Building Safety: Looking to the Future
UK Chapter | Planning and Regulation Focus Group
On 11 September, the CTBUH UK Chapter hosted a roundtable discussion to explore the implications of the Building Safety Act (BSA) and associated legislation on the built environment. Held at Charles Russell Speechlys’ Head Office in London, the session convened leading voices from across the industry to share candid perspectives, highlight challenges, and explore potential solutions.
“We don’t expect to solve all the problems facing our industry in one session, but if we can generate valuable insights, spark debate, and come up with some practical solutions, then that’s a great start.” — Andy Campbell, Chair of the CTBUH UK Chapter and Managing Director at Visibuild
Chaired by David Savage, Partner at Charles Russell Speechlys, the roundtable featured: Charles Seifert, Chartered Surveyor and Director of Inside the Box Advisory; Laurence Quail, Managing Director at Aitch Group; Sofia Papageorgiou, Senior Design Manager at Gensler; Steven Brown, Director at Savills; James Souter, Partner at Charles Russell Speechlys; Yin Hui Chung, Associate Architect at Woods Bagot; Gita Maruthayanar, Project Director at Ramboll UK; Paul Jones, Sector Lead at Ramboll UK; and Lewis Mottram, Senior Vice President at Corebridge Financial.
From developers managing recladding disputes to investors frozen out by regulatory uncertainty, and architects and engineers adapting to new compliance expectations, the discussion captured the perspectives of surveyors, consultants, investors, and lawyers on how best to navigate the ever-evolving regulatory landscape.
The Post-Grenfell Landscape
Eight years after Grenfell, the tragedy continues to shape discussions on building safety. As David Savage observed:
“Grenfell was not a uniquely bad project; it was all too typical. The tragedy exposed three key crises: regulation, law, and ethics. The BSA and Fire Safety Act are attempts to address these, but the question is: just how effective are they?”
Participants agreed that Grenfell acted as a catalyst for subsequent and ongoing regulatory reform, driving the legislation that is reshaping compliance requirements, investment decisions, and project viability, and redefining professional responsibilities across the sector.
The tragedy exposed three key issues:
- Regulation – the widespread use of dangerous cladding.
- Law – why leaseholders initially shouldered remediation costs.
- Ethics – the need to raise professional standards across the industry.
While legislation has sought to address these challenges, there was consensus that cultural change hasn’t gone far enough. As Charles Seifert noted:
“It is eight years since the Grenfell disaster, and I’m still seeing poor quality construction work being undertaken on developments. This begs the question — has our construction culture really changed?”
Delays and the Impact of the BSA
It was widely agreed that delays associated with the BSA Gateway process are causing high rise residential projects to stall and new build pipelines to shrink. As a result, a sense of instability and erosion of confidence is being felt across the industry.
Steven Brown summarised the mood:
“Notwithstanding ongoing viability challenges, the BSA has caused significant delays and effected continuity in design and construction. Clients aren’t moving forward with projects, due in part to a lack of certainty on programme, which in turn has a huge knock-on effect on new construction starts.”
Evidence supports this: median approval times for gateway applications now stand at 43 weeks, more than three times the statutory 13-week target.
For investors, this uncertainty can be off-putting. Lewis Mottram explained:
“A standard 24-month development timeline is now 36 months at minimum. The clock is ticking on the investment with no return for a much longer period, and that’s a hard sell.”
Delays are further compounded by insufficient guidance and overstretched resources, as shared by Paul Jones:
“I was part of a team that submitted a Gateway 2 for a project back in April, and we are still waiting for the BSR to appoint all members of the multi-disciplinary team necessary to undertake the review."
As a result, participants reported that smaller practices are increasingly unwilling to take on projects which involve gateways, while larger firms proceed cautiously due to increased risk.
Gateway Challenges
Concern regarding Gateway 3 was unanimously expressed, with participants questioning the lack of guidance relating to completion and handover processes. Without demonstrating full compliance with the requirements for Gateway 3, occupation has become a criminal offence. This added risk creates an uncertain environment for developers and contractors, which can lead to contractual difficulties, as Laurence Quail described:
“How are we supposed to write a contract without an end date? As it stands, there is no way forward. A solution needs to be reached.”
The impact these restrictions are having on housing supply is significant. David Savage highlighted the current shortfall:
“London has a target of 20,000 new homes annually but is currently delivering fewer than 10,000.”
The problem extends to a national level. The government has committed to providing around 370,000 homes per year, yet in 2024 (and up to September 2025) only about 199,300 have been delivered. That means a shortfall of roughly 170,000 homes, with no clear route map to make up the deficit.
