Download PDF

Preparing Safety Case Reports for Higher-Risk Buildings (HRBs): Key Insights from New IStructE Guidance

May 2026

The Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) introduced a fundamental shift in how safety risks in HRBs are identified, assessed and managed. One of the most significant features of the new regime is the requirement for all new and existing HRBs to have a mandatory safety case and a supporting safety case report.

Against this backdrop, the Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE) published its latest guidance in March 2026: Preparing safety case reports for HRBs under the Building Safety Act (link below). The guidance is aimed primarily at structural engineers but will also be applicable to building safety and assurance teams, consultants, and dutyholders with responsibilities under the BSA. Beale & Co supported IStructE during the preparation of this guidance by reviewing key legal issues and contributing legal insights.

This article summarises the safety case regime, the focus and practical benefits of the new guidance, together with key legal and commercial considerations for those involved in preparing or relying on safety case reports.

The safety case regime

Under the BSA, all occupied HRBs must have a safety case that addresses “building safety risks”. These are defined as risks to the safety of people in or about the building arising from:

• the spread of fire or smoke;
• structural failure; and
• any other prescribed matter (none prescribed at the time of publication of the guidance).

The safety case is supported by a safety case report, which demonstrates how relevant risks have been identified, assessed, mitigated and managed. The report must be prepared as soon as reasonably practicable once the building is occupied, or once a Principal Accountable Person (PAP) exists, whichever is later. It must be kept under review and updated where necessary, and may be submitted to the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) to evidence compliance with statutory duties.

Ultimate responsibility for the safety case report rests with the PAP. Where there is only one Accountable Person (AP), that entity will be the PAP. Where multiple AP’s exist, the PAP will typically be the entity that owns or has repairing obligations regarding the structure and exterior of the building or its common parts.

While PAPs retain overall accountability, they will frequently rely on input from structural engineers to support the preparation of the safety case report. This is where IStructE’s guidance is intended to assist.

Overview of IStructE’s new guidance

IStructE’s guidance provides a practical framework for structural engineers who are preparing or reviewing the structural aspects of safety case reports for HRBs in England and Wales. Although it largely focuses on existing buildings (where investigations, legacy issues and non-compliant assets may need to be addressed) it is also relevant to new developments, where risks must be assessed and controlled prior to occupation.

The guidance explains the wider legislative context, defines key BSA terminology, and clarifies how safety case reports fit within the new building safety regime alongside other requirements, such as the golden thread of information.

The guidance is structured around nine core sections, covering matters such as:

• the purpose and content of safety cases and safety case reports;
• structural risk assessment and methodologies;
• carrying out structural assessments;
• managing and mitigating identified risks;
• dealing with structural capacity issues;
• dealing with fire‑resistance issues;
• safety management systems;
• the role of the structural engineer within the safety case process; and
• relevant legal and regulatory considerations.

A key theme throughout is proportionality. The guidance is designed to help engineers produce reports that are robust, auditable and evidence‑based, without adopting a ‘one‑size‑fits‑all’ approach. It encourages clear articulation of assumptions, limitations, and the basis on which professional judgements are made.

Practical and legal considerations

The guidance highlights several important legal and commercial issues that those involved in safety case reports should keep firmly in mind.

These include the statutory requirement for the PAP to be able to demonstrate that all reasonable steps have been taken to prevent and mitigate building safety risks. While engineers may support this process, it is essential that contractual terms, scope of appointments and deliverables clearly set out the limits of the structural engineer’s liability. It should be made clear that (amongst other things):

• the overall safety of the building is not within the structural engineer’s control or responsibility;
• the general obligation in relation to preparing a safety case report rests with the PAP;
• the structural engineer’s role is limited to the consideration of structural matters only;
• any assessment is based solely on the information provided and the areas to which access was available at the time; and
• the structural engineer does not warrant or guarantee the condition or adequacy of the existing building, particularly where information is incomplete, unavailable, or unverified.

In addition to clear contractual limitations, structural engineers should include appropriate disclaimers in any safety case reporting, clearly setting out the scope, assumptions, limitations, and exclusions of their role, including (but not limited to) the above. The guidance also draws attention to the common law duty to warn, which may arise where an obvious or significant danger to life, limb or property is identified.

Competency is another critical consideration. Dutyholders must be able to demonstrate that those engaged to support safety case reports have the necessary skills, knowledge, experience and organisational capability. Consultants may be asked to provide competency or capability statements and should ensure these align with both statutory expectations and professional indemnity (PI) insurance cover. Structural engineers should review and, where appropriate, consult their professional indemnity insurers to confirm that their duties are covered and to identify any restrictions on cover, particularly in relation to fire-related matters. Any such restrictions should be reflected in the professional appointment and clearly communicated to the client.

Early engagement with the PAP and other APs is strongly recommended, particularly where access to building information or cooperation from other stakeholders is required. Clear agreement on the approach to information gathering, investigation scope, and reporting format can help manage risk and avoid disputes later.

Concluding thoughts

Beale & Co were grateful for the opportunity to support IStructE during the review stage of this guidance, providing legal input on the BSA, safety case report requirements and associated liability considerations. The guidance represents a timely and valuable contribution to the industry as dutyholders and professionals continue to grapple with the practical realities of the new regime.

As the BSA continues to reshape the construction, engineering and property sectors, clear and consistent guidance will play a vital role in strengthening building safety culture. Safety case reports sit at the heart of the regime, and understanding the respective roles, responsibilities and legal implications for all involved is essential.

“Safety cases are a new legal and technical concept for residential buildings, without precedent. The input of Beale and Co has been essential to us in understanding the law and how it may be applied in practice to support production of this cutting-edge industry guide.”

Patrick Hayes, Technical Director, IStructE

If you would like advice on safety case report requirements, contractual arrangements, or the wider legal implications of the BSA on your practices or projects, please get in touch with Andrew Croft or Charlie Bayliss.

Preparing safety case reports for HRBs under the Building Safety Act is available for purchase here.

Article includes additional commentary from Kayleigh Rhodes.

Download PDF