"No building is ever completely risk free" — a statement acknowledged by the Building Safety Regulator (BSR). But if no building is risk-free, does that mean all buildings are unsafe? And if not, how do we know when a building is "safe"?
This is where the concept of safety on a continuum can aid understanding.
Safety on a continuum: moving beyond binary thinking
The question "Is this building safe?" implies a binary yes/no answer. But real-world risk doesn't work like that.
Safety sits on a spectrum, from a low risk of harm to a high risk of harm. The concept of "safe" falls somewhere along this continuum, specifically at the point where risks have been identified and appropriately managed, and the residual risk is deemed acceptable.
This doesn't mean zero risk. It means controlled risk, understood within the framework of proportional, reasonable steps taken to mitigate foreseeable hazards.
Safety is not an absolute state
One of the most important messages is that safety is relative, not absolute. Use your judgement, available resources and experience to improve safety in your building over time.
This reinforces that building safety is a journey, not a destination. "Safe" is not a final status; rather it is an ongoing process of risk understanding, mitigation and continuous improvement.
Under the Building Safety Act, duty holders must demonstrate they have taken all reasonable steps. It's not enough to say you believed the building was safe. You must show your reasoning, your actions, and the basis for concluding that additional risk reduction would be grossly disproportionate.
Understand your risk appetite
Your organisation's risk appetite plays a huge role in determining what "safe enough" means. Yet too often it's an unstated or misunderstood concept.
If you claim to have zero tolerance for fatal harm, ask yourself: why are there no sprinklers in the building? Why aren't all fire doors upgraded? Why was that intrusive inspection deferred?
These decisions reflect a real risk tolerance, whether or not it has been formally declared. That's why it's so important for organisations to understand their actual risk appetite, align it with legal duties and resident expectations, and evidence decisions clearly, especially where they deviate from accepted good practice.
Without clarity on your risk appetite, your claim of having taken all reasonable steps may not hold up under scrutiny, especially when you're relying on judgement about what's "reasonably practicable."
So what does "all reasonable steps" actually mean?
The Building Safety Act introduces a duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of occupied higher-risk buildings. This echoes, but is not identical to, the ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) principle from UK health and safety law.
According to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) guidance on ALARP: "The obligation is to identify all reasonably foreseeable hazards and ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable (SFAIRP), that neither employees nor the public are exposed to risks to their health or safety."
From a building safety perspective, "all reasonable steps" implies a goal-setting legal framework where the duty holder must identify reasonably foreseeable hazards, apply proportional risk analysis tailored to the complexity and severity of the situation, recognise technical and social factors including human behaviour, system design and potential failure modes, and record decisions with a well-reasoned argument.
When interpreting "safe" in the context of building safety, it does not mean zero risk and it does not mean no further action is possible. It does mean risks are understood, managed and documented. It does mean you've taken all reasonable steps in context. And it requires alignment between risk appetite and risk controls.
"Safe" is where you've done everything reasonably practicable, not everything possible.
Final thought
Understanding safety as a continuum helps clarify the legal and moral responsibilities of those managing buildings. It recognises the complexity of the built environment and the judgement required to protect residents — not through perfection, but through diligent, demonstrable and proportionate effort.
How does your organisation define "safe"? Is your risk appetite clearly stated, and does your evidence back it up?