Assessing the pace of change in the UK's building safety journey
Prior to the long-awaited publication of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s Phase 2 Report, we commented that:
“We at Weightmans are hopeful that the Report will mark a significant milestone in a wider building safety journey, but are very mindful, that it remains only one step along the way. Quite how big a step, or in what direction, remains to be seen.”
As expected, the Phase 2 Report was initially received with significant coverage, comment and commitment from Government for widespread implementation of recommendations. On the face of it, then, seemingly a significant step forward.
As one step forward can always be countered by two steps back, it is perhaps helpful to take stock of where we are. Whilst there is simply too much to cover in one article, we have set out some summary thoughts below on three key areas which we suggest are worth keeping alive to.
Where are we with the Phase 2 recommendations?
We covered the Phase 2 report recommendations at length in our comprehensive ‘Guide to navigating the Phase 2 Report and what comes next on the Building Safety Journey’ released shortly after the Phase 2 Report.
In May 2025 the Government released its first progress report, and its second progress report was released at the end of September 2025. This second progress report notably includes an ‘implementation’ timetable, from which we learn (in high level terms) as follows:
- we will have steps this year towards change, such as the publication of a prospectus of built environment regulation, initial review of scope of ‘high risk’, and the laying of secondary legislation before parliament to make changes to the building Safety Regulator and establish a new regulatory body (a core component of the recommendations)
- much of the necessary consultation and publication of draft proposals processes on high profile recommendations (e.g. change to future regulations / qualification of various professionals, future role of Building Control and whether this will be nationalised) will continue over 2025 and 2026
- it is unlikely that significant implementation of recommendations will begin before 2027 at the earliest
- much of the – what will be necessary – primary legislation required to effect the bigger changes is currently scheduled for “2027-2029 (when Parliamentary time allows)”.
Whilst then in theory there is a timeline to implementation of recommendations before the end of the current government, with so much of the detail yet uncertain (or even consulted on) this has to be optimistic at best. In reality we suspect implementation – such as it ultimately is – will stretch well beyond 2029. Of course, given the current fluctuating political landscape and seemingly indefinite budgetary constraints, as we have always suspected, the wider building safety position is likely to remain in limbo for some years to come.
Judicial Development
Against that backdrop, it is not then surprising that in the last year we have seen a notable step-change in the demand on the higher courts to start providing guidance on the position, as it currently stands, most notably perhaps in BDW -v- URS in which the Supreme Court for the first time gave views on certain matters arising out of the implementation of the Building Safety Act 2022.
As we discussed in our article ‘The rise and rise of public policy driving building safety law’ one of the most notable features of that judgment – on the back of the intervening submissions from the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government – was the clear strong driver of public policy in the interpretation of provisions. The same approach was followed in the Court of Appeal’s decision in Triathlon Homes and various cases before the FTT.
The other notable trend we are seeing is the (some would say) re-imagining of the Defective Premises Act 1972 from a once interesting (but rarely tested) side note, to a now (potentially) wide ranging vehicle to achieve the policy aims which are clearly driving the bench.
Whilst then, at least in relation to certain provisions, there is some clarity developing, there is at least in our view the potential for yet further development. We anticipate yet further movement over the coming year (and years). Quite how this will align with what – at least on the basis of the proposed recommendation implementation timetable – will be an ever fluctuating legislative position remains to be seen. It is however something we will be watching closely.
The evolving state of the Building Safety Regulator
Another area which is worth keeping an active eye on is the evolving role and practices of the Building Safety Regulator.
Whilst heralded as a substantial step forward in terms of regulating the built environment, so far the reality has been:
- the BSR is vastly under-resourced and has by all accounts been having to draw in support from other regulators, often meaning that people brought across have little or no knowledge of the built environment
- it has by its own admission hugely underestimated the task it had to perform in terms of the Gateway processes – its delays in this regard have been widely reported and despite ‘positive soundings’ those involved on the ground report that they have little confidence of any change any time soon
- there has now been a decision to move the BSR under the direct control of MHCLG (and away from the HSE) although this change would appear to be unlikely to be achieved anytime soon and quite what it will achieve remains to be seen. It is also currently unclear how this will intersect with the recent announcement of the Interim Chief Construction Advisor and the current stated intention to introduce a new overriding Construction Regulator in accordance with the Inquiry’s recommendations; and
- the former head of the BSR has been replaced with Andy Roe (a former Commissioner of the London Fire Brigade who was ultimately responsible for changing the stay put strategy on the night of the fire at Grenfell). An appointment which has been in equal parts lauded and raised concerns.
In our view, and experience, the BSR’s implementation was premature and has largely added delay and confusion to the process. It is however indicative of the whole way in which change post-Grenfell has been managed, the desire to effect driving change in part before the implications have – in full- been properly thought through.
What next?
We anticipate that the coming year will see a continued state of flux and if anything more (rather than less) confusion, as (i) the judiciary continue to interpret the current position; whilst (ii) the legislative continue to conterminously pursue the iterative implementation of Phase 2 recommendations.
Whilst not a hugely desirable forecast, it is a position we have been assisting clients to navigate for now the best part of a decade, and Weightmans’ building safety team stand ready to assist their clients moving forwards.
Weightmans’ specialist building safety team advises insurers and the construction industry daily on such issues, both in the context of claims but also increasingly in a proactive consulting role, so as to assist clients to avoid issues before they arise. If you are impacted by these issues, we would be delighted to work with you.
