Consultation outcome

Government response to the consultation on implementing the new building control regime for higher-risk buildings and wider changes to the building regulations for all buildings

Updated 17 August 2023

Introduction

1. The new regime for higher-risk building work was a fundamental part of Dame Judith Hackitt’s recommendations in her Building a Safer Future Report, commissioned by the government after the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

2. The government committed to implementing Dame Judith Hackitt’s recommendations and in July 2021 the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (then the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government) introduced the Building Safety Bill in Parliament. The Bill received Royal Assent and became an Act of Parliament on 28 April 2022.

3. The new regime puts in place more stringent oversight, with clearer accountability for the safety of higher-risk buildings throughout design, construction and occupation, backed by stronger enforcement and sanctions to deter and rectify non-compliance. The new regime places legal responsibilities on those who participate in the design and construction of higher-risk buildings, commission higher-risk building work and those who are responsible for managing structural and fire safety in higher-risk buildings when they are occupied.

4. On 20 July 2022 the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities published a consultation to seek views on proposals for improving the building control regime for higher-risk buildings and wider changes to the building regulations that would apply to all building work.

5. This document sets out the government’s response to the consultation on implementing the new building control regime for higher-risk buildings and wider changes to the building regulations for all buildings. The consultation related to changes to the Building Regulations 2010 that will be made using powers in the Building Safety Act 1984 as amended by the Building Safety Act 2022. Proposals included in the consultation were:

• new dutyholder roles and responsibilities in the building regulations to ensure a stronger focus on compliance with the regulations
• a series of robust hard stops (‘gateway points’) to strengthen regulatory oversight before a higher-risk building is occupied
• regulator’s notices
• building work carried out in existing higher-risk buildings (refurbishments)
• a stronger change control process for higher-risk buildings
• regularisation of unauthorised building work
• golden thread of information – having the right people at the right time to have information to support compliance with all applicable building regulations
• mandatory occurrence reporting
• more rigorous enforcement powers. A wider and more flexible range of powers will be created to focus incentives on the creation of reliably safe buildings from the outset. This includes compliance and appeals
• wider changes to the building regulations to align the existing system with the new system
• transitional provisions for higher-risk buildings

6. The provisions are being implemented through secondary legislation (The Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (England) Regulations 2023 and The Building Regulations etc. (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023) were laid Parliament on 17 August 2023.

Consultation process and overview of responses

7. The public consultation on the changes to building regulations ran for twelve weeks from 20 July 2022 to 12 October 2022. It was published on the department’s online consultation platform Citizen Space, as well as on GOV.UK. Responses were accepted via online survey and via email.

8. The consultation received responses from a range of stakeholders including building control bodies, fire and rescue authorities, trade representation organisations, developers, architects, surveyors and asset management companies. Responses were received online and via email.

9. Annex A contains a breakdown of the number of responses received for each chapter in the government response.

10. This consultation response contains tables which provide both the figures and percentages of respondents for each question. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. This may result in totals under or over 100%.

1. New dutyholder roles and responsibilities in the building regulations to ensure a stronger focus on compliance with the regulations

Dutyholder duties

Overview of proposals

1.1 The consultation outlined that in addition to the requirements that apply to all building work, the government intended to place additional requirements on all those working on higher-risk buildings.

1.2 We proposed to place duties on those who procure, plan, design, manage and undertake building work, and that these duties will apply to all building work to which the Building Regulations 2010 apply. These dutyholders will be the client, the principal (sole or lead) designer, the designer, the principal (sole) contractor and the contractor.

1.3 Dutyholders will need to ensure that there are arrangements and systems in place to plan, manage and monitor both the design work and the building work to ensure compliance with building regulations.

1.4 They will be required to cooperate with other dutyholders, coordinate their work, and communicate and provide information to other dutyholders. They will also need to ensure that they, and those they appoint, are competent (have the necessary skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours) to carry out the design work and building work they are engaged to do and only undertake work within the limits of that competence. If they are an organisation, they will need the organisational capability to carry out work in a way that is compliant with building regulations.

Consultation analysis

1.5 There were 122 responses to the section on new dutyholder roles and responsibilities under the building regulations.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed duties that will apply to all dutyholders during design and construction?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	86	71%
Disagree	18	15%
Neither agree nor disagree	9	7%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	8	7%
Total	122	100%

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed duties that will apply to the client during design and construction?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	87	71%
Disagree	20	16%
Neither agree nor disagree	5	4%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	10	8%
Total	122	100%

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed duties that will apply to designers and the principal designer during design and construction?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	84	69%
Disagree	22	18%
Neither agree nor disagree	10	8%
Don’t know	2	2%
Not answered	4	3%
Total	122	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed duties that will apply to contractors and the principal contractor during design and construction?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	87	71%
Disagree	18	15%
Neither agree nor disagree	8	7%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	9	7%
Total	122	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal for organisations appointed as the principal designer or principal contractor to take reasonable steps to ensure that the individual/s designated, to manage the functions of the principal designer or principal contractor for that specific project have the relevant competence to do so?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	88	72%
Disagree	18	15%
Neither agree nor disagree	6	5%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	10	8%
Total	122	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree that regulations should include the requirement on individuals or organisations to notify the relevant dutyholders and those who appoint or ask them to carry out the work where they cease to satisfy the competence requirements?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	94	77%
Disagree	7	6%
Neither agree nor disagree	4	3%
Don’t know	2	2%
Not answered	14	12%
Total	122	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree that special provisions set out above should be made for domestic clients?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	73	60%
Disagree	12	10%
Neither agree nor disagree	15	12%
Don’t know	8	7%
Not answered	14	12%
Total	122	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

1.6 Respondents were given the opportunity to provide explanations for their responses. Similar comments were raised across all the new dutyholder roles and responsibilities questions, both from respondents who were supportive of the proposals, and from those who disagreed. A sizable number of respondents raised significant concerns that the strict liability requirements being placed on designers and principal designers would likely lead to an inability of the dutyholder to obtain appropriate insurance. Many respondents also outlined a need for detailed guidance for all dutyholders across a number of topics, including the assessment of competence, and the interaction of the new dutyholder regime with other regimes such as the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM), to enable dutyholders to comply with their new duties and effectively implement the new requirements.

All dutyholders

1.7 The majority (71%) of respondents agreed with the proposals for the duties to be applied to all dutyholders.

1.8 Eighteen respondents (15%) disagreed with the proposals. Some commented that similarity with the dutyholders appointed to comply with the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM) and those appointments to be made under the new regime could cause confusion within the industry.

1.9 Other respondents suggested that having the same dutyholders as CDM would be beneficial as these dutyholder terms are already embedded in the construction industry.

1.10 Some who disagreed commented that allowing dutyholders to have more than one role could reduce impartiality and that some roles would require competence across a wide range of disciplines. This could result in a culture of using consultants to fulfil competence requirements.

The client

1.11 The majority (71%) of respondents agreed with the proposed duties that will apply to the client.

1.12 Twenty respondents (16%) disagreed with the proposals, and of those who provided an explanation, reasons for disagreeing included that there did not seem to be a requirement for the client to provide sufficient financial resource or to appoint competent persons.

1.13 A further 8 respondents (7%), regardless of whether they had agreed or disagreed with the proposals, suggested that the client would not have sufficient competence to be able to undertake these duties.

1.14 It was highlighted by 7 respondents (6%) that these requirements reflect duties already in place under CDM which align with industry expectations.

The designer and principal designer

1.15 The majority (69%) of respondents supported the proposals for the duties that will apply to designers and principal designers.

1.16 Twenty-two respondents (18%) disagreed with the proposals. Of those who provided an explanation, the most common reasons for disagreeing were that the definition of designer and design work could encompass several disciplines, such as manufacturers and consultants, and that it is not possible for the principal designer to be ‘in control’ of the design work due to the contracts the designers will be working to.

The contractor and principal contractor

1.17 The majority of respondents (71%) agreed with the proposals for the duties that will apply to contractors and principal contractors.

1.18 Eighteen respondents (15%) disagreed with the proposals. Of those who provided an explanation, the most common reason for disagreeing was that the regulations should take account of contractors having responsibilities for design work as well as building work, particularly when contractors are engaged on a ‘design and build’ contract.

1.19 Four respondents (3%) commented that further guidance would be needed to assist contractors in complying with their duty to provide workers under their control with supervision, instruction, and information to ensure the building work is in compliance with building regulations.

Designated individuals’ competence

1.20 The majority of respondents (72%) agreed with the proposals that organisations appointed as the principal designer or principal contractor should take reasonable steps to ensure that the individual/s designated to manage the functions of the principal designer or principal contractor have the relevant competence to do so.

