantee compliance.
It remains the responsibility of those designing or undertaking building work to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether specific circumstances require additional or alternative measures to achieve compliance with the regulatory requirements.
We have encouraged all parts of industry to demonstrate active leadership – one of the five drivers of positive culture change - in addressing the issues and failings exposed so unflinchingly by Dame Judith Hackitt and the Grenfell Inquiry Panel, including by proactively developing and publishing guidance that speaks directly to their constituents’ business models, common terminology and interrelationships.
While the Act gives BSR a range of powers to deal with failures, it focuses on tackling issues building by building. This has some positives – all residents know that the management of building safety risks in their building will be subject to examination by the regulator and that all building work will have been properly scrutinised.
However, where a dutyholder operates multiple buildings, this approach limits the opportunities for BSR to address the weaknesses in building safety management at an organisational level.
Clearly, those operating multiple buildings would be reasonably expected to have systems in place to monitor, audit and review their buildings and systems, and to respond to reports from the regulator right across their stock.
Nevertheless, if BSR finds a failure that is likely down to employees not having the required skills, for example, then we can only require the dutyholder to take action to resolve this specific failure at that specific building. Ideally, we would be able to require that the employees were given the correct training across the organisation, correcting the underlying issues and better driving culture change across individual operators and the wider industry.
In relation to building work subject to the requirements imposed by Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 2010, the technical standards, must be carried out in accordance with Regulation 7 which applies to all building work. Those responsible for building work must be able to demonstrate that both materials and workmanship comply with the Building Regulations, as part of the overall scheme.
Section 35 of the Act amended the Building Act 1984, creating powers to prescribe in Building Regulations' competence requirements relating to the Principal Designer and Principal Contractor (appointed persons), and any prescribed person. Changes to the regulations, introduced from 1 October 2023, imposes duties on the person appointing the Principal Designer, Principal Contractor and any prescribed person to ensure that those they appoint meet the competence requirements. These requirements apply to design or building work on all buildings.
So, if BSR were to work on an organisation-by-organisation basis, it would not change any of the functional requirements that must be satisfied for any buildings, even if the processes for showing this were altered.
The introduction of the dutyholder and competency requirements in part 2A of the Building Regulations 2010 do allow any building control authority to regulate the management arrangements of dutyholders on specific sites. The ability to allow findings under these provisions on one site to inform targeting of regulatory activity on subsequent sites would enhance the effectiveness of all building control authorities.
BSR has faced resourcing challenges at times. The initial modelling and assumptions that our resourcing was based on did not prove to be accurate. BCAAs are higher than original forecast, particularly for Category A and Category B applications, though currently lower for New Build applications.
The Average Handling Time (AHT) has also been considerably longer than originally expected. In addition, the BSR operating model and forecast had MDT members from partner organisations performing more than three quarters of the effort on an application. In practice these percentages have been inverted, with internal BSR Building Control contributing more to the assessment phase than expected and so requiring more resources.
However, the Government has provided significant new funding for BSR along with the recently announced reforms. This includes long-term investment, allowing the addition of over a hundred new staff members, including new regulatory leads, and new RBIs, embedding skills directly within BSR rather than relying on contractors.
BSR draws the skills, knowledge and experience it needs from the public and private sector providers which form part of MDTs.
It has faced challenges assembling MDTs which has contributed to delays in building control and building assessment as these teams are assembled by hiring public and private sector experts.
However, with the construction sector and partner regulators drawing from the same limited pool, this continues to constrain BSR functions that depend on specialist support. While higher pay for specialists may attract talent to BSR, it risks destabilising partners by redistributing rather than resolving the shortage. A sustainable solution lies in developing a clear, long-term workforce strategy, similar to the approach being taken in the fire service, to build system-wide capacity and resilience.
As stated before, this means that in Building Control, MDTs are taking on average 5-6 weeks to convene for the first time and begin contributing to a case. This makes it extremely difficult to meet the statutory timelines of 8 weeks for applications relating to work on existing HRBs, and 12 weeks for applications for new build HRBs.
The launch of the Fast Track Innovation unit on 4th August 2025 will help this situation, allowing BSR to build MDT capacity and BSR competence directly rather than relying on outsourcing.
