The Building Safety Regulator moves to MHCLG: what does it mean in practice?

There’s been a lot of commentary lately about the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) becoming a standalone organisation under the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), but for those of us trying to deliver compliant, safe buildings the more interesting question is: what changes in practice?

The short answer is probably not a huge amount; but not nothing either.

From HSE to MHCLG

The BSR’s move out of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is significant symbolically. The HSE is, by its nature, an enforcement-led body. That mindset inevitably shaped early interactions with dutyholders navigating Building Assessment Certificate (BAC) applications for in-occupation Higher-Risk Buildings (HRB).

Many of our clients have described their interacitons with the BSR as being told what was wrong, with limited guidance on how to get it right

That’s not a criticism of individuals or the BSR, it’s a reflection of an enforcement culture. Regulators enforce compliance, they don’t usually provide coaching to the regulated community

By contrast, MHCLG is a policy department in whihch housing, planning and delivery sit alongside regulation. Moving the BSR there suggests an ambition to rebalance the regime slightly, from pure enforcement towards stewardship of a system that can function at scale.

Will BACs get easier? Unlikely

Let’s be clear, this transition does not change the law.

The post-Grenfell Tower fire building-safety regime still requires Principal Accountable Persons to properly assess and manage building safety risks, and purely narraitve or poorly evidenced safety cases will still fail.

If you're expecting the BAC submission process to suddenly become easier, I'd be prepared for disappontment.

The way the regulator operates may evolve

Where change is likely is in tone, engagement and maturity of the regime.

This isn’t unprecedented. There’s a strong parallel with the creation of the Military Aviation Authority in 2010. As the world’s first fully integrated military air safety regulator, I remember the early years were characterised by a very strict separation between regulator and regulated community, with very little collaboraton permitted.

Over time, as the regime bedded in and leadership evolved, the relationship matured. That didn't mean that standards dropped or safety became optional, rather the engagement became more constructive and outcomes improved as a result.

That trajectory with the BSR feels familiar.

What this means for dutyholders now

If the BSR follows a similar path, we should expect:

• No dilution of legislative expectations

• Improved consistency as precedents are set

• Clearer signals about what “good” looks like

• More structured engagement, without crossing into consultancy

In other words, not an easier system but a more predictable one.

A moment for industry to step up

This transition is also a moment for the sector to take accountability seriously. A more collaborative regulator only works if industry responds with better-prepared safety cases, clearer Golden Thread data and earlier, more honest engagement with regards building safety risks.

At Cascade, we see this shift as an opportunity to help clients meet the regulation with confidence, because in my experience, the best safety outcomes emerge when capable dutyholders operate within a regime led by a mature, confident and increasingly collaborative regulator.