Why we need a more risk-based approach to building safety 

The industry has undergone significant change, and it now operates within a much stronger regulatory framework, with clearer accountability, greater scrutiny and a renewed focus on the safety of residents.

Across the sector, building owners, managing agents, developers and safety professionals have invested significant time and resources in understanding buildings, identifying risks and delivering remediation where required.

The focus on high-rise buildings has been both understandable and necessary, given the risks associated with taller buildings and the importance of establishing a stronger regulatory framework. As we move into the next phase of building safety, however, we need to be careful that height does not become a proxy for risk. 

This is particularly relevant in residential developments where people may be more vulnerable, including later living communities. The number of floors in a building is one factor in assessing risk, but it should not be the only consideration. The design, construction, condition and use of a building, as well as its fire safety measures and the circumstances of its residents, all matter too.

The challenge for policymakers is to maintain a clear focus on the highest-risk buildings while ensuring that those below existing height thresholds are not overlooked. With external wall remediation funding now available for certain buildings under 11 metres, there is growing recognition that building risk cannot be assessed by height alone and that residents should have confidence that genuine safety concerns will be addressed regardless of the type of building they live in. This matters because the consequences of getting that balance wrong are felt by residents.

For those of us managing residential buildings, building safety is a complex process that rarely follows the neat lines set out in legislation. A building may require further investigation before the scale of a problem becomes clear. Historic documentation may be incomplete, additional surveys may be required, and further issues can emerge as assessments progress. 

Building safety is rarely one-size-fits-all. While height is an important consideration, it is only one element of a building's overall risk profile. The reality is that every building is different, and understanding risk requires a broader assessment of its design, construction, condition and the needs of the people who live there.

We need a system that looks at the characteristics and circumstances of individual buildings and responds accordingly. For Government, that means continuing to support remediation while looking closely at the points where the process creates unnecessary delay. It means ensuring funding reflects the full range of building safety risks, rather than focusing only on particular types of defect. And it means setting out a clear, long-term plan for remediation, including who is eligible for support, what works are covered, how costs will be met and how responsible parties will contribute. 

It also means recognising the people responsible for managing buildings as an important part of the solution. Managing agents are often the point at which residents, developers, landlords, contractors and regulators come together. Giving them greater clarity over responsibilities and processes can help reduce delays and give residents greater confidence. 

The ultimate measure of the success of building safety reform will be the experience of residents. They need to know that the building they live in is safe, understand what is happening when an issue is identified and have confidence that the process for resolving it will move forward in a timely manner.

The focus on high-rise buildings has helped to drive an important transformation in building safety, but as the work continues, we should broaden our perspective. Every resident deserves the same confidence in the safety of their home. The next phase of reform must ensure that risk, not height alone, drives how buildings are assessed and supported.