A Defining Moment for Project Safety: Competence, Clarity, Culture and the Road Ahead

Grenfell and the turning point

Since the Grenfell Tower tragedy, the built environment has undergone one of the most significant periods of reflection and reform in its history. Grenfell was not simply a failure of design or construction; it was a failure of systems, culture and competence. In responding to that failure, our profession has been reshaped in ways that continue to unfold.

We all recognise Dame Judith Hackitt’s Building a Safer Future report as a clear turning point, but has it been the enduring watershed moment it should have been? It called out many industry practices and habits including the assumption that safety could be managed through process alone and highlighted the consequences of unclear roles, diluted accountability and insufficient competence. In doing so, it set a new direction, one that places demonstrable competence and clear accountability at the heart of the built environment.

From assumed capability to evidenced competence

Since then, the competence agenda has evolved from aspiration into expectation. Competence is no longer something that can be assumed based on job title, seniority or organisational reputation. It has become a form of professional currency, one that must be evidenced, maintained and aligned to the level of risk being managed. This shift has fundamentally changed what it means to operate within project safety.

Where the industry still struggles

There is much the industry can be proud of. Awareness of risk has improved, collaboration across disciplines has strengthened, and professional bodies such as the Association for Project Safety have played a critical role in promoting clearer frameworks and raising standards. Safety is increasingly discussed in terms of outcomes rather than intent, and there is a growing recognition that challenge and oversight are signs of professionalism, not obstruction.

However, the changes introduced since Grenfell have also exposed areas where the industry still struggles. The implementation of the Principal Designer role under the Building Regulations (PDBR) has been a particular pressure point. While the role exists to strengthen oversight and coordination, its introduction has highlighted existing gaps in capability and understanding across the sector.

In many cases, organisations and individuals have been surprised that the expectations associated with PDBR are materially different from previous established interpretations of design roles. This has prompted difficult but necessary conversations about what the role is, who is competent to undertake the role, what support is required, and where responsibilities truly sit. It has also shone a light on long-standing inconsistencies in how competence has been defined and applied.

At the same time, ongoing confusion between the CDM Principal Designer and the PDBR role continues to surface. While guidance and awareness have improved, questions remain about purpose, distinction and interaction between the roles. That such questions persist is instructive: it reinforces how essential clarity is if accountability is to be meaningful and safety outcomes are to be achieved.

Regulatory change and cultural shift

Assumptions have continued to be challenged, some assumed that after the glacial pace of change, the conclusion of the Grenfell Inquiry, and its implementation of its recommendations, might signal the end of change. Instead, further regulatory change signalled in the Single Construction Regulator Prospectus has further reinforced this direction of travel. The emergence of a stronger, more unified regulator and a clearer framework around professional regulation and responsibility, going further than previously thought, signals a departure from fragmented oversight towards a system truly focused on outcomes. This reflects a broader cultural shift from asking whether processes have been followed, to asking whether the right people, with the right competence, are in place.

With that shift comes pressure. The responsibility placed on dutyholders and professionals is real, and the consequences of getting it wrong are not just significant but becoming clearer than ever. As competence requirements tighten, professionals are increasingly being asked to be explicit about the limits of their capability and the boundaries of their role. This ethical responsibility is essential if the system is to work, but it also requires cultural maturity and organisational support.

Looking forward

The future of project safety must be rooted in organisational capability and culture as much as in regulatory change. Increasing professional accountability must be matched by organisations investing in people through professional development, mentoring, clear competence profiles and pathways and an organisational culture that truly supports people to behave competently by creating working environments that allow people to thrive and to challenge. Without such organisational culture, individuals are at risk of unsustainable pressure and expectations being put upon them at precisely the moment when we’re asking them to step up in terms of demonstrating competence and independent judgement. For the next generation of project safety professionals, clarity, competence and culture will be critical. Clear role definitions, accessible routes into the profession and transparent expectations will help build confidence and capability. Equally important is permission to question unclear demands, to acknowledge limits, and to prioritise safety outcomes over compliance theatre.

If the industry evolves well, by 2050 project safety will be characterised by clarity rather than confusion, confidence rather than defensiveness, and collaboration rather than fragmentation. The PDBR role will invoke competence to deliver against outcomes rather than minimum compliance, and engagement with regulators will be grounded in trust and shared purpose.

A shared responsibility

The task ahead belongs to all of us. Leaders must invest in systemic competence and support honest conversations about capability and limitations. Organisations must resist overstretching roles to meet commercial pressures. Individuals must take ownership of their professional development and be courageous in setting boundaries.

The question, then, is not simply what the future of project safety will hold.
It is what future should we be building and are we all committed to build it?