The Building Safety Act remains the living sector’s greatest challenge

Another issue identified is the so-called “unzipping effect”, where changes required under the act trigger wider reassessment of previously approved elements. This has extended timelines significantly. Even relatively minor works can cascade into months of delay, particularly where local authorities and the Building Safety Regulator interpret requirements differently.

Finally, there is a clear skills shortage. Compliance with the Building Safety Act requires specialist skills, from fire engineering to building control to legal oversight, but the current capacity is stretched.

“If the UK is to meet its housing ambitions, the next phase must focus on clarity, consistency and capability”

Schemes are put on hold because of a lack of experience in getting through the regular’s gateway process, yet professionals cannot gain that experience because said projects are paused.

By understanding the complexities of Building Safety Act compliance, firms are then able to hire accordingly and move forward with their often stalled projects. Very often that will involve upskilling or looking for transferable skills.

Unsurprisingly though, this is materially impeding both delivery and the wider job market. Across the sector, development activity has plunged. Previously straightforward projects are now stalling at the point of interpretation.

Even routine matters such as erecting scaffolding, which once took two weeks, can now take up to 50 days. Lower-risk areas such as commercial fit-out continue to flourish, but with investor confidence subdued, many development managers are left idle on paused schemes or, in some cases, facing redundancy.

This tension is particularly acute in the rental living sector. Unlike for-sale residential, build-to-rent and purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) schemes that are designed for long-term ownership from an investor standpoint, with operational performance and resident experience central to asset value. 

Delays in remediation or gateway approvals disrupt income streams, undermine compliance with lender requirements and, in the case of PBSA, risk entire academic cycles.

Despite my pessimistic tone, none of this suggests that safety standards should be diluted. Rather, the challenge is one of alignment. Forward-thinking developers are already responding by investing in talent that can navigate this new normal with confidence. 

We are seeing a positive shift toward hiring for resilience and transferable expertise, ensuring that teams are not just compliant, but are equipped to unlock value and restart the delivery pipeline.

Upon attending a recent Building Safety Act conference in London, it became clear that three changes would materially improve outcomes without undermining the intent of the act:

• Clearer statutory definitions are needed around what constitutes a building safety risk versus a life-critical defect. Greater precision would reduce over-remediation and allow developers and landlords to align scope earlier in the process.
• Greater regulatory consistency and realism are essential. Clearer guidance and more pragmatic gateway sequencing, particularly for occupied or income-generating assets, would restore confidence and maintain momentum without compromising safety.
• Upskilling. There is a clear paradox at play here – the industry faces a skills shortage, yet capable professionals are left idle, unable to gain the necessary experience. A more deliberate approach to upskilling could help bridge this gap.

The Building Safety Act was a necessary intervention. But if the UK is to meet its housing ambitions, the next phase must focus on clarity, consistency and capability.

Safety and delivery are not opposing goals, but without alignment, both risk being undermined.

Victoria Stuart-Martin, consultant in development and construction, Madison Berkeley