Building safety: Key developments and what to expect

The construction industry has already navigated a substantial wave of reform in recent years, yet the evolution of the building safety regime shows no sign of slowing. Significant changes are on the horizon that will influence development strategy for the long term.

The coming year is likely to be shaped as much by the practical operation of the building safety regime as by new legislation. Whilst there are early signs of improvement in the Gateway 2 approval process, organisations must prepare for the introduction of the Building Safety Levy, stricter remediation deadlines, ongoing reform of the construction products regime and the continued evolution of the regulatory framework. At the same time, the courts are beginning to clarify key aspects of the building safety legislation, including the scope of Building Liability Orders, while Wales continues to develop its own distinct building safety regime. Building safety in Scotland is managed by a distinct, devolved system primarily governed by the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 and is outside of the scope of this article.

What follows is a snapshot of some of the most significant developments over the past year, and the key reforms likely to shape the construction sector over the months ahead.

Gateway 2: signs of improvement, but challenges remain    

Early indications suggest that Gateway 2 approval times are starting to improve, although live caseloads remain high. In March 2026, the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) announced that it had almost cleared its backlog of legacy higher‑risk building (HRB) applications. By the end of May, approval rates had reached 75% over the preceding 12 weeks.

The publication of guidance on staged Gateway 2 applications may also provide greater flexibility for some complex schemes, allowing approval to be sought for discrete packages of work where appropriate rather than waiting for a fully complete application.

There is reason for optimism, but projects still need substantial Gateway 2 lead‑in periods, with design work advanced early and supported by robust building safety information. Where suitable, staged applications may help, but they require careful planning and early engagement with the BSR. 

Building Safety Levy: a significant new cost from October 2026

The Building Safety Levy will take effect on 1 October 2026, operating alongside but independently from the Residential Property Developer Tax. Designed to fund remediation of historic defects, it will apply to:

• developments of 10 or more homes
• purpose‑built student accommodation with 30+ bedspaces
• changes of use that create additional residential units.

In practice, the levy will:

• be charged per square metre of new floorspace, with rates varying by authority, use and location
• impose higher charges on greenfield and higher‑value areas
• offer a 50% discount for previously developed land
• exclude some dwellings, such as affordable and supported housing and armed forces accommodation.

Despite industry pressure, no exemption for medium‑sized schemes (10–49 units) has been confirmed.

Developers should factor the levy into early decision making, particularly for marginal or greenfield sites, and keep an eye out for any policy adjustments as the October deadline approaches.

The Remediation Bill: hard deadlines and sharper enforcement

The King’s Speech confirmed that a long‑anticipated Remediation Bill is imminent. While the draft legislation is still awaited, the policy direction is clear: those responsible for building safety will face a statutory duty to identify, assess and remediate defects without undue delay.

Government briefings indicate remediation deadlines of:

• 2029 for buildings over 18 metres
• 2031 for buildings between 11 and 18 metres

Failure to comply could lead to unlimited fines or imprisonment. Homes England and local authorities will gain powers to step in and remediate buildings where landlords fail to act, recovering the cost afterwards.

The Bill will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

For developers, the Bill cuts both ways: it increases pressure to progress remediation but is expected to strengthen rights to pursue construction product manufacturers and supply‑chain parties for recovery of costs.

Courts widen liability: anticipatory BLOs now endorsed

The courts continue to take an expansive approach to building‑safety liability. In Crest Nicholson v Ardmore, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) confirmed that Building Liability Orders (BLOs) (which allow courts to extend a party’s building safety liabilities to associated entities) can be made even before liability is established at trial. An unpaid adjudicator’s award is sufficient to constitute a “relevant liability”.

The judgment also makes clear that avoiding a BLO on “just and equitable” grounds will be difficult. Group restructuring, intra‑company transfers and looming insolvency will rarely prevent liability flowing through the corporate structure.

Although the TCC refused a stay of execution and extra time to pay the £14.9 million adjudicator’s award, the Court of Appeal has granted the Ardmore companies an appeal hearing. The hearing has not yet been listed but will take place before October 2027 and is expected to deliver the first appellate-level guidance on BLOs and will be closely watched across the sector.

The Technology and Construction Court has also just granted a BLO by default judgment, holding a German parent company jointly and severally liable for its UK subsidiary’s defective cladding system. This confirms that the BLO regime is also applicable to non-UK entities where they have UK subsidiaries.

Claimants are now more likely to pursue BLOs early, rather than waiting for final judgment, and corporate groups facing historic building safety exposure should assume that courts will be prepared to intervene quickly. The case is another reminder that building safety liabilities are not staying neatly confined to the original contracting entity.

Possible reforms to the scope of HRB regulation

The government confirmed in December 2025 that the current HRB definition will remain unchanged for now. However, the five-year review of the Building Safety Act, due in 2027, is expected to revisit the definition, with growing support for a risk-based approach focused on use and occupant vulnerability rather than height alone.

