Building safety: more change to come

The past few years in construction have been defined by change. In the wake of Grenfell, a plethora of legislation, regulation, new roles, codes of practice, gateways, competence requirements and certification have beset the industry to raise the bar on building safety and accountability.

While the good news is that so much has been achieved, anyone looking forward to a period of calm once the current changes have bedded in, be warned: more is to come. 

Government is currently working its way through the 58 recommendations set out in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report, published in September 2024, having formally accepted all of them six months later. It committed to implement them in full or in principle to address systemic failures.  

The industry was reminded of this intention just before Christmas 2025, when government published a flurry of documents including progress on Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommendations, the single construction regulator consultation, and the higher-risk buildings review. 

Here we look at this latest phase of proposed change in the pipeline to 2027. 

The inquiry’s first recommendation was to create a single construction regulator to reduce fragmentation in how the construction sector is regulated and drive cultural change within the industry.

The inquiry recommendation identified 12 functions relevant to the inquiry’s remit spanning the regulation of buildings, products and professionals. The government accepted 10 of the 12 across these three areas of the system.

A prospectus for the single regulator published in December lays out how the new regulator would operate within a broader programme of regulatory reform, including future reforms to the construction products regime (with a white paper due spring 2026) and an overarching strategy for built environment professions expected by spring 2027. 

The proposed regulator is to bring together existing bodies – including the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) and elements of the National Regulator for Construction Products – into a more coherent, integrated system overseeing design, construction, products and professional competence. The plan for this all-powerful watchdog is to set clear outcomes and objectives, enforce standards and hold individuals and organisations accountable, while incentivising good practice and supporting industry innovation. 

Professional regulation is a key theme: the government plans a long-term strategy for built environment professions, including statutory oversight of safety-critical roles such as fire engineers, fire risk assessors and principal contractors, to ensure competence, accountability and consistent standards. 

There has been positive feedback, but some trepidation what regulating professions might have on capacity – particularly principal contractor roles.

“APS welcomes the recently published high-level proposals for a single regulator, and its underpinning vision for a better regulatory system that sees ensuring the safety for people in buildings and improving the standard and performance of buildings as the regulator’s primary, non-negotiable, objective.

“Of particular importance for APS members are the proposals about the regulation of professionals. The prospectus could not be more explicit that the competence, capacity and conduct of those working in the built environment is a critical determinant of building safety, quality and performance. 

“It’s therefore considering a potential new professional oversight function of the single regulator and, for example, existing regulators and professional bodies such as APS. 

“The proposals shared appear holistic in nature, considering wider challenges standing in the way of a coherent framework, such as productivity and economic impacts and those thrown up by climate change. 

“The reforms are broader in scope than the post Grenfell recommendations and policy work to date. This is perhaps unsurprising given they are the result of a more collaborative approach than previously, an approach which is expected to continue for the various pieces of work which were announced.

“APS will build on the engagement it started with MHCLG and Building Safety Regulator officials, to continue to shape what comes next to make sure it delivers for all, residents, professionals and UK Plc. 

“We encourage any APS member that wants to help shape the future of what will become far reaching changes, to get in touch with us via [email protected].”

“Under the plans, the new single regulator would have direct oversight of testing and certification across all construction products. And the government is also considering whether more professions should be subject to mandatory registration and licensing requirements.

The consultation closes in March 2026, with the government’s full response expected in the summer. And in the spring, we also expect to see the government’s Construction Products Reform White Paper. It is clear that it is going to be another year of change for the construction industry.”

Grenfell Inquiry’s chair, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, and his panel of assessors pointed out that there is currently no statutory recognition or protection of the title “fire engineer”, which means that anyone can describe themselves as one, regardless of training or qualifications. The inquiry highlighted how this contributed to confusion and a false sense of assurance during the Grenfell Tower refurbishment, as contractors and clients assumed competence where it was not guaranteed.

For example, only a portion of the members of the Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE) are registered with the Engineering Council as qualified fire engineers. IFE members are drawn from across the fire sector, and may be fire risk assessors or operate in the emergency services, for example.

The inquiry therefore recommended that fire engineering should be placed on the same footing as other regulated professions (such as architects and doctors), with clear entry standards, independent oversight and enforceable codes of conduct to ensure competence and accountability.

The Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) convened a panel of industry, academic and regulatory experts to advise on these recommendations and develop a statement on what should be expected of a competent fire engineer.

In December, MHCLG published both the authoritative statement and a next steps paper from this group, known as the Fire Engineers Advisory Panel, which agreed that professional practice is fragmented, with fire engineering often poorly understood or undervalued within multidisciplinary teams.

The panel recommended introducing a legally protected title, with statutory regulation defining activities that only registered fire engineers can perform. Fire engineers should hold formal responsibility for developing and stewarding a building’s fire safety strategy across its entire lifecycle.

Establishing this responsibility in law would prevent gaps or ambiguity and support consistent, high-quality practice. A coalition of industry leaders (the Fire Forward Collective) has strongly endorsed the implementation of a national system for registering fire professionals. They believe that registration will protect the industry from unqualified practitioners and ensure that only competent professionals are in charge of life-critical fire safety designs.

That said, fire engineering leaders also flag up concerns. These include:

“The government’s commitment to regulating both the title and function of fire engineers marks a significant shift for the construction sector in terms of fire engineers’ roles as well as their professional standing in the industry. 

“The proposed changes would make the fire safety strategy a protected function of a regulated fire engineer, and fire engineers would have accredited education and supervised experience to demonstrate their competence.

“However, the government has more thinking to do, including around whether to expand the requirement for fire safety strategies beyond just higher-risk buildings, and whether the new regulations would apply in England only or to the UK more widely. 

“There will also be significant challenges to address, including around how to train and upskill fire engineers, while maintaining sufficient workforce capacity, during the transition to any new regime. A government consultation is expected later this year, so we will know about the trajectory of travel then.” 

The industry won’t see change in the definition of higher-risk buildings. Government has accepted the conclusion of a recent review, which found that the current definition appropriately reflects the available evidence on the risks to individuals from the spread of fire or structural failure. 

This will be disappointing for some, who have been campaigning for care homes to be brought within the scope, because their vulnerable residents makes them particularly exposed in the event of a fire.

Instead of changing the definition, the government announced that the BSR will carry out an ongoing, evidence-led review, keeping the position of care homes and other sensitive building types under scrutiny.

Meanwhile, a Building Safety Act review is planned for 2027, five years after it was introduced.

“The construction industry will no doubt be very relieved to hear that there will be no change to the legal definition of higher-risk buildings at this stage. The sector is still adjusting to the new regime and to determining whether buildings fall under this category or not, which can be complex in some cases.

“The definition may be subject to further change in the future, as it is to be kept under ongoing annual review, but the government has made it clear that any future proposals for change will be fully tested with industry before implementation.”

These building safety changes are already in train in response to Grenfell recommendations and set to be enacted within the next 12 months.

Government is developing proposals that will be included in the Construction Products Reform White Paper to be published before spring 2026.

The Building Control Independent Panel (appointed by government in April 2025 and chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt) is expected to publish a final report shortly with government planning to issue a formal response in 2026 also. A key consideration for the panel is whether to remove commercial interest from the system and whether certain functions should be moved to a “national authority” model.

A consultation on the fire risk assessor profession will be launched in early 2026. This consultation will set out proposals and opportunities to meet recommendation 26 of the Grenfell Phase 2 Inquiry and support consistently high competency standards across the fire risk assessor profession.