Connect with us

Politics

The House | Can The Building Safety Regulator Cast Off Its ‘Bottleneck’ Reputation?

Published

on

Can The Building Safety Regulator Cast Off Its 'Bottleneck' Reputation?

Former London Fire Commissioner Lord Roe is said to have made significant improvements to the way the Building Safety Regulator works (Collage by Antonello Sticca)


8 min read

The Building Safety Regulator is under new leadership. Will it succeed in fixing a broken system? Noah Vickers reports

England’s Building Safety Regulator did not get off to the best of starts. Created under the last government’s Building Safety Act of 2022, the BSR was designed to prevent a tragedy like the Grenfell Tower fire from ever happening again.

As well as overseeing the remediation of existing buildings, all new-build developments which qualify as ‘higher-risk’ at the planning stage are referred to the regulator for approval, and if they fail to pass muster, are sent back for changes to be made. The definition of ‘higher-risk’ means any block of flats taller than 18 metres, or seven storeys, comes under the BSR’s purview.

But soon after the regulator’s establishment, it quickly struggled with the volume of applications it was receiving, and delays mounted – while developers complained about opaque processes and poor communication.

In December 2025, the House of Lords’ Industry and Regulators Committee published a scathing report warning that the BSR’s “unacceptable” delays were having “a worrying impact on the delivery of new housing”.

The committee’s inquiry had opened in June, but by the time they published their report six months later, evidence had already begun to emerge that the BSR was getting its act together under new leadership. Experts across the construction sector tell The House that the regulator has made significant progress in how it deals with applications, while cautioning that there remains some work to be done.

The BSR grants approval for new buildings at three ‘gateways’. Gateway 1 comes before planning permission, where the local council is required to seek the BSR’s views on any higher-risk building. At Gateway 2, the BSR reviews the design before construction can begin, and at Gateway 3, the building is assessed again at the post-construction, pre-occupation phase.

Gateway 2 had become especially notorious in the last couple of years as a key “bottleneck” for new high-rise housing projects. While a Gateway 2 decision is meant to be issued within 12 weeks, by the summer of 2025, the average waiting time for approval had grown to just over 51 weeks.

In June 2025, former London fire commissioner Andy Roe – now Lord Roe – was appointed as the BSR’s chair. He was joined by his former deputy commissioner Charlie Pugsley, who took up the role of chief executive, and John Palmer, a former Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) official, who was made operations director.

“Those three individuals have just transformed the engagement of the BSR with industry and other key stakeholders in a really professional way,” says Neil Jefferson, CEO of the Home Builders Federation. “The people we see now who represent the BSR have instilled more confidence in the industry overall.”

The new personnel arrived just months before the BSR in January moved from being part of the Health and Safety Executive to becoming a standalone, arms-length body under MHCLG. It will eventually merge into a ‘single construction regulator’ to cover all aspects of the built environment, as recommended by the Grenfell Inquiry.

It was a bit of a black box before, and under Andy’s leadership that’s definitely changed

But beyond those administrative changes, improvements in the regulator’s communication style with developers and contractors have been welcomed across the sector.

“They’re talking to us much more sensibly and constructively, and not being quite as hands-off,” says Ian McDermott, chair of the G15 group of London housing associations.

“It was a bit of a black box before, and under Andy’s leadership that’s definitely changed. There’s much more engagement. We are talking through problems in a way that we simply didn’t do before, but there’s still quite a lot of work to be done.”

Median waiting times for Gateway 2 decisions are still taking longer than 12 weeks, though are substantially down from where they were, with the latest data showing approval taking 22 weeks and rejection taking 17 weeks. A backlog of legacy cases has however been largely cleared and a rising proportion of applications are being approved. In the 12 weeks to 30 March, the approval rate for validated applications climbed to 61 per cent, up from 33 per cent in the 12 weeks to 25 February.

Labour MP Mike Reader, who just six months ago helped lead a Westminster Hall debate warning that the BSR was “widely regarded as actively hindering the construction of new homes”, says he is “really impressed with how quickly it’s been turned around”.

But he warns: “There will be some cultural work needed still within the BSR. You don’t [suddenly] achieve cultural change in an organisation, in the mindsets of people from ‘Computer says no’ to ‘Not quite there, but this is how we can help you improve’ – that will still come… It’s not there yet, is what I’ve heard.”

