Recent changes to building safety regulations for telecommunications work in higher-risk buildings have been criticised by legal practitioners as falling short of a genuinely risk-based approach. The reforms, introduced following a consultation on improving proportionality and safety outcomes in building control, remove certain gateway requirements for low-risk telecoms installations but leave substantive obligations unchanged.

The higher-risk building regime, established under the Building Safety Act 2022 in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire, requires Building Safety Regulator (BSR) approval at three gateway stages. Under the changes, gateway approvals are removed for work involving the drilling of holes no more than 25mm in diameter for fibre-optic cabling in existing higher-risk buildings, provided the regulator is notified as soon as practicable after completion. For mobile mast installations, gateway two has been removed, but gateway three remains largely intact, with only the change control log obligation removed.

David McNeice, a partner at DWF (Northern Ireland) LLP, and Katie Sesay, a trainee solicitor at the firm, argue that the reforms do not go far enough. They note that the original regime reportedly led to delays of more than 30 weeks for essential telecommunications works and placed strain on the BSR's capacity. The existing Building Regulations 2010 already contain models for low-risk work, including self-certification under Schedule 3 and full exemption under Schedule 4, which the authors suggest could have been applied to fibre-optic cabling.

For mobile masts, the authors acknowledge a higher risk profile due to structural considerations, but argue that the current changes fail to address the principal causes of delay, including inconsistent provision of building information by Principal Accountable Persons. They suggest that the BSR could enforce that obligation more robustly, or that a third-party sign-off model under a proposed Schedule 3A could alleviate administrative pressure while maintaining oversight.

The BSR has previously faced criticism over delays to safety upgrades and cladding remediation, as highlighted in a 2025 report titled 'The Building Safety Regulator: Building a better regulator'. McNeice and Sesay contend that requiring the regulator to process a high volume of approvals for comparatively low-risk work exacerbates existing resourcing pressures. They argue that subjecting fibre-optic cabling to self-certification or exemption, and reframing requirements for mobile masts, would be the required response to allow the BSR to focus on its intended purpose of improving safety in higher-risk buildings.