The Building Safety Act: Why Commercial Property Managers Cannot Treat It as “Residential Only” Introduction

Mixed-use buildings: when commercial falls into the higher-risk regime 

The clearest route into scope is the definition of a Higher-Risk Building (HRB). During occupation, a building that is 18 metres or seven storeys and contains at least two residential units may fall within the higher-risk regime.

For mixed-use assets—offices with apartments above, retail podiums beneath residential towers, hotel-residential combinations—the presence of qualifying residential units can pull the entire building into a stricter regulatory environment.

The practical implication is straightforward: the strictest use within the building sets the governance standard. Inspection regimes, change control, information management and competence expectations are determined by higher-risk requirements, not by the dominant commercial floor area.

However, there is an important nuance. In some circumstances, the BSR has indicated that distinct commercial parts of mixed-use buildings may be treated as independent elements where they are demonstrably separate in functional, structural and fire safety terms. Where that separation is robust and defensible, it can limit how far higher-risk obligations extend into purely commercial areas. For property managers, this can be a critical “get out of jail” card, provided the separation is real, documented and capable of withstanding regulatory scrutiny. It is not automatic and cannot be assumed. 

Mixed-use is therefore no longer operationally neutral. It carries regulatory gravity—but sometimes with definable boundaries. 

Fire safety reform extends across commercial portfolios 

Even buildings outside the HRB definition are affected. Amendments linked to the BSA have materially strengthened duties under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

Commercial, retail and industrial buildings now face higher competence expectations for fire risk assessors, clearer articulation of Responsible Person duties, greater emphasis on documented management systems and a stronger evidence trails for mitigation and review

This is not administrative tightening; it changes procurement, maintenance and audit exposure. Fire risk assessments must be defensible, contractor selection must reflect competence, and management arrangements must withstand enforcement scrutiny. 

Building control reform reshapes capital works 

The Act also overhauled building control processes. Clients, designers and contractors now carry explicit statutory duties concerning compliance, coordination and competence.

For commercial property managers, this means front-loaded compliance validation before procurement, stricter change control (particularly around substitutions or value engineering) and formal evidence of competence embedded in contracts.

These obligations apply to refurbishments, façade replacements, plant upgrades and complex fit-outs, any works engaging building regulations risk. Informal or relationship-driven processes that once sufficed in commercial asset management are increasingly indefensible. 

Gateway approvals: programme and funding risk 

For HRBs, the BSR’s gateway approvals—particularly Gateway 2 (pre-construction); introduce material programme risk. Delays have attracted public commentary and can disrupt funding, contractor mobilisation and occupation dates.

Even where a commercial building is not itself an HRB, exposure may arise through: 

• Mixed-use refurbishments involving HRB components

• Shared infrastructure with adjacent HRBs

• Contractors pricing regulatory delay risk across portfolios

• Gateway risk now sits on the critical path for capital planning and leasing strategies.

The “golden thread” and information discipline 

A core BSA principle is the “golden thread” of information: a coherent, maintained and accessible record of what was built, why it complies and how it is managed.

For commercial managers, this is less about wholesale BIM adoption and more about governance discipline with controlled and current drawings and fire strategies, traceable O&M data, documented maintenance and change records and evidence-backed compliance assertions.

It is clear that investor and insurer expectations have shifted. Demonstrability has replaced reassurance. 

Extended liability and transaction risk 

The BSA significantly extended limitation periods for certain building-related claims, in some cases retrospectively. The effect is a longer liability tail for historic design and construction decisions.

Assets with incomplete records or ambiguous design responsibility are harder to transact and more expensive to hold. 

Service charge, recovery and stakeholder pressure 

While statutory cost protections focus on qualifying residential leaseholders, mixed-use buildings create downstream complexity for owners and managing agents.

Service charge allocation, remediation recovery and occupier communications now sit within a heightened legal and reputational framework. Decisions on recoverability are strategic and risk-sensitive, not merely accounting exercises. 

The commercial bottom line 

The Building Safety Act may have originated in residential tragedy, but its operational legacy is a tougher, more accountable regime for the built environment as a whole.

For commercial property managers and owners, resilience now depends upon identifying which assets are genuinely drawn into higher-risk scope, and where defensible separation may exist as well as embedding disciplined information, competence and change-control systems.

Assuming the Act is “residential only” is no longer commercially tenable. The regulatory border is wider, the liability horizon longer, and the evidential standard higher.

David J. Hills FRICS, FIIRSM, MIFireE, MSFPE, RSP, Senior Director - Regulatory, Technical & Technology Solutions, Ark Workplace Risk