The Building Safety Act: A Revisit and Your Questions

Learning Points

Collaboration and dialogue are key to resolving Gateway 2 delays.

Yes. The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) acknowledged that Gateway 2 delays stem from both poor submissions and internal inefficiencies. Encouragingly, the BSR now supports pre-application dialogue, allowing face-to-face meetings between applicants and assessors. This collaborative approach is expected to reduce bottlenecks and improve application quality. Richard Simler emphasized that such dialogue is more effective than prolonged email exchanges. The regulator also plans to differentiate minor alterations from major developments, streamlining approvals. These changes reflect a shift toward transparency and cooperation, aiming to resolve delays and accelerate much-needed housing projects.

Not all duty holders fully understand their legal safety responsibilities.

Not entirely. A poll of SMEs revealed that 88% understood their responsibilities under the Building Safety Act, leaving 12% unaware—an alarming gap. Richard Simler stressed that ignorance is no defense in law. Duty holders include clients, principal designers, principal contractors, and others involved in design and construction. Each must ensure compliance, safety, and competence. The Act redefines these roles beyond traditional CDM definitions, requiring clear communication and collaboration. Clients must assess the competence of those they hire, and all parties must understand their legal and moral obligations to avoid future liability and ensure building safety.

Golden thread ensures safety, transparency, and future legal protection.

Absolutely. While not legally mandated for non-high-risk buildings, the golden thread is vital for ensuring safety, transparency, and legal defense. It documents design decisions, change control, and rationale, helping future users operate buildings safely. Richard Simler explained that a well-maintained golden thread can protect designers and contractors from negligence claims, especially if incidents occur years later. It also supports end-users in managing and modifying buildings responsibly. The golden thread fosters accountability, reduces complaints, and demonstrates competence. Even if not required by law, it’s considered best practice across all building types and scales.

Building regulations during alterations require clarity and correct application.

Often misunderstood. Richard Simler highlighted confusion around regulations like Regulation 4 (material alteration) and Regulation 7 (combustible materials). Many professionals misapply rules, especially during changes of use or refurbishments. For example, converting a house into flats is a material change requiring compliance with specific parts of the regulations. However, existing buildings aren’t expected to meet all modern standards—only that alterations don’t reduce compliance. Understanding which regulations apply is crucial for safe design and avoiding legal issues. SWECO’s guidance notes help clarify these complexities, promoting informed decision-making and safer outcomes during building alterations.

Building Safety Act has transformed construction culture and safety awareness.

Yes. The Building Safety Act has driven a major cultural shift in construction. It has heightened awareness of safety responsibilities, encouraged competence verification, and promoted collaborative practices. Richard Simler and Andrew Carpenter agreed that the Act has had the biggest impact on industry culture in decades. It’s not just about legal compliance—it’s about moral accountability. Professionals now think more critically about safety, design decisions, and end-user needs. The Act has also spurred adoption of best practices like the golden thread and competence schemes. Overall, it’s reshaping how the industry approaches responsibility, risk, and quality.