Paul Instrell, Chief Commercial Officer at wienerberger UK
Introduced to strengthen oversight and rebuild trust across the construction industry, the Building Safety Act (BSA) has reshaped responsibilities throughout the building lifecycle – most notably for architects.
Few would disagree with the intent of the legislation, which has received wide support. However, the Act has significantly expanded the scope of compliance-related work required to deliver even small-scale building projects.
As part of a whitepaper exploring the associated costs of compliance, wienerberger recently commissioned a survey of 80 architects to understand the impact of the BSA on their daily practice. The research revealed that 90% of architects have experienced an increase in compliance-related tasks, including verifying product claims, sourcing technical documentation and certificates, and recording design decisions.
On average, this additional workload amounts to four hours per week, equating to approximately £16,700 per employee annually. Meanwhile, 99% of practices have increased training and upskilling budgets, highlighting the significant financial investment now required to meet compliance obligations.
Much of this activity sits outside of the traditional design scope, yet the work required has become a routine part of practice. With client expectations and fee structures largely unchanged, many practices are absorbing these additional responsibilities within their bottom line.
Eroding trust between architects and manufacturers
One of the most significant, though less visible, impacts of the BSA is how architects use manufacturer product information.
Previously, documentation and certification were widely accepted as a reliable basis for demonstrating compliance. In a more scrutinised regulatory environment, however, this confidence has weakened.
Architects report growing difficulty in relying on this information, with less than half fully trusting manufacturer claims. Many concerns centre on ambiguous, marketing-led messaging, inconsistent or incomplete data, and limited evidence of system-level testing to indicate how products work in practice.
In a regulatory environment where liability periods have been extended and the ‘golden thread’ must be upheld, this ambiguity translates directly into professional risk. The result is that architects are spending significant time verifying claims and cross-checking certification, often duplicating efforts that should arguably sit earlier in the supply chain.
Rebuilding confidence will require more transparent and collaborative solutions, rather than relying on individual practices to shoulder the burden alone.
The impact of uncertainty on creativity
While compliance-related work affects all architects, the impact is felt more acutely by smaller practices with more limited resources. Where each new product introduces further verification demands and potential liability exposure, innovation can begin to feel like a risk rather than an opportunity – meaning familiar options that have previously passed building control are more likely to be favoured.
Over time, this encourages more conservative specification choices. Data shows that four in five architects agree that mounting regulation is limiting their creative freedom, which is a real concern for a professional built on innovation.
Safety and creativity are not mutually exclusive; their co-existence depends on processes that are reliable and efficient, allowing architects to focus on design intent whilst maintaining compliance.
Improving the quality of product information at source
The Code for Construction Product Information (CCPI), initiated by the Construction Products Association (CPA), was developed to raise standards in construction product information and address misleading or ambiguous claims. Through third-party assessment, CCPI aims to create a clearer benchmark for accuracy and transparency – supporting architects in their specification decisions and reducing the need for repeat validation.
Manufacturers can further support architects by embedding independently assessed data into digital workflows. Building Information Modelling (BIM) enables product information to be shared across project teams, reducing fragmentation and limiting the need to repeatedly verify data from multiple sources. When information is consistent and traceable from the outset, it can strengthen accountability and reduce duplication throughout the design process.
In response to these challenges, some manufacturers are exploring ways to centralise information and support early stages of specification. For example, wienerberger’s OneSpec service consolidates BIM data, CCPI assessments and compatible products across the building envelope into a single, project-specific guide. The intention is to help reduce the administrative burden by presenting verified information in a structured format, so architects can specify with greater clarity and confidence.
The future of compliance
Over the past three years, the BSA has significantly reshaped the regulatory environment, and the expectation placed on architects. Practices are now dedicating considerable time sourcing, cross-verifying and documenting information in order to demonstrate compliance.
However, if manufacturers take steps to provide transparent, independently assessed data from the outset, architects can refocus more of their time on design, coordination and value.
By embracing independent assessment, clearer data management and closer collaboration across the supply chain, the industry has an opportunity to ease compliance pressures together, without compromising safety – ensuring that compliance enables, rather than limits, good design decisions.