Assessing Structural Risk – Building Safety Requirements

The landscape of building safety has changed dramatically over recent years, and structural risk assessments are becoming increasingly fundamental for responsible management.

The Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA22) marked a pivotal moment, introducing comprehensive requirements around assessing and managing the risk of structural failure that property professionals can no longer ignore.

Many are used to assessing fire safety risks, but the requirements to assess structural failure are relatively new, so it’s understandable that the need for a structural risk assessment is often misunderstood. The complexity of the industry, along with various narratives, can make navigating this requirement even more confusing. This article sets out the clear legislative requirements for assessing structural risk, as well as the grounds for conducting an assessment in relation to the Building Safety Case Report.

Legislative Ground for Assessing Structural Risk

Section 62 of the Building Safety Act defines building safety risks as risks to people that arise from the spread of fire and the structural failure of the building.

Accountable persons must carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment of building safety risks under section 83 of the BSA22, creating a broader duty to assess the risks of structural failure.

These requirements are to ensure that any risk to the structure from collapse or other potential failures has been identified and suitably mitigated.

Other Grounds for Assessing Structural Risk

While the BSA22 imposes a legal obligation to assess the risk of structural failure, there are compelling reasons that go beyond mere compliance.

Addressing structural issues early will save money in the long run. Fixing a small issue will be significantly cheaper than a full-scale remediation or unexpected emergency repairs.

Some insurance companies may also request a structural assessment.

Beyond the direct financial penalties of the BSA, demonstrating that “all reasonable steps” were taken to ensure structural safety is crucial in mediating potential legal litigation arising from a structural-related incident.

Proportionality in Assessing Risk

The BSA22 does not specify the specific methodology for assessing structural risks; the accountable person is expected to adopt a proportionate and reasonably practicable approach, which should consider:

• The nature of the building and its characteristics. Including building age, materials used, and history of the building all influence the potential for structural failure.
• Relevant legislation and standards to which the assessment should adhere, including relevant building regulations and British Standards related to structural engineering.
• The assessment should leverage the available information, including building plans, designs, construction records, any previous inspection reports and structural issues.

Structural Risk Assessments

Carried out by competent structural engineers, structural assessments aim to proactively identify and mitigate potential weaknesses in the building before they lead to devastating consequences, causing serious injury or fatalities.

They can uncover hidden defects within the building which may not have been previously known or visible during routine inspections.

Assessing Structural Risk in Relation to the Safety Case

Under the BSA22 and the Higher-Risk Buildings (Management of Safety Risks etc.) (England) Regulations 2023, there is no explicit statutory requirement to commission a “structural survey” simply because a building is higher-risk.

The requirement is instead outcome-based. The PAP must be able to demonstrate to the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) that building safety risks, including the risk of major structural failure, have been identified, assessed, and is being actively managed during occupation of the building.

Without a documented structural inspection or assessment undertaken by a competent structural engineer (or equivalent suitably qualified professional), it is difficult to robustly evidence compliance with these criteria.
The current structural condition of the building should always be assessed except where all three of the following conditions are met:

• The building is less than 3 years old and is not an Large Panel System building.
• All of the criteria to be assessed by the BSR structural assessor for a building assessment certificate, S1-S11(inclusive) have been met (or marked as N/A)
• The information provided for criterion S7 indicates no history of structural problems with the building

In practice, very few occupied HRBs will satisfy all three conditions. Importantly, the safety case report must demonstrate:

• A suitable and sufficient assessment of the risk of structural failure (S19–S22)
• Knowledge of the building’s current structural condition and how that knowledge has been established (S16)
• Proportionate ongoing arrangements to manage structural integrity (S23–S26)

Building Safety Regulator Feedback

The Building Safety Regulator is actively rejecting Building Assessment Certificates due to the lack of suitable and sufficient evidence of the assessment of structural risks.

Accountable Persons should be considering a structural assessment carried out by a competent professional as soon as reasonably practicable, if not already done so.

Structural Risk Assessments are a necessity in today’s built environment. The recent feedback on BAC applications is just the beginning of increased scrutiny on structural risks.

The regulatory landscape has shifted permanently, and proactive management is no longer optional; it’s essential for responsible building ownership.

Last Updated: 23th March 2026