The suggestion that fire safety regulations are “making London’s towers taller” risks turning a life-safety conversation into a height debate. That framing misses the point.
This discussion follows recent commentary in the Architects’ Journal questioning whether evolving fire safety regulations are influencing building height in London. It’s an important conversation — but one that deserves a fuller, multidisciplinary perspective.
Post-Grenfell reforms were never about reshaping skylines — they are about reshaping priorities. The introduction of second staircases, enhanced scrutiny for Higher-Risk Buildings (HRBs) and the earlier integration of fire engineering into design all signal a fundamental shift: buildings must work first and foremost for the people who live in them and the firefighters who may one day enter them.
“The introduction of second staircases is about life safety, not regulatory convenience. Post-Grenfell, the occupier comes first, and profit comes second.” Stuart Hammond, ACT Building Control
Yes, these changes influence layouts, efficiency and viability. But they do not intentionally drive height. They drive accountability, earlier coordination and better outcomes. When schemes grow, it is not because regulations demand it, but because the market, designers and developers are adapting to deliver buildings that remain commercially viable while meeting a higher standard of safety.
The real story is not that towers are getting taller. It is that expectations are getting higher.
From a Building Control perspective, the direction of travel is clear: life safety now sits unequivocally ahead of commercial optimisation.
The requirement for second staircases in residential buildings above 18m — now defined as Higher-Risk Buildings — is a response to the need for more resilient means of escape. It is not about development viability; it is about the health and safety of the people who will ultimately occupy these homes. Post-Grenfell regulation places the occupier front and centre, where historically competing priorities may have diluted that focus.
There is, of course, a transitional period. Until 30 September 2026, schemes that meet specific commencement criteria under Regulation 46A of the Building Regulations 2010 and Regulation 12(1)(e)(viii) of the Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures Regulations can proceed without a second staircase. But the industry response to this window is telling.
Rather than simply avoiding the requirement, many developers are asking a more forward-looking question: what will future purchasers, operators and residents expect from a building of this scale? In many cases, that answer includes the reassurance of a second stair — regardless of whether the scheme strictly needs one under transitional provisions.
Where height increases occur, they are typically a commercial and spatial response to accommodating additional cores while maintaining viable floorplates. That is a market adaptation, not a regulatory instruction. The regulation sets the safety outcome; the design team decides how best to deliver it.
From a fire engineering standpoint, the claim that new regulations are causing taller towers oversimplifies a much more nuanced shift in design culture.
“Fire safety regulations aren’t making towers taller — they’re changing when and how life safety is embedded. Early integration ensures that building form, height and safety evolve together.” Muhammad Ali, Fire Engineering
What has changed most significantly is when fire safety is embedded into a project. Requirements around means of escape, compartmentation, evacuation strategy and regulatory scrutiny now demand earlier and more rigorous integration of fire engineering into concept design — particularly on higher-risk residential buildings.
These factors can influence layout efficiency and, in turn, development viability. But they are not intended to increase height. Instead, they reinforce the need for building form, height and safety strategy to evolve together from the outset. When fire engineering is part of early decision-making — alongside architecture, structure and commercial planning — safer and more efficient solutions emerge.
“The real measure of success isn’t how high a building reaches — it’s whether occupants and firefighters can trust it to perform safely in an emergency.”
Muhammad Ali, Fire Engineering
This integrated approach also improves outcomes for firefighters, whose operational needs are now more clearly reflected in design expectations. The result is not simply code compliance, but buildings that are demonstrably safer to occupy, manage and respond to in an emergency.
For architects, these changes underline the importance of early coordination around core strategy, escape design and spatial planning. For developers, they highlight the need to test viability against safety expectations that are now firmly embedded in market perception, not just regulation.
It would be unrealistic to ignore the commercial pressures at play. The inclusion of a second staircase inevitably reduces net saleable and lettable floor area, which can affect yield and return on investment. In response, some schemes may seek to recover efficiency through increased height, while others may aim to remain just below the 18m threshold.
These behaviours are not driven by the intention of regulation, but they are a foreseeable market response to it. This is precisely why early, integrated design and clear dialogue between fire engineers, building control, designers and developers is so important. Safety requirements should inform better design solutions — not simply be offset through height or avoided through threshold targeting.
For property managers and building operators, more robust escape provision and clearer fire strategies translate into buildings that are easier to manage safely over their lifecycle. And for legal and professional advisers, the direction of travel is equally clear: decisions that deprioritise life safety in favour of short-term efficiency are increasingly difficult to justify in a post-Grenfell regulatory and liability landscape.
Across all disciplines, the common thread is this: fire safety is no longer a late-stage technical check. It is a core design driver that must be addressed transparently and collaboratively from day one.
Rather than asking whether fire safety rules are changing London’s skyline, we should be asking a more important question:
Are we designing buildings that future residents, and future firefighters, can trust?
The industry now has a choice. We can treat new regulations as constraints to work around, or as a framework that pushes us toward earlier collaboration, smarter design decisions and genuinely safer homes.
Height is a design outcome. Safety is a responsibility.
The challenge is ensuring commercial responses to new requirements do not dilute the safety intent behind them.
If we keep life safety at the centre of decision-making, from concept stage through to occupation, we will not just comply with regulation, we will rebuild confidence in high-rise living. And that is the measure of success that truly matters.
