New data reveals that nearly three-quarters of high-rise buildings assessed under the Building Safety Regulator’s (BSR) new safety regime have failed to meet essential standards. As of 2 July, only 45 out of 170 buildings reviewed were issued with a Building Assessment Certificate (BAC)—the formal confirmation that a residential high-rise is considered safe for occupation.
The figures come from an initial review of 1,454 high-risk residential buildings—the first phase of a nationwide building safety assessment programme rolled out in the wake of new responsibilities assigned to the BSR under the Building Safety Act.
Majority of Buildings Denied Safety Certificates
Out of the 170 buildings assessed so far, 125 have not been granted a BAC, indicating widespread issues with either safety measures, documentation, or structural concerns. When a certificate is refused, the BSR issues a legal notice explaining the reasons for the decision and outlining the necessary remedial steps.
These notices can identify anything from inadequate resident engagement strategies to missing fire or structural safety information, and in more serious cases, the need for significant remedial works such as fixing compartmentation flaws or addressing structural weaknesses.
In buildings with major issues, owners may be required to implement costly safety interventions or initiate ‘waking watch’ patrols to meet interim fire safety needs. Without these measures, buildings may risk enforcement action or even prohibition from use by local fire services.
Inconsistent Application Quality
According to Andrew Saunders, operational policy advisor at the BSR, the quality of safety case submissions has been “very mixed.”
“We’ve received everything from a 732-page safety report to one that was just two and a half pages,” Saunders explained. “An ideal submission typically falls within the 30 to 40-page range, depending on the complexity of the building.”
He added that in many cases, extensive follow-up requests for information were needed due to incomplete or insufficient documentation, indicating a widespread lack of understanding of what the safety case process requires.
Gaps in Structural Risk Assessment
A particularly troubling trend identified by the BSR is the incomplete attention to structural safety in many submissions. Saunders noted that while many building owners are somewhat familiar with fire risk assessments, they lack expertise when it comes to evaluating structural risks—a critical part of the safety case.
“In a small number of cases, we’ve received reports that don’t mention structural failure at all,” Saunders said. “Some building owners appear to believe that the standard fire risk assessment carried out under the Fire Safety Order is sufficient—when in reality, the safety case needs to go much further.”
Who Pays for the Work?
Under the Building Safety Act, residents should not be liable for life-critical safety remediation. However, the question of who bears the cost remains unclear in many privately owned buildings—especially where the original developer cannot be held accountable or no longer exists.
In social housing, the financial burden typically falls to registered providers or local authorities, compounding the existing pressures these organisations face in managing fire safety and building upgrades across large portfolios.
The First Tranche of Reviews
The 1,454 buildings being assessed as part of the first tranche were prioritised based on risk and building type. These include:
- Buildings 30 metres or taller with over 11 residential units
- Structures over 18 metres with more than 378 occupants
- Blocks clad with aluminium composite material (ACM)
- Large Panel System (LPS) buildings constructed between 1956 and 1973, especially those with gas systems and no record of safety upgrades
Properties meeting one or more of these risk profiles were the first to be called in for safety review. A second tranche of buildings is now being invited to begin their assessment process, suggesting a long road ahead for full compliance across the national housing stock.
Industry Faces Ongoing Challenges
The BSR’s early findings highlight the scale of the challenge facing both public and private building owners as the UK continues to respond to heightened post-Grenfell safety standards. While the aim is to make homes safer and more resilient, the reality of achieving compliance — both financially and technically — is proving difficult.
Many within the industry are now calling for clearer guidance, more consistent support, and better accountability mechanisms to avoid future delays in bringing high-rise buildings up to required standards.
Source: www.insidehousing.co.uk/