As part of this, BSR has also recently taken steps to enable secondments. We are working with MHCLG and Local Authority Building Control departments to enable RBI secondments to help support the Innovation Unit and ensure it has appropriately skilled expertise.
Under Section 5 of the Act, BSR has a duty to keep the safety and standard of all buildings under review. This has been operationalised through two processes – a built environment risk register, and a horizon scanning project.
The built environment risk register is reviewed on a continuous cycle, and BSR ensures ministers in MHCLG are kept informed on risks and can take action to protect residents if required.
Current risks in this register include:
BSR is also introducing a horizon scanning function within the organisation. This will make BSR’s proactive work across the built environment more systematic and facilitate early identification of potential risks relating to emerging technologies and future challenges.
Under Section 6 of the Act, BSR has a duty to facilitate improvement in the competence of industry and building inspectors. This is a broad duty that affects the competence of people and organisations working on all buildings and has been put into effect through several initiatives. BSR has published guidance for dutyholders, and we have developed a culture change framework which we plan to make widely available to industry. BSR is working with the ICC to develop competence frameworks for the trades and professions in the built environment industries, and key partners on assessment against the frameworks.
With regards to improvements in the competence of building inspectors, BSR has created a Competence Framework (BICoF) and set criteria for assessments schemes to assess building inspectors against the framework. These standards were developed in collaboration with the profession. Of those assessed (approximately 3,000), 72% have proved their competence at the level they were expecting.
Is the relationship between the BSR and building control authorities and inspectors working well?
Building Control has been a regulated profession since 6 April 2024. The profession consists of
BSR regulates the building control profession in England and Wales[7] and holds it to account. This work is helping to improve the safety of all buildings, by driving up standards across the industry.
England and Wales require sufficient competent building inspectors to ensure building work is compliant with building regulations.
The role of the BSR in this area is about ensuring competence of the building control profession, and the arrangements we have put in place support industry to grow the profession. In addition, MHCLG and LABC Ltd are working to bring cohorts of apprentices into the building control profession.
The relevant framework is the Building Inspector Competence Framework as referenced in Question 1. Class 1 Registered Building Inspectors (RBIs) are trainees, Class 2 (a to f) RBIs carry out most building control work. Class 3 (g & h) RBIs are specialists that carry out the higher risk building control work such as HRBs and other complex buildings. Class 4 is a technical management level.
BSR keeps the competence framework and categories under continuous review to ensure they are proportionate and risk based. For example, BSR has recently begun to allow Class 2 c and f RBIs to conduct category B work[8], and category A work[9] within an individual HRB, thereby increasing RBI capacity for work in HRBs and allowing Class 3 RBIs to focus on new build HRBs.
BSR has approved 3 independent assessment schemes against its published criteria which maximises the opportunity for all building inspectors to demonstrate their competence. There is plenty of capacity in those schemes, but only 72% of the RBIs have demonstrated their competence with large numbers of transitioning RBIs remaining in Class 1.
BSR understand that industry leaders believe that many RBIs have left the profession, or plan to, because they do not want to work in a regulated profession. We have been clear in engagement with the industry that we value building control expertise, and that we want to support and help the industry to develop and improve its competence. We also find that there is increasing pride in being an RBI.
Public and private building control bodies must be willing and able to bring in trainees and support them through their development. BSR is working with MHCLG and industry through the ICC building control working group and developing further policy to support this.
Inspections
Regulating the profession ensures that people and organisations carrying out building control activities and functions are competent. The BSR promotes and enforces adherence to professional codes of conduct and legislation.
When carrying out inspections a ‘no surprises’ approach is taken. Dutyholders are issued with terms of reference for the inspection, an inspection plan, risk areas identified, and these areas are tested proportionate to their risk. Enforcement action is an escalatory process starting with a letter of contravention or an Improvement Notice, and where necessary a Serious Contravention Notice (SCN) is served. It is a criminal offence not to comply with an SCN.
Feedback from the inspections, even where enforcement action has been taken, has generally been positive and well received by the building control bodies who appear to recognise and value the inspections. A HSE Insights project recently commenced to gain greater understanding of the inspections from the view of the duty holder and to understand why some are very well prepared and others are not.
We are on target to inspect every building control body within 5 years.
