As the government looks to improve the efficiency of the Building Safety Regulator, the focus has turned to one of the body’s most pressing challenges: the time it takes to approve remedial works on higher-risk buildings, writes Lyn Dario, partner and expert in regulatory law at Shakespeare Martineau
Following a public consultation that concluded in late March, and with a government response expected this summer, the proposed changes raise a fundamental question – can efficiency be improved without undermining safety and the quality of decision-making?
Introduced in October 2023, the higher-risk building control regime was designed to strengthen oversight and restore confidence in building safety. The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) now plays a pivotal role in assessing applications for works on higher-risk buildings (HRBs), which are defined as buildings over 18m or seven storeys tall, with at least two residential units, or those used as hospitals or care homes.
However, the regulator’s current average decision time of 34 weeks has raised concerns across the industry, particularly where urgent remediation works are delayed.
Recent efforts to streamline decision-making, including the trial batching of similar applications, have shown some promise, with approval rates rising to around 40% under this approach.
However, batching is not a silver bullet. While it enables the regulator to identify and assess common elements across multiple applications, it cannot replace the need for building-specific analysis. This is especially important in buildings where the challenges posed by fire safety risks require bespoke solutions which therefore require detailed, case-by-case considerations.
There is, therefore, an inevitable tension between accelerating decisions and ensuring that complex proposals are thoroughly evaluated. Although batching can streamline the assessment of shared building characteristics, it risks overlooking nuances that may be critical to a building’s overall safety profile. Conversely, it could also mean projects being refused out-of-hand based on an initial assessment.
The BSR’s capacity is a key constraint. Having formally become a standalone organisation in January 2026 as part of a broader move towards a single construction regulator, the transition exposed a shortage of suitably qualified professionals capable of assessing highly technical submissions and identifying the common denominators that underpin batching strategies.
This pressure also reflects the regulator already operating at or beyond capacity, with questions arising as to whether current funding levels are sufficient to support its expanded remit. Without sufficient resourcing, ambitions to consistently meet an eight-week decision target, discussed during the consultation, may prove difficult to achieve.
It is important to recognise that delays are not solely attributable to the regulator. A significant number of applications fail to meet basic safety requirements at the point of submission. Approximately only one-third of applications are successful, with one-third rejected outright for failing to adequately address safety considerations and the remaining third deemed too complex, requiring further engagement between the BSR and applicants. This often results in an extension being needed, which only prolonging timelines.
This points to a broader issue regarding the industry’s readiness to operate effectively within the new scheme. While the BSR has taken steps to provide guidance on how to construct applications and engage with applicants, its role as an enabler is constrained by a skills shortage reducing the amount of professional expertise across the sector that can prepare robust, compliant submissions the first time of asking.
As a result, developers may face significant delays not only from regulatory scrutiny but also from the need to revisit and revise inadequate designs. If the BSR is also under pressure to speed up its decision-making, it is not difficult to envision the default response being refusal, or subject to an extend period of discussion.
The financial implications of this are considerable. Rejected applications can force projects back to the design stage, disrupting schedules and increasing costs. Developers reliant on external funding may find their financial models under pressure, while contractors may need to renegotiate timelines. In some cases, delays could extend project programmes by an additional 18 to 34 weeks, compounding uncertainty in an already challenging market.
Looking ahead, the potential move towards a single regulator, as recommended by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, could either reinforce or complicate these reforms. If implemented with the right expertise and resources, a unified regulator could streamline processes and improve consistency.
However, this would require significant government investment in securing skilled personnel, alongside a clear legislative framework, both of which remain uncertain in the current geopolitical and economic climate.
Whether reforms are introduced through primary legislation will also be a critical factor in determining their scope and speed of implementation, as the reforms will have to be debated on in both houses to become an Act of Parliament.
With this, alongside approaching local elections and wider pressures ongoing in the Middle East, it remains to be seen whether the government will indeed meet its initial target to respond by the summer of this year.
In either case, comprehensive supporting guidance will be essential to ensure clarity and consistency across the sector, raising further questions about the government time and resources required to develop such documentation.
Ultimately, the success of the proposed reforms will depend not just on setting faster timelines but on whether the government is willing to properly resource the systems required to deliver them. Without meaningful investment in expertise and guidance, there is a real risk that reduced timelines will fail to resolve the very delays they are intended to address, resulting in poorer-quality applications, increased rejection rates and further interruptions for the industry.
The post Fast tracking safety? The challenge behind speeding up the Building Safety Regulator’s decisions appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
