The Building Safety Regulator at a Crossroads

The Building Safety Regulator at a Crossroads

The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) was created to restore confidence in the safety and oversight of higher-risk buildings. Its purpose remains essential, but the early implementation has exposed a significant issue: the system has not been proportionate. Routine, low-risk maintenance tasks have been placed under the same approval regime as major cladding remediation and new build projects. The result has been delays, increased project costs, and pressure across supply chains.

The Problem: Too Much in the Queue

A substantial share of Gateway 2 applications have been for low-risk works that do not materially affect the structural or fire safety strategy of a high-rise building. By definition, these tasks should not sit in the same regulatory bottleneck as intrusive refurbishment or complex remediation.

This has created load on a system designed for higher-risk interventions. Maintenance tasks such as replacing fire doors, altering communal alarms, or completing minor pipework have been pulled into a process that was never intended for this volume or type of work. In practical terms, this has delayed repairs, increased project overheads and, in some cases, caused cash flow stress for contractors reliant on timely approvals.

A Shift Toward Proportionate Regulation

BSR Chair Andy Roe has now confirmed that the regulator is actively exploring removing “minor works” from its mandatory scope. His position is grounded in risk logic: regulatory capacity should focus on work that materially impacts life safety. Lower-risk jobs should move back into the oversight of building owners or local authorities, with the BSR setting clear expectations on competence and standards.

Roe has been explicit that this is not about weakening oversight. Major refurbishment or complex building alterations will remain within the BSR’s remit. The change instead distinguishes between work that requires specialist regulation and work that can be safely managed by competent building owners supported by clear guidance.

Industry and Government Alignment

The direction of travel now has broad support. A recent House of Lords committee report highlighted that the existing system risks delaying important safety improvements and impeding wider housing delivery. Industry bodies and housing providers have similarly called for a proportionate model that distinguishes between levels of risk and complexity.

The emerging consensus is that the BSR’s current remit is too wide and that narrowing it will deliver better performance, quicker approvals, and clearer allocation of responsibility. This aligns with the regulator’s own observations that capacity must be focused where the consequences of error are greatest.

What This Means for Future Projects

If implemented, removing minor works from the BSR process will create a clearer, more efficient pathway for both urgent repairs and major safety projects. Building owners will take back responsibility for routine works, supported by guidance and expected competence. Meanwhile, the BSR can concentrate its expertise on large-scale interventions where safety risks are genuinely high.

The potential benefits include faster delivery of essential maintenance, reduced costs, and a more predictable approval cycle for complex projects. For sectors handling large volumes of low-risk upgrades, this adjustment will significantly streamline workflows.

A Note on Fibre Deployments

Where infrastructure upgrades are required, this principle of doing work once applies strongly. Neutral-host full fibre networks, such as 4Fibre’s multi-ISP model, allow a building to be wired once while enabling up to four ISPs to operate through the same infrastructure. For owners responsible for minor works flow, this avoids repeated intrusive upgrades and future-proofs the building through a single, coordinated deployment.