Investigations
BSR receives regular concerns about professional standards. Since April 2024, over 140 have met the criteria for investigation and around 80 of these investigations have been completed and closed.
Investigation into professional misconduct and criminal offences is carried out in a transparent, open and fair way. The team take a reasonable pragmatic approach where that is appropriate. Sanctions available range from advisory / warning letters to fines and being struck off the register.
Intelligence and visibility of the profession
98% of building control bodies have started to submit regular data returns required to regulate the profession, and action is being taken to ensure that is 100%. The data, along with information from inspections and investigations will be used to help the profession understand where it needs to improve and inform a risk based proportionate regulatory approach to supporting and encouraging the building control profession to continuously improve.
There have been challenges in delivering and complying with the new regulatory framework for the BSR and industry, and delays are a manifestation of this. BSR was set up as a new regulator completely from scratch, and this was a hugely complex process.
However, BSR has made real progress in protecting residents and working to prevent another tragedy like the Grenfell Tower fire. BSR has adapted as we have gained experience regulating and listened to the feedback we have received from a range of stakeholders. Our work to provide more clarity and guidance to industry, and streamline our internal processes, has shown significant progress in tackling delays.
Progress has been made on Building Control applications. June and July 2025 were the two most productive months for BSR so far, and BSR aims to clear all New Build cases submitted in 2024 by the end of August 2025.
Industry has also been learning and adapting to the new responsibilities and the new approach required of it under the Act, and BSR’s work with bodies such as the CLC shows how we can work together to tackle issues in the system going forward.
In September 2023, the BSR and OPSS signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that sets out the principles of effective communication, mutual co-operation and engagement between one another in relation to the quality and safety of the built environment, and the basis on which we will collaborate with each other and discharge our respective responsibilities.
Through the MoU with OPSS, the BSR is committed to developing and maintaining a common understanding of our respective roles and responsibilities, acknowledging each other’s different statutory responsibilities, accountability structures and legislative frameworks.
With the introduction of a single regulator, there will be an opportunity to develop a collective evidence base, with sharing and joint commissioning of testing and research. This information will further reinforce investigation and enforcement activities that involve product safety related to construction products.
BSR is always seeking to improve its building safety work and are drawing on a variety of sources to learn lessons. This has included overseas comparisons.
As mentioned in Question 1, BSR have grouped HRBs into Tranches for the purposes of when they will be assessed for BACs. In order to strengthen this model, BSR has been reviewing international building safety regimes. The regimes reviewed include Victoria (Australia), New Zealand, Scotland, Singapore and selected U.S. city regimes such as Atlanta, New York City and Chicago. These international models show the value of triaging HRBs through quantitative risk scoring (Victoria - Cladding Risk Prioritisation Model); statutory designation of "priority buildings" housing vulnerable residents (New Zealand) and the use of real-time data and machine learning to generate dynamic risk scores (Atlanta). All of these could complement BSR’s current approach, and this review will inform our future HRB policy.
BSR has also conducted research including information from other countries. For example, in our research on Volumetric Modular Construction (VMC),[10] we used data available from Japan and Sweden, where similar construction methods are more prevalent.
BSR has not been resourced to undertake comparisons of the framework laid out by the Act with other jurisdictions. We welcome other good examples of international building safety assurance, and would look to incorporate lessons from these wherever possible.
Glossary of abbreviations used:
1 September 2025
|
|
|
[1] Building Safety Act 2022 Explanatory Notes, page 8, paragraph 3
[2] As defined by Section 62 of the Building Safety Act – that is, the spread of fire or structural failure.
[3] The Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (England) Regulations 2023, Schedule 2
[4] The Building Regulations 2010, Schedules 3 and 3A
[5] The Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (England) Regulations 2023, Regulation 10. Note, once complete require BSR to check that the building regulations have been met – a process known as Regularisation
[6] Building a Safer Future: Final Report
[7] The regulatory authority for Wales is the Welsh Ministers. HSE performs the functions of the Welsh Ministers relating to the building control profession under an agency agreement.
[8] Any work that does not meet the criteria for category A work.
[9] Work which involves any of the following:
[10] RR1203: The impact of Permanent Volumetric Modular Construction (PVMC) on building safety