It’s a concern echoed by Stephanie Pollitt, programme director for housing at BusinessLDN, who says that efforts now need to be taken to ensure that Gateway 3 does not become a new pinch-point over the coming months.

The frustration at Gateway 2 was partly due to a lack of clarity and transparency over what constituted a good application for validation, she says, adding: “I think we need to learn from those mistakes and make sure that doesn’t fall foul at Gateway 3 as well.”

Jefferson agrees: “The level of resource that’s in the BSR at the moment is wholly focused on Gateway 2, so when we get the first developments at Gateway 3 coming through, there are some concerns that there could be delays in getting buildings signed off on site, which creates cashflow problems for developers in many ways.

“I think there’s more confidence under the new leadership that we can tackle Gateway 3 together than there would have been previously, so that’s definitely a positive, but we’ve got a lot of learning to do together on Gateway 3.”

Ensuring that the regulator is properly resourced presents another challenge. The government had pledged to hire 100 additional staff into the BSR by the end of 2025, but minister Samantha Dixon has revealed that while 115 new posts were “approved”, only 83 new staff members have been “onboarded”.

Boosting the regulator’s workflow may also require other improvements beyond manpower alone.

“The BSR was set up with inadequate IT systems for document management – it was just completely overrun,” says Jefferson. “I wouldn’t say that that’s necessarily been solved yet, but it’s certainly been recognised as an issue.”

Andy and his team are receiving applications from developers which are timed to come in before the levy hits

Jefferson warns too that Roe’s work to improve the BSR could soon be put at risk by the government’s plan to introduce the Building Safety Levy in October. The levy, which was delayed from October last year, will be charged on all new residential developments of 10 or more units, with the funds used to help pay for cladding remediation and other safety repairs.

“We would welcome a further delay because of the economic conditions for development at the moment. It’s really unwelcome that this is coming in,” says Jefferson, who points out that the government already has £2.6bn in its Building Safety Fund to spend.

“It means that Andy and his team are receiving applications from developers which are timed to come in before the levy hits. Those applicants will be looking for acceptance of those projects before October, which will create a spike in his workload and make it difficult for him to prioritise his work.”

Anthony Breach, policy director at the Centre for Cities think tank, meanwhile says questions may still need to be asked about whether the 18m height limit should be increased – potentially to 30m or 50m – to reduce the scope of the BSR’s work and speed up developments.

In its Phase 2 report, the Grenfell Inquiry concluded: “We do not think that to define a building as ‘higher risk’ by reference only to its height is satisfactory, being essentially arbitrary in nature,” and recommended that the definition be reviewed. After a review last year, the BSR found there was “insufficient evidence” to change the definition, which was supported by MHCLG.

“The 18m threshold is very low, it doesn’t really have any basis in fire safety,” says Breach. “The result is, the mid-rise buildings that the government – separately, in its economic strategy – is stressing as very important to improve housing affordability, transport efficiency, the productivity of the national economy, that type of building is now just much more difficult, expensive, risky to build than it would be in a system where the BSR’s scope was defined more clearly on fire risk.”

A BSR spokesperson said the regulator has introduced a new system of account managers to enable “regular dialogue between applicants and the BSR” as well as a new “complex case category of application”, saying this is “quite clearly the opposite of a ‘computer says no’ approach”. The recent move to become a non-departmental public body will also see “investment in our technology and in our people’s skills”, they said.

They added: “We are continuing to work with the sector to build upon the existing guidance to provide further clarity around what a good [application] looks like which will help reduce invalidations and rejections.

“We have seen some high quality applications pass quickly through the system and are encouraging developers to share best practice. New-build approval rates are increasing month on month and we have a shared objective with the sector to drive up approval rates.”

MHCLG, meanwhile confirmed that having already delayed the Building Safety Levy by a year to give developers time to prepare for it, “no further changes” are now planned to its implementation.

>

Continue Reading

Politics

Politics Home | Big Tech Firms Are “Winning In A Big Way” On Online Safety, Warns Jess Phillips

Published

on

Big Tech Firms Are 'Winning In A Big Way' On Online Safety, Warns Jess Phillips

The former safeguarding minister Jess Phillips has warned the big tech firms are winning in the battle over regulation (Alamy)


3 min read

Major tech companies are “winning in a big way” against efforts to make the internet safer for women and children, according to former safeguarding minister Jess Phillips.

