1. Progress is happening — but unevenly across the system

Across the year, key improvements were observed in industry understanding of Gateway requirements, higher-risk building registration, and Safety Case preparation. However, contributors noted that progress varies widely depending on:

• competency within building ownership/management teams
• availability of digital records or golden thread information
• the regulatory capacity of local authorities and the BSR

Steve Bunce highlighted how local authorities are gaining a clearer picture of building risk, but workload, process constraints and building complexity continue to slow enforcement..

2. The HRB Public Register is growing, but still not reliable

Analysis shared by Matt Hodges-Long and based on work with Simon Lay showed that although the HRB Public Register now represents over 13,000 unique buildings and around one million homes, the dataset still contains:

• inconsistent building naming
• duplicated records
• incorrect postcode fields
• no search by PAP, building name, or BAC status

While the register improves visibility for residents and the sector, data quality continues to limit what can be confidently interpreted from it.

3. Regulatory processes remain slow and costly

Following observations earlier in the year, contributors noted that requests for information (RFIs) and document handling continue to repeat work, delay assessments and inflate costs.

Repeated submissions via email links, SharePoint folders and zipped file transfers undermine:

• audit integrity
• tracking of evidence
• the golden thread principle
• efficient decision-making

James Capper emphasised the impact on Principal Accountable Persons, who face cost uncertainty and unclear response timelines.

4. Residents remain the “unmeasured data point” in building safety

Melisa White reiterated that thousands of residents across the UK have been displaced due to prohibitions related to fire and structural safety. Yet there remains:

• no national reporting on resident outcomes
• no mandated standards for relocation or like-for-like accommodation
• inconsistent communication and well-being support

Data may chart building compliance, but it does not yet measure human impact.

5. Misunderstanding of problem scale and regulatory focus

Simon Lay observed that the data indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the scale and complexity of the problem when the regulatory regime was established, arguing that dealing with residential buildings is uniquely difficult because the residents themselves create and are part of the hazard management. He further commented:

• focus is on new builds rather than the legacy estate, where the hazard truly lies
• still too much emphasis on complex external elements instead of simpler issues like fire doors and smoke control systems
• better use of data and triaging of buildings, rather than processing applications on a first-come, first-served basis
• understanding the permanence of works like scaffolding, as seen in the Spectrum building

The sector needs data-driven triage and regulatory recognition.