Building Safety Committee discussion with Dame Judith Hackitt

1 Committee meeting
2 Key takeaways
3 In more detail
4 Related articles on Designing Buildings
5 External links

[edit] Committee meeting

On 15 July, 2025 the Industry and Regulators Committee continued its inquiry into building safety regulation, hearing from Dame Judith Hackitt, whose independent review led to the creation of the Building Safety Regulator (BSR). The session explored whether the BSR has improved high-rise safety, its impact on new housing delivery and maintenance, and changes in industry culture since the Grenfell Tower fire. The Committee also aimed to assess whether the BSR’s framework could be made more proportionate without compromising safety and if the regulator has the necessary skills and resources for timely approvals.

Below is a summary of the Industry and Regulators Committee meeting which ran on Tuesday 15 July 2025 Meeting from 10.03am to 11.21am (see image above and recording via this link).

[edit] Key takeaways

Holistic approach to Approved Documents: Dame Hackitt welcomed the BSR review affirming move toward cohesive approach integrating fire safety, structural integrity, and energy, aligns with her original vision.
Improved collaboration: She stressed the importance and need for stronger collaboration between industry and the regulator. Weekly meetings take place, but this approach was overdue, perhaps relates to delays.
Prescription v autonomy: Cautioned against overly prescriptive guidance, (past failures), advocates for industry regulator co-development of “good” / “good enough”, accountability remains with designers and builders.
Competency: Good action from bodies but variation in uptake of frameworks across the sector, progress being slower than expected. Seven years on from her original call, many professionals still lack formal accreditation.
Time and risks of 'going backwards': Dame Hackitt initially expected culture change within 5–6 years, but admitted adoption has lagged behind. Significant changes now happening, she warned against complacency, especially as frustrations over procedural delays could threaten existing progress, hence review is timely.
Better communication: Widespread calls for clearer, more consistent feedback from multi-disciplinary BSR teams. Hackitt agreed communication must improve, but affirmed this doesn’t amount to regulatory capture and rigorous enforcement should remain in place, working more closely only impacts this positively.
Occupancy risk profiles: She emphasised that buildings should be judged on their intended use and occupancy type (e.g. sheltered, rented etc), not just height, calling for better risk assessments to reflect occupant profiles.
Gateway two delays a shared issue: While delays have frustrated developers, Dame Hackitt noted that through meetings with BSR she had noted that the many poor-quality submissions were also to blame. Both industry and the regulator must improve documentation quality and clarity of requirements, also relates to competency.
Examples internationally to look at include the Building Trustworthy Indicator (BTI) / Building Trustworthy Index (BTI) rating system making use of blockchain technology.

[edit] In more detail

Dame Judith Hackitt confirmed that the framework recommended in her Independent Review has largely been implemented through the Building Safety Act 2022. She expressed satisfaction that the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) is fulfilling the role she envisioned, bringing greater scrutiny and accountability to building safety. While the structure differs slightly from her original idea of a joint competent authority, she believes the intent has been preserved.

The Committee raised concerns about delays and limited consultation in the regulatory process, which they plan to explore in detail. She addressed the role of the Building Control Independent Expert Panel, established following the Grenfell Inquiry to address two main issues: the influence of commercial interests in building control and whether a national authority is needed over the current local model. The panel, launched in June, has already met several times, is about to publish its problem statement, and will begin consultation shortly, aiming to report back in the autumn.

She noted her continued involvement since her 2018 review, including chairing the Industry Safety Steering Group and serving on oversight panels. She remains actively engaged with stakeholders, advocating for culture change and regulatory improvement across the industry. The Committee is now considering next steps for further progress.

Dame Judith Hackitt emphasised that the key focus going forward should be on stronger collaboration between industry and BSR. While such cooperation is now happening, weekly meetings being held to resolve ongoing issues—she acknowledged that it took too long to establish this process, contributing to delays, particularly Gateway Two. While early challenges were expected due to the scale of cultural / procedural change, more must now be done to ease the transition.

She supported the idea of providing clearer guidance to developers but warned against reverting to overly prescriptive regulations. Drawing on her review, she noted that previous detailed guidance often went unfollowed or misinterpreted. The new regime rightly places responsibility on developers and designers to deliver safe buildings, rather than solely on sign-off from regulators, arguing that industry and regulator must jointly define “good” and “good enough” look like.

Comparing with other sectors like oil and aviation, she noted those industries adapted more quickly after crises. While some in construction are now stepping up under pressure, many were slow to act, though good actors exist she called for broader commitment across the sector.

There was cautious optimism that BSR's review of the Approved Documents aligns with her recommendation for a more holistic framework that considers fire safety, structural integrity, and energy efficiency together. She emphasised the need for better collaboration between industry and regulator, noting that while regular meetings now occur, the process took too long to establish.