1.21 Eighteen respondents (15%) disagreed with the proposals. Of those who provided an explanation, the most common reason for disagreeing was uncertainty and lack of confidence in the current competent standards available. There were some suggestions that it should be required that a competent senior manager be appointed which would have a significant effect on how the project is managed to enable the organisation to comply with its duties.

Ceasing to be competent

1.22 The majority (77%) of respondents agreed with the proposals that individuals or organisations should notify the relevant dutyholders when they cease to satisfy the competence requirements.

1.23 Only 7 respondents (6%) disagreed with the proposals. Of those who provided an explanation, the reasons given for disagreeing included: that this is already a requirement of membership of most professional and trade bodies, that competence should be assured for the life of the project, and that there should be a governing body registering and managing competence.

Domestic clients

1.24 The majority (60%) of responses agreed with the proposals to set out special provisions for domestic clients.

1.25 Twelve respondents (10%) disagreed with the proposals, and 15 (12%) neither agreed nor disagreed. Unfortunately, many respondents seem to have misunderstood the proposals, for instance the majority of those who disagreed questioned whether the domestic client would have sufficient competence to be able to undertake these duties.

Government response

1.26 The government intends to implement the dutyholder and competence requirements for all building work, including design work and building work undertaken in higher-risk buildings.

1.27 The government is committed to improving accountability across the whole built environment sector and implementing the strict liability requirements on all dutyholders. Duties will be placed on contractors, who will need to ensure that the building work they carry out is in compliance with all relevant requirements. The principal contractor appointed to be in control of the building work will be required to coordinate matters relating to the building work to ensure the building work is in compliance with all relevant requirements. The government recognises that uncertainty in the insurance industry about the new duties and the important role that designers and principal designers will have in delivering the new regime may result, in the short-term, in a lack of appropriate insurance products for the design community. The government therefore intends to delay the implementation of the strict liability requirement for designers and principal designers and to continue to work with both the industry sector and the insurance industry with a view to introducing the requirements in due course. In the interim, the requirements for designers and principal designers will be subject to ‘take all reasonable steps’.

1.28 The government recognises the concerns raised that the new dutyholder roles are the same dutyholders as required by the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM) and that this may lead to confusion about the distinction of roles under each regulatory regime. As the individuals and organisations procuring and undertaking the work to comply with the health and safety requirements of CDM are the same as those who should be considering compliance with building regulations, we will take a similar approach to CDM, with the focus being to ensure compliance with building regulations. If a principal designer and/or the principal contractor has been appointed under CDM requirements, where appropriate, the client will be allowed to certify that that appointment is also made for the purpose of building regulations requirements, providing the competence requirements are met.

1.29 While we do not expect that there to be separate dutyholders for CDM purposes and for building regulations purposes, there may be situations where, for reasons of competence, they will be different and, in these instances, they will have to work together and cooperate with each other to ensure compliance with both regulatory regimes.

1.30 We recognise that a ‘design and build contract’ is a common procurement route, and that there are other situations during the design and construction process where dutyholders may have more than one role, for example, when a contractor or a client also has a role as a designer, or a principal designer. Where these procurement routes are appropriate, and regardless of the contractual relationships, those making and accepting the appointment/s must have the right competence for the work they are engaged to do. These duties cannot be delegated to another party, and dutyholders will need to comply with all the relevant duties for those roles they will be undertaking and be able to demonstrate this to the relevant building control body.

1.31 The client is the person for whom the building work is done. They have a major influence over the way a project is procured, managed and funded. They control the contract, the finances, and the time available for the project. The client will need to make sure they appoint the right people, with the right competencies, at the right time. They will also need to make sure there is sufficient resource, including finances, for the work to be undertaken to comply with all relevant building regulations. The client will also be required to provide building information (including if the work is in connection with a higher-risk building) to the designers and contractors and cooperate with other dutyholders to enable them to fulfil their duties.

1.32 We do not intend to place competence requirements on clients who commission design work and/or building work. We recognise that some clients may need assistance to undertake their duties and may request that some of their functions are taken on by another person, such as the principal designer, the principal contractor or another person. However, the accountability rests with the client and they can only delegate the functions, and not the duty, to another person. Both contractors and designers will be required to satisfy themselves that the client is aware of their duties before they start work.

1.33 A domestic client is someone having design work or building work done which is not in connection with a business. We accept that a domestic client may not have sufficient capability to lead engagement with the building control authority, and therefore most of the client duties will be placed on those undertaking the design work and the building work.

1.34 The government considers that anyone making an appointment for a person to undertake design work or building work must take all reasonable steps to ensure that they have the right competence (the skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours), or if they are an organisation, the organisational capability, for their roles and that they are capable of fulfilling all their duties. If they are training, the person making the appointment should ensure that there are measures in place for adequate supervision (see paragraph 1.35 below). ‘All reasonable steps’ will depend on the nature and complexity of the project, and the range and level of the risks involved.

1.35 We recognise that competent individuals may be supported by others who may not be fully competent (such as apprentices), and newly trained individuals need to be given the opportunity to gain experience of working. If they are not fully competent or are newly trained and without sufficient experience, they must be in the process of obtaining the relevant competence and be appropriately supervised by someone who is competent.

1.36 Anyone appointed to undertake design work or building work must not accept that appointment if they do not have the right competence for the work. Should they cease to be competent for any reason, they must inform the person who asked them to undertake the work and the principal designer or the principal contractor, and if they are the principal designer or the principal contractor, they should inform the client.

1.37 The Regulator intends to publish guidance on the new dutyholder roles and responsibilities for all those involved in the procurement, design, planning, managing and undertaking of building work, providing clarity to the industry. Stakeholders have suggested that this includes, for example, the roles of a manufacturer or a specialist consultant and when they become a designer, how a principal designer or a principal contractor can be in control of the design work or the building work, and how to assess the competence of those appointed for work.

Dutyholder and competence requirements for higher-risk buildings

Overview of proposal

1.38 The consultation outlined that in addition to the requirements that apply to all building work, the government intended to place additional requirements for all those working on higher-risk buildings.

1.39 For higher-risk buildings, appointments by the client of the principal designer and principal contractor must be made before the building control application is made. This will include an obligation on the client to ensure that designers and contractors are aware that they are working on a higher-risk building project, and that dutyholders must identify and share information about the nature of the higher-risk building project.

1.40 The consultation also outlined specific duties on the client responsible for building work on a higher-risk building, to develop and maintain a golden thread of information and put in place reporting processes to support a mandatory occurrence reporting regime.

Consultation analysis

1.41 There were 122 responses to the section on new dutyholder roles and responsibilities.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the additional requirements proposed for dutyholders involved in work on higher-risk buildings?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	85	70%
Disagree	14	12%
Neither agree nor disagree	10	8%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	12	10%
Total	122	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

1.42 The majority (70%) of responses supported the proposed additional requirements for dutyholders involved in work on higher-risk buildings.

1.43 Fourteen respondents (12%) disagreed with the proposals. Of those who provided an explanation, the reasons given included that the requirements should be applied to all buildings, and that the requirement for the appointment of the principal contractor must be made before the building control application is submitted did not follow usual procurement routes.

Government response

1.44 The dutyholder and competence requirements set out in the Building Regulations 2010 (inserted by the Building Regulations etc. (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023) will apply to all building work, including work on new build, or work to an existing higher-risk building. There will be additional requirements for those involved with the procurement, design, planning and building work associated with higher-risk buildings.

1.45 Cooperation, coordination and communication between dutyholders is a key element of the building safety regime, and this should start as early as possible in the process. The proposed new regulations for higher-risk buildings will require all the dutyholders to work together to provide information to the Regulator before building work begins, through the submission of a building control approval application with the plans and new prescribed documents which accompany it.

1.46 The application will need to include information provided by the dutyholders demonstrating how they intend to comply with all their duties and how they will ensure that the building work to be undertaken will comply with all relevant building regulations requirements. This accountability, and provision of information, extends to the principal contractor and the principal designer, and the government considers it appropriate that the appointment of the principal contractor and the principal designer, supported by evidence they understand their duties, is made before the building control approval application for higher-risk building work is sent to the Regulator.

Competence checks on those working on higher-risk buildings

Overview of proposal

1.47 For higher-risk buildings, we proposed that additional competence checks be carried out on a person or an organisation before they are appointed, and included the requirements to check whether the person has a serious infraction and to consider whether the previous conduct might call into question their competence for this appointment.

1.48 The client and other dutyholders making appointments will need to keep a record of the steps they took to satisfy themselves that the proposed/appointed persons have the relevant competence (skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours), or if they are an organisation, the organisational capability, for the roles, and that any previous serious infractions would not have an effect on their appointment to the project. They must also outline any measures the dutyholder who made the appointment will take to mitigate the effects of the appointment. This information must be provided in the competence declaration as part of the building control approval application for a higher-risk building.

