CM and CIOB brought together Tim Galloway and Sarah Buxcey from the BSR with several major operators of higher-risk buildings to discuss expectations, the golden thread and culture change
Our discussion began with Tim Galloway describing the four-year journey of the BSR, its strategy and ambition to change industry culture. Sarah Buxcey explained the role of the occupied buildings function, the feedback received from dutyholders and plans to evolve the building assessment regime.
Tim Galloway: I’ve been involved with the BSR since 2020, I was involved in its design and I’m aware of where some of the things we’ve done haven’t worked as intended.
But we have made progress. Our monthly data shows improvements in speed of approvals. We’re taking learning from our innovation unit that focuses on new builds and seeing what can be applied to remediation applications and other building work in existing higher-risk buildings.
One thing to emphasise is that learning and experience in the industry should not be focused solely on higher-risk buildings. HRBs are a small part of both the building stock and overall construction activity. Duties for clients, principal contractors and principal designers apply across all building work.
We wouldn’t want to end up in a situation where we have very good residential buildings over seven storeys, but everything else is not to the same standard.
The regime is not yet mature, but it will get there. If we look at the regime for occupational health and safety, it took decades to mature. What we want to do is accelerate that journey for the new regime in building safety and standards.
While the regulator can improve processing times and meet statutory deadlines, what will really drive sustained improvement is cultural change in the industry. There are organisations that are driving progress, particularly around competence, and others that need to step forward, demonstrate what good looks like and support everyone.
Ultimately, we want a culture where doing the right thing is simply “how we do things around here”. That means, for example, someone installing fire stopping choosing to use the correct product – even late on a Friday afternoon when they want to go home – rather than taking shortcuts.
Sarah Buxcey: I lead the occupied buildings function, including the delivery of the building assessment regime, plus the investigation and enforcement teams. From our experience so far, and from feedback from stakeholders, we think the building assessment regime is now at a point where it needs to evolve.
Fundamentally, protecting residents through a continuous focus on fire and structural safety risk is key. We have a responsibility to ensure standards and expectations are clear, and to support dutyholders in delivering their responsibilities.
From a delivery perspective, we’ve identified several challenges. Resident feedback indicates that the regime can sometimes lead to additional or unforeseen costs, alongside some complexity in navigating property transactions and insurance.
For dutyholders, particularly principal accountable persons, there were areas where they were not fully prepared at the start of the regime. This has been especially challenging for resident management companies, which often lack the governance structures and expertise needed.
Some dutyholders may not have always been fully clear on the requirements for assessing fire and structural risks, with some uncertainty around the distinction between surveys and risk assessments, as well as what constitutes sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance.
That said, engagement from dutyholders has generally been positive. The issue is not a lack of willingness, but the need for clearer expectations and better-quality submissions.
We need to ensure that we, as the regulator, have the right resources and communication channels. We want dutyholders to have clear points of contact and access to support so we can work together effectively.
So, the regime will evolve, but nothing changes immediately – we will continue to assess buildings currently in the system and work with industry to ensure the regime operates as intended under the Building Safety Act.
At this point, we invited our panel of HRB asset operators to put their questions to the regulator and discussed the responses.
Linda Duke: One of the requirements of the building safety regime is to demonstrate effective resident engagement, but our residents are students who are only in the buildings for nine months. Could there be clearer or sector-specific guidance to help us meet that requirement?
Tim Galloway: There are three points I’d make. First, your engagement strategy should be proportionate and realistic. You may need to accept that residents won’t be highly engaged, but you could focus on key moments – such as when building work affects their safety – and ensure they are informed and can contribute.
Second, on sector-specific guidance, my usual view is that those best placed to write it are the people working in that sector. Regulators will write in regulatory language, whereas providers understand the practical realities and communication styles that resonate.
Third, there is an opportunity for providers to collaborate and define what good looks like in your sector. We would support and encourage that kind of work.
Sarah Buxcey: From a delivery perspective, we would be looking for evidence of your engagement strategy – how residents are inducted, how they raise concerns and how communication works.
