This post was originally published on this site

From material delays and rising costs to labour shortages and regulatory uncertainty, it is no secret that the construction sector has faced mounting pressure in recent years.

However, amid this widespread financial and operational strain, the industry has also been coming to terms with the implications of the government’s recent Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA).

A necessary regulation following the Grenfell Tower fire, the BSA is a response to the long-standing issues around building safety. It mainly focuses on structural and fire safety within design and construction of residential buildings – distinguishing high risk buildings (HRBs) of 18 metres in height or 7+ storeys high from non-HRBs.

Compliance with the Act requires passing through three gateways: planning, detailed design and handover.

Contractors are largely involved in the design and handover phases, and employers – typically developers and project owners – are now shifting responsibility for the timely submissions of the design via pre-construction services agreements (PCSAs) and, ultimately, the building contract.

Moreover, every detail of the design’s quality assurance evidence must be listed in what is called the ‘golden thread QA document’ – the third gateway.

However, while the BSA is welcome in principle, the underprepared implementation has been causing significant challenges for the industry.

And while the government’s reforms to the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) announced last week are a welcome move toward a more efficient and responsive system, significant challenges remain.

The impact of the BSA roll-out

For context, the reality of what we have been seeing is that the level of detail required and the limited resource available at the BSR department to review submissions has created a backlog.

What should take 12 weeks for a detailed design review (Gateway 2) now takes an average of 30 weeks plus, and the eight-week response time for the handover gateway approval process (Gateway 3) is reportedly stretching to 20 weeks and counting.

This means only a very limited number of projects have navigated Gateway 3 due to timing of the new legislation.

The poorly planned roll-out means many construction businesses are now struggling to navigate project delays. Some sectors even risk entering a recession, especially where the delays are exacerbating cash flow pressures.

These delays have only been adding to the existing issues affecting the development and construction sectors – increasing costs, delaying student intakes, and in many cases, shelving development projects altogether.

It is more than simply a regulatory lag; it is a bottleneck that can compound risk and throttle both momentum and profitability for both developers and contractors alike.

Funding is slowing for projects that require gateway approval, and HRB projects are becoming less attractive to back, as a result.

But this shows a contradiction of a policy which outlines plans to build 1.5 million homes over the course of this Parliament.

Years of delays, uncertainty, and operational inefficiencies have already caused real disruption across the sector, impacting project viability, delivery timelines, and confidence.

So, while the Government’s newly announced reforms are a positive move forward, repairing the damage and restoring momentum will take time, clarity, and a continued partnership between industry and government.

Paving a way forward

There is no denying that the BSA is a necessary and welcome regulation, but it is one that has always had room for improvement. So, how can we speed the process up?

Of course, the issues I’ve mentioned here only scratch the surface of this very complex issue, but with some carefully considered changes and government-sector collaboration, there must be a way to improve the current process.

The government’s move to bring in 100 additional staff, introduce a new fast track process, and work towards a single construction regulator are steps in the right direction. But there’s still a long road ahead. What we need now is clear guidance, consistent decision-making, and collaboration to make the system truly effective.

From my perspective, another potential solution the government should consider is the creation of a standard technical manual of robust design/construction details – used to address fire safety situations encountered in HRBs.

Gateway 2 should comprise RIBA Stage 3 design information, with reliance on the predetermined standard technical manual for structural & fire safety.

The compilation and publication of such a standard manual – complete with robust design details for every conceivable eventuality concerning fire and structural safety in residential buildings – should be undertaken by a specialist workforce panel headed by the Building Research Establishment. It should also include representatives from leading architects, structural engineers, fire safety consultants and building contractors.

Any bespoke details relevant to a particular Gateway 2 submission that is not covered by the standard technical manual would need to be designed and detailed in full and submitted alongside the RIBA Stage 3 design.

The golden thread document presented at Gateway 3 would then record and validate that the RIBA Stage 3 design, along with the necessary standard and bespoke details, has been fully complied with.

In light of last week’s BSR reforms, the idea of a government-backed national insurance fund, to compensate developers for financial losses relating to unnecessary delays by the BSRs, remains an ambitious but relevant proposition. And while such an initiative is less likely to materialise, such a move would send a clear message that the government recognises the commercial realities developers face.

The reforms are a positive step, but a financial safety net would go further – making HRBs more viable and attractive to developers, and signalling that while the BSA is vital, its implementation shouldn’t come at the cost of delivery. It could also encourage greater collaboration between developers, regulators, and government going forward.

Ultimately, the BSA is a vital piece of legislation, but its implementation to date has lacked the practical foresight needed to support delivery. A revised approach has been long overdue to ease the unnecessary burden placed on developers and contractors alike.

If the government is serious about hitting its target of 1.5 million new homes, it must ensure that the BSA acts as an enabler of safer housing, not an unintended barrier to progress.

Got a story? Email [email protected]