Building Regulations and Fire Safety: A Resident’s Experience and the BEO’s Response

Following the tragic fire in Grenfell Towers in 2017, fire safety standards have come under increased scrutiny. Their application in a listed residential estate can involve lease requirements, technical assessments and statutory approvals and have implications for all of us. This article presents one resident’s experience of seeking permission for refurbishment works, followed by a response from the Barbican Estate Office (BEO).

I moved into the Barbican from Islington in November 2025 full of optimism that a decade of problems with rising damp culminating in the demolition and rebuild of my last flat were behind me.

After three surveys a beautiful, light if rather unloved flat in one of the terrace blocks was mine. Excited by the prospect of renovation, surely everything would go smoothly now? Wrong. I’m still waiting for permissions nearly a year later from BSR to move ahead on the non-structural refurbishment plans drawn up for me by an architect. There were problems which didn’t show up in the surveys. I’m back in the nightmare…

First problem

In 2014, during a redesign of the bathroom, a local builder failed to replace the recently removed asbestos fire panel in the toilet, thus creating an open fire risk. The paperwork, which I saw before purchase, stated that fire regulations had been met. Signed by the Surveyors Department.

It took me six months to get those responsible to take ownership of this; remember I was new round here so didn’t know the way things worked. The solution? To build a breeze block wall as a fire screen. To be carried out free by the original builder (rather than costing me the £9000.00 quoted by another local builder).

The work was categorised as ‘emergency’. It would go down a separate Building Control approvals route. I’m still waiting.

I have many questions about this which no-one will answer. How much smaller will this make my toilet? Why can’t another, equally effective solution which is less intrusive e.g. a stud wall, be used instead? Why has the work to wait until after the refurbishment when there will be new floors, new decorations etc. Why do I have nothing in writing? As the long leaseholder, who can I have these conversations with?

Second problem

There is no fire damper in the kitchen which was last refurbished in 1999. I knew this from the surveys. In theory, surely it shouldn’t be too difficult to install?

All the fire experts we spoke to refused to recommend fire dampers in kitchens due to the fire risks of the build-up of grease in the pipework and the high maintenance costs. Eventually, the manufacturer agreed to endorse the plans as long as the BEO signed a document agreeing to carry out the required maintenance.

We applied for Listed Building Consent, Landlord’s Consent and made a Building Safety Regs (BSR) application to Building Control (BC). That was in mid-June, once the way forward on the toilet problem had been agreed.

Listed Buildings approval came through in two months. But it is time limited. I’m still waiting for BC approval on the plans.

The timeline is:

• 26 June: Plans were submitted to the Landlord (BEO) and BC.
• 19 August: An extension was imposed until 16/10/2026 by BSR via a letter of agreement which I had to sign which contained this threat. For any agreed extension to be valid, we require your written agreement. If you do not confirm your agreement in writing, then we must assume you do NOT agree to the proposed extension and your application will be treated accordingly. An accompanying letter insisted that I wasn’t allowed to do any work included on the plans until BC approval came through.

• 13 October: BEO gave the go ahead on the non-contentious elements of the application.

• 9 October: A second extension was imposed by BSR until 11 December 2026. With the same conditions. And the same threat.

It will be 168 days since we made the formal application to BC and over a year since I moved in and started discussions with both the BEO and BC.

Everyone wants to make sure the Barbican meets high standards of fire safety post-Grenfell. It is a building which has a fire prevention system which was designed for a different age. But treating long-leaseholders as if they are intentionally trying to subvert safety procedures is quite frankly wrong. Especially in a situation where external fire experts disagree with the solutions which have been suggested.

And me? Because of the BC stipulation that no work can take place I’m still living in an empty flat with just a table, four or five garden chairs and a bed. Along with some ripped curtains which the previous owners left behind. The electricity is non-compliant and urgently needs renewing. An ancient microwave has exploded and been removed out of an oven stack, the washing machine will no longer spin and I can’t replace the decrepit kitchen appliances as that task is included on the application. As I enter my second winter here, the flat is starting to get cold – I can’t improve the heating as that, also, is on the application.

I have now dropped out of my (very patient) builder’s forward plans.

May I suggest

• where the existing fit-out of the flat is dangerous, the non-contentious, non fire-regulations related work goes ahead for safety reasons notwithstanding the status of applications
• the BEO and BSR between them devise a system which allows projects to be removed from the BC backlog and considered by a fast-track route according to agreed criteria
• where the fire risk problems have been caused by previous deliberate or accidental inadequacies in the building and sign-off process, the current leaseholder isn’t made to take responsibility for those errors.