Consultation analysis

1.49 There were 122 responses to the section on new dutyholder roles and responsibilities.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the requirement on the client to record the steps they took to satisfy themselves that the appointed Principal designer and Principal contractor have the relevant competence for the role and include it with the competence declaration required with the building control approval application for higher-risk building work?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	86	71%
Disagree	14	12%
Neither agree nor disagree	10	8%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	12	10%
Total	122	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that anyone making appointments for building work on a Higher Risk Building should consider whether a serious infraction might call into question a person’s skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	79	65%
Disagree	13	11%
Neither agree nor disagree	13	11%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	16	13%
Total	122

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed meaning of serious infraction?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	55	45%
Disagree	19	16%
Neither agree nor disagree	27	22%
Don’t know	5	4%
Not answered	16	13%
Total	122	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the consideration of serious infractions be limited to the last 5 years?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	39	32%
Disagree	38	31%
Neither agree nor disagree	26	21%
Don’t know	3	3%
Not answered	16	13%
Total	122	100

Client ensuring principal designer and principal contractor have relevant competence

1.50 Eighty-six respondents (71%) agreed with the proposal that the client should record the steps they took to satisfy themselves that the appointed principal designer and principal contractor have the relevant competence for the role and include it with the competence declaration required with the building control approval application for higher-risk building work.

1.51 Fourteen respondents (12%) disagreed with the proposal. Of those who explained the decision, the most common reasons were that this might be seen as onerous and deter development, and that these requirements should apply to all building work, not just higher-risk building work.

Serious infractions

1.52 Seventy-nine respondents (65%) agreed that anyone making appointments for building work on a higher-risk building should consider whether a serious infraction might call into question a person’s competence (their skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours).

1.53 Thirteen respondents (11%) disagreed with the proposal. Of those who provided an explanation, reasons given included that this should only apply to organisations, and that this seemed to be a way of policing those who had previously been enforced against.

Definition of serious infraction

1.54 Fifty-five respondents (45%) agreed with the proposed meaning of serious infraction.

1.55 Nineteen respondents (16%) disagreed with the proposals, while 27 respondents (22%) neither agreed nor disagreed. Of those who provided an explanation, reasons given included that the meaning was too broad and should be limited to fire safety, others felt that the definition did not go far enough, that multiple minor failings should be included, as should issues with compliance of the Housing Act 2004.

Limiting serious infractions to the last 5 years

1.56 Thirty-nine respondents (32%) supported the proposal that the consideration of serious infractions be limited to the last 5 years.

1.57 Thirty-eight respondents (31%) disagreed with the proposals, and 26 respondents (21%) neither agreed nor disagreed. The most common reason given was that respondents disagreed with the timescale for consideration of serious infractions, but there was no overall consensus of what the timescale should be. Some suggested that it should be for the lifetime of the company, some suggested 10 or 7 years, while others thought that 5 years was too long, and it should be 3 years.

1.58 Some respondents were concerned that this requirement may adversely affect those dutyholders who had learned from past mistakes by not permitting them to undertake work on higher-risk buildings, while others suggested there should be a central register of dutyholders, which would either provide information about any serious infractions, or from which those with infractions would be removed.

Government response

1.59 Before appointing a person to undertake design work, or building work, dutyholders must assess any appointees’ competence (skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours) or if they are an organisation, the organisational capability, for the work. The government believes that, in the interests of public safety, when conducting these assessments in relation to higher-risk building work, the dutyholder making that appointment should also ask them if they have a serious infraction; and consider whether that serious infraction would call into question their competence in relation to the work proposed.

1.60 A ‘serious infraction’ means that within the previous 5 years, the person or organisation being considered for appointment has been subject to any of:

i. The issue of a compliance notice in relation to contravention of Part A (structural failure) or Part B (fire safety) of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010.

ii. The issue of a stop notice in relation to a contravention any requirement of, or imposed under, building regulations.

iii. The conviction for any offence under the Building Safety Act 2022, the Building Act 1984 or the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

iv. The conviction of an offence under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

v. A finding by a formal inquiry of behaviour that directly resulted in loss of life, the deliberate misleading of customers or amounted to the failure to meet regulatory requirements.

1.61 We expect this decision-making to be part of the procurement and appointment process and will require the person making the appointment to fully consider past behaviours. The decision to appoint remains with the person making the appointment, and the competence declaration must include: the detailed consideration of the previous conduct which might call into question their competence in relation to the work in question, their reasons for appointing them nonetheless, and the measures the dutyholder who made the appointment will take to mitigate the effects of the appointment.

1.62 The Regulator will seek assurance through the competence declaration that the person making the appointment has demonstrated that they have undertaken all due diligence when deciding who to appoint to undertake design work or building work on higher-risk buildings.

1.63 It is expected that individuals and organisations would have learned from any sanctions identified in paragraph 1.60 and may well have put measures in place to ensure no recurrence, and such actions would be expected to be taken into account by those making decisions about appointment.

1.64 Appropriate guidance will be needed in relation to dutyholders complying with the consideration of serious infractions as part of the assessment of competence, and the government will work with the Regulator and industry to provide this.

Dutyholder and competence requirements for non-notifiable work in all buildings and in higher-risk buildings

Overview of proposals

1.65 Building regulations recognise the proportionate regulation of small-scale projects by, for example, the type of work prescribed in Schedule 4 to the Building Regulations 2010, which does not need to be notified to a building control body. This type of work is mainly of a minor nature, where there is no significant risk to health, safety, water efficiency or energy-efficiency.

Consultation analysis

1.66 There were 122 responses to the section on new dutyholder roles and responsibilities.

Do you agree or disagree that the dutyholders and competence regulations should not apply to work prescribed in Schedule 4 of the Building Regulations 2010?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	72	59%
Disagree	19	16%
Neither agree nor disagree	13	11%
Don’t know	3	3%
Not answered	15	12%
Total	122	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

1.67 The majority of respondents (59%) agreed with the proposals, with comments that the proposals seemed proportionate for the minor works, as identified in schedule 4 of the Buildings Regulations 2010.

1.68 Of those that did not agree with the proposals the most common reason given was that the work in schedule 4 of the Building Regulations 2010, although minor in nature, was not necessarily low risk.

Government response

1.69 To be consistent with the proportionate approach taken in building regulations, the government intends not to apply the dutyholders duties and competence requirements where the work consists only of work described in Schedule 4 to the Building Regulations 2010. Whilst there is no duty to notify either a building control authority or the Regulator about these works, the substantive requirements of the building regulations continue to apply.

2. A series of robust hard stops (‘gateway points’) to strengthen regulatory oversight before a higher-risk building is occupied

Building control application procedure for creating new higher-risk buildings

2.1 The consultation outlined the government’s intention to introduce a new building control application process for higher-risk buildings, which will require approval from the Regulator before building work can start and again once the work has been completed. As part of this consultation, we sought views on the details of the process of how the applications are made.

How building control approval applications should be submitted for higher-risk building work

Overview of proposal

2.2 We proposed that the client could be assisted in preparing the building control approval application, and that person would be able to submit the application on the client’s behalf.

2.3 We also proposed that all applications for higher-risk building work should be submitted electronically to the Regulator via a digital system, and that this should apply to other forms of building control related correspondence. While the emphasis was placed on electronic submissions, we proposed that the Regulator will have the discretion to accept applications and notifications to be submitted in a different way such as through paper copies, where necessary.

Consultation analysis

2.4 There were 80 responses to the section on a series of robust hard stops (‘gateway points’) to strengthen regulatory oversight before a higher-risk building is occupied.

Do you agree or disagree that the client, principal contractor or principal designer should be able to submit the required building control approval application to the Regulator for higher-risk building work?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	55	69%
Disagree	5	6%
Neither agree nor disagree	5	6%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	15	19%
Total	80	100

Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach outlined for electronic submission and directions and that it should apply to all forms of building control related correspondence?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	58	73%
Disagree	1	1%
Neither agree nor disagree	6	8%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	15	19%
Total	80	100

Do you agree or disagree that the Regulator should have the discretion to allow applicants to submit building control applications and notifications in different ways where necessary such as through paper copies?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	37	46%
Disagree	18	23%
Neither agree nor disagree	7	9%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	17	21%
Total	80	100

Submitting applications for building control approval

2.5 The majority (69%) of respondents agreed with the proposal to allow the client, the principal contractor, and the principal designer to submit the application for building control approval, with responses setting out that the proposal was sensible as dutyholders would be competent and have a duty to coordinate their work and cooperate with each other.

2.6 Five respondents (6%) disagreed with the proposals, with 3 respondents (4%) concerned about the overall responsibility and accountability of the client being blurred.

2.7 Seven respondents (9%) did raise broader issues. In particular, respondents asked why the consultation was encouraging early engagement between the dutyholders and the Regulator before building control approval applications were made and whether the Regulator would be resourced to fulfil this function.