Phillips, the Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, said that during her time in government, parts of Whitehall, including No 10, were reluctant to take action for fear of retaliation by tech giants and the Donald Trump administration.

Speaking on the latest episode of PoliticsHome podcast The Rundown, which will be published on Friday (7 August), Phillips said: “We are too beholden currently in the world to basically five unelected people.”

The Labour MP resigned as a Home Office minister in May, accusing the Keir Starmer administration of not working hard enough to protect women and girls online. Phillips said Starmer was a “decent man” but his reluctance to “have an argument” meant that steps to tackle violence against women and girls (VAWG) were “stalled and delayed”.

In her resignation letter to the then-prime minister, Phillips said that “91 per cent of online child sex abuse is self-generated by children groomed, tricked and exploited into abuse”, and that Google and Apple, the two companies that control the operating systems on almost all smartphones, could quickly and easily install software that would stop them being used by children to take and receive naked pictures.

In June, Starmer gave tech firms a September deadline to make this change, warning that the government would give itself the powers to fine or take criminal action against those that did not comply.

Phillips wants new Prime Minister Andy Burnham to hold them to this, telling the podcast that, as things stand, “tech companies are winning in a big, big way”.

The former minister said there was a divide within Whitehall about how to tackle online safety when she was in government. She described the Home Office as being “hawkish as hell about tech companies”, while No 10 and the now-abolished Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) were nervous about being too aggressive.

Phillips recalled “the sense that tech companies and the US would hold us to ransom on all sorts of different things”, adding: “I’ve had it directly said to my face, ‘well, look, they’ll just put trade levies on us if you try and do anything with tech companies’.”

She said Starmer “was always on my side in conversations”, but that she “just started to feel like I was going slowly mad” waiting for the machinery of government to make it happen.

“If you could hear some of the conversations I had to have with people. There are some people who genuinely just think that people taking dick pics is a human right,” Phillips said. 

“I had to say to somebody once: ‘You know, you won’t die. It’s not water or shelter’.”

Phillips expressed concern that the government’s Online Safety Act is “woeful for women” in its current form and “20 years behind” where it needs to be to tackle evolving online harms.

“As somebody who was seeking to put down lots of amendments to the Online Safety Act while it was passing through, I’ve never known aggressive lobbying like it,” said the Labour MP. “Every single law firm in the whole of London was basically on retainer to one of the big tech companies so that they couldn’t work for anyone else. That is just anti-democratic.”


The Rundown is presented by Alain Tolhurst, and is produced and edited by Ewan Cameron for Podot

  • Click here to listen to the latest episode of The Rundown, or search for ‘PoliticsHome’ wherever you get your podcasts.

 

>

Continue Reading

Politics

How Andy Burnham Could Pay For His Policy Pledges?

Published

on

How Could Andy Burnham Pay For His Policy Pledges?

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has outlined a range of areas he would like to see greater spending in. (Alamy)


4 min read

Andy Burnham has set out some major ambitions for government since entering office. Experts look at how he could pay for them.

The new Prime Minister was keen to hit the ground running when he succeeded Keir Starmer in No 10 last month, promising quick action to help people cope with cost-of-living pressures. He announced that he would take VAT off electricity bills, cap bus fares at £2, and reduce business rates for pubs and restaurants.

When it comes to longer-term policy, Burnham has promised to end rough sleeping and reform adult social care. His vision for the latter, bringing it more in line with NHS provision, is estimated to cost billions of pounds of additional spending every year. The new PM is also under pressure to increase defence spending in response to global security threats.

At the same time, the PM has pledged to stick to the government’s fiscal rules and 2024 manifesto pledges not to raise income tax, national insurance and VAT. 

This has raised questions about how Burnham will fund his plans for government.

Many details will not be confirmed until Wednesday, 28 October, when Chancellor John Healey delivers the first Budget of the Burnham Labour government. Healey, who resigned as defence secretary during the final weeks of the Starmer government over defence spending, has said that the Autumn Budget will be “built on fiscal discipline”.

What are Burnham’s options?

Carsten Jung, leader of the economy team at the Institute for Public Policy Research think tank (IPPR), argued that Burnham and Healey have inherited a better economic picture than Starmer and former chancellor Rachel Reeves faced.

“Rachel Reeves, for all of her strategic mistakes, really fixed the public finances,” said Jung. 

