Building Safety Conference 2026 – London – review

By Jason Foster – Director – enevo Building Safety

Yesterday, (10th February 2026) I attended the Building Safety Conference in London with a pretty simple objective – to get a firmer feel for where the system is really heading, beyond all the headlines, rumours and ambiguous policy language.

There was a clear theme running through the morning sessions. The era of soft guidance is over. Delivery discipline is now the focus. Below are a few takeaways that are worth sharing.

1. Remediation is moving into enforcement mode

The Remediation Acceleration Plan and associated legal deadlines aren’t just policy statements. They’re firm targets. By 2029, remediation must be complete for buildings over 18 metres, and either complete or clearly scheduled for those over 11 metres.

The wording matters here – a “duty to remediate”, alongside cost recovery and stronger enforcement powers, signals a clear shift. This isn’t just guidance anymore, it’s a legal obligation, backed by action if progress isn’t made.

What stood out was the operational tone. Active buildings have to show real traction. Programme discipline, cost benchmarking and evidence-led reporting are central. Buildings that look active on paper but can’t demonstrate credible progress within a relatively short timeframe will be challenged.

For clients and accountable persons, remediation now needs to be treated as a managed programme, not a loose collection of projects.

2. Construction product reform isn’t optional

Amanda Long, CEO of Construction Product Information (CCPi), delivered one of the most substantive sessions of the day on construction product reform.

The Government’s Green Paper sets out a stronger regulatory approach based on safety risk, with a White Paper expected before spring 2026. The focus is on clear, accurate and accessible product information, and accountability across the entire supply chain.

Amanda was explicit that no contract clause can remove responsibility. Dutyholders, designers, contractors, suppliers and manufacturers all carry accountability for product information and how it’s relied upon.

The CCPI framework itself is about culture and process. Version control. Formal sign-off. Transparent performance claims. Competence and clarity in those communicating product information. It’s evidence of structured due diligence and continuous improvement.

For those operating under the Building Safety Act, this is critical. If you can’t evidence that product information was properly interrogated and independently assessed, you’re exposed.

3. Safety culture isn’t theoretical

Ben Mark from RiskFlag looked at things through a different lens, drawing on his background as an RAF fast jet pilot. He talked about what it’s like to carry the weight of a decision that could cost lives – and not know whether the system underneath you is good enough.

He is someone who has flown aircraft, investigated accidents, and seen what happens when risk is managed with tools that aren’t fit for purpose, with buried processes and blind spots no one catches in time. Quite a stark way of thinking about the responsibilities we all carry and why they matter.

The message for construction was uncomfortable but needed. Too many still want to be told what to do, which is not the culture change we need. Real safety maturity moves from reactive compliance to proactive and generative behaviours. Leadership from everyone involved matters and the standard you walk past becomes the standard you accept.

It’s yet another reminder that systems, governance and competence aren’t paperwork exercises but life-safety controls.

4. Gateway 3 starts much earlier than many think

The Gateway 3 session reinforced what we’re seeing in live projects. Completion isn’t an admin hurdle at the end of a project. It’s a test of the evidence trail built throughout the whole scheme.

If the golden thread hasn’t been structured, change-controlled and curated from Gateway 2 onwards, Gateway 3 becomes a pain. The Completion Certificate application, client statements and evidence packs need to align precisely with the approved design and logged changes.

For existing buildings, the safety case defines the golden thread. Gateway 3 tests whether the evidence supports the argument.

This is where many schemes will likely struggle.

5. Resident engagement is a safety control

The resident engagement panels were grounded and practical. Tailored communication, vulnerability awareness and continuous feedback loops were all framed correctly as preventative controls.

Good engagement improves reporting, behaviour and trust. Poor engagement creates blind spots. In higher-risk buildings, that’s not a soft issue. It’s risk management.

6. The regulator’s direction of travel

The BSR session highlighted structural changes, increased capacity and a push for transparency and consistency.

The intent is clear, however, the practical detail around how proportionality and judgement will play out day to day in Gateway determinations still feels like work in progress. The sector needs clarity on how consistency will be achieved in practice.

Overall, the conference reinforced something I say regularly to clients. Building safety isn’t just about knowing the rules. It’s about evidencing a disciplined, structured approach to delivering against them.

The projects that succeed smoothly are those that treat governance, product scrutiny, resident engagement and evidence management as necessary and integral parts of design and construction, not parallel exercises.

If you’re involved in live HRB schemes or remediation programmes, now is the time to sense-check whether your approach would stand up to scrutiny at Gateway 3 or in an enforcement context.

We can help. This is exactly where enevo Building Safety supports clients. We work with clients, dutyholders, principal designers and contractors to structure compliance from the outset, manage Gateway strategy, interrogate design risk and build defensible evidence trails that stand up to regulatory scrutiny.

If you want a practical conversation about strengthening delivery, governance and regulatory confidence on your projects, we’re always open to talk.