We recognise the high turnover in student accommodation, so clarity and accessibility of information are key. We receive a large number of complaints that could have been dealt with earlier by dutyholders, so improving that communication is important.
Paul Nash: The Construction Leadership Council (CLC) has worked with industry and the regulator to develop and publish specific guidance for the gateway process. This is an approach that could be adopted by other sectors, such as student accommodation, to develop best practice guidance on resident engagement.
Developing competence
A question on the competency of building safety managers highlighted a significant omission from the Building Safety Act.
Scott Ramage: My question is about competence. There are competency frameworks for construction roles and some guidance around types of works, but there isn’t a clear framework for those managing buildings in operation. What are the BSR’s thoughts on developing competence in that space?
Tim Galloway: The Industry Competence Committee (ICC) has just published Setting Expectations on Competence Management which provides guidance on this.
Organisations like yours are likely already ahead of the curve and may be setting standards in practice. Leadership is important here. Rather than waiting for the regulator, organisations can take the initiative, develop their own frameworks, and contribute to cultural change.
Paul Nash: There is still a competency gap when it comes to building safety management. The Building Safety Bill included a duty to appoint a Building Safety Manager, but this did not carry over into the Act.
However, the BSI did publish PAS 8673, which sets out the competence requirements for anyone undertaking this role and some organisations are appointing individuals to perform the function. I also think that the requirement to demonstrate organisational capability and how to do this is not well understood and further guidance is needed.
Tim Galloway: Competence is also key – not just initial training, but ongoing professional development. People may believe they are competent based on past experience, but without continuous learning, their knowledge becomes outdated.
Laura Bryant: Firstly, I want to say thank you. The cultural change and collaboration with the regulator have been significant in recent months, and having a named contact at the Building Safety Regulator for Gateway 2 applications has made a real difference.
As new developments move from Gateway 2 towards completion at Gateway 3, how is the building safety regulator preparing? What can we learn from Gateway 2 to make Gateway 3 efficient, allowing people to move into their homes smoothly?
Tim Galloway: There haven’t yet been many Gateway 3 cases fully under the new regime. Early experience has mostly involved transitional buildings, where information from earlier stages was incomplete.
In some cases, we effectively ran Gateway 2 and Gateway 3 in parallel.
We are now working with the CLC on case studies – looking at real buildings that have gone through Gateway 2 and exploring how Gateway 3 could operate. The key point is not to treat Gateway 3 as a single event. It is part of a continuous process – from design through construction to completion.
That means managing change control, maintaining records and building a clear “golden thread” of information.
Laura Bryant: Greystar is working hard with its partners to be prepared for Gateway 3; does the building safety regulator think it’s getting the right level of engagement from the principal contractors?
Tim Galloway: I know there has been criticism by some in the industry of the “as built” information they have received. Clients play a crucial role here. They need to set expectations and demand the right standards and information from contractors. There will also be pressure from funders and insurers. That could drive change beyond HRBs.
Brett King: From a technology perspective, platforms like Procore can already help clients structure and organise information for Gateway 2 and Gateway 3 submissions and get it ready for regulator review. However, organisations still often end up double handling information between platforms and submission systems.
The bigger opportunity for the industry is how technology providers and the regulator can work together to create a more seamless flow of structured information across the process. How can we support the regulator on that journey?
Sarah Buxcey: Regulators are continuing to refine how best to use technology. Ensuring data integrity and auditability is critical.
We are continuing to develop our digital strategy and ensure, changes are considered carefully. While guidance is evolving, there is an ongoing focus on enhancing its accessibility and consistency.
Rogue operators and enforcement
One of the concerns raised in the discussion was the continuing submission of unsafe buildings into the gateway process. Asset operators asked when enforcement action against rogue operators could be expected.
Paul Nash: It’s important to remember why we are doing this. Last year’s injunction served by the regulator against a student accommodation developer highlighted serious defects in a building that had been presented for approval. That raises fundamental cultural questions – how such a building could be considered acceptable.
