Fire Engineering and Building Safety: A Guide for Clients
Fire Engineering and Building Safety: What Every Client Needs to Know Before October 2026
Fire Engineering & Building Safety | Bailey Partnership
The Building Safety Act 2022 has already transformed how higher-risk buildings are designed, approved and managed in the UK. But the regulatory landscape is still evolving – and 2026 brings a significant new development that affects almost every new residential project in England.
On 1 October 2026, the Building Safety Levy comes into force in England. This is not a change buried in technical guidance. It is a statutory levy – postponed once already from its original commencement date – that will apply to most new residential developments of ten dwellings or more, including Build-to-Rent schemes and purpose-built student accommodation. Its purpose is to raise £3.4 billion over ten years to fund the remediation of unsafe buildings. The cost falls on developers. And its introduction signals something important: building safety is now a permanent feature of the development cost equation, not an occasional compliance consideration.
Understanding how fire engineering integrates with building safety compliance – and what it means for your project programme, cost plan and design strategy – is essential for any client bringing a project forward in this regulatory environment.
Why fire engineering is not simply about compliance
The most common misunderstanding about fire engineering is that it is a box-ticking exercise – something that happens at the end of the design process to confirm the building meets minimum standards before a sign-off is issued. In reality, fire engineering is most valuable when it is integrated from the earliest stages of design.
A fire engineer working alongside an architect from RIBA Stage 1 can influence fundamental decisions – building layout, compartmentation strategy, circulation routes, means of escape – before they are embedded in the design. That influence is either impossible or extremely costly to exercise once detailed design is underway. The building that is easiest and least expensive to make genuinely fire-safe is the one that was designed with fire safety as a primary consideration, not as a retrofit.
The Building Safety Act: where we are now
The Building Safety Act 2022 created a new regulatory framework for Higher-Risk Buildings – broadly, residential buildings of 18 metres or more in height, or seven or more storeys, with at least two residential units. These buildings are now subject to a three-gateway approval process administered by the Building Safety Regulator (BSR).
Gateway 1
Integrated into the planning application stage. The Fire Statement submitted at Gateway 1 must demonstrate that fire safety considerations have been incorporated into the design at planning stage. It is assessed by the BSR alongside the local planning authority. Getting this right from the outset avoids conditions or requirements that emerge only after planning permission has been granted.
Gateway 2
The pre-construction approval stage. Before any work can commence on a Higher-Risk Building, the BSR must approve the full design – including detailed structural and fire safety information. Gateway 2 submissions have been the most resource-intensive element of the new regime and have experienced well-documented delays in processing. Recent operational changes by the BSR showed signs of improving throughput in late 2025, but the message for clients is clear: Gateway 2 requires detailed, well-evidenced submissions prepared by competent professionals. Underprepared or incomplete applications create the delays, not the process itself.
Gateway 3
The completion stage. Before a Higher-Risk Building can be occupied, the BSR must issue a completion certificate confirming the building was built in accordance with the approved plans. This requires a Building Safety Case demonstrating that the as-built building is safe for occupation – and that the golden thread of information has been maintained throughout construction.
The golden thread: documentation as a safety obligation
One of the most important concepts introduced by the Building Safety Act is the golden thread – a continuous, structured record of information about a building that is created at design stage and maintained throughout construction and the lifetime of the building. For higher-risk buildings, this is a legal obligation. For all buildings, it represents best practice.
The golden thread is not simply a document store. It must capture decisions and their rationale – why a particular fire strategy was adopted, what information was available at the time, and how it was amended as the design developed. Maintaining it requires discipline from every member of the project team. The consequence of failing to do so is not merely administrative: where a building later develops safety issues, the absence of a clear golden thread makes it vastly more difficult to identify causes and assign accountability.
What is changing in 2026 and beyond
Several significant developments are expected in the second half of 2026 and into 2027.
Building Safety Levy – 1 October 2026
Applying to most new residential developments of ten dwellings or more, the levy is not limited to higher-risk buildings. Developers and their cost consultants need to account for it in viability assessments and pro forma models now, as the levy will affect the economics of schemes that are already in planning or early design. The levy applies per dwelling, and exemptions and thresholds are specific – getting the calculations wrong in a feasibility model will create problems later.
Regulation of fire engineers
In December 2025, the Fire Engineers Advisory Panel published its Authoritative Statement confirming that the Government will legislate to regulate the title and function of “fire engineer.” Detailed implementation options were to be developed and consulted on in 2026. This is a significant development for clients: it will define who can legitimately sign off fire engineering work on regulated buildings and create accountability where currently the profession is unregulated. Clients should understand which professionals they are appointing and ensure they hold appropriate credentials.