Electronic submissions

2.8 There was strong support (73%) for the electronic submission of applications and notification. Respondents considered this favourable for developing an efficient process for sharing, processing and storing applications and notifications. 12 respondents (15%) stated that the proposals were consistent with the principles of the golden thread and would lead to an efficient process for those carrying out higher-risk building work, the Regulator and members of the multi-disciplinary team.

2.9 Those who did not agree with the proposal (9%) were primarily concerned that non-electronic submissions should be an alternative option to give flexibility for applicants.

2.10 Thirty-seven respondents (46%) agreed with our proposal to give the Regulator the discretion to allow applicants to submit building control applications and notifications in different ways. Respondents in support of these proposals were keen to emphasise that allowing non-electronic submissions at the discretion of the Regulator was important to ensure the higher-risk regime remained inclusive to those with different needs.

2.11 Those that disagreed (23%) were primarily concerned about the proposals potentially undermining the golden thread.

Government response

Submitting applications for building control approval

2.12 The overall responsibility for submitting building control approval applications will sit with the client of higher-risk building work as it will be the client who will have overall responsibility for the project, however, they may delegate the action to meet the requirement to the principal contractor, principal dutyholder or another person to submit the application on their behalf. We do not consider it necessary to restrict who can submit the application as it is expected there will be many individuals involved in creating and collating the information required as part of the building control approval application. In addition to the proposal we consulted on, we will require that the client signs the application regardless of whether it is submitted by them, the principal contractor, the principal designer or someone else. This requirement will ensure the client is robustly involved in the submission of the application even when it is submitted by someone on their behalf.

2.13 Early engagement between dutyholders and the Regulator is encouraged to discuss the development of draft plans and documentation, including design approaches. This dialogue with the Regulator should support the submission of valid and accurate applications, speeding up the determinations process. This is particularly important in the formative years of the higher-risk regime as industry adapts to the new procedural requirements.

2.14 The Regulator will be sufficiently resourced to fulfil its building control function, including pre-application engagement with those intending to carry out higher-risk building work. We expect pre-application engagement to improve the efficiency of the application process saving applicants and the Regulator time and resource.

Electronic submissions

2.15 We expect that the majority of dutyholders engaging with the higher-risk regime will be established organisations where an electronic approach to building control applications and notices will be common practice. This approach will support the creation of an efficient process and the golden thread of information. However, it is important that the higher-risk regime is accessible to all, including persons with protected characteristics. This is particularly the case for building work in existing higher-risk buildings initiated by a resident. While we are encouraging applications and notifications to submitted electronically, the Regulator will have the discretion to accept applications and notices submitted in a different way, for example paper copies, to ensure the regime is accessible. The Regulator is committed to ensuring its operational systems and processes consider the diverse needs, requirements and preferences of its users.

2.16 The government notes the challenge that the golden thread may be compromised, but the requirements for dutyholders to create and maintain a golden thread of information will remain regardless of whether paper copies are submitted. In a scenario where a resident carries out higher-risk building work and submits paper copies, it will be for the principal accountable person or the accountable person of the higher-risk building (or part of a higher-risk building) when the building is occupied to consider what appropriate updates to the golden thread of information are necessary. The ability to provide paper copies, at the Regulator’s discretion will not, therefore, compromise the creation and maintenance of the golden thread of information for higher-risk buildings.

Building control approval application (‘gateway 2 application’) information requirements for higher-risk buildings the transitional provisions to individual buildings

Overview of proposal

2.17 As part of the new building control application process, the consultation outlined our intention to make clear what information must be submitted to the Regulator about the building work and the persons undertaking it at the building control application stage.

Consultation analysis

2.18 There were 80 responses to the section on a series of robust hard stops (‘gateway points’) to strengthen regulatory oversight before a higher-risk building is occupied.

Do you agree or disagree with the proposed information requirements for building control approval applications for new higher-risk buildings?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	44	55%
Disagree	15	19%
Neither agree nor disagree	7	9%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	13	16%
Total	80	100

2.19 The majority of respondents (55%) agreed with the proposed information requirements for building control approval applications for new higher-risk buildings.

2.20 It was highlighted by 7 respondents (9%) that further guidance will be needed to ensure clarity around these requirements.

2.21 Of those respondents who either disagreed or neither agreed nor disagreed, the most frequent reason given, from 9 respondents (11%), was to suggest additional informational requirements for building control approval applications for new higher-risk buildings. Those in agreement overall also suggested additional requirements. The most frequently suggested additional requirements related to additional drawings (3 respondents (4%)) and a fire strategy (2 respondents (3%)). Three respondents (4%) raised concerns about the extra burden to industry of providing the new prescribed documents, stating that extra time and cost will be involved to produce these documents.

Government response

2.22 The government accepts that more clarity in the form of guidance is needed and is working with the Regulator to develop this. The Regulator intends to publish full guidance on the regulations once they are laid in Parliament.

2.23 We have considered all suggestions from respondents for additional information requirements for building control approval applications but consider that these suggestions are addressed in existing proposals or will not be necessary for the Regulator to determine the application.

2.24 We have considered responses from a small minority that raised concerns that some information set out in the prescribed documents will not be possible to provide before building work commences and concerns around the additional burden of these new requirements. We consider these changes a key part of the reforms to building regulation and the more stringent regulatory regime, and that they are essential to promote industry culture change. These requirements for building control approval applications aim to ensure that compliance with building regulations, including but not limited to building safety, is considered by dutyholders at each stage of design and construction.

Prescribed documents for building control approval applications for higher-risk buildings

Overview of proposal

2.25 In addition to the current information requirements submitted for building control application, applicants will be required to submit new additional ‘prescribed documents’ when seeking building control approval from the Regulator.

Consultation analysis

2.26 There were 80 responses to the section on a series of robust hard stops (‘gateway points’) to strengthen regulatory oversight before a higher-risk building is occupied.

Do you agree or disagree with the proposed information that must be contained within a competence declaration?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	50	63%
Disagree	8	10%
Neither agree nor disagree	8	10%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	13	16%
Total	80	100

Do you agree or disagree that when assessing an application for building control approval the Regulator should consider the steps taken to determine whether a person has a serious infraction, and the detailed consideration of their previous conduct?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	44	55%
Disagree	15	19%
Neither agree nor disagree	5	6%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	15	19%
Total	80	100

Do you agree or disagree with the proposed list of information that must be contained within a planning statement?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	50	63%
Disagree	6	8%
Neither agree nor disagree	8	10%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	15	19%
Total	80	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Do you agree or disagree with the proposed list of information that must be contained within a design and build approach document?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	39	49%
Disagree	18	23%
Neither agree nor disagree	11	14%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	12	15%
Total	80	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Do you agree or disagree with the proposed list of information that must be contained within a fire and emergency file?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	53	66%
Disagree	4	5%
Neither agree nor disagree	8	10%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	14	18%
Total	80	100

Do you agree or disagree with the proposed list of information that must be contained within a construction control plan?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	43	54%
Disagree	16	20%
Neither agree nor disagree	7	9%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	14	18%
Total	80	100

Do you agree or disagree that the construction control plan should set out plans for how the client will maintain and manage the golden thread?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	53	66%
Disagree	4	5%
Neither agree nor disagree	6	8%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	16	20%
Total	80	100

Do you agree or disagree with the proposed list of information that must be contained within the change control plan, including the information requirements in the proposed change control log?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	53	66%
Disagree	4	5%
Neither agree nor disagree	7	9%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	15	19%
Total	80	100

Do you agree or disagree that a statement describing their mandatory occurrence reporting system should be required as part of a building control approval application?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	54	68%
Disagree	2	3%
Neither agree nor disagree	11	14%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	12	15%
Total	80	100

Is there any information set out in the prescribed documents that would not be possible to provide before building work commences?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Yes	9	11%
No	31	39%
Don’t know	22	28%
Not answered	18	23%
Total	80	100

Information contained in the competence declaration

2.27 The majority of respondents (63%) agreed with the proposed information that must be contained in a competence declaration.

2.28 It was highlighted by 4 respondents (5%) that further guidance would be needed to ensure clarity around these requirements and how to assess competency.

2.29 Three respondents (4%) considered that the competency requirements proposed do not go far enough, and that more stringent measures should be taken such as a public register of infringements. Of those who disagreed, a concern raised by 3 respondents (4%), was the limitations of the client determining competence.

The Regulator considering the steps taken by the client to determine whether a duty holder has been subject to a serious infraction

2.30 The majority (55%) of respondents agreed that when assessing an application for building control approval the Regulator should consider the steps taken to determine whether a person has a serious infraction, and the detailed consideration of their previous conduct.

2.31 Those in disagreement most frequently raised the concern that the consequences may be too extreme for minor previous issues, and that this might detract from a learning and development culture in industry. This concern was raised by 9 respondents (11%).

