The Building Safety Regulator: a landmark review, and what happens next

The House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee has released its long-awaited report, The Building Safety Regulator: Building a Better Regulator, a document that will shape the trajectory of the new safety regime for years to come. The inquiry received 147 submissions from across industry, including our own Ross Gissane. The report is frank, occasionally uncomfortable, but ultimately constructive. It offers a clear-eyed assessment of what has worked, what hasn’t, and what urgently needs to improve.

‍

A necessary reset, though not yet a complete one

The Committee recognises that the BSR has driven a long overdue cultural shift. Greater scrutiny at Gateway 2, improved design discipline, and more consistent consideration of fire and structural safety are clear steps forward. But as highlighted by a number of contributors, including Kingswood, increased documentation of safety has not yet translated into consistent improvement in real-world outcomes.

‍

Delays that undermine the very safety improvements the regime seeks to secure

Nowhere is the disconnect more apparent than in the persistent delays in BSR decision-making.

The report notes:

• Gateway 2 decisions taking far beyond the 12-week statutory timeframe, often extending to 9 months or more.
• A median of 37.3 weeks to approve remediation applications for existing HRBs.
• Over 77% of early Building Assessment Certificate applications being rejected due to deficiencies in safety management.
  

For residents, these delays have real consequences. Leaseholders living behind scaffolding for years, buildings waiting on cladding removal, and essential works, such as fire door and window replacements, unable to proceed. Multiple stakeholders, including Kingswood, were clear that the current system is slowing rather than accelerating the remediation of life-critical defects.

‍

A serious constraint on housing delivery

For new build, particularly multi-occupancy housing, the impact is no less significant.  Developers reported substantial cost inflation, extended finance periods, and in some cases projects being rendered unviable. Social landlords cited multimillion-pound increases in scheme costs due to delays.

The Committee’s conclusion is stark: unless the BSR’s performance improves, the Government’s target of 1.5 million new homes is at risk (albeit there are wider issues impact this target - one for another day perhaps!).

‍

Skills, capacity and process clarity: the real pressure points

The report diagnoses the core operational issues:

• A national shortage of fire engineers, building inspectors and structural engineers needed to run MDTs.
• Inconsistent interpretation within MDTs.
• Unclear expectations on the level of detail required at each stage.
• Over-correction in demanding full design resolution before permitting early construction activity.
  

The BSR’s planned reforms, staged approvals, organisation-level approvals, greater clarity on guidance and the flexible approach to Category B works are positive signs. But as the Committee notes, they must be delivered quickly.

‍

A regime worth defending, but one that must now mature

The report is not anti-regulator. In fact, it strongly endorses the principle of a central, independent oversight body and the need for higher standards in the industry.  What it calls for is competence, clarity and proportionality: a regulator that protects life and enables the delivery of safe buildings at pace.

At Kingswood, we share that view. A functioning BSR is essential for residents, lenders, developers and investors alike. The industry has raised its game. Now the regulatory framework must do the same.

The full report can be found here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5901/ldselect/ldindreg/225/22502.htm