CIH submission to the Industry and Regulators Committee inquiry on the Building Safety Regulator

The BSR has brought greater structure and oversight, and its establishment is a foundational step. However, it is too early to conclude that safety on the ground has improved consistently or measurably. The social housing sector has experienced challenges associated with BSR compliance in relation to both remediation and development programmes, particularly when navigating Gateway 2 approvals and meeting expectations.

While our remit focuses on social housing, the challenges and opportunities of the BSR framework affect the whole development and construction sector. The Regulator’s role in setting clear expectations and embedding accountability will shape outcomes for private developers, investors, and local authorities, as well as housing associations. Oral evidence given to the inquiry by fire and rescue services, housing associations, and developers reflects this mixed picture.

Overall, this suggests that while the BSR is starting to improve standards, greater resourcing, clarity, and consistency are needed if it is to deliver the culture change envisaged by Dame Judith Hackitt.

Similarly, research has highlighted the significant impact that unsafe buildings can have on residents' lives. CIH has previously been clear about the importance of embedding culture change as a key step forward in the prioritisation of building safety.

However, we have concerns that some progress is not always slowed by resistance, but rather by a lack of clarity: on what constitutes compliance, how decisions will be made, and what timescales are realistic. CIH would agree with research that found that the scope and ambition of the Regulator's role demand a level of expertise and resource that is not yet consistently in place. 

We welcome an outcomes-based approach in principle, however, in practice, we would argue for more clarity and effective communication. As with our response to construction product reform, we have argued that landlords and developers need practical, co-produced guidance that reflects and supports operational realities. We are aware that the limited capacity for feedback on applications has lessened the learning that can be drawn out to improve and support future applications. 

We would therefore support the planned review of Approved Documents and urge that this be grounded in delivery. We note that the function and performance-based approach here is regarded as best practice in the European context. The system needs to show what 'good' looks like across the lifecycle of a building, not just at the construction stage, as well as what ‘good’ looks like in terms of applications and meeting expectations.

We have to consider wider evidence that regulatory delays are reportedly having on development pipelines. We understand that the delays at Gateway 2 approvals is affecting both new build and remediation schemes. Whilst we agree strongly that safety cannot be compromised, the current system does present a risk of creating blockages that does not benefit the housing system as a whole.

There are also wider concerns on the impact this has in meeting the government’s target for 1.5 million new homes in this parliament. Due to largely higher housing targets established through the National Planning Policy Framework, many cities will need to focus on higher-density housing developments to increase their housing delivery, particularly on brownfield land. This may increase the development of high-rise buildings which may fall under the scope of the BSR. Therefore, it is clear that it is vital that delays in the BSR process, particularly at Gateway 2, are mitigated as early as possible, to prevent further backlogs and delays to developments in the pipeline, including with the recently announced funding in the Social and Affordable Homes Programme from 2026.

Recent data published by the BSR highlights the scale of the challenge. Approvals are taking far longer than the original 12-week target, with new build projects now waiting many months on average and remediation schemes progressing even more slowly. This is further supported by anecdotal evidence by the industry, which highlight the impacts of these delays on development plans and finances.

We therefore welcome the introduction of a fast-track Gateway 2 process, alongside investment in multi-disciplinary teams and additional inspectors. The real test will be whether these reforms deliver faster, more consistent approvals across the sector without compromising safety.

This remains a major concern, with reported challenges including fragmented guidance, inconsistencies in interpretation, gaps in technical capacity, and a lack of feedback.

While the establishment of the BSR is widely welcomed, evidence from our members suggests that resourcing has not yet consistently kept pace with the scale and complexity of its remit. For example, delays at Gateway 2 have highlighted the challenges of processing large volumes of technically complex applications in a timely way. This has been reinforced by the Regulator’s data: between October 2023 and March 2025, only 338 of 2,108 total applications were approved, with the average waiting time for new build projects stretching to 36 weeks — three times longer than the original 12-week target and significantly higher than the 19-week average reported at the end of 2024. This reflects similar findings in the Public Accounts Committee’s inquiry into cladding remediation, where capacity constraints were cited as a key barrier to progress. Strengthening the BSR’s resourcing — both in terms of technical expertise and staff capacity — will be essential to provide timely, transparent feedback and clear guidance, helping applicants to improve submissions, and reducing systemic delays.

The Wales Centre for Public Policy's report on international approaches to building safety regulation has noted that either a single- or multi-regulator model can function effectively — provided there is strong coordination, adequate resourcing, and accountability at every level.

Therefore, greater coordination is needed across the BSR, Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS), government agencies, local authorities, and development industry bodies. Roles must be clearly defined, and guidance must align to support real-world delivery, as well as avoiding the aggravation of a ‘blame culture’ between industry and the BSR.

Whilst there are clearly delivery barriers in the resourcing of the BSR, there is an inevitable role for the industry in improving upon this process. There must be a strong commitment and understanding of the importance and technicalities of building safety from all those in the industry, including in new regulation, to improve upon applications to Gateway 2 and to prioritise safety as fundamental to all development initiatives. This means that applications will require dedicated time, resource, and understanding to ensure they are of high-quality and to mitigate any further delays in the process. This, again, demonstrates the need to outline what ‘good’ looks like in applications, to provide guidance and best practice.