Independent review of private building control – 2026
The Independent Panel chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt is due to report in 2026 on whether it is in the public interest for the private sector to remain involved in building control. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry identified significant failings in how building control was exercised. Depending on the outcome of this review, the building control landscape for all project types – not just higher-risk buildings – could change materially.
General review of the Building Safety Act – 2027
The BSR has committed to an ongoing annual risk-based review of the Higher-Risk Building definition, and a comprehensive review of the Act itself is scheduled for 2027. The definition may be extended to include buildings that are currently outside the Gateway process. Projects at design stage now should consider whether a change in the HRB definition threshold could affect their approval route.
Fire engineering in practice: what it covers
For clients who have not previously worked on higher-risk buildings or complex projects requiring performance-based fire strategies, it is worth clarifying the scope of fire engineering as a professional discipline.
A fire strategy, prepared at design stage, establishes the fire safety concept for a building – how occupants will evacuate, how fire spread is limited through compartmentation, what active systems (sprinklers, detection, suppression) are provided, and how these elements interact. For buildings where the Approved Documents alone are insufficient – whether because of unusual geometry, mixed use, or height – a performance-based fire strategy prepared by a qualified fire engineer provides the evidence base for the proposed design.
Beyond the fire strategy, fire engineering encompasses fire risk assessments for existing buildings, EWS1 and PAS 9980 external wall appraisals for residential buildings affected by the cladding remediation programme, fire safety inspections during construction, Building Safety Case development for the Gateway 3 submission, and third-party design reviews where an independent perspective is needed.
The cladding remediation programme and EWS1
Bailey Partnership has been active in the building safety and cladding remediation space since the post-Grenfell regulatory response began. Our team has experience of EWS1 assessments, FRAEW surveys, and PAS 9980 external wall fire risk appraisals – the specialist assessments that lenders, insurers and leaseholders require before properties in affected buildings can be sold or refinanced.
We understand both the technical requirements and the practical pressures facing building owners, freeholders, developers and residents who are navigating the remediation process. Our FRAEW and EWS work is carried out by professionals with the competence frameworks that lenders and insurers now require – a requirement that has become significantly more rigorous since the Act came into force.
What project teams need to get right
Based on our experience of projects navigating the new regulatory environment, a number of recurring issues determine whether Gateway submissions are successful and whether projects move to construction on programme.
Competence across the whole team. The Act imposes competence obligations not just on Principal Designers and Principal Contractors but on every professional involved in higher-risk building work. This needs to be demonstrated, not assumed – individual competence frameworks, institutional membership and CPD records are all relevant.
Information management from day one. The golden thread cannot be assembled retrospectively. Projects that begin with clear information management protocols – what is recorded, by whom, in what format, and where it is stored – are far better placed to produce a compliant Gateway 2 submission and eventually a Building Safety Case at Gateway 3.
Coordinated fire strategy development. A fire strategy that is prepared in isolation – without input from or coordination with the structural engineer, M&E team and architect – tends to require revision as the design develops. An integrated approach means the fire strategy evolves alongside the design, rather than being finalised and then having to accommodate design changes.
Early levy accounting. For residential projects caught by the Building Safety Levy, cost plans prepared now need to account for the levy even if the project will commence after October 2026. The levy is a cost certainty, and ignoring it in viability assessments will produce overstated returns.
How Bailey Partnership supports fire engineering and building safety
As a multi-disciplinary consultancy, Bailey Partnership has been at the centre of the building safety conversation since before the Act came into force. We have presented on cladding remediation at the House of Lords, we are members of the Institution of Fire Engineers, and our teams across Plymouth, Bristol, Exeter, Kent, Manchester, Southampton, Chichester, Bury St Edmunds, Torquay, Edinburgh and London have practical experience of the regulatory environment as it applies across different regions and building types.
We work across the full life cycle of fire engineering and building safety – from fire strategies at concept stage to Building Safety Cases at completion, from EWS1 appraisals for existing residential buildings to Gateway 2 submissions for new higher-risk developments. Where projects require our Principal Designer services under both CDM and the Building Safety Act, we understand how those duties interact and where accountability lies.
If you are working on a residential project that may be caught by the Building Safety Levy, navigating the Gateway process for a higher-risk building, or dealing with an EWS1 or remediation issue on an existing building, we are ready to help.