List of information contained within a planning statement

2.32 The majority (63%) of respondents agreed with the proposed list of information that must be contained within a planning statement.

2.33 Of those respondents who either disagreed or neither agreed nor disagreed, the most frequent concern raised by 7 respondents (9%) was around the purpose of planning information at the stage of a building control approval application and whether it duplicated information the Regulator would already have access to.

2.34 It was noted by 7 respondents (9%) that guidance would be needed, including on when it was appropriate for applicants to submit a building control approval application before planning permission was granted.

List of information contained within a design and build approach document

2.35 While 39 respondents (49%) agreed with the information to be contained in a design and build approach document, the 18 respondents (23%) who disagreed were concerned around the title of ‘design and build approach document’ rather than its contents.

2.36 The main concern raised by 17 respondents (21%) (including 5 respondents (6%) who answered agree) was around the wording of ‘design and build approach’ due to the term having different connotations for the construction sector. In addition, it appeared that 5 respondents (6%) had been confused by the name of this document and considered it to be relating to 1 specific construction approach.

2.37 It was raised by 12 respondents (15%) that further guidance on the content of this document would be needed to provide clarity to applicants.

List of information contained within the fire and emergency file

2.38 The majority (66%) of respondents agreed with the proposed list of information that must be contained within a fire and emergency file.

2.39 Five respondents (6%) raised questions around the content of the fire and emergency file, and whether this was different to other prescribed documents.

2.40 A concern raised by 2 respondents (3%) was that information on the assumptions of any intended residents or other users including likely characteristics and behaviours may not be known at the design stage.

List of information contained within a construction control plan

2.41 The majority (54%) of respondents agreed with the proposed list of information that must be contained within a construction control plan.

2.42 Eleven respondents (14%) suggested that further guidance was needed on the content of the construction control plan, and how it would be different to the other prescribed documents. In particular, it was noted that further clarity would be needed on the requirements for the schedule of names, and whether this would refer to companies or individuals.

2.43 It was noted by 5 respondents (6%) that the principal contractor may be better placed than the client to produce the construction control plan. Two respondents (3%) raised a concern for the additional administrative burden of the construction control plan.

Construction control plan outlining plans for how the client will maintain and manage the golden thread

2.44 The majority (66%) agreed that the construction control plan should set out plans for how the client will maintain and manage the golden thread.

2.45 The most frequent concern raised, by 7 respondents (9%), was the need for further guidance.

List of information contained within the change control plan

2.46 The majority (66%) agreed with the proposed list of information that must be contained within the change control plan, including the information requirements in the proposed change control log.

2.47 It was highlighted by 7 respondents (9%) that further guidance would be needed on the requirements of this document and the different categories of change control.

2.48 It was again noted, this time by 3 respondents (4%), that the principal contractor and the principal designer may be better placed than the client to produce these plans.

Mandatory occurrence statement

2.49 The majority (68%) agreed that a statement describing the mandatory occurrence reporting system should be required as part of a building control approval application.

2.50 It was highlighted by 5 respondents (6%) that further guidance would be needed on the requirements, and concerns were raised over the subjective nature of this document. A concern was also raised by 2 respondents (3%) that mandatory reporting would add an unnecessary burden to industry which may result in under-reporting. Information that would not be possible to provide before building work begins.

2.51 Thirty-one respondents (39%) were positive about the proposed prescribed documents answering that there was not any information set out in the prescribed documents that would not be possible to provide before building work begins on site.

2.52 Nine respondents (11%) raised concerns that some information set out in the prescribed documents would not be possible to provide before building work had begun. Concerns raised included that at the point of submitting a building control approval application the principal contractor or subcontractors may not yet have been appointed (5 respondents (6%)), that designs may not be fully complete at this stage (2 respondents (3%)), and that it may not be clear in advance whether a partial completion strategy would be required (2 respondents (3%)).

Government response

Competency declaration

2.53 The government considers the competence declaration an important part of a building control approval application, to demonstrate to the Regulator how the client, and others making appointments, have considered the competence or the organisational capability, and the suitability of those they are appointing for the work they are to undertake.

Planning statement

2.54 The government has listened to and agreed with concerns that the planning statement is unnecessary as it would duplicate information which is already publicly available. We will no longer require the planning statement as a prescribed document and therefore it will not need to be submitted as part of a building control approval application.

Design and build approach document

2.55 The government has noted the concerns raised around the wording of the ‘design and build’ approach document due to the contractual connotations. In response to these concerns, we have renamed the document the ‘building regulations compliance statement’ to avoid confusion in industry.

2.56 The intent of the building regulations compliance statement is to encourage dutyholders to carefully consider how compliance will be achieved for each applicable building regulation requirement and how they work together as a system before construction starts.

2.57 In addition, there was concern raised as to how compliance with building regulations would be assessed and enforced in the higher-risk regime. One respondent suggested the government was “effectively withdrawing approved document B” because approved document B does not provide appropriate guidance for unusual or complex buildings. The purpose of approved documents is to explain one or more ways to demonstrate how building work can be shown to comply with the legal requirements of the building regulations in common situations. As acknowledged in the approved documents there may be an alternative method of complying with applicable requirements. Where the approved documents do not provide solutions applicable to the type of building being constructed, that does not mean the legal requirements of the building regulations do not apply. For buildings that are unusual or complex, dutyholders are encouraged to liaise with the Building Safety Regulator at an early stage.

Fire and emergency file

2.58 Some respondents raised questions on the content of the fire and emergency file. The government considers that building safety risks (spread of fire and structural failure) need to be appropriately considered before construction starts. Assumptions behind designs and how the building will be used need to be realistic and carefully considered, with a clear rationale behind those assumptions. The purpose of the fire and emergency file is to provide any accountable person (under part 4 of the Building Safety Act 2022) a summary of the information about their building which they will need to develop how they will manage the building safely. We are working with the Regulator to develop clear guidance on the content of the fire and emergency file.

2.59 Concerns were raised that the assumptions of any intended residents or other users including likely characteristics and behaviours may not be known at the design stage. The government’s view is that these should be considered before construction starts. We ask for assumptions, in recognition that details may not be known or confirmed at the design stage. However, we do consider that they will need to be realistic and carefully considered, with clear rationale given.

Construction control plan

2.60 A question was raised about which names should be given in the construction control plan. The schedule of names required should contain company names when they are organisations rather than those of individuals.

2.61 Four respondents (5%) thought that the principal contractor may be better placed than the client to produce the construction control plan. The principal dutyholders, including the principal contractor and principal designer, can and should cooperate and coordinate with the client to develop the prescribed documents. However, the client holds overall responsibility for all the information submitted as part of a building control approval application.

Change control plan

2.62 The intent of the change control plan is to ensure that dutyholders carefully consider the implications of changes from their original building control approval application before they are made. These changes are known as controlled changes and must be recorded to ensure that plans and prescribed documents are updated to reflect the building work ‘as-built’ rather than ‘as-designed’. A key part of the higher-risk regime is to ensure there is accurate information about the as-built building.

2.63 The government has considered the suggestions for additional requirements to the change control plan but considers that these are already covered in the proposals and can be clarified in guidance, or are not required for the Regulator to assess the application.

Description of the mandatory occurrence reporting system

2.64 The government intends to introduce mandatory reporting of safety occurrences during the design, construction, and occupation stages of higher-risk buildings as part of the more stringent building safety regime. This will enable the Regulator to capture any risks that could have a potential impact on fire and structural safety and assess its relevance to other buildings, help drive intelligence led enforcement, promote safety-conscious culture change, and improve fire and structural safety standards and best practice across the industry.

Information that would not be possible to provide before building work begins

2.65 Fundamental to Dame Judith Hackitt’s review was the need for dutyholders to consider safety issues at the start of any construction project. This approach may result in some appointments or information having to be made sooner than is currently the case. The government is clear that early consideration of risk is vital to ensure buildings are constructed safely and residents have confidence in the construction of their building. We have asked the Regulator to work with industry to help them adapt and adopt new approaches to ensure complex build projects are managed holistically from the start.

Guidance

2.66 A key theme to the responses under this section was the need for clear guidance on the purpose of each of the prescribed documents and what information they need to include. The government is working with the Regulator to develop detailed guidance for the new building control approval process which will include further information about the prescribed documents and how to make a building control approval application.

Building control approval applications for new higher-risk buildings following a staged approach

Overview of proposal

2.67 We proposed that the Regulator will be able to allow a ‘staged approach’ to building control approval for a higher-risk building’s construction, where it is satisfied that all the information cannot be provided upfront because of the complexity of the build project.

