A Turning Point for Building Safety?

One of the more interesting discussions at the recent TPI seminar was Lord Andy Roe's keynote. It provided some useful insight into how building safety regulation may develop as the new regime becomes more established.

One point that stood out was the importance of taking a proportionate approach to risk. Not all higher-risk buildings present the same level or type of risk, and regulation needs to recognise that if it is going to work effectively in practice.

As the Building Safety Act continues to be implemented in practice, it’s understandable that a consistent approach has been taken. But buildings are not all the same. Their age, construction, condition and how they’re managed over time all shape the risks they present.

Lord Roe illustrated this with a simple example. A solid stone building from the 1850s, with no cavities and no obvious structural concerns, presents a very different set of risks to a modern building constructed using cavity systems and more complex materials. Looking at both buildings in exactly the same way does not always reflect how risk exists in practice.

The important point is that buildings should be understood on their own merits. Two buildings may both meet the definition of a higher-risk building, but that does not mean they present the same risks. Equally, a building below 18 metres should not be assumed to present lower risk simply because different regulatory requirements apply. Understanding the building is always the starting point.

What this means in practice

The legal duties have not changed. Those responsible for buildings still need to understand the risks within their buildings, manage them appropriately and be able to demonstrate how those risks are being controlled.

As I have written previously, risk does not begin and end at 18 metres. Every building carries risk. The important question is what those risks are, how significant they are and whether they are being managed effectively.

That means understanding your building rather than simply following a process. It means knowing how it has been constructed, understanding where the risks exist, ensuring critical safety systems are properly maintained and being able to demonstrate that appropriate action has been taken where issues are identified.

A Building Safety Case should form part of an ongoing safety management process rather than becoming a document that is completed once and then left unchanged. Buildings evolve over time. Maintenance takes place, components are replaced and new information becomes available. The information that supports safe management should evolve alongside the building.

Lord Roe also spoke about the importance of checks and balances within the new system and the need to ensure residents are never placed in the position they were before. That remains the purpose of the legislation, and it is something everyone responsible for managing buildings should be working towards.

For many duty holders, particularly resident management companies, these responsibilities can feel significant. Understanding what good looks like, maintaining appropriate systems and keeping clear records all play an important part in demonstrating that building safety risks are being managed properly.

Ultimately, building safety has always been about understanding risk, putting the right controls in place and being able to demonstrate that they are working. Regulation supports that process, but it cannot replace it. If the industry continues to focus on understanding individual buildings rather than relying on broad assumptions, it will lead to better decisions and, most importantly, safer outcomes for residents.

If you’re reviewing your approach to building safety or developing your safety case, having the right support in place can make all the difference in understanding and managing risk effectively. Explore our building safety services or speak to our Building Safety team.