Building safety reform: the impact on team roles

The last few years have brought welcome and long-overdue change to building safety reform in the built environment. Registration requirements for higher-risk buildings (HRBs) came into force in April 2023, followed by Gateway 2 and 3 approvals, alongside the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) becoming a standalone regulator under the MHCLG.

Together, these developments mark a decisive and much-needed shift in the approach to health and safety across the industry.

But have they made a real difference to the safety in the built environment? And how have the changes impacted the different roles within the sector? Here, RLB stakeholders discuss the impact of the Building Safety Act on their roles, whether they feel progress is truly being made, and what the long-term consequences of the BSA will be for the industry.

There was no doubt that the Building Safety Act was the step change the sector needed. The intention to make the industry more collaborative, ultimately resulting in more detailed design and information at an early stage to prevent unavoidable mistakes on site, was good.

Yet, in reality, what we have seen is a breakdown of communication between the industry and the Building Safety Regulator at Gateway 2, leading to delays and cost implications. Since the BSR became an independent body, this has improved, but there is still apprehension around Gateway 3 and how this will be handled.

We just need to ensure that we have the right people in place, with the right knowledge to be the gatekeepers of building safety.

The building safety reform was vitally important, but the way the governance has been implemented has created significant disruption and additional cost across the industry. This is now affecting the viability of many projects, particularly in the residential sector. 

Despite the government’s ambition to build 1.5 million new houses, growing uncertainty is causing investors to hesitate. With substantial costs required upfront at the pre-construction stage, and no certainty around approval timelines, build starts, or project delivery, the level of risk has grown.

The introduction of the Building Safety Levy on 1 October this year will add further financial pressure. To restore momentum, there must be meaningful incentives to revitalise the housing market, which in turn will help rebuild investor confidence and support much-needed housing delivery.

From a project management point of view, the obvious impact of the building safety governance has been the delays for projects awaiting gateway approval. None of the parties involved had been through the new regulation before, and the gateway stages were often complex, with funding for developments deriving from several funding streams, resulting in a need to maintain relationships with different stakeholders with different priorities.

One of the most important stakeholders has always been the local communities in which these developments are planned. Too often, they were promised new homes or regeneration projects only to be left with hoardings, stalled construction or abandoned sites. Clear and consistent communication has been essential throughout the process, helping manage expectations and maintain trust.

While the challenges have been significant, valuable lessons have been learned and the system is gradually becoming more streamlined and effective.

For us in the sustainability team, the introduction of the golden thread of Information and digital twins brings data integrity that helps us in our role. This data thread shows whether lower-carbon materials have been designed into the build, and materials can’t be value-engineered out without a process of recording them.

However, the Building Safety Act has also highlighted the need for advance testing and building of robust data sets for the use of new materials like low-carbon cement. With climate change impacting our buildings more rapidly every day, we don’t have decades left to test new materials but must move faster to ensure that lower-carbon and more sustainable materials can be used with confidence. This, in turn, would give us the confidence to build safely and sustainably.

Although the building safety governance covers all the built environment, the biggest impact has been on high-risk buildings (HRBs). In most cases, this has meant residential buildings, with the guidance steered primarily towards this sector. This has resulted in several clients asking for help to navigate the regulations across other sectors – for example, healthcare providers, particularly hospitals, which often have HRBs as part of their estates.

Finding the competence and skills required for the new roles created has been a wider industry challenge. For example, the building regulations principal designer (BRPD) is a completely new role with new templates, policies and procedures. An integrated approach across disciplines has been key – for example, working with PM and CM teams to explain new responsibilities and fire advisers to understand the fire risks and liability within each project.

Ultimately, the governance is advocating that all those who play a part in the design and build should look at the building holistically, which ultimately is a good thing. 

Working as a built asset consultant, we recognise that existing buildings present greater challenges than new buildings in achieving compliance with the Building Safety Act. While new buildings are designed according to current guidance, ensuring compliance, existing buildings undergoing refurbishment present challenges in relation to the actual construction form and inherent defects, both of which may not be apparent when reviewing as-built information. 

There is also the challenge of carrying out compliant improvements to one specific area of a building, only for that work to interface with elements of the building that remain non-compliant. This creates uncertainty around accountability and raises important questions about where the responsibility lies for the overall safety and compliance of the building, given that retrospective works are often carried out in isolation from wider building elements.

The processes, especially using a common data environment in line with the golden thread of information, which all parties must feed into, have helped identify who owns which parts of the governance and provide a single source of truth, aiding those who need it. However, its effectiveness relies on good-quality data. 

While there is no doubt the legislation was necessary and there is broad agreement that the new governance is making the design and construction safer, it has had a significant impact on developments, with viability, time, stakeholder relationships, and often contractor-client and investor relationships affected. 

The positive news, however, is that lessons are being learned, and areas of responsibility and ownership are beginning to be established.

Moving forward, true collaboration will be essential, bringing together the right people, with the right expertise, at the right stage, while ensuring that risk is understood and shared appropriately across all parties involved in the design-and-build process.

Samantha Mepham is national head of health and safety at RLB UK.