2.68 Where a staged approach is proposed, dutyholders must still provide a comprehensive building control approval application with plans and all prescribed documents, and a staged work statement providing a detailed description of the proposed stages of the work, including an estimate of the time when each stage of the work will commence and when information will be provided to the Regulator on subsequent stages of higher-risk building. This will enable the Regulator to assess the building work holistically when determining the application.

Consultation analysis

2.69 There were 80 responses to the section on a series of robust hard stops (‘gateway points’) to strengthen regulatory oversight before a higher-risk building is occupied.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the specific requirements for an applicant proposing to build a higher-risk building in stages are sufficient for ensuring dutyholders demonstrate how they will comply with all applicable building regulations requirements?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	41	51%
Disagree	14	18%
Neither agree nor disagree	7	9%
Don’t know	2	3%
Not answered	16	20%
Total	80	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Should there be any additional modifications (beyond those proposed for plans and the design and build approach document) to the prescribed documents where the applicant has provided a ‘staged work’ statement?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Yes	20	25%
No	26	33%
Don’t know	17	21%
Not answered	17	21%
Total	80	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the additional notification requirements imposed on dutyholders constructing a new higher-risk building in stages?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	46	58%
Disagree	4	5%
Neither agree nor disagree	10	13%
Don’t know	3	4%
Not answered	17	21%
Total	80	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Specific requirements for higher-risk building in stages

2.70 The majority (51%) of responses agreed with the specific requirements for an applicant proposing to build a higher-risk building in stages are sufficient for ensuring dutyholders demonstrate how they will comply with all applicable building regulations requirements.

2.71 Respondents offered conflicting opinions on the proposals, with 8 (10%) setting out their complete opposition to any developments being undertaken through a staged approval process. It was suggested that the proposals are not aligned to the vision set out by Dame Judith Hackitt and that a staged approach could undermine the performance of a building and that requirements for it to be considered as a whole should be from the earliest possible stage.

Additional modifications to the prescribed documents for ‘staged work’

2.72 Twenty-six respondents (33%) answered that there should not be any additional modifications to the prescribed documents where the applicant has provided a staged work statement.

2.73 Twenty respondents (25%) thought that there should be additional modifications and a number of individual suggestions were made on the details. The most frequent examples were that the design and build approach document should include the programme for future work (3 respondents (4%)) and a timeline for future submissions (2 respondents (3%)).

Additional notification requirements imposed on dutyholders constructing higher-risk building in stages

2.74 The majority (58%) respondents agreed with the additional information requirements imposed on dutyholders constructing a new higher-risk building in stages. Only 4 (5%) disagreed, however a further 30 (38%) either did not respond, did not know, or neither agreed nor disagreed.

2.75 Respondents generally echoed comments provided on earlier questions. For example, 5 (6%) respondents raised the importance of ensuring that the timescales for decisions to be issued by the Regulator at each stage be proportionate, so as not to result in lengthy and costly delays to developments. There were a further 5 (6%) comments from respondents calling for clear guidance to support the staged approach.

Government response

2.76 The government has considered the individual suggestions made on the specifics suggested for additional modifications to the prescribed documents where the applicant has provided a staged work statement. These suggestions are either already covered in the staged work statement, other prescribed documents, or were considered to be too prescriptive.

2.77 The government is committed to ensuring robust regulatory oversight of all new higher-risk buildings. Dutyholders must demonstrate firstly how they will, and secondly how they have, met all of the relevant requirements of the building regulations. This is a requirement for all developments, regardless of the proposed approach sought through the application.

2.78 Given the complex nature of many higher-risk building developments, we remain of the view that in certain circumstances it is appropriate for the applicant to seek approval in stages. We note that a number of respondents raised the importance of guidance to ensure clarity around the requirements. We agree with the need for clear guidance and the government is working closely with the Regulator on developing guidance.

Partial completion strategy

Overview of proposal

2.79 Where a dutyholder intends to occupy a higher-risk building in phases, a partial completion strategy must be provided at the building control approval stage before building work commences. We consulted on how this approach would work in practice.

Consultation analysis

2.80 There were 80 responses to the section on a series of robust hard stops (‘gateway points’) to strengthen regulatory oversight before a higher-risk building is occupied.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed list of information that should be contained within a partial completion strategy?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	47	59%
Disagree	11	14%
Neither agree nor disagree	7	9%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	15	19%
Total	80	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

2.81 Forty-seven respondents (59%) agreed with the proposed list of information that should be contained within a partial completion strategy.

2.82 Four respondents (5%) who disagreed raised concerns that the list of information set out in the consultation was insufficient, although many did not give further details. Three respondents (4%) noted it is important that safety features be fully operational in the relevant area even if further building work is yet to be completed in other parts of the building.

Government response

2.83 The government intends to permit partial completion for higher-risk buildings and is clear that partial completion must never come at the expense of resident safety, and that it must not introduce greater risk than that of only allowing occupation once all building work is complete. There will be stringent safeguards for partial completion in higher-risk buildings to ensure that residents are safe and feel safe in their homes when parts of their building remain under construction. No residential unit within a new higher-risk building can be occupied without a relevant completion certificate, as evidence that the building work in that part complies with building regulations’ requirements. This will ensure that there is a ‘hard stop’ for buildings occupied in stages.

Regulator decisions

Consultation with relevant enforcing authorities

Overview of proposal

2.84 The government proposed that the Regulator must consult with the relevant fire and rescue authority and sewerage undertaker before making its decision on an application for building control approval, a change control application for a major change and a completion certificate application. This intention was to build upon current requirements covered by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the Building Regulations 2010 and the Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2010.

2.85 Under the proposals, the Regulator would not be able to determine an application for building control approval before 15 working days after the date on which the plans were provided to the fire and rescue service or the sewerage undertaker has passed, or until the fire and rescue service or the sewerage undertaker has provided its response (if sooner than the 15 working days).

Consultation analysis

2.86 There were 80 responses to the section on a series of robust hard stops (‘gateway points’) to strengthen regulatory oversight before a higher-risk building is occupied.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the Regulator should consult the fire and rescue authority on compliance with the Fire Safety Order on building control approval applications, change control applications and completion certificate applications?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	49	61%
Disagree	9	11%
Neither agree nor disagree	4	5%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	17	21%
Total	80	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that a building control approval application must not be determined before 15 working days after the date on which the plans are given to the fire and rescue authority?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	33	41%
Disagree	12	15%
Neither agree nor disagree	20	25%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	15	19%
Total	80	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the Regulator should consult the sewerage undertaker on Part H of Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	39	49%
Disagree	4	5%
Neither agree nor disagree	12	15%
Don’t know	8	10%
Not answered	17	21%
Total	80	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree that an application must not be determined until at least 15 working days after the date on which the plans are given to the Sewerage Undertaker?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	33	41%
Disagree	7	9%
Neither agree nor disagree	16	20%
Don’t know	7	9%
Not answered	17	21%
Total	80	100

New statutory consultation points

2.87 Significant concerns were raised about the statutory consultation process in general, in that it was considered there was a risk of blurring of the roles and responsibilities between the statutory consultation process and a representative from the fire and rescue authority being appointed as a member of the multi-disciplinary team. It was also felt that there should be a requirement that the building control bodies demonstrate how they have addressed any comments made by the fire and rescue authorities.

2.88 There was majority support (61%) for the proposal to consult the fire and rescue authorities on compliance with the Fire Safety Order. Respondents commented that the consultation with the fire and rescue authority was a necessary component of building control and that the approach was logical for ensuring consideration of fire safety.

2.89 Nine respondents (11%) disagreed with the proposals and raised concerns including whether statutory consultees were sufficiently resourced for their roles and whether it was necessary for there to be statutory consultations for both change control applications and completion certificate applications.

2.90 Thirty-nine respondents (49%) agreed with the proposal to consult the sewerage undertaker on Part H of Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 2010 before determining building control approval applications, change control applications and completion certificate applications. Those in support considered the approach to be necessary to ensure compliance with building regulations for higher-risk buildings.

2.91 Of those who disagreed with the approach (5%), some respondents (3%) stated that this step may be unnecessary due to the due diligence already taken by developers and the requirement to consult the relevant sewerage undertaker during the planning period.

Statutory time period

2.92 Respondents were broadly supportive of the proposed timeframe of at least 15 working days, from the date plans have been provided to statutory consultees, during which an application must not be determined. 33 respondents (41%) agreed with the proposed timeframe for fire and rescue authorities, and the same number of respondents agreed with the proposed timeframe for sewerage undertakers. In answer to both these questions, those in agreement consistently suggested this timeframe is reasonable and agreeable on the ground of consistency with current statutory consultations in building regulations.

2.93 With regard to consultation with the fire and rescue authorities, the most frequent concern raised by both those in support and against the proposals, the timeframe was whether fire and rescue authorities were sufficiently resourced to respond within 15 working days and the potential impact that could have on the determination of applications. This was raised by 23 respondents (29%).