A separate consultation, which closed in May 2026, also explored a more proportionate building-control process for low-risk works. The proposals included lighter documentation requirements for work within individual flats and small-scale works in common parts, and possibly moving some minor works outside the HRB regime altogether. The government has not yet indicated when it will respond

The direction of travel is towards a more targeted regime: lighter‑touch requirements for genuinely low‑risk activity, and sharper obligations where resident vulnerability justifies them.

Towards a single construction regulator

A major government consultation on creating a single construction “super-regulator” closed in March 2026. The proposal would consolidate responsibilities for building safety, construction product oversight, competence and licensing into one unified body.

Industry reaction has been cautious. Without serious investment in staffing and digital systems, many fear a new regulator could recreate Gateway-style delays on a larger scale. Others warn that merging multiple regimes could blur accountability rather than strengthen it.

The government is now reviewing the feedback, with further announcements expected later in 2026. A single regulator could streamline compliance, but only if it avoids becoming another bottleneck in the development process.

Reforming professional standards: competence and building control overhaul

The government has set out a wide programme to improve consistency, competence and accountability across the building‑safety system. This includes the call for evidence (open until 12 August 2026) on a new Building Professions Strategy, which will define the skills and responsibilities expected across the design and construction lifecycle.

Alongside this, a separate call for evidence later in 2026 will inform a new regulatory framework for built‑environment professions, trades and occupations, particularly those involved in high‑risk or safety‑critical roles, with a full strategy expected by spring 2027.

The government is progressing the recommendations of the Building Control Independent Panel, signalling a shift away from client‑selection towards fewer, larger, publicly accountable building control bodies as well as earlier and more detailed design information and approvals. The government intends to “enable full cost recovery” for building control activities to enable local authorities to invest in their teams.

Competence requirements will become more prescriptive and subject to closer scrutiny, with organisations expected to demonstrate compliance consistently across all project stages. The ability to “shop around” for approved inspectors is likely to be curtailed, and projects may face greater upfront design and data‑transparency obligations. The aim of increasing funding in the building control system could mean greater costs for users.

Wales: A broader and more demanding regime

Wales is rolling out its own building safety framework. Although it arrived later than England’s, it is broader in several key respects. It uses the same HRB height threshold (at least 18 metres or seven storeys) but applies it more widely: one residential unit is enough to bring a building into scope, rather than two in England, and hospitals, care homes and children’s homes are included (the latter is not applicable in England). Wales also does not recognise independent sections, so if any part of a building meets the HRB threshold, the whole building is treated as an HRB at the construction stage.

The first reforms took effect on 1 July 2026. They have introduced strengthened approval processes for HRB work, including gateway‑style checks at planning, pre-construction and pre-occupation, together with golden‑thread information requirements. As in England, new dutyholder obligations apply to all building work subject to Building Regulations.

A further phase follows in April 2027, when the occupation‑phase regime for multi‑occupied residential buildings comes into force. It will impose ongoing duties on those responsible for managing HRBs once residents move in and is expected to differ significantly from England’s in-occupation model.

The Welsh government is also consulting on its proposals for regulating the remediation of building defects, limiting leaseholder costs for certain qualifying leases as well as the way that building height is calculated for the purposes of the building safety regime. The consultation is open for comments until 7^th September 2026.

The Welsh regime will bring a wider range of buildings and responsibilities into scope. Organisations should prepare early, allocate roles clearly, and ensure their contractual arrangements reflect the new requirements

Immediate regulatory changes: second-staircase deadline, updated guidance and product testing

Several technical changes are already in motion or imminent:

• From 30 September 2026, new residential buildings in England with a storey 18 metres or more in height must include a second staircase;

• Approved Document B (guidance on the Building Regulations) has been updated, including new guidance on evacuation lifts, smoke control and external wall systems. Further updates are expected as a result of ongoing overhaul of this guidance by the Fundamental Review of Building Regulations Guidance.

• The Office for Product Safety and Standards has expanded its testing programme, particularly for fire doors and cladding components; and

• The BSR’s Industry Competence Committee has published guidance on managing workforce competence in line with building safety law. 

• The Construction Leadership Council has added two new building safety guidance notes to its building control guidance compendium. These relate to the fire and emergency file, and the building regulations compliance statement for new HRBs.

Technical standards are tightening, and compliance expectations are rising across the supply chain.

Construction products: a more rigorous regulatory regime

Reform of the construction‑products regime is moving forward in stages. Over the past year, the Government has set out its direction through the Construction Products Reform White Paper. Further secondary legislation is expected to give effect to these proposals, including extending regulatory coverage to a wider range of products and tightening requirements around performance claims and product documentation.

For industry, this means a steadily rising bar: more robust evidence will be needed to justify product choices, substitutions are likely to become slower and more complex, and design teams will face greater scrutiny over why specific products were chosen and how they comply.

Conclusion

The direction of travel is clear: earlier intervention, greater accountability and more active regulatory oversight. Early preparation, clear governance and proactive engagement with regulators will be essential as the sector moves into this next chapter. The Construction and Engineering team at Burges Salmon can help those navigating this complex and multifaceted regime and would be delighted to advise you on any of the issues highlighted in this article.