Driving culture change in building safety and working with the regulator

Delays at the Building Safety Regulator are causing frustrations across the industry. As a leading voice in property management, Rendall & Rittner has submitted evidence to the House of Lords inquiry into how the regulator can overcome blockers and create more consistency and efficiency.

 The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) was created to oversee how higher-risk buildings are designed, built and managed, with the aim of putting building safety at the forefront. But while the intent is clear, the reality has been far from straightforward. Delays, inconsistencies and evolving requirements are creating challenges for developers, landlords, leaseholders, RMCs, RTM companies, residents and managing agents alike. What we need with urgency is a robust system with the capacity to effectively manage safety cases, allowing the safety-first culture to develop. 

At Rendall & Rittner (R&R), we manage one of the largest portfolios of high-rise residential buildings in the UK, which gives us a unique vantage point across the sector. We see the frustrations and costs first-hand, but also potential solutions. We have invested heavily in our in-house health and safety expertise so we can guide our clients through the complexities while protecting their interests.

As part of ongoing reforms, the House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee held public evidence sessions between June and September as part of an inquiry into the Building Safety Regulator. The inquiry is focused on the Building Safety Regulator’s processes, particularly the ‘gateway’ stages of building projects and the impact on housing delivery. Having submitted our evidence to the inquiry, this article highlights today’s challenges and how we are helping clients navigate the system.

Working with the regulator: what it means in practice

High-rise buildings of 18 metres or more are deemed ‘higher risk’ under the Building Safety Act. This means they must pass through three BSR gateways – for new builds, the first is at planning, the second before construction, and the third before occupation. For existing buildings, it means submitting safety case reports and securing a Building Assessment Certificate (BAC).

These processes are designed to raise standards. But in practice, reviews that should take weeks are often facing severe delays far beyond statutory timeframes. For example:

• Gateway 2 pre-construction approval for new builds: Developers are facing delays of 20–30 weeks or more, with high rejection rates – out of around 1,000 planning applications, the regulator rejected around 70%. This not only slows housing delivery but creates cost and uncertainty, as well as understandable frustration.
• Safety cases for existing buildings: Submissions are receiving inconsistent feedback, making it difficult to know exactly what will satisfy the regulator. The same documents often receive different questions and feedback, leading to confusion and inefficiencies. Less than 50 BACs have been issued nationally out of more than 1,400 buildings called forward.
• Day-to-day works in high-rise buildings: Any kind of building work in a high-rise building now requires BSR approval which has inevitably meant delays. Although legislation stipulates an 8-week approval this is often insufficient, with some approvals taking over 40 weeks. 

Uncertainty and delays: the challenges we are facing

It is unsurprising that the system is not yet running smoothly. The BSR was set up from scratch in response to Grenfell and is still finding its feet while requirements continue to evolve - a steep learning curve for all. Guidance has often been issued late, meaning stakeholders have had to begin acting without full clarity on the scope of obligations. Limited public sector resourcing has further slowed reviews and approvals.

Unclear guidance from the BSR has created significant uncertainty over what evidence is required. For instance, cases were rejected for lacking structural risk assessments, despite the industry backing away from getting these because they were said to be an unnecessary expense.

Confusion has also arisen among leaseholders regarding the costs associated with the new regime and the protections for leaseholders concerning remediation costs. This has led to formal complaints and a lack of clarity on what costs are recoverable through service charges. Similarly, the BSR's classification of what counts as emergency work has sometimes been problematic. For instance, the installation of fire alarm systems to replace waking watches has been delayed due to the requirement for approval from the regulator, leading to unnecessary costs for leaseholders and delaying the implementation of important safety measures.

Mixed messages from the BSR about the responsibilities of leaseholder-led management companies have created further complexity, particularly regarding the preparation of safety case reports. This has led to complaints from leaseholders about delays and disputes, with potential reputational risks for service providers.

Impact on new homes delivery

The government has set ambitious housing targets, but the gateway submission process is slowing delivery, directly affecting developers' ability to meet the targets. High-rise buildings are crucial to meeting housing targets because of the density they provide but developers are experiencing uncertainty and rejection of plans, resulting in stalled projects.

Furthermore, the registration of buildings is affecting the sales of properties for new homes. We have seen significant delays in the acceptance of Stage 2 Key Building Information submissions by the BSR. What was previously a matter of days is now taking weeks, leaving developers unable to sell homes and delaying much-needed supply to the market.

The Building Safety Act 2022 also introduces stricter requirements around competency evidence, which has implications across the supply chain — from design teams to contractors. This means the impact is felt not only during construction, but also across the wider development cycle. While we hope that processes will become more clearly defined and embedded over time, it seems unlikely that the housing target will be achieved within the current parliament.

How Rendall & Rittner is helping clients

At R&R, we recognised early on that navigating the Building Safety Act would require a step-change in expertise. That is why we have built one of the largest dedicated health and safety teams in the sector, with 32 specialists in total spanning building safety, fire safety and technical disciplines. This means we have the capability in-house to manage complex safety cases, gateway submissions and remediation projects on behalf of our clients.

We take a proactive and collaborative approach with our consultants to develop safety case reports efficiently and effectively. Our panel of expert consultants works closely with us, supported by standardised documentation that captures all regulatory requirements to ensure consistency and quality. This approach has enabled us to meet every 28-day deadline to date — giving clients confidence in both our readiness and our ability to deliver compliant reports on time.

Leading the way and representing clients’ interests 

We manage a significant proportion of the UK’s higher-risk buildings and so we see patterns across hundreds of cases. Where we identify inconsistencies in regulator feedback, we adapt quickly and apply those learnings across the portfolio, giving our clients the best possible chance of a smooth approval.

Our scale gives us a strong voice and so we are well placed to push for systemic improvement. We have submitted detailed evidence to the House of Lords inquiry into the BSR, sharing our experiences and recommending changes that will ultimately benefit our clients. We are also providing feedback directly to the regulator through meetings where we have given specific feedback on how they can improve their processes. 

We are proud to be among the first managing agents to secure BACs for our clients’ buildings, an achievement shared by very few given that less than 50 have been issued nationally so far. Our proactive approach means we are well on track to meet the regulator’s five-year deadline for submitting BAC applications for all high-rise buildings across our portfolio.

We are also seeing success on cladding remediation projects, where Homes England’s rapid acceleration plan is now driving quicker progress. By aligning our programmes with these improved processes, we are helping our clients deliver safety improvements faster and with less disruption.

Looking ahead: further reforms and safer homes 

The building safety landscape will continue to evolve. Earlier in November, a statement made by Samantha Dixon, Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Democracy explained how draft regulations are in place to facilitate the transfer of The Building Safety Regulator from the Health & Safety Executive to an Executive Non-Departmental Public Body sponsored by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. This is in line with the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report and will ensure greater accountability and focus on Building Safety Regulator operations, ultimately with the aim of helping to unblock delays.

While these changes may bring improvements over time, the system remains complex and unpredictable. We recognise that navigating the building safety regime can feel challenging and frustrating, but with R&R’s expertise and proactive approach, our clients can stay compliant and have confidence that their buildings are being managed to the highest standards.

At R&R, our commitment goes beyond compliance. By investing in specialist expertise, drawing on experience across a large and diverse portfolio, and advocating for improvements at a national level, we are helping to shape a culture where safety is embedded in every stage of design, construction and management - resulting in homes that are genuinely safer for the people who live in them. 

Vanessa Brandham, Health & Safety Director