Does anyone really care about building safety?

The Metropolitan Police announced that it didn’t have enough money to meet its planned deadline of March 2026 to conclude a criminal investigation into the Grenfell fire. “Lack of investment” in the resources needed to pursue charges against those found responsible means that any prosecutions will not begin until at least 2027 – a full decade after the fire.

The victims’ families said they felt “betrayed”.

A day earlier, the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) condemned as “shocking” a decision to cut the height of a proposed multi-storey residential building in south London by 30 centimetres. This was so it would be just under 18 metres and, therefore, not defined as a high-risk building (HRB) under the Building Safety Act – avoiding the need for (and expense of) a second staircase.

This, according to the London Fire Brigade, was not “deferring to the spirit” of fire safety guidance. And, as the FBU’s general secretary Matt Wrack pointed out, the safety risks would be “almost identical” to any similar building that was just 30cm taller.

The developers of the 230-home scheme argue that they are not doing anything “wrong” as the building will comply with “all relevant legislation”, but that completely misses the point. The occupants of this large social housing block will be facing, effectively, the same safety risks as neighbouring towers that are just a few centimetres higher – and everyone involved in the construction and operation of the building is responsible for keeping those people safe throughout its operating life.

Action

What does all this say about the ‘culture’ of building safety we are supposed to be adopting in this country? There have been a lot of fine words spoken about improving the UK’s building safety standards, particularly since the publication of the Grenfell Tower inquiry report, but action (or lack of) speaks louder.

At the start of the year, BESA also released the findings of a series of building safety ‘focus groups’ held as part of our regular round of regional meetings with members in the second half of last year. We have been tracking implementation of the Act since it was first introduced, so knew industry reform is slow, but even we were shocked to find that not a single client had asked any of the companies attending those meetings about the legislation or how to comply with it.

And, far from finding evidence of any significant culture change, BESA members said the pressure to deliver projects faster and more cheaply was actually increasing at the expense of quality and safety. This is particularly the case with owners and developers whose buildings were not classified as ‘higher risk’ (HRBs) which confirmed our suspicion that most clients believe the Act only applies to this type of building.

The meetings followed in-depth research BESA commissioned  last year which revealed that, while awareness of the legislation is relatively high, contractors and clients are confused about their roles and responsibilities and there is little discernible change taking place.

The industry-wide survey, carried out by AMA Research on behalf of the Association, reported that 88 per cent of respondents showed some awareness of the Act with almost a third claiming to be “fully aware”. There were higher levels of awareness among BESA members than the industry as a whole, but detailed understanding of roles and responsibilities was mixed and varied by building and project type. 

Compliance and legal understanding of the legislation, which came into force in 2022, are proving to be the biggest challenges for organisations who told researchers they needed more training and a closer working relationship with the office of the Building Safety Regulator to embed the changes required to improve building safety.

Also, levels of awareness vary according to company size with larger organisations, both in terms of turnover and number of employees, shown to be more up-to-speed, but without client engagement, the legislation will simply fail in its primary objective of ensuring building occupants are safe. 

The two stories quoted at the start of this article demonstrate, plainly, that despite all the warm words, cost remains king.

Minimal

Most contractors told our researchers that the Act had only had a minimal impact on their businesses so far. 65 per cent of respondents said it had been “neither a positive nor a negative factor” to date. 27 per cent said it had been positive and 9 per cent complained of negative consequences. 

Tellingly, just 9 per cent reported making “significant changes” to help them comply with the legislation. 

The reasons are not hard to find, as our follow-up meetings confirmed. Clients are not engaged. They are either blissfully unaware or wilfully ignoring their responsibilities. As a result, tenders are still being won on lowest price and value engineered throughout the project on non-HRB works. Several contractors who insisted on applying more rigorous safety measures said they had been priced out of projects.

The BESA meetings also confirmed that most clients erroneously considered the legislation to be a ‘Construction’ Safety Act i.e. aimed exclusively at the construction industry and did not, therefore, apply to those owning, managing and operating buildings throughout their lifecycle.

Our aim in commissioning the research was to get a clearer picture of the level of industry awareness, understanding and readiness so BESA can adapt the services and specialist knowledge it provides to support the industry through this challenging and rapidly changing period.

We were also very keen that the report could help the Regulator gain a better understanding of the sector’s position and the challenges it faces, as we think it can do more to help the industry deliver compliant projects.

We were pleased to see that the level of awareness of the Act is highest among BESA members, but detailed understanding is patchy at best and varies considerably by building and project type. However, there is a general perception that the legislation could have positive impact by driving culture change – and we still believe that change will come in time.

The industry needs clearer and simpler guidance to help contractors apply the legislation measures to their own businesses and explain it to their clients. We also need a closer and more productive relationship with the Regulator involving open channels of communication and a greater willingness to offer advice on how to comply with Act.

However, we need to be realistic and acknowledge that the pace of change is too slow and there is still a lot of work to be done to shift the industry’s focus from speed and cost to putting quality first.

But ultimately, if the government is serious about improving standards of safety and performance alongside its ambitious plans for construction growth, it will have to properly resource the Regulator and ensure that this potentially game changing legislation is fully enforced. There need to be consequences for those who are either ignorant of their responsibilities or determined to evade them.

Too many clients still think the Act does not apply to them – or that they can get away with ignoring both the spirit and the letter of the law. They must be the target of a major awareness programme driven by the Regulator and government. It cannot be left to individual contractors to try and educate their clients, particularly if they aren’t listening.

BESA’s report can be downloaded here and for detailed information about the Building Safety Act go to the BESA Hub.