The 1994 Latham Report was one of the first in-depth reports to expose long-standing adversarial and fragmented practices in UK construction, urging a move toward openness, trust, and mutual respect. More recently, the Grenfell Inquiry strongly criticised the failures and lack of accountability in the construction sector, noting that this was indicative of a wider negative culture that ultimately failed to prevent an avoidable loss of life.

Evidence from comparative safety sectors, such as aviation, shows that transitioning to learning-focused cultures — emphasising reporting of failures and near-misses — can drive real improvement; yet, UK construction still lags behind in adopting this approach. Professional guidance now stresses moving from fault based blame cultures to just or accountable cultures, in which one of the purposes of management is to make continual system improvements, and support individuals to take accountability for safety.

As part of our commitment to improving implementation, CIH has collaborated with the Building Safety Alliance to produce new guidance on the golden thread — a core requirement of the Building Safety Act. Furthermore, the recent publication of new Gateway 2 guidance by the Construction Leadership Council (CLC) is a welcome step in addressing some of these challenges. Developed in partnership with the sector, this practical guidance aims to improve the quality of Gateway 2 submissions and reduce delays. The Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) has also introduced mandatory CPD on building safety for its members, with resources to help develop understanding of building safety in the industry. These examples of cross-sector work provide a standardised approach to collecting, maintaining, and sharing critical building safety information, aimed at supporting accountable persons and housing providers. This kind of sector-led support, developed with technical and professional input, is essential to embedding the regime in practice and equipping and upskilling the workforce with the tools they need.

The BPIE (Buildings Performance Institute Europe) review of European regulatory systems highlights that clarity, long-term frameworks, milestones, and sustained investment are essential for effective regulation. BPIE's work also emphasises the importance of transparent data systems and the alignment of safety, health, and energy goals — principles we believe should inform further reform in the UK.

CIH have identified this review of building regulations across Europe as providing useful examples with relevance to the UK context, which can be used for lesson learning and best practice:

• Norway's system offers a good example of improved clarity and consistency — its Technical Regulations are supported by REN veiledning guidance, with further interpretation provided through SINTEF's Byggforsk series — technical leaflets that help bridge the gap between regulatory intent and design delivery.
• Denmark's building regulations (BR18) also follow a single-source, performance-based model. They combine functional requirements with accessible, visual examples of compliance — including diagrams, dimensions and layouts — helping practitioners understand and apply the law without ambiguity. This hybrid model supports both innovation and delivery and could usefully inform improvements to the BSR's guidance approach.
• The Netherlands' Bouwbesluit 2012 provides a clear, outcome-focused regulatory framework. Functional requirements for safety, health, energy, and usability are supported through national standards (e.g. NEN) and certification processes such as performance certificates or quality statements. The use of an equivalence framework enables developers to propose alternative solutions, provided they can demonstrate equivalent outcomes. This approach has proven effective in ensuring compliance while maintaining design flexibility, reducing the need for bespoke consultancy advice, and promoting consistency in interpretation.

We also note that many international systems are moving toward joined-up regulation that links building safety with energy performance and renovation goals. This is particularly pertinent in the UK, where any reform would have to bear relation to the net zero commitments, the requirements of Awaab's Law, and the broader consumer standards landscape.

The committee has asked whether the regime should move from building-level approvals toward organisational accreditation.

CIH’s feel that building-level assurance must remain the foundation of the system. Research on residents’ views of safety shows that people feel safe when they can see, and trust, in the measures within their own buildings. General assurances about organisational approaches are not likely to give residents the same confidence and any shift to purely organisational approvals risks diluting accountability. However, we do see merit in exploring proportionality — where organisations with a proven record of leadership, competence, and strong safety culture could benefit from streamlined processes, provided this does not remove scrutiny at building level.

Through our work with members and partners, we know that culture change is not delivered by certification alone but by how organisations lead and behave in practice. Senior leaders must set the tone, ensuring competence and accountability are embedded from board level through to individual staff members. Professional standards are key to culture change. Setting the Bar sets the benchmark for competence across construction, and the Regulator of Social Housing’s Competence and Conduct Standard builds on this by embedding those principles in housing practice to strengthen trust and professionalism. As the professional body for housing, we strongly emphasise this focus on improving culture and support our members to be housing professionals driven by our professional standards. This was highlighted in the Better Social Housing Review, in partnership with the National Housing Federation, which may provide the committee with insights on this wider culture shift and drive for positive change in housing, to inform lesson learning within the construction sector. 

Equally, collaboration and feedback drive improvement. Embedding respect, transparency, and resident-led approaches is therefore critical to lasting cultural change. Taken together, this evidence suggests that cultural change is best achieved by strengthening leadership, competence, and accountability across organisations, while retaining building-level approvals as the core assurance mechanism.

For more information on the inquiry visit parliament’s website.

For more information on our response please contact Eve Blezard, policy lead, eve.blezard@cih.org.