The Building Safety Act-Four years on, what is the impact on development?

The Building Safety Act 2022 (“the Act”) is a huge, evolving piece of legislation and is considered, by some, to be poorly drafted and onerous. The Act is slowing down development but much of that friction is the deliberate consequence of the policy rather than by accident. For low rise buildings, the position seems largely unchanged post-Act whereas high risk buildings are significantly affected.

A prime example is the current ambiguity about how to measure the height of a building for the purposes of the Act; a fact which should be easy to determine. Current definitions leave this open to uncertainty.

Since its inception, the Building Safety Regulator (“the BSR”) has taken longer than prescribed by the Act to process gateway two applications. Until this approval is granted steps such as the contract programme, key dates and cost plan (and subsequently any development finance) cannot be finalised. Applications are never deemed approved by default to ensure the appropriate regulatory oversight, but this restricts progression of developments. Issues with this gateway are now being sorted and the BSR role was removed from the Health and Safety Executive and reconstituted as an independent body. However, similar delays are being reported for applications that have reached gateway three to which the government is yet to turn its attention. To quote, a one of the largest real estate development groups in the UK on the BSA, “the time spent on this is money down the drain” and “the legislation is cumbersome and not thought through”.

Qualifying leaseholders are protected by the Act from remediation costs with these falling to developers and landlords. However, ongoing safety-management costs and other costs associated with building safety measures can be charged to leaseholders through the service charge (s112 the Act).

In September 2022, the FCA found that insurance premiums for multi-occupancy buildings had risen mainly due to a contraction in the supply of insurance for mid and high-rise residential buildings. The FCA’s response was to increase transparency rather than a change on the price, so premiums remain elevated.

Older stock now comes with added complications. Lenders now seemingly require a Form EWS1 as a de facto lending condition. Part 5 of the Act has been confirmed as being retrospective by the Supreme Court and this converts historic safety into a present, open-ended exposure. Also, there are too many fire consultants looking at the same building with different viewpoints on how to remedy.

Heid Brennan & Richard Phillips

Lodders Solicitors LLP

23 October 2026