A Decision That Expands the Reach of Liability

Pieris House is a mixed‑use development comprising a seven‑storey higher‑rise section and a three‑storey lower‑rise section above commercial units. Only the higher‑rise part met the BSA’s height and storey thresholds for a “relevant building”. The lower‑rise part, on its own, would not qualify.

However, the Tribunal held that the entire development, both parts, constituted a single relevant building. This finding was based on several factors:

• Structural attachment, including indirect structural connections via a shared steel‑framed stair core (Stair B) and transfer beams
• Shared services, many originating in the higher‑rise part and serving both sections
• Integrated access and fire escape routes, with the sole entrance located in the higher‑rise part
• Inability to redevelop the lower‑rise part independently, due to the need to reconfigure essential fire escape routes and services

The Tribunal concluded that the lower‑rise part was not structurally detached, not a permissible vertical division, and not independently redevelopable and that separating services would cause significant interruption. As a result, the lower‑rise part fell within the scope of the “relevant building”, making it subject to potential Remediation Contribution Orders (RCOs).

This is a significant development. It confirms that physical configuration, structural interdependence, and shared services can extend liability to parts of a building that do not independently meet BSA thresholds.

Why This Matters for Safety Case Preparation

Although the case concerned Part 5 (remediation) rather than Part 4 (higher‑risk buildings), the Tribunal’s reasoning has direct implications for Safety Case Reports.

The decision reinforces three important realities:

1. The BSA’s frameworks operate independently and broadly – the Tribunal made clear that Part 4 (higher‑risk buildings) and Part 5 (remediation) are separate regimes with different purposes. A building may be treated as low‑risk for management purposes but still fall within the scope of remediation obligations.

This means owners cannot assume that a building outside the higher‑risk definition will escape scrutiny. Safety Case preparation should not be limited to buildings that obviously meet height thresholds.

2. Structural and service interconnections matter – the Tribunal placed significant weight on shared stair cores, integrated services, and the practical realities of redevelopment. These same factors are central to Safety Case Reports, which must demonstrate:

• How fire and structural risks propagate through a building
• How services, access routes, and compartmentation interact
• How risks are controlled across the entire building footprint

If your building has interconnected blocks, mixed heights, or shared systems, the Pieris House decision suggests the BSR may treat it as a single risk environment and expect a unified Safety Case.

3. The burden of proof can fall heavily on the owner – in Pieris House, BDW argued that the lower‑rise part was not part of the relevant building. The Tribunal found that BDW failed to discharge the evidential burden, particularly regarding the separation of safety‑critical services. From this we can see that if you cannot evidence your position, the regulator will not accept assertion in place of proof.

Safety Case Reports are, fundamentally, evidence‑based documents. Preparing them early ensures you can gather, validate, and present the information needed to demonstrate control of building safety risks.

The Strategic Case for Early Preparation

Developing a Safety Case Report before being called in is not simply a compliance exercise it is a strategic safeguard.

You avoid regulatory time pressure – once called in, deadlines are fixed. Early preparation allows you to commission surveys, review historic information, and address gaps without the pressure of regulatory oversight.

You identify hidden risks before the regulator does – the Pieris House decision shows that structural and service interdependencies can create liabilities that are not immediately obvious. A proactive Safety Case process uncovers these issues early.

You strengthen your governance position – A well‑developed Safety Case demonstrates organisational maturity, which can influence insurers, lenders, and investors.

You reduce the risk of enforcement – the BSR has made clear that unprepared owners will be prioritised for intervention. Early preparation is a visible sign of proactive compliance.

The Regulator Will Expect You to Be Ready

The Pieris House decision is more than a technical ruling. It affirms a regulatory environment that is increasingly assertive, increasingly evidence‑driven, and increasingly willing to interpret the BSA’s intent broadly to protect residents.

Property owners and managers should take note: if your building has shared structures, shared services, or integrated access routes, it may fall within the scope of the BSA in ways you have not yet considered.

Preparing your Safety Case Report now before the BSR calls you in is the most effective way to stay ahead of regulatory expectations and demonstrate responsible stewardship of your buildings.