Insight: The Building Safety Act – More than a compliance exercise

The Building Safety Act (BSA) has fundamentally changed the way project teams are approaching responsibility, design coordination and project delivery.

While the formal requirements apply to Higher-Risk Buildings (HRBs), the wider principles are influencing projects across the built environment. Building safety can no longer be treated solely as a compliance exercise at completion, but must be considered from the outset, alongside cost, programme, procurement and design development.

What has changed?

The BSA introduces greater accountability across the project team, with a particular focus on demonstrating that building safety has been properly considered throughout the design and construction process.

For HRBs, this includes:

• Clearly defined duty holder responsibilities.
• The maintenance of the Golden Thread of Information
• Formal Gateway approval processes.
• Robust change control procedures.
• Enhanced oversight by the Building Safety Regulator (BSR).

These requirements now place a greater emphasis on planning, coordination and decision-making much earlier in the project lifecycle.

The BSA has also changed attitudes towards risk allocation. Project teams are increasingly seeking clearer scopes, defined responsibilities and documented decision-making. Informal agreements, incomplete information and assumptions that issues can just be resolved later are becoming harder to justify where compliance and safety obligations are concerned.

Programme Implications

One of the most significant impacts of the BSA is on programme. Previously, design development often continued alongside construction. Under the BSA, Gateway 2 has effectively become a critical stop/go milestone. Construction cannot legally begin until approval has been granted by the Building Safety Regulator, making the approval process a key programme consideration from the earliest stages of project planning.

This means:

• Design should typically be developed to a coordinated RIBA Stage 4 before Gateway 2 submission.
• Early contractor engagement, design coordination and specialist input must be brought forward within the programme.
• Key client decisions must be made sooner to support design certainty.

Approval timescales associated with the BSR should be incorporated into project programmes from the outset. Delays in obtaining Gateway 2 approval can directly impact start-on-site dates, procurement activities, contractor mobilisation and ultimately the project completion date.

The impact of changes also becomes more significant. Late design changes are no longer solely a cost and programme issue but can also become a regulatory issue. Changes proposed following Gateway 2 approval must be assessed, notified, documented and managed through the formal change control process, typically led by the Principal Contractor and wider project team. Depending on the significance of the change, further detail and regulatory approval may be required creating additional programme risk and potential delays. Therefore, early contractor involvement is becoming increasingly valuable on complex projects. Obtaining buildability, logistics and sequencing input during the design stages can help identify potential compliance and coordination issues before Gateway submissions are made.

As a result, there may be longer pre-construction periods, and these should be built into the programme planning from the outset.

Cost Implications

Although the BSA is often discussed in terms of compliance, it also has commercial implications. Additional design coordination, regulatory submissions and late design changes can all influence project costs. They may not be as significant when identified early, but failing to account for them can create pressure on budgets later in the project.

Historically, clients could defer decisions and maintain momentum on site. Under the formal Gateway processes, delayed decisions can now impact approvals meaning design certainty and cost certainty have become closely linked.

There can also be indirect cost impacts associated with programme delays, extended pre-construction periods and additional regulatory reviews arising from design changes. Realistic cost planning must allow for compliance requirements as well as the risks associated with design changes, approvals and programme uncertainty.

The Importance of Documentation

The BSA places considerable importance on the quality and transparency of project information. Project teams must be able to demonstrate how decisions are made, risks are considered and how changes are managed. The Golden Thread is intended to provide a clear and reliable record throughout the project life cycle ensuring that information remains accurate, accessible and auditable. Poor record keeping, unclear responsibilities or unmanaged design changes can result in programme delays, increased costs and difficulties demonstrating compliance.

What does this mean for Private Residential Projects?

Although some private residential projects will not fall within the Higher-Risk Building requirements, the principles introduced by the BSA remain highly relevant. Prime residential projects often involve evolving client briefs, bespoke design solutions and frequent changes during the design process. Without clear governance and a change control process, these factors can create significant risks to cost, programme and certainty.

The BSA serves as a reminder that early coordination, clear responsibilities and effective decision making serve all projects, regardless of whether they fall within the formal regulatory framework.

Our View

The Building Safety Act represents more than a regulatory change; it has fundamentally changed the point at which certainty must be achieved on a project.

Historically, projects could absorb a degree of design development and decision-making towards construction. The introduction of Gateway approvals and enhanced regulatory oversight means that many of these decisions now need to be made earlier.
The question should not be “Does the BSA apply to my project?”. The better question should be “Have we allowed enough time, coordination and resource to deliver the project successfully?”

The Building Safety Act has reinforced a simple reality: certainty is no longer achieved during construction. The industry is shifting away from “build now, coordinate later” towards “coordinate first, build once approval is secured”.