The Building Safety Act and what it changed

It is the UK government's major reform of building safety law in England, passed after the Grenfell Tower fire, aimed at securing the safety of people in and about buildings and improving building standards - with a particular focus on high-rise residential buildings. Its main changes: it created the Building Safety Regulator (a new regulator, part of the Health and Safety Executive) responsible for the new regime and for building safety oversight; it introduced a stricter regulatory regime for 'higher-risk buildings' (broadly those at least 18m tall or with at least 7 storeys, containing at least two residential units), covering their design, construction and occupation; and it placed duties on 'Accountable Persons' (and a Principal Accountable Person) to manage the building safety risks in occupied higher-risk buildings, supported by a 'golden thread' of building information, mandatory occurrence reporting, and resident engagement. So the Act created a regulator, a stricter regime for tall residential buildings, and clear accountability for their safety - a substantial reform of how such buildings are made and kept safe. So it is a post-Grenfell reform of building safety law. This is general information about the law, not legal advice.

Broadly, a building at least 18 metres in height, or with at least 7 storeys, that contains at least two residential units (with some exceptions and detail in the legislation). This height/storeys-and-residential-units definition is what brings a building within the Act's stricter regulatory regime - the more stringent building-control process for design and construction, and the safety-management and reporting duties for occupation (including the Accountable Person duties). So higher-risk buildings are essentially tall residential (and mixed-use) buildings - the high-rise blocks where the risk to life from fire spread and structural failure is greatest, which the Act was created to address after Grenfell. The precise definition, exceptions and details are set out in the Act and associated regulations. The key point for a commercial kitchen is that a kitchen is not itself a higher-risk building - so the higher-risk-building regime applies to the building a kitchen might be in (if that building meets the definition), not to the kitchen operation itself. So a higher-risk building is broadly a tall (18m+/7+ storeys) building with residential units. This is general information, not legal advice; check the precise definition for a specific building.

For an occupied higher-risk building, the Accountable Person is the person or organisation responsible for the building's common parts (broadly, whoever holds the relevant legal interest in, or has the obligation to repair, the common parts) - who must manage the building safety risks. The Accountable Person must take all reasonable steps to prevent building safety risks (principally the spread of fire and structural failure) materialising in the parts of the building they are responsible for, and to reduce the severity of any incident - promptly. Where there is more than one Accountable Person for a building (as there can be), the Act introduced the 'Principal Accountable Person' to take overall responsibility for managing the building's safety risks. This is a building-level role, concerned with the safety of the higher-risk building as a whole - distinct from, for example, the 'responsible person' under the Fire Safety Order (who is responsible for fire safety in a workplace or premises). So the Accountable Person is the duty-holder for managing building safety risks in an occupied higher-risk building. For a commercial kitchen, this role belongs to whoever is responsible for the higher-risk building the kitchen might be in, not to the kitchen operator as such. So the Accountable Person manages building safety risks in a higher-risk building. This is general information, not legal advice.

Generally not directly - the Act's higher-risk-building regime is about tall residential buildings, not commercial kitchens or catering operations, so it does not directly govern a typical kitchen's extraction. For a standalone commercial kitchen, or one in an ordinary (non-higher-risk) building, the Building Safety Act's regime does not apply, and it does not change the kitchen's obligations. The fire-safety law that governs a commercial kitchen - including the fire risk from grease in the extraction, and the duty to assess and control it - remains the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. So your kitchen's duty to keep its extraction clean and control the grease fire risk comes from the Fire Safety Order, not the Building Safety Act. The Act becomes relevant to a kitchen mainly in one situation: where the kitchen sits within or beneath a higher-risk (tall residential) building, in which case the kitchen's fire risk feeds into the building's overall safety that the Accountable Person must manage, and the kitchen operator may need to cooperate with the building's safety arrangements. So the Act generally does not directly apply to your kitchen, unless it is in a higher-risk building. So generally it does not directly apply to a commercial kitchen. This is general information, not legal advice.

No - your duty to clean the kitchen extraction and control the grease fire risk comes from the Fire Safety Order, not the Building Safety Act, so the Act does not change it. The grease build-up in a kitchen extraction is a fire risk, and the duty to assess and control it (which means keeping the extraction clean at the right frequency, with records) arises under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (via the responsible person's fire risk assessment and fire precautions) - and that remains the case regardless of the Building Safety Act. So the Act does not add to or change your extraction-cleaning obligations for a typical kitchen. What is true is that where your kitchen is in a higher-risk building, controlling your fire risk (including the extraction grease) matters all the more, because it feeds into the building's overall safety that the Building Safety Act's regime governs - so there is more reason to manage it well and cooperate with the building's safety arrangements. But the obligation to clean the extraction itself is under the Fire Safety Order throughout. So no - the Act does not change how you must clean your extraction; that duty remains under the Fire Safety Order. This is general information, not legal advice.

Mainly in one indirect way: where a commercial kitchen sits within or beneath a higher-risk (tall residential) building, the kitchen's fire risk feeds into the building's overall safety that the Act governs. In that situation, a fire in the kitchen (including one from grease in the extraction) could threaten the higher-risk building and its residents - so the kitchen's fire safety is part of the building safety that the building's Accountable Person must manage under the Building Safety Act. This means: the kitchen operator may need to cooperate with the building's Accountable Person and its safety arrangements (the golden thread, the safety case, the fire strategy); controlling the kitchen's fire risk (including keeping the extraction clean) matters all the more, because it affects the building's safety; and there may be additional building-level requirements or scrutiny. So while the kitchen's own extraction-cleaning duty remains under the Fire Safety Order, the Building Safety Act adds a building-level dimension where the kitchen is in a higher-risk building - reinforcing the importance of managing the kitchen's fire risk. For kitchens not in higher-risk buildings, the Act has little direct bearing. So it matters mainly for kitchens in higher-risk buildings, indirectly, through the building's safety. This is general information, not legal advice; take advice on your specific building.