The panel behind the report proposed re-defining ‘higher risk’ building to include different criteria from solely height – currently only buildings over 18 metres are designated ‘higher risk.’ In addition, a new Chief Construction Adviser would be appointed as a body to advise on all matters affecting the construction industry.

In addition, guidance and regulations should be urgently revised, including Approved Document B, and new testing methods that provide a reliable framework for product specification should be developed in collaboration with academic bodies.

Richard Beresford, Chief Executive of the National Federation of Builders (NFB), said: “The Building Safety Act began the process of ensuring the Grenfell tragedy never happens again, but the Phase 2 report highlights and details many other concerns that could have prevented the fires tragic loss of life…from cladding and Building Regulation process, to maintenance and fire safety protocol.”

Andrew Mellor, partner at architects PRP, and technical advisor on Building Regulations to the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, commented: “The executive summary of the Grenfell Inquiry Phase 2 report makes damning reading and is critical of several bodies and organisations.

“If adopted, many of the recommendations will bring significant change, but implementation could take years. As a practice, we welcome the proposal for the ARB and RIBA to review the sufficiency of the competency changes they have already implemented for architects. I have advocated for a single regulator for building safety for several years; we do not have that today, even with the Building Safety Regulator.”

The proposal for a single construction regulator responsible for construction product regulations, as well as testing, fire risk assessor accreditations, building control oversight, and the licensing of contractors on HRBs is “huge,” said Mellor. He continued, saying it “impacts both current responsibilities and those planned for various government departments. While it’s a sensible proposal, it will require a lot of resources to implement. I anticipate it will take at least two years before it can become operational.”

He said that PRP also welcomed the proposal to review all Approved Documents, to “ensure clarity and that they are fit for purpose.” However he added that “The proposal for a statement in the statutory guidance documents that says reliance on the guidance will not necessarily ensure compliance with Building Regulations is one that will be worrisome for many designers and contractors.”

While he also welcomed the registration of contractors, Mellor asked: “Will many contractors sign up when a director has to personally guarantee that the building constructed is as safe as required by the Building Regulations?”

Bhavini Patel, co-head, Building Safety Group at legal firm Howard Kennedy, said: “The long-awaited publication of this second report into Grenfell is a hugely positive step for the property and development sector. Since the privatisation of building control in the 1980s, we have seen a total failure on part of the government to properly regulate or guide developers, operators, and tenants on building safety, and so there has been widespread confusion, and ultimately, the issue of ensuring the safety of homes in the UK has not been properly resolved.

“This meant the Government created a framework which was not fit-for-purpose, permitting buildings to be signed off without proper consideration or review of the safety aspects. Nonetheless, the majority of developers and operators do want to ensure their buildings are safe under the new regulatory framework.

“The proposals for a centralised regulator are therefore incredibly encouraging to see, and it is hoped that the government will adopt these. Whilst it is important to hold parties responsible for the tragedy to account, this report needed to go beyond finger pointing and take the first step towards shifting the culture of the industry, backed by clear guidance and strong rules with the safety of residents at the forefront of house building.”

However, Patel added: “Again the government is failing to help medium-sized and independent developers to actually take the practical steps necessary to adhere to these updated rules both in terms of forward funding or access to suitably qualified fire engineers and technical experts.”

CIBSE’s technical director Anastasia Mylona, said the report’s findings were a “sobering and a stark reminder of the critical need for transparency, integrity and robust regulation within our industry.” She added: “As the report highlights systemic failures, CIBSE remains committed to driving the necessary reforms in building and fire safety engineering practices.”