The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) is undergoing a significant 'operational reset,' moving to a new home. But will this fresh start truly fix the persistent delays plaguing the construction industry?
Yesterday, January 27th, marked a pivotal moment as the BSR officially began its operations in a new capacity as an 'arm's length body' under the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. This transition is a crucial step towards establishing a unified construction regulator, a key recommendation stemming from the tragic Grenfell Tower Inquiry. The goal is to bring much-needed coherence to a system that has historically been quite fragmented.
Just this month, the BSR reported its highest-ever number of Gateway 2 decisions within a single quarter. This impressive surge is largely attributed to the new 'fast-track' Innovation Unit, which was launched in August. This unit has been instrumental in handling the majority of cases and has successfully met the BSR's 12-week target for processing applications. It's a promising sign that the regulator is working to become more efficient.
But here's where it gets controversial... While this uptick in speed is welcome, construction consultancy Fulkers Bailey Russell (FBR) has cautioned that this might just be a temporary 'anomaly.' They argue that the BSR 'will not routinely meet its statutory timeframes for some time.' This raises a significant question: are we seeing a genuine improvement, or just a temporary blip before the old problems resurface?
Furthermore, there's a growing concern that even if Gateway 2 approvals continue to accelerate, the backlog could simply shift to Gateway 3. This stage of the process is currently taking more than three times longer than its target to reach decisions. This means that while one hurdle might be cleared faster, another, even slower one, could be waiting.
The BSR, however, remains optimistic. They've stated that the introduction of the Innovation Unit, alongside other efficiency-driven measures, is 'fast improving' their operational delivery. Andrew Roe, the chair of the BSR, emphasized the forward-looking nature of this move, stating, 'Today is about looking forward to a single construction regulator that brings coherence to a once-fragmented system.' He added, 'We will know we are successful when residents acknowledge we have made the built environment safer.'
Charlie Pugsley, the acting chief executive officer of the BSR, echoed this sentiment, highlighting the importance of a holistic approach that covers everything from initial design to lifelong building management, driven by professional competence and refined guidance.
And this is the part most people miss... FBR's 2025 review of the BSR, released yesterday, points out a critical detail: every approval at Gateway 2 increases the BSR's overall workload. This is because each approved project requires ongoing supervision during construction and a subsequent Gateway 3 assessment. The numbers are stark: out of 2,335 submissions for Gateway 3, only 664 cases have been decided so far. These decisions have taken an average of 28 weeks, a far cry from the statutory determination period of eight weeks.
According to FBR's report, this translates to a delay of around five months for new build developments before a building can be occupied. Michael Bailey, a director at FBR, urged the BSR to learn from Gateway 2 and implement robust processes to ensure that safe buildings receive prompt Gateway 3 approval. He warned, 'Significant delays to Gateway 3 increase development risk, in turn making it difficult for the government to achieve its housebuilding targets.'
David Crosthwaite, chief economist at the Building Cost Information Service, offered a cautiously positive outlook, stressing the need for continued streamlining of the decision process into 2026. He noted, 'While more building control approval decisions are being made thanks to the new Innovation Unit, the speed of decision-making, specifically for remediation applications, must improve.' He also acknowledged that establishing the BSR as an independent organization is a vital step towards unifying construction regulation, but added, 'the BSR cannot afford to take its foot off the gas. Its new caseload is growing and construction’s residential market particularly would benefit from a slicker regulatory system sooner rather than later.'
This situation echoes concerns raised in December by the House of Lords, who published a report calling on the regulator to address 'unacceptable delays' and 'unclear guidance' following their own inquiry into application backlogs.
What are your thoughts on these ongoing delays? Do you believe the BSR's 'operational reset' will truly bring about the necessary changes, or are we destined for continued frustration in the construction sector? Share your agreement or disagreement in the comments below!