“What she inherited from Jeremy Hunt [her Tory chancellor predecessor] was unsustainable. It was based on cuts to departmental spending which weren’t sustainable. So she went to the painful exercise of increasing taxes to fix that.

“What Andy Burnham inherits is a much better funded state, and he also has headroom against the fiscal rules he inherited, which makes it less dire.”

However, he said that borrowing money to fund government spending could be riskier for Burnham than it was for Starmer due to “jittery” markets and a more precarious global picture. The Bank of England recently warned that it may be forced to raise interest rates later this year if the US war with Iran escalates, which in turn would make borrowing more expensive. 

Jung said that one option available to the government is to increase tax on wealth to bring it closer to tax on earnings, highlighting capital gains tax. 

As things stand, people are charged either 18 per cent or 24 per cent on profit they make when selling, gifting or disposing of an asset that has increased in value, such as a second home. Burnham could increase Treasury revenues by aligning capital gains tax rates with income tax bands of 20, 40 and 45 per cent.

Elsewhere, examples of pro-growth policies according to Jung include the Treasury investing more in “leading industries” in the UK as well as “boosting entrepreneurship” while closing tax loopholes. 

Isabel Stockton, researcher at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said Burnham’s ambitions can be split into two categories: those that are less fiscally challenging, such as the cost-of-living measures he announced in his first few days in office, and policies with greater economic implications, like defence spending and adult social care.

Stockton agreed with Jung that borrowing more money would be “difficult” and “risky” for Burnham as it could push the new government close to breaching its fiscal rules, leaving him with two broad options: raising tax and cutting spending elsewhere.

Burnham has already said that the country must get “really serious” about reducing welfare spending to fund priorities like greater defence spending.

Stockton also suggested that the Labour government explore using the National Wealth Fund as a way of boosting spending power –  it was launched under Starmer in 2024 to “mobilise billions of pounds of investment” in UK “clean energy and growth industries”. 

By the end of the current parliament, the NWF should be on track to have capitalised with almost £30bn – with government funds directed to “resources to finance economic activity that supports additional private investment”, opening up investment options for the government. 

However, NWF is still funded by taxation and borrowing, and is run by the Treasury – meaning the challenges around scrutiny on tax and spend remain. 

Stockton told PoliticsHome the limitations Starmer’s government faced on taxation, spending, and spending cuts continue to exist, and remain challenging for Burnham’s government. 

“With any new government, it can make different choices, but it is going to be facing essentially the same constraints, especially given that he [Burnham] says he’s committed to the existing fiscal rules,” said Stockton.

“He says he’s committed to the Labour manifesto on tax, so that rules out quite a few things already. That means that the decisions are going to be difficult.”

 

>

Continue Reading

Politics

Politics Home Article | Labour’s Bev Craig Wins Greater Manchester Mayoral Contest

Published

on

Labour's Bev Craig Wins Greater Manchester Mayoral Contest


2 min read

Labour candidate Bev Craig has been elected as the next Mayor of Greater Manchester, securing a comfortable victory to succeed the new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham. 

She won 309,525 votes (around 66 per cent), with Reform UK candidate Sian Astley receiving 157,178 (around 34 per cent), once first and second preferences were taken into account.

Craig, a close Burnham ally who has led Manchester Council since 2021, said: “I am honoured, I am humbled, and I stand ready to serve the three million people that live across this fantastic city region.”

The turnout was relatively low at just over 25 per cent. 

Labour will now need to choose a new leader of the council to succeed Craig.

The by-election in Manchester was triggered after Burnham won a parliamentary by-election in Makerfield, returning to Westminster as an MP and becoming PM just weeks later.

The Greens were initially confident of success in Greater Manchester, following their victory in the Gorton and Denton parliamentary by-election in February.

Former leader of the Green Party Caroline Lucas told The House in June that the party would be “throwing everything” at the contest. 

However, after the first round of voting in Greater Manchester, the Greens were in third place on 12 per cent. Rupert Lowe’s Restore Britain got 9 per cent, the Conservatives 8 per cent, and the Liberal Democrats 3 per cent.

The election used a more proportional voting system than first-past-the-post, in which voters express a first and second choice. Under the system, if no candidate secures 50 per cent of the votes after the first round, then the top two candidates will be given the second preference votes from the defeated candidates.

 

 

>

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.