How closely has the government adhered to the Grenfell Inquiry’s recommendations on building safety?

A “sweeping transformation” of building safety standards is what the government promised in its full response to the Grenfell Inquiry’s final report last week. In her speech in the House of Commons on 26 February, Angela Rayner set out the “tough action” that would be taken to “drive change and reform the system to ensure no community will ever have to face a tragedy like Grenfell ever again”.

There is little reason to doubt the government’s commitment to further strengthen building safety or the clear direction of travel which has been set. There are, however, nuances in its response to the inquiry hinted at by some of the carefully chosen language used in Rayner’s speech.

“We are acting” on all of the inquiry’s recommendations, the deputy prime minister said, while “taking forward” all 37 of the recommendations which were directed at the government.

As the published documents reveal, nine of the recommendations have only been adopted “in principle”, with others watered down and some arguably not treated with the urgency called for in the report.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has insisted that this does not lessen its commitment to improving building safety and said “further consideration” – such as thorough consultation – is required to achieve the “best outcomes” for some recommendations.

This is likely to come as welcome news to many in the industry who have voiced concern over the prospect of another lengthy period of regulatory uncertainty so soon after the rollout of the current post-Grenfell regime. The building safety regulator, launched in 2023, has already been blamed for widespread delays in the high-rise residential sector due to a shortage of technical staff. 

>> See also: What the delays at the building safety regulator mean for high-rise development

“The industry is already getting to grips with relatively new legislation,” Andrew Parker, head of construction disputes and building safety practices at law firm Forsters, said. “Too much radical change at this point would create further uncertainty and reduce productivity in the construction industry at a time when the government is seeking to deliver on its growth ambitions.” 

PRP partner Andrew Mellor, who is also a technical advisor to MHCLG and the Welsh Government on regulations and building safety, said that while the changes are needed, the industry, particularly the housing sector, was “suffering from new regulation fatigue”. He added: “anything that the government can do to streamline the introduction of the changes will be very much welcomed by the industry”.

While the scope of the new regime is to be outlined this autumn, there is little indication yet of how much change it will entail. Meanwhile, the wording of the government’s responses to individual recommednations arguably provides a fair degree of wiggle room.

To clearly set out what has been decided so far, here is a list of key measures which affect the construction industry and how they compare with what was said in the report:

Accepted in full: government is taking unambiguous next steps

What the government said
“Fire safety related functions will move from the Home Office to MHCLG. The National Regulator for Construction Products in the Department for Business and Trade already reports to MHCLG’s secretary of state, and we will continue to look at consolidation in the context of the report’s wider recommendations on institutional reform.”

Conclusion
This measure was announced earlier in February, before Angela Rayner’s full announcement last week, and has been accepted in full. The move has been “wholeheartedly” welcomed by the Fire Brigades Union, which said it was an “important first step to repairing the damage done to the fire and rescue service by recent governments”.

***************************************

What the government said
“We will appoint a chief construction adviser to advise the secretary of state, to monitor the department’s work relating to the Building Regulations, statutory guidance and the construction industry more generally, and to bring industry together and hold it to account to help design and deliver the progress we must make together to realise effective reform and culture change. The chief construction adviser will also provide direct input and convene industry engagement into the design and implementation of the single regulator.”

Conclusion
This recommendation has been unambiguously accepted, with the government understood to be launching a recruitment process within the next few months. The appointed individual will need to be in place relatively soon to oversee the development of the model of the new single regulator. The first sign of this work will be a “regulatory reform prospectus”, which will be published this autumn.

Accepted in principle: government has set out a direction of travel but diverges on some of the detail

What the government said
“The single regulator will deliver the functions specified in the report with two exceptions. We do not believe it is appropriate for the single regulator to undertake testing and certification of construction products, or issue certificates of compliance, as this would create a new conflict of interest within the regulator. Instead, we will strengthen oversight of Conformity Assessment Bodies through reforms to the construction products regime.”

Conclusion
In its response to this recommendation, arguably the most significant in the final report, the government has opted to exclude construction products from the proposed regime as it believes this would cause a conflict of interest within the regulator. This was criticised by Paul Woodhams, managing director for building safety and refurbishment at McLaren, who said a single regulator for the entire construction industry, including products, “could have driven out ambiguity to set a universal standard for acceptable quality of products and competent contractors to deliver the work”.