She identified the fragmented nature of the construction sector and inconsistent industry uptake, particularly around competence standards, as key barriers to progress. She welcomed greater communication and engagement between the BSR and industry, dismissing concerns about regulatory capture, and stressed that regulators must support those trying to do the right thing, while still enforcing against non-compliance. Regarding inconsistent feedback from BSR’s multidisciplinary teams, she acknowledged this was likely in early phases but is being monitored and improved. She emphasised the importance of considering different building occupancy profiles when assessing safety.

Reflecting on the culture change she called for in 2018, transformation it was expected within 5–6 years but she admitted it has taken longer. She warned against regressing due to frustrations over Gateway Two delays, noting that industry shares responsibility for poor-quality applications and must do better to meet clear expectations. Some developers and housing associations were showing exemplary commitment to safety reform, but broader cultural change across the sector remains slow and inconsistent. She criticised the poor quality of some Gateway Two applications, stressing that many lack even the basic required information, which contributes to delays.

Dame Judit underscored the need for greater industry-regulator communication without fear of regulatory capture. She also discussed the significance of identifying accountable persons and duty holders in occupied high-rise buildings and the role of the “golden thread”, as a comprehensive digital record essential for ensuring building safety throughout a building’s lifecycle. However, she noted the current lack of standardisation and digital maturity in the sector, warning that it threatens consistent safety outcomes.

She expressed concern that some developers are still resistant to change and warned against backsliding on progress made so far. While change takes time, especially in a fragmented industry, it is essential to continue moving forward and avoid repeating past failures.

Dame Judith Hackitt supports BSR's proposal to issue notices on an organisation-wide basis rather than building-by-building, especially for large housing providers managing many buildings. She argues this approach allows more strategic, long-term planning and prioritisation of safety works, making regulation more efficient.

However, a potential downside is that it may reduce focus on individual building conditions. She highlighted the benefits of the gateway system, noting it encourages better upfront design, clearer safety accountability, and a shift away from risky “design-and-build” contracts. She supports innovations like staged approvals and lifecycle costing.

Dame Judith Hackitt provided an in-depth explanation of the Gateway process within the Building Safety Regime, detailing Gateways 1 (planning stage), 2 (design safety assurance), and 3 (final construction verification and safety sign-off). She emphasised that the expectations at each stage are clear and reasonable, and while challenges remain, the framework promotes a more robust safety culture. To improve efficiency, she advocated for a two-stage contracting process, where more design work is completed before contracts are finalised—reducing changes and increasing build efficiency.

She noted that some in the industry are adapting positively, moving toward more responsible practices, while others still rely on outdated design-and-build models that undermine safety. She acknowledged that conditional approvals may be necessary in some cases, allowing for certain non-critical elements to be resolved post-Gateway 2, as long as safety is maintained.

The importance of collaboration and ongoing learning between industry and the regulator, supported by frequent engagement and oversight from the Building Industry Oversight Board was stressed. She backed recent government reforms, including moving regulation out of the HSE for better consolidation. Finally, she argued that the industry, not taxpayers or residents, should bear the regulatory costs, as this creates an incentive for safer practices and avoids unfairly burdening leaseholders, especially in legacy issues stemming from past poor construction standards.

Dame Judith Hackitt expressed disappointment at the construction industry’s slow pace in modernising practices following the Grenfell tragedy. She criticised the persistence of inefficient design-and-build contracts that result in material waste and limited safety oversight. A need for more standardised building designs and greater adoption of digital tools, such as the “golden thread,” to improve efficiency, accountability, and safety was emphasised.

She acknowledged ongoing challenges in recruiting skilled staff, both in the industry and within the BSR, citing a widespread competence and behaviour gap, and urged for better proof of professional competence calling for a government-led review of professional standards and pathways into the sector.

She also highlighted the need for in-house regulatory expertise for consistency and knowledge retention but supported some external input during workload peaks. The discussion also explored regulation of lower and medium-rise buildings, especially those with vulnerable occupants, noting this is a future priority.

On building control, she admitted practices vary widely across both public and private sectors, reinforcing the need for cultural and structural reform. Lastly, she welcomed the planned unification of construction product regulation under a single authority by 2028, aligning with her original recommendations.

Dame Judith Hackitt emphasised that while the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) and the construction products regulator (under the Office for Product Safety and Standards) are working well together, their regulatory functions are distinct. One oversees the construction process; the other oversees product safety and testing. She supported the long-term vision of a single, coherent regulatory framework—possibly under one overarching body—once both arms are functioning effectively.

Cautioning against restructuring too soon, she warned it could disrupt the progress being made, stressing the need for continued collaboration, culture change, and consistency across public and private building control bodies. International comparisons showed that mixed regulatory models exist globally, with useful safeguards the UK could adopt. She praised Australia's “Building Trustworthy Index,” which independently verifies project quality and could help rebuild confidence with insurers, regulators, and consumers.

Regarding political pressure linked to housing targets, Dame Judith Hackitt argued that BSR should defend itself against unfair criticism, noting only a fraction of the 1.5 million-home target is affected by Gateway 2 delays. She concluded that skills shortages, insurance challenges, and mortgage confidence are also key barriers in rebuilding trust, especially amongst insurers, which remains essential for long-term success in delivering safe homes.