Unintended Consequences of Legislation
Several participants pointed to areas where the BSA has created unintended outcomes. David Savage noted that:
“In mixed use schemes, it is possible for works to commercial areas to be caught by HRB Gateway requirements. For example, where a plantroom (which may not be in the demise of the HRB itself) services both commercial and HRB residential elements of a development. That may not have been the Government’s intent, but it is the reality of the law and regulations as currently drafted.”
Paul Jones described a Mayfair refurbishment where the developer intended to refurbish individual rented apartments in an occupied HRB in a phased manner, as they became vacant. This approach would require 60 separate gateway applications, one per apartment. Practically the only solution may be to move everyone out and complete the work under a single gateway application. The consensus was that current regulations are burdensome, and risk making England a less attractive place for development, as Lewis Mottram observed:
“Schemes in Wales, France and Spain are more viable than those in England.”
Comparative data reinforces this concern: UK civil engineering projects cost over 60% more than in Germany, average infrastructure agreements take 515 days to finalise, and only 19% of planning applications are processed on time.
The reality is that around 80% of buildings fail their gateway assessments, a worryingly high proportion, resulting in “clients going off to other sectors because it is just too difficult” in James Souter’s words.
Remediation and Liability
Post-Grenfell, responsibility for building safety remains a critical issue. While the Grenfell Inquiry focused on systemic failings, participants agreed that government policy has placed the majority of financial burden on developers, requiring remediation of over 1,000 buildings, contributions to multi-billion-pound remediation programmes, and compliance with the forthcoming Building Safety Levy.
James Souter illustrated the scale of the challenge: “remediation often means rip it all off and start again.” He also described the litigation risks facing developers as “existential.” Pre-BSA, the limitation period to bring a claim was 6 years from the date of completion of the works. This limitation period has now been extended to 30 years retrospectively for claims accruing before 28 June 2022 and to 15 years for claims accruing after 28 June 2022, and yet, there has been a long-standing awareness of product risks, said David Savage:
“I’ve seen documents since the 1980s describing these products as ‘flammable insulation.’ This wasn’t a secret. They are just acting on it now, retrospectively.”
It was agreed that the elephant in the room, which presents a significant challenge, is government complicity, noted James Souter: “developers I work for are concerned about how the government will share responsibility, but the answer is that they won’t.”
The Building Safety Levy adds further financial pressure, and Laurence Quail warned:
“We simply cannot afford it — affordable housing is becoming impossible. The economy has collapsed; we are in a recession. Without growth, we can’t fund any of this, and unfortunately it is becoming increasingly less attractive to invest in this sector.”
Culture, Competency, and Education
Beyond regulation and finance, participants emphasised the importance of furthering education, encouraging a cultural change and emphasising quality workmanship.
The architects in the room described the change in their professional roles. Yin Hui Chung noted:“there has been a shift from architects being designers to proving compliance, providing audit trails and proof of competency at every turn.” To compound this, Sofia Papageorgiou added that education has lagged behind requirements: “We’re being asked to design safer buildings, yet this is not sufficiently taught in architecture schools.”
In the current regulatory environment, close monitoring of the supply chain is more important than ever. Proper workmanship on site is the last hurdle on any project, as David Savage underlined: “Even if every designer did their job perfectly, trades and workmanship still need to be spot on.”
Final Thoughts
The discussion highlighted the complex, multi-dimensional challenges created by the BSA. The Act intersects law, regulation, economics, and professional culture, impacting every part of the built environment ecosystem, with four key themes emerging:
- Delays and uncertainty are undermining project viability and investor confidence.
- Unintended consequences of legislation risk paralysing development across England and the wider UK.
- Remediation responsibility remains heavily skewed toward developers.
- Cultural change, from workmanship and professional accountability to education, is essential.
David Savage concluded:
“Many of the issues we’ve discussed today remain unresolved, and further engagement with the government is essential. This is only the start of the conversation.”
Next Steps
CTBUH UK and partners will:
- Identify priority areas for advocacy, including Gateway 3 readiness, remediation strategy, and unintended consequences of legislation.
- Develop follow-up outputs, white papers, position statements, or further roundtables to ensure industry perspectives inform government policy.
- Promote cross-sector collaboration to support a safer, more sustainable, and investable built environment.
Participants reaffirmed the value of conversation collaboration, recognising that navigating the transition to safer, more resilient buildings will be a cross-industry effort.
Members of the UK Building Safety Act Roundtable
David Savage, Charles Russell Speechlys
Charles Seifert, Inside the Box Advisory
Laurence Quail, Aitch Group
Sofia Papageorgiou, Gensler
Steven Brown, Savills
James Souter, Charles Russell Speechlys
Yin Hui Chung, Woods Bagot
Gita Maruthayanar, Ramboll UK
Paul Jones, Ramboll UK
Lewis Mottram, Corebridge Financial