And long leaseholders are treated as partners in maintaining the viability and health of this beautiful building rather than a threat to it.

The Barbican Estate Office (BEO) is usually first point of contact for residents dealing with issues of this kind. We invited them to respond to the resident’s account from their perspective.

Response from the Director of the Estate Office

We have read with care the account of a leaseholder’s experience of seeking consent for works to their Barbican flat. We appreciate the frustration described, particularly where works to a home have taken longer than anticipated and where the various approvals and technical requirements can be difficult to navigate.

The safety of residents is our overriding concern. However, it’s important to clarify the respective roles of the teams involved in order to understand what the remit of the BEO is.

Landlord’s Consent, and Building Control are separate processes with different purposes.

The BEO’s role is to act on behalf of the landlord in administering the requirements of the lease. This means when a leaseholder proposes alterations, the BEO considers the application for Landlord’s Consent in the context of the lease, the building, the Estate’s architectural and technical requirements and the potential impact on the building and other residents.

Building Control is a separate statutory function concerned with compliance with the building regulations. The BEO does not perform that function and cannot grant Building Regulations approval.

The two processes can, and often do run alongside one another. Landlord’s Consent does not replace Building Control approval, and Building Control approval does not constitute Landlord’s Consent. They address different matters and involve different responsibilities. We make this distinction not to pass responsibility elsewhere, but to ensure that residents understand who is responsible for particular decisions.

Fire safety and existing conditions.

Fire safety requirements can be complex, particularly in a unique and listed building such as the Barbican. Individual alterations can have implications beyond the individual flat, and arrangements that have existed for many years cannot necessarily be assumed to remain appropriate when further works are undertaken.

Leaseholders reasonably want to know why a particular solution is being sought and whether alternatives have been considered. Where technical or statutory requirements arise, these may involve Building Control or appropriately qualified fire safety professionals. The BEO’s role is to consider the implications for the landlord and Estate and to ensure that proposed works are compatible with the building and the lease.

Similarly questions about historic works or responsibility for work undertaken by previous owners or contractors are separate from the BEO’s consideration of a current Landlord’s Consent application. The BEO does not determine liability between a leaseholder and a previous contractor, surveyor or other party.

Working with leaseholders

The BEO recognises the impact that delays and uncertainty can have on residents, particularly where refurbishment programmes and temporary living arrangements are involved. We’re committed to progressing Landlord’s Consent applications as efficiently as possible while ensuring that the necessary information is available and that the interests of the Estate and its residents are properly protected. Leaseholders

shouldn’t have to navigate different approval processes without understanding who is responsible for what, nor should they be regarded as seeking to circumvent fire-safety requirements.

We’ll continue to work with leaseholders, the Barbican Association, Building Control and other professional colleagues to improve clarity around these processes. Our shared objective is to ensure that residents can enjoy safe, appropriate homes while protecting the architectural character and integrity of the Barbican and we look forward to working constructively with residents to achieve both these aims.

Building Control and Building Safety Regulator

The statutory period for Building Control (BC) to approve or reject a full plan application is five weeks. If BC is not able to determine an application within this period, then they may ask for an extension of time, up to a maximum of two calendar months from submission. However, the delays often project far beyond the two-months, and multiple extensions of time are requested.

Since the introduction of the Building Safety Act 2022, the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) and BC work together on safety, compliance, and standards across the construction industry. For all Higher-Risk Buildings (HRB), as our Barbican terrace blocks (over 18 metres or 7 storeys high), the BSR acts as primary building control authority. The bottleneck and delays are down to the fact that the legislation produced was designed for new builds and not refurbishments, and BSR’s staffing and inspector shortages.

There is general agreement that the process is not fit for purpose for minor building alterations and many senior figures in the industry have formally written to MHCLG to that effect, including Ian Thomas, City Town Clerk/CEO. Unfortunately, we may be stuck with the current process, until legislative changes are made.

If you have experience of the impact of fire regulation procedures – as a resident, professional, contractor or public body – or have relevant knowledge or expertise, we’d like to hear from you. We can help share information leading to improved understanding of this increasingly complex area. Please get in touch at newsletter@barbicanassociation.co.uk