Brickchat

…in the context of recent changes to regulatory reforms in the high rise residential sector of England and Wales.

The focus is – for now – on Application Procedure, because that is what is perceived to be hampering progress. Not wrong. But not enough is being said about the underlying issues with the Building Regulations themselves, and the part this plays in the confusion, delay and dissonance we are experiencing. 

Outcome-based regulation relies on competence and engagement

The Regulatory framework for England and Wales and any work under its jurisdiction, relies on interpretation of guidance by competent professionals on a case-by-case basis. Every building must be designed to pre-determined outcomes, but the constraints are different each time, and therefore the route to compliance may also differ. Industry’s position to Government must be that evidence-based debate is a fundamental part of the system, and we have not had this under the new regime. 

The poor resourcing, and variability of the outsourced review teams, with their own specialties and proclivities on show in the content of their feedback to proposals appears to be getting pushed out with little to no adjudication / verification by the Regulator. This is adding to the uncertainty around what compliance looks like for any individual building. Pertinent, when we consider that tall buildings attract a level of case-specific scrutiny and understanding.

Lack of Regulatory Leadership

We are yet to really see the ‘Building Advisory Committee’ take on a leadership role in the review of Building Regulations Guidance. This was announced by Angela Rayner in early 2025, but little progress has been made in public. Until then, Government continues to react in siloes. There is a lack of transparency as to how Guidance is being researched, documented, published. Prof. Richard Prager is the incumbent Chief Scientific Adviser to the MHCLG, he lists the government role on his LinkedIn as ‘part-time’. Surely, this commands a full-time post?

From speaking to a Principal Architect working for the BSR, there work was confined to isolated reviews of Parts of the Building Regulations and is not included in the broader ‘Building Safety Review’ being undertaken, despite the fact that their areas of specialty are listed by the BSR as one of the key ‘Building Safety Risks’ that Applicants should consider when making their applications.

Little to no evidence provided with guidance documents

A designer’s compliance with “BS 9991:2024 Fire safety in the design, management and use of residential buildings. Code of practice,” a British Standard, provides no guarantee of compliance or safety, as stated in the document’s foreword. Many are seeking to follow this guidance to the letter, seemingly unaware that this may still deliver an unsafe building. The industry’s capacity to design based on empirical evidence is limited by the broad statements and numerical restrictions contained in current guidance. 

By putting numbers on everything (eg.18 metres high = two staircases) the framework is susceptible to strategic interpretation. Some in the industry and further afield are critical of such approaches, and such interpretation is not un-true but overlooks that these supposed bad-actors are operating under a set of rules as they are set. Margaret Law, of ARUP fame, decried this approach as long ago as 1994.

Rather than resisting the temptation to add the targets, the government continues to double down on numbers-based guidance. 7.5m travel distance, 2 staircases, etc. etc. The Home Office’s own studies with the University of Central Lancashire, and statements from then Minister Michael Gove that single stair buildings are “not inherently unsafe.” A numerical value, once assigned, gives the illusion of scientific method but without sufficient evidence is either deemed illegitimate, or susceptible to misuse. Look no further than the adage, “75% of statistics are made up on the spot.”

BSR resourcing

Referring to my points above about consistency of approach, direct employment gives the government a better chance of producing reliable outcomes (safe buildings). The system relying on un-trained Regulatory Leads presiding over the outsourced MDTs was not successful and provided no facility for Quality Control through the central point. From a systems design perspective, it is a bad system.

This procedure has been pushed through too soon, being established and course-corrected as it has while Dame Hackitt continues her review of the administration and operation of the Building Control function. None of the panel she selected for this task seem to possess building control experience (Nick Raynsford chaired an Inspectors Professional Body but is not himself a qualified Inspector). The panel’s findings, to be published in the Autumn, will likely have further impacts on how the Government structures the Building Control profession. This casts the current setup and any short-term attempts at reform into doubt.

A note on Procedure

The BSR are beginning to gauge the industry’s interest in pursuing an ‘Approval with Requirements’ approach with initial reviews conducted for a choice selection of the functional requirements of the Building Regulations. This facility is written into the Procedures Regulations Reg 7(2)(b) and allows Regulator and Applicant to agree a consent ‘subject to one or more requirements’. To our understanding, this is no different to how the Conditions workflow operates under the Town and Country Planning Act. 

In Summary

The government has focused on procedure and not process. The design process is being frustrated by a lack of leadership on design guidance and quality assurance on the interpretation of same. 

Approvals with requirements will enable the industry to get going without the BSR losing face, or reneging on their commitment to raising standards. Crucially it gives them the time they need to clarify what those standards should be.