2.94 With regard to sewerage undertakers, 4 respondents (5%) who agreed with the proposals highlighted that the timeframe must be supported by appropriate resourcing from water companies and the Regulator, to prevent delays to applications being assessed and determined. The potential for delays due to the resource of statutory consultees was the most common concern raised by the 7 respondents (9%) who disagreed with the time limit being 15 working days.

Government response

2.95 The government considers the statutory consultation process to be distinct from the role of a fire and rescue authority representative on the multi-disciplinary team. Multi-disciplinary teams will bring together the Regulator, registered building inspectors and fire and rescue authorities, including competent and expert fire engineers and inspectors, to collate expert advice and support in the taking of key regulatory decisions. This new function is in addition to the statutory consultation process and will ensure the right specialists and regulators work effectively together to regulate higher-risk buildings.

2.96 The Regulator has consulted on new Operational Standard Rules that apply to all building control functions delivered by local authorities and registered building control approvers in England. These proposed rules include measures to improve the statutory consultation process, such as ensuring those carrying out building control functions aim to achieve consensus with statutory consultees. Although the rules do not technically apply to the Regulator, they reflect the standards to which the Regulator is accountable for its building functions. We expect the Regulator to follow its own procedural rules and, where it has deviated from the advice given by a statutory consultee, it explains the reasons for doing so. The Regulator is accountable to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) Secretary of State and to Parliament. This application of common standards ensures a consistent regulatory approach for building control across the whole built environment.

2.97 The government intends to move the requirements of Article 45 of the Fire Safety Order into building regulations for all buildings and these measures support this objective for higher-risk building work.

2.98 In consulting the fire and rescue authority on building control approval applications and completion certificate applications, the Regulator will need to provide sufficient plans to show where the higher-risk building work, if carried out in accordance with those plans, complies with the applicable requirements of Part B of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010. The fire and emergency file will also need to be provided. This will allow the fire and rescue authorities to make an assessment as to whether the proposed building will comply with the Fire Safety Order during the occupation phase of the building’s use.

2.99 In consulting the sewerage undertaker on building control approval applications and completion certificate applications, the Regulator will need to provide sufficient plans to show where the higher-risk building work would, if carried out in accordance with those plans, comply with the requirements of paragraph H4 of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010.

2.100 A statutory consultation will not be necessary for all building work to existing buildings. The Regulator will only need to consult the sewerage undertaker where paragraph H4 of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010 imposes a requirement. Similarly, the Regulator will need to consult with the fire and rescue authority where a client proposes to carry out ‘category A work’ or ‘category B work’ where part B of schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010 imposes a requirement. Furthermore, the Regulator will not be required to undertake a statutory consultation where it already has grounds to reject an application.

2.101 For statutory consultations on applications for building control approval and completion certificates, the Regulator must have regard to any views expressed and must not determine the applications until at least 15 working days after the date on which the plans are given. They may, however, determine a response earlier than 15 working days if a response has already been received. After 15 working days have passed, or responses have been received, the Regulator can proceed with determining an application. They may choose to agree an extension to this timeframe with the statutory consultee should additional time be required to provide views.

2.102 For statutory consultation on change control applications, the Regulator must not determine the applications until at least 10 working days after the date on which the plans are given. They may, however, determine a response earlier than 10 working days if a response has already been given. We consider a timeframe of 10 working days reasonable because the information to be collated as part of a change control application, in most cases, will be more limited than other applications.

2.103 We acknowledge that delays to statutory consultations could impact on the speed at which applications can be determined by the Regulator. There may be circumstances where a statutory consultee requires longer to provide their views, for example where a ‘major’ change has been proposed for a particularly complex building. In these scenarios we expect the Regulator and the statutory consultee would agree an extension to these timeframes. Operational guidance will be forthcoming to support the Regulator and statutory consultees in managing this process effectively.

2.104 The government is providing an extra £26 million to fire and rescue authorities across England for new burdens under the Building Safety Act 2022 through the 2021 Spending Review (covering government spending 2022/23 to 2024/25)^{[footnote 1]}. This additional funding will, in part, be able to support Fire and Rescue Authorities during the formative years of the new regime in improving their resource and capabilities to respond to statutory consultations and proactively participate in the Regulator’s multi-disciplinary team, as well as providing a pipeline of talent to the profession.

2.105 As the higher-risk regime is increasing the frequency of statutory consultations in the lifecycle of a construction project we expect the Regulator to review the statutory consultation points in the near future, once real-time data has been collected.

Regulator decisions

Overview of proposal

2.106 In this section we proposed that after assessing an application and coming to a decision, the Regulator will provide notice of its decision in writing, setting out any requirements it has imposed where applicable, or the grounds for rejection. The government also proposed that the notice will be provided in an electronic format, but a paper copy can also be provided on request.

Consultation analysis

2.107 There were 80 responses to the section on a series of robust hard stops (‘gateway points’) to strengthen regulatory oversight before a higher-risk building is occupied.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed types of requirements which can be imposed by the Regulator when approving an application?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	48	60%
Disagree	4	5%
Neither agree nor disagree	9	11%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	18	23%
Total	80	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to enable the Regulator to prohibit building work from commencing until a requirement of a type described above have been met by the applicant?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	49	60%
Disagree	6	8%
Neither agree nor disagree	9	11%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	16	20%
Total	80	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed grounds for rejecting a building control approval application?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	53	66%
Disagree	5	6%
Neither agree nor disagree	5	6%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	17	21%
Total	80	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach outlined for the Regulator to provide notice of its decision to applicants?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	55	69%
Disagree	1	1%
Neither agree nor disagree	5	6%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	19	24%
Total	80	100

Requirements imposed by the Regulator when approving applications

2.108 The majority (60%) of respondents agreed with the proposed types of requirements the Regulator can impose when approving an application. Only 4 (5%) respondents disagreed. Respondents noted that this was a common sense approach that would ensure the regime was flexible, and that the Regulator would exercise this approach in line with the Regulators’ Code.

2.109 Some concerns were raised that the Regulator may use this flexibility to unduly relax or dispense with building regulations requirements, and that this could enable a culture of dutyholders attempting to circumvent the system, which needs to be avoided.

Regulator prohibiting building work from commencing

2.110 The majority (61%) of respondents agreed with proposals that the Regulator could prohibit work from being undertaken until a requirement had been met. Only 6 (8%) respondents disagreed with this approach.

2.111 Respondents noted that it was vital for approval to be granted by the Regulator before work could be undertaken and that this delivers on the hard stops approach recommended by Dame Judith Hackitt.

2.112 A concern was raised by some respondents that the requirement from the Regulator might relate to minor missing information that would not impact whether building work was compliant, and in such cases the delays to developments that would result from this approach seemed disproportionate.

Grounds for rejecting a building control approval application

2.113 The majority (66%) of respondents agreed with the proposed grounds for rejecting a building control application. A minority (6%) disagreed.

2.114 While there was strong agreement with the proposal, respondents requested further information and guidance to provide clarity on what sufficiently detailed applications would need to look like in practice.

2.115 A concern was also raised that rejecting an application on the basis of missing information could be a contravention of the Regulator’s Code, especially where the missing information was minor and through engagement or flexibility could have been provided at a later date.

Regulator provision of notices to its decision to applicants

2.116 The majority (69%) of respondents supported the proposals. Seven respondents (9%) stated that the proposed approach to the giving of notices following a Regulator’s decision was a reasonable approach that would make sure all parties were fully informed. Other reasons for agreeing with the proposal included the importance of openness and inclusion from the Regulator in providing notice of its decisions to applicants and the benefits of a digital service when it comes to the giving and receiving of notices and applications. Two respondents (3%) agreed with the approach but requested further clarification and guidance on how the giving and receiving of notifications would work in practice, particularly regarding the electronic sharing of notices.

2.117 The 1 respondent that disagreed with the proposals was concerned about the potential for applications to only be determined right at the end of statutory time limits which may unnecessarily delay projects.

Government response

2.118 We intend to require the Regulator to provide notice of its decision to applicants. The measure will ensure all parties are fully informed around decision-making, with the Regulator required to explain the grounds for rejection.

2.119 Regarding the emphasis some respondents placed on a digital and electronic solution to notifications, applications and determinations, we recognise the importance of implementing digital solutions to create an end-to-end building control process that is as seamless as possible. The higher-risk regime consistently seeks to harness the benefits of digital solutions and the creation, maintenance and storage of the golden thread of information. It must also be accessible and inclusive for all user’s needs. Enabling applicants to request and receive paper copies will make sure that the approach to notification is accessible and inclusive to users’ needs.

2.120 The Regulator is bound by the Regulators’ Code and general duties in Part 2 of the Building Safety Act 2022 and must act in a proportionate and consistent manner. We do not consider it in the interest of any stakeholders involved for applications to only be determined at the end of the statutory time period. A number of variables will determine the length of time it takes for an application to be determined, this includes the quality of the application and the complexity of the proposed higher-risk building work.

