The NLA’s Technical Competency Expert Panel has submitted its response to the House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee inquiry into the Building Safety Regulator, focusing on its role and performance. The panel welcomes the ambition and intent of the new framework but highlights significant challenges in implementation, clarity, and proportionality that risk undermining both safety and housing delivery.

The introduction of the BSR represents a fundamental change in approach, moving the industry away from reactive compliance and towards proactive, lifecycle accountability. Dutyholder responsibilities are now clearer, supported by the Golden Thread of information, and technical scrutiny of designs has improved. In particular, earlier coordination between consultants and suppliers is reducing errors and raising standards in fire safety and alignment of systems, products and materials. These principles are strongly aligned with lessons from the Grenfell Tower tragedy and international best practice. However, the panel stresses that the effectiveness of the regime is being limited by delays, inconsistent application, and a lack of clear guidance.

The panel notes that the new Gateway system, particularly Gateway 2, has introduced lengthy delays and substantial upfront costs. Many projects have been paused, redesigned, or abandoned altogether to avoid classification as a High-Risk Building (HRBs). This has serious implications for the Government’s housing targets: high-rise development is essential in urban areas, yet investors are increasingly reluctant to engage with HRBs due to regulatory risk and uncertainty.

The BSR’s outcomes-based approach is widely supported, but the panel argues that its application lacks proportionality. Currently, the same level of scrutiny is applied to both major projects and minor, low-risk works such as mechanical upgrades. This “one-size-fits-all” model creates unnecessary administrative burdens, delays, and costs. The panel recommends a risk-tiered system, with streamlined pathways, exemptions for minor works, and standardised templates for common interventions. This would maintain robust oversight for complex projects while freeing resources to speed up delivery.

A consistent theme across the response is that many delays stem not from poor understanding by developers, but from a lack of clarity and capacity within the BSR itself. Staff shortages, difficulty recruiting skilled assessors, and reliance on outsourced multidisciplinary teams have contributed to bottlenecks. Developers are also frustrated by vague approval criteria, inconsistent turnaround times, and the absence of exemplar documents or checklists. To address these issues, the panel calls for greater investment in staffing, digital infrastructure, and training, alongside clearer and more practical regulator-backed guidance. Pre-application advice, actionable feedback, and closer collaboration with local authorities and fire services are seen as essential to building confidence in the system.

The panel acknowledges that some of the current difficulties may ease as the industry and regulator gain experience. However, it argues that structural reforms are also necessary: clearer Approved Documents, a risk-based regulatory framework, and sufficient resources to handle the volume of applications. The move towards a single construction regulator, consolidating the roles of BSR and the Office for Product Safety and Standards, could also provide a clearer and more accountable system for the future.

The BSR has introduced much-needed cultural and procedural change, embedding accountability and improving safety outcomes. Yet, without urgent reforms to improve clarity, proportionality, and resourcing, the regulator risks becoming a barrier to housing delivery at a time when high-rise buildings are crucial to meeting national targets. The panel’s message is clear: the principles are right, but the processes must evolve if the system is to deliver on its purpose.