By Freeths Building and construction & Engineering lawyer Li Yen Lim
The structure safety landscape gets in 2026 with a significantly various tone to the previous two years. Entrance 2– when the most heavily criticised inflection point in the regulatory routine for Higher Risk Buildings (HRBs)– is now revealing progress. Approval times, which previously reached a remarkable 48 weeks in London and 43 weeks nationally, have been driven down to 13– 14 weeks, with some applications now attaining the statutory 12 week decision period. This turnaround follows the Structure Security Regulator’s (BSR) shift into a standalone body under the Ministry of Real Estate, Neighborhoods and City Government, and the introduction of a suite of functional reforms centred on performance, early engagement, and accountability.
Applicants now receive recognition feedback within a week, ending the long silences which when preceded rejections for missing information. Efforts such as batching applications, selecting account managers for significant developers, and improving internal IT systems have actually produced a more predictable regulatory experience. While 29 legacy Gateway 2 cases remain from the initial stockpile, the most substantial staying obstacle lies within the remediation caseload, where approximately 280 plans continue to face processing times of around 34 weeks. A brand-new plan is expected to reduce removal approvals closer to the statutory 8 week target.
As approvals accelerate, the discussion is moving from “fixing the system” to asking whether the system itself is efficiently designed for the long term.
A more in proportion regime on the horizon
The Federal government’s upcoming 2026 assessment on procedural reform for existing HRBs represents a pivotal moment. Its purpose is to streamline requirements for lower danger work and enable the BSR to focus its oversight on interventions where security threats are biggest. This dovetails with the continuous assessment on reducing controls for low risk works such as fiber optic cabling and telecoms installations, currently due to close in March. Together, these reforms signal a meaningful shift toward a proportionate, danger tiered regulative environment– one in which oversight lines up more carefully with the intricacy and consequences of failure.
Your House of Lords’ recommendations
In December 2025, the House of Lords Market & Regulators Committee released the most extensive review of the BSR to date. While acknowledging the enhancements delivered by the regulator, the report highlighted that efficiency gaps stay considerable and recognized reforms required to future evidence the system. Key suggestions consist of:
– A yearly, cross sector BSR report recognizing the most substantial security risks across all structures, not only HRBs, supplemented by finest practice assistance.
– Pre application sessions, enhanced engagement, and released examples of successful submissions.
– A proportional path for minor works to HRBs, ensuring that lower threat interventions do not consume limited multidisciplinary competence.
– Swift introduction of a generalised security requirement for building products, following the Government’s White Paper.
The Federal government’s formal action is anticipated by 11 February, followed by its Yearly Development Report to Parliament later this month.
Parallel changes in planning and real estate shipment
Alongside developing security reform, the Federal government has proposed modifications to preparing policy planned to promote homebuilding. A brand-new “medium site” classification for developments of 10– 49 homes is under factor to consider, with proportional compliance expenses for SME designers and possible exemptions from the Structure Security Levy. The timing for application doubts, however the effect might be material especially as a quarter of England’s housing supply is expected to be HRBs.
Will the BSR find out faster than the threats it governs?
As Gateway 2 performance enhances and procedural reforms collects speed, the sector faces a much deeper obstacle: are we moving towards a building security system capable not just of reacting to known risks, however of discovering quick enough to expect emerging ones– or are current reforms simply minimizing functional pressure without addressing much deeper structural vulnerabilities?
If the program remains mainly reactive, the next generation of dangers will once again exceed regulative capacity. A genuinely resilient system requires more than faster approvals. It requires:
— A regulator equipped to forecast danger and engage early with market.
— Much deeper technical ability and consistent standards across all building types.
— Proportional oversight that releases capability for the most complex threats.
Just then can the country deliver both safer buildings and the housing development it urgently needs.