However, as a fire safety professional, I came away with a lingering concern that the building safety regime is still too slow and, in some important respects, still not fit for purpose.
One of the most striking statistics shared was that there are still nearly 4,700 residential buildings over 11 metres identified with unsafe cladding. While more than half have either started or completed remediation, thousands of residents continue to live with uncertainty almost 10 years after Grenfell. The scale of funding committed by government is substantial, yet progress remains frustratingly gradual.
The conference also highlighted the growing maturity of the Building Safety Regulator. Approval rates for Gateway 2 applications have improved, which is encouraging. Yet determination periods of around 22 weeks (and approvals taking 33 weeks) remain challenging for projects, and most shockingly, not a single project has yet passed through Gateway 3. We are introducing increasingly complex regulatory processes without yet having a complete understanding of how they will operate across the full building lifecycle.
Another area that generated significant discussion was Building Assessment Certificates; new applications are still on pause and won’t be due to recommence until the new financial year. It was acknowledged that the current process is not working efficiently and that a more intelligence-led approach is being developed. While this sounds sensible, there was little clarity on what the future model will look like or when the industry can expect certainty. For many dutyholders, uncertainty has become a recurring feature of the regime.
Perhaps the most important discussion centred on competence. The proposed reform of built environment professions, including stronger regulation of fire engineers and fire risk assessors, is undoubtedly necessary. However, regulation alone will not solve the problem. True improvement requires competence to be valued by clients, procurement teams and decision-makers, not simply those delivering technical advice. Too often, commercial pressures continue to outweigh long-term safety considerations.
A recurring theme throughout the conference was the difference between compliance and safety. We have become very good at creating processes, forms and checks, but there is a risk that these become ends in themselves. Genuine building safety is achieved by understanding risks, addressing root causes and demonstrating evidence-based decision making. You can be compliant by fixing the same issue every year, but you’re not demonstrating safety. Safety requires identifying and fixing root causes to achieve genuine risk reduction and better outcomes.
Ultimately, building safety should not be judged by approval rates, consultation responses or the publication of new guidance. It should be judged by whether residents can be confident that their homes are genuinely safe, and whether that confidence is supported by clear evidence and effective oversight. While there have been undeniable improvements, too many residents remain affected by lengthy remediation programmes, and too many dutyholders continue to navigate uncertainty within an evolving regulatory framework.
Leaving the conference, I was encouraged by the commitment, expertise and determination evident across government, regulators and the industry. However, I was equally conscious of how much remains unresolved. Many of the regime’s key mechanisms are still being refined, some remain largely untested at scale, and significant risks continue to exist within the existing building stock. The challenge for the coming years is not identifying what needs to change - we have spent long enough doing that. The real test is whether we can turn ambition into action at a pace that reflects the urgency of the issues we are trying to address. The industry owes residents more than a promise of future reform; it owes them a system that is clear, effective and capable of delivering meaningful safety outcomes now. Only then can we say that we have truly learned the lessons that led us here.