Another concern is that while the regulator is identifying issues in HRBs, there are likely many buildings outside that scope that are not being scrutinised to the same degree.
Some recently completed buildings are already being found non-compliant during safety case assessments. That raises questions about the effectiveness of previous building control processes.
Brett King: From a technology perspective, the defect issues that the regulator has flagged in buildings to date are exactly where digital tools, such as image recognition, could help identify problems quickly.
Jess Oliver: We recently inspected a building where all access panels had been installed incorrectly, compromising compartmentation throughout. The building had been signed off, with all documentation in place, but the installation did not meet manufacturer guidance.
Scott Ramage: There are many rogue operators – building owners who haven’t even registered HRBs or are behind on adopting the legislation. How do we ensure they are identified and held to account?
Tim Galloway: If you are aware of a rogue operator, tell us. Industry participants are a key source of intelligence. While we may not always be able to act, information from people in the sector is extremely valuable.
There are formal routes for residents to raise concerns, and mechanisms for complaints against building inspectors and approvers, but direct communication from industry is also important. Don’t underestimate the value of simply raising an issue with us.
Paul Nash: It may take a high-profile prosecution to reinforce that message.
Sarah Buxcey: Case law will continue to develop over time, helping to further define standards and expectations. As a relatively new regulator, our enforcement activity is focused and proportionate, supported by reliable intelligence to ensure resources are directed where they can have the greatest impact.
Ismail Alsayed: I have two inter-linked questions. The first relates to the tranche model published by the BSR. I appreciate it has been in place for some time, but do you see that changing over the next 6-12 months?
The second is also about Gateway 3. Is there an opportunity for alignment between Gateway 3 and building assessment certificates? If a building has already been through the gateway process, you would expect the information to be there, which should make the building assessment process more straightforward.
Sarah Buxcey: The tranching model and policy remain in place for now, and the obligations on dutyholders have not changed. However, we are considering what a future, more risk-based prioritisation approach might look like.
We’re still at an early stage, but we are looking at questions such as: what are the key risks, where does our intelligence come from and how do we ensure proportionality in how buildings are brought into the system?
We fully recognise that organisations like yours are planning years ahead and setting budgets, so the sooner we can provide clarity, the better.
Tim Galloway: On your second question, it’s reasonable to expect that you’re not asked to provide information we already hold. However, there are internal challenges, particularly with digital systems, which limit our ability to do that seamlessly. In time, buildings that go through Gateway 3 will come into the building assessment regime, but we’re not there yet.
We must also avoid a situation where organisations think they don’t need to actively manage building safety unless prompted by the regulator.
The analogy I often use is vehicle MOTs. If MOTs were abolished tomorrow, you would still need to maintain your car – check the tyres, brakes, lights. Similarly, building safety management should be ongoing, regardless of regulatory timelines.
Sarah Buxcey: It’s important to remember that the regime is broader than the certificate itself. In some cases, the focus has become the certificate rather than the ongoing responsibility for building safety.
In terms of the link between Gateways 1, 2 and 3 and occupation, from a delivery perspective we operate as one team. Although there are challenges with systems, we do work closely across the lifecycle of a building.
Jess Oliver: I support clients through Gateway 2 and 3 and help accountable persons with safety case reports. One key issue is that obtaining information for existing buildings is a major challenge. Developers and consultants who were involved in design and construction often refuse to provide information, citing lack of contractual obligation – or charge significant fees. We know the information exists, but we can’t access it. This creates difficulties when responding to BSR requests for evidence.
Tim Galloway: The starting point is to assess what information you already have and identify any gaps. The key question is whether those gaps are critical to managing the building safely. If they are, you may need to obtain the information from original sources or undertake surveys to establish it.
A structured narrative approach can also help – explaining what is known, what is missing and how risks are being managed. In some cases, even if you know who holds the information, you may not be able to obtain it and will need to generate it independently.
Sarah Buxcey: We can take that away – your point about information not being available – and look into it.