***************************************

What the government said
“Establishing a college will require primary legislation and consultation is the necessary first step. From summer 2025, we will consult on the most appropriate functions for the college to fulfil and how it could best be structured and delivered, including consideration of all the functions recommended by the Inquiry. Engaging with and hearing from a wide range of people and organisations will strengthen our proposals.”

Conclusion
The inquiry called on the government to create a higher education body to provide practical training at all levels to supplement training currently provided by fire and rescue services. It would also undertake research into major fires, develop equipment and procedures and set national standards for managerial competence.

Consultation on the establishment of a college, which will require primary legislation, will start this summer. That is all the government is currently divulging in terms of timeline, with no commitment to set up the college, although MHCLG does say it “recognises the importance of making sure that fire and rescue services are appropriately trained and that high standards are maintained”.

Potential for delays: measures deemed ‘urgent’ that seem to lack an exact timeframe for outcomes

What the government said 
“The building safety regulator has conducted an initial review of the definition of a higher-risk building. Plans for an ongoing review, which will help strengthen the building system, reassure residents and identify whether the list of buildings which are subject to the enhanced regulatory oversight and requirements of the higher-risk regime should be amended in any way, will be set out in summer 2025.”

Conclusion
A higher-risk building, which is subject to more stringent regulatory requirements, is currently defined as taller than 18m and containing at least two dwellings. This is seen by some industry bodies including RIBA as insufficiently focused on a building’s use and the potential for large numbers of people to be assembled inside.

While the government said it will set out plans for a review of the definition this summer, it has provided no further detail as to how long this will take or when the outcome of a process deemed “urgent” by the inquiry will take. Past attempts to amend building regulations have been notoriously slow, with a review of approved document B started after the 2009 Lakanal House fire producing no changes to the rules by the time of the Grenfell Tower fire eight years later.

***************************************

What the government said
“The building safety regulator is undertaking a review of how statutory guidance, currently offered in the form of approved documents, might best be structured, updated and presented in order to provide accurate, up to date and coherent guidance to support designers in demonstrating compliance with the building regulations. Interim findings will be published by summer 2025 and a full list of recommendations will be published in 2026. 

“The guidance in approved document B has been updated several times since 2017 to make it clearer and to improve fire safety standards. The government has committed to keep approved document B under continuous review, and the building safety regulator will consult on further changes in autumn 2025.” 

Conclusion
While the current building safety regulator is undertaking a review of fire safety regulations, contained in approved document B, a full list of recommendations for changes will not be published until next year. A lot rests on the outcome of this review, with the government pointing to its future conclusions in its response to recommendations 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12.

However, PRP’s Mellor said the proposed timescales of the reforms “appeared realistic”, adding that the focus on improving the existing regime in the meantime is “very sensible given the existing immediate capacity of the industry and regulators to take on more regulatory change”.

No specific promises: measures being ‘considered’ rather than definitely implemented

What the government said
“We recognise the importance of fire engineers in ensuring life safety and will consider how to most effectively protect and regulate the profession.”

Conclusion
The government has provided neither a full response or a timeline for this recommendation, merely stating it will “consider” what actions to take.

***************************************

What the government said
“We recognise the value that more masters level courses in fire engineering could bring and will consider how to most effectively increase their number and take-up.”

Conclusion
Using similar language to its response to recommendation 15, the government has arguably not taken the word “urgent” as literally as the inquiry might have intended.

Watered down: wording has been softened to allow for some flexibility

What the government said
“We intend to make it a statutory requirement to include such a statement with building control approval applications requiring the principal designer to confirm they have complied with their existing duties. This includes all reasonable steps being taken to ensure the design complies with relevant requirements in building regulations.

“We will consider whether this requirement should apply to all building control routes, not just higher-risk buildings, in line with the requirements of dutyholders under the Building Safety Act 2022.” 

Conclusion
The inquiry recommended that a principal designer on a scheme should sign a declaration effectively confirming a proposed building complies with building regulations. The government has arguably watered this down, instead requiring the principal designer to confirm they have complied with their duties. 

Mellor says this decision may have been taken because it expects the principal designer “would not be willing to sign a statement that said the building is as safe as required by the Building Regulations, and furthermore it is unlikely that insurers would support the completion of such a statement”.

***************************************

What the government said
“We will review the impact of the new dutyholder regime in relation to higher-risk buildings, working with the sector to determine how we can go further, including introducing a licensing scheme for principal contractors where a licence may be granted on the basis of criteria aligned with the dutyholder requirements and can be withdrawn for failure to achieve compliance with the regulations.”

Conclusion
The government accepted this recommendation but with softer language than used for its response to recommendation 20.