Design, Then Build: The Culture Shift Parliament Can’t Afford to Ignore

The Building Safety Act has been in force long enough for the industry to reflect. What’s working? What’s broken? And what does Parliament need to hear now, before things go further off course?

There have been ‘mixed’ experiences since the new legislation has been widely discussed and Parliament’s Industry and Regulators Committee is now seeking feedback – a welcome move, especially given the recent acknowledgement by government that the Building Safety Regulator requires more direct control to unlock mounting delays in higher-risk building projects and restoring industry confidence.

This consultation presents a timely opportunity for built environment professionals to share experiences and shape the next phase of regulatory development. It invites those affected by the Building Safety Act and its implementation to reflect honestly on what is working, what is not, and what more is needed to achieve the Act’s ultimate goal: to make buildings safer for all.

At the heart of the legislative shift is a deliberate move away from ‘cost and speed’ driven construction, towards a culture grounded in quality, safety, and accountability. The amendments to the Building Regulations introduced in October 2023 are now exerting a tangible influence on how projects are procured and programmed, particularly for higher-risk buildings (HRBs). This shift was anticipated in Dame Judith Hackitt’s post-Grenfell review, which highlighted systemic flaws in traditional procurement approaches that prioritised price and programme over performance and compliance.

Among the most profound impacts of the new regime is on the procurement strategies favoured by the industry. The ‘hard stop’ requirement for BSR approval before construction begins on HRBs, combined with stricter change control processes during delivery, has rendered some previously popular procurement methods – particularly fast-track design and build contracts – increasingly risky and, in many cases, no longer viable.

The BSR’s own Neil Hope-Collins has called for a shift from “design and build” to “design then build” emphasising the importance of completing regulatory-compliant designs before breaking ground. This represents a major change in mindset, not just for design teams but for clients, contractors, and the wider supply chain as a whole. This is a cultural shift that many would say is taking too long to click into place.

At GSSArchitecture, we are embedding “design then build” thinking across all projects, not just HRBs. We are advising clients of their legal duties under the Act, particularly their responsibilities to allow sufficient time and provide adequate resources for compliance-focused design. This guidance aligns with our Building Safety Act Reference Sheet, which identifies five essential client priorities: establishing competent duty holders, allowing adequate time for design development, planning for full design coordination at Gateway 2, ensuring clear documentation of compliance, and fostering collaborative working relationships throughout the team.

There is also an imperative to adopt a “right first time” mindset, leading to the recalibration of project timelines. We are actively encouraging clients to front-load design effort, allowing more time in RIBA Work Stages 3 and 4 for coordination and technical resolution. This includes early engagement with the supply chain to incorporate specialist knowledge into the regulatory submission.

For this to be effective, project teams should also factor in earlier contractor involvement, possibly through pre-construction service agreements or early trade contractor appointments. This ensures that the necessary expertise is on hand to develop compliant solutions before Gateway 2 submissions.

At GSSArchitecture, we’ve experienced first hand how ambiguous documentation can derail even well-prepared Gateway 2 submissions — with one HRB scheme delayed by over 20 weeks. This was largely due to insufficient clarity in the submission materials, though much of the required detail was included, the BSR found it difficult to interpret due to a lack of a structured, clause-by-clause compliance roadmap. For all HRB schemes where GSS are the Principal Designer, we will provide a comprehensive tracker to map every element of the design against each clause in each relevant Approved Document, not just statements to confirm how the design complies with the relevant regulations.

A further lesson learned from the same HRB project, is the essential role of the architect in coordinating cross-disciplinary design. In recent years, this role has been eroded by fragmented procurement models and decentralised design control. But under the new regime, centralised, architect-led coordination is proving indispensable for compliance and successful BSR engagement.

Unsurprisingly, this more rigorous approach has not been universally welcomed. There remains a segment of the industry that sees the new regime as a bureaucratic burden, particularly on projects that fall outside HRB definitions. But a business-as-usual attitude risks regulatory non-compliance, construction defects, and ultimately, unsafe buildings.

The potential consequences of getting it wrong are now far greater. BSR has powers to halt work, demand the rectification of non-compliant construction, and impose sanctions. The reputational and financial risks for project teams are real and growing.

While some may view the new regime as slowing progress, Hackitt’s own reflections offer a different perspective:

“More rigour and oversight at the front end of the process can lead to significant increases in productivity, reduction in ongoing costs and to better outcomes for all.”

If the feedback Parliament receives highlights these benefits as well as the barriers, it could provide the impetus for refining guidance, improving regulator-industry dialogue, and supporting better implementation.

The current call for feedback is an opportunity to shape a more resilient construction sector, one in which buildings are not just delivered but designed and built to last.

Parliament’s call for feedback on the Building Safety Regulator is a critical moment for the industry to reflect on lessons learned and to help shape future regulatory direction. It is an invitation to be constructive, evidence-based, and forward-looking.

As professionals working at the coalface of compliance, design, and delivery, we have a responsibility to share our insights: the challenges of adapting procurement models, the need for better programme planning, the value of early collaboration, and the benefits of getting it right first time.

Based on our own experience, successful projects under the new regulatory framework will hinge on clear documentation, full design coordination, and a cohesive, collaborative approach across the project lifecycle.

We should respond to this call not merely out of obligation, but because we care about the quality, safety, and sustainability of the buildings we create. Let this be a collective step towards a better built environment for all.

📆The consultation is open until Sunday 31st August 2025. Responses can be submitted via the UK Parliament website – https://committees.parliament.uk/work/9196/building-safety-regulator/

Written by Jonathan Hunter, Senior Partner at GSSArchitecture.