2.121 Operational guidance around the giving and receiving of notices will be provided once the regulations have been laid in Parliament.

Time limit for Regulator decisions on applications for building control approval

Overview of proposal

2.122 We proposed that the Regulator will have to decide applications for building control approval, change control applications and completion certificate applications within a statutory time-limit. Statutory time-limits are important to enable the Regulator to carefully consider the information provided in applications whilst avoiding unduly delaying projects.

2.123 We proposed that the Regulator will have to decide an application for building control approval within a statutory time-limit of 12 weeks. This time period was set to provide sufficient time for the BSR to carefully consider building control approval applications. This proposal also extended to building control approval applications made under the ‘staged’ approach.

Consultation analysis

2.124 There were 80 responses to the section on a series of robust hard stops (‘gateway points’) to strengthen regulatory oversight before a higher-risk building is occupied.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that 12 weeks is an appropriate timeframe to require the Regulator to determine a building control approval application?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	30	38%
Disagree	22	28%
Neither agree nor disagree	12	15%
Don’t know	2	3%
Not answered	14	18%
Total	80	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

2.125 Thirty respondents (38%) were in support of the proposals. Of those in support, respondents considered the timeframe to be sufficient for the assessment of building control approval applications considering higher-risk buildings are often complex builds. Respondents also stated their support for a non-response not being considered as an approval by default.

2.126 Twenty-two respondents (28%) disagreed with the timeframe. The primary concerns were the potential for project delays and impact on project finances and viability.

2.127 In addition, 16 respondents (20%) took the view that the timeframe for the staged approach should be shorter than the timeframe for an application for building control approval that covers the entire higher-risk building work as the amount of information to review would likely be less.

Government response

2.128 Our aim is to make sure the statutory time limits for determining these applications are proportionate, balancing out the need for the Regulator to robustly assess applications for, often complex, buildings with the importance of not unnecessarily delaying the industry in carrying out higher-risk building work.

2.129 We intend to maintain the 12-week statutory time limit the Regulator will have to determine an application for building control approval for the creation of a higher-risk building. At the application for building control approval stage, the Regulator will have received little prior information on the project beyond any pre-application engagement with the developer. Given the complexity of some higher-risk building work, the detailed information required as part of an application for building control approval and the need to fulfil statutory consultation requirements, we consider 12 weeks as a statutory time limit reasonable and proportionate.

2.130 We acknowledge that some respondents were concerned that the 12-week period was too long and would impact on construction projects. In several responses, there appeared to be a misconception from respondents that the 12-week timeframe was the expected response time for all applications for building control approval. The timeframe for determining an application for building control approval will be dependent on many variables including the quality of the application, the complexity of the build and the speed of response from statutory consultees. It may take 12 weeks to receive a response from the Regulator or it could take less time. As well as the quality of an application, early engagement with the regulator on complex or unusual designs or approaches to the build will also be important. Further guidance will be provided on the Regulator’s approach to assessing and determining application. It should also be noted that for very complex construction projects, it may be necessary for an extension to be agreed between the Regulator and the applicant.

2.131 The Regulator will be resourced sufficiently to carry out these functions prudently. The Regulator is bound by the Regulators’ Code and the Building Safety Act 2022 and must carry out their activities in a proportionate and consistent way, minimising unnecessary regulatory burdens.

2.132 Some respondents suggested that the timeframe for the staged approach should be shorter than the timeframe for a full building control approval application. Where a staged approach is proposed, dutyholders must still provide a comprehensive application for building control approval with plans and all prescribed documents, as well as a staged work statement providing a detailed description of the proposed stages of the work, including an estimate of the time when each stage of the work will commence. There remains a large amount of information for the Regulator to review and there are specific considerations the Regulator must make when assessing a staged application. For these reasons we consider a consistent 12-week time limit to be appropriate.

2.133 To strengthen the approach to determining building control approval applications, change control applications and completion certificate applications, the government intends to put in place a short validation process when these applications are first submitted to the Regulator. On receipt of these applications, the Regulator will check the application to determine whether it is valid. A valid application means that the application and accompanying prescribed documents include all the necessary information. The validation process is to ensure applications are complete and properly checked before the formal assessment process commences. This process is not an assessment of the quality of the information. We believe this measure will save the applicant, and the Regulator, time and will enable issues to be addressed as early in the process as possible.

2.134 The Regulator will validate the application and inform the applicant as soon as reasonably practicable if an application is deemed valid, and the assessment and determination process can commence. The statutory time limit will begin from the point when the application was made to ensure the process is as streamlined as possible. If an application is deemed as invalid, the Regulator will include in the notification the reason why the application is invalid and what steps the applicant needs to address before re-submitting the application.

2.135 A ‘non-response’ will not be considered as an approval by default. This is pivotal to introduce the hard stop gateways Dame Judith Hackitt envisaged. However, to ensure that applications are decided expeditiously, we have created an appeal route, should an application not be decided in time. Should the Regulator not decide an application within the time limit or any extension to it, an applicant can appeal to the Secretary of State requesting them to consider their application.

Use of Competent Person Schemes when creating a new higher-risk building

Overview of proposal

2.136 The government set out an intention to ensure competent person schemes and third-party certifiers can continue to work effectively for higher-risk buildings under the supervision of the Regulator.

2.137 In addition to using such installers to carry out standalone building work, we proposed that it should be possible for them to be used as part of wider building work for which a building control approval application to the Regulator is required. For higher-risk buildings we proposed that where there is an intention to use competent person schemes or third-party certifier work this should be included in the building control approval application submitted before construction commences on site.

Consultation analysis

2.138 There were 80 responses to the section on a series of robust hard stops (‘gateway points’) to strengthen regulatory oversight before a higher-risk building is occupied.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that competent person scheme work should be reflected in building control approval applications where such work forms part of a wider higher-risk building work project?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	48	60%
Disagree	7	9%
Neither agree nor disagree	8	10%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	16	20%
Total	80	100

2.139 The majority (60%) of respondents supported the proposal that competent person scheme work should be covered in building control approval applications which are submitted to the regulator before work on site begins.

2.140 Comments reflected the broad agreement for the proposals, with 5 (6%) respondents stressing the important benefits such schemes currently provide and highlighting that moving away from this approach would have significant consequences (on resource and time for both the regulator and the client should they be removed from higher-risk building work) that would need to be addressed.

2.141 Despite supporting the proposals to allow competent person scheme work to continue in the development of higher-risk buildings, 7 (9%) respondents noted the importance of setting and reviewing appropriate competence standards – with 2 (3%) highlighting the ongoing minimum technical competence review being undertaken by government. Three (4%) respondents suggested that due to the higher potential for significant incidents in higher-risk buildings, there should be no place for the use of competent person scheme work at all.

Government response

2.142 The government remains of the view that competent person and third-party certification schemes should continue to operate in higher-risk buildings. Competent person schemes allow for greater flexibility for developers and can play an important role as part of the development of new higher-risk buildings.

2.143 To support this under the new approach, the government believes it is necessary to set out, as part of the building control approval application made to the Regulator before building work begins, where, and how, competent person schemes will be used. This will allow the Regulator to form a full appraisal of the approach dutyholders propose to follow, including the specific elements to be carried out under a competent person or third-party certification scheme, and how this approach will ensure that all relevant requirements of the building regulations are complied with.

2.144 In some cases, the person undertaking the work may interact with the golden thread directly and in other cases they may provide the information to the principal contractor. The principal contractor will then ensure the information is kept in compliance with the requirements of the golden thread of information.

2.145 When such work is carried out under a competent person or third-party certification scheme, the client will need to ensure that arrangements are in place so the people undertaking the work are aware of:

i. The mandatory occurrence reporting system for the reporting of safety occurrences.

ii. What information they will need to provide and how they will provide it so that the golden thread information is up to date and accurate.

2.146 The Regulator’s inspection schedule will take into account the specifics of the applicant’s proposed approach to building regulations compliance. The Regulator is leading work to improve how scheme installers evidence their competence, and minimum technical competencies.

2.147 When work is solely carried out through a competent person or third-party certification scheme there will be certain information that will have to be provided to the Regulator, the person for whom the work is done and the Responsible Person. More detail on this is set out in chapter 4 (Building work carried out in existing higher-risk buildings)

Commencement notices

Overview of proposal

2.148 To strengthen regulatory oversight before building work for a higher-risk building starts and is commenced, we outlined our intention to require a commencement notice.

2.149 We sought views on our intention to require that the client, or someone on their behalf, gives notice to the Regulator at least 5 working days before the day they intend to commence higher-risk building work.

Consultation analysis

2.150 There were 80 responses to the section on a series of robust hard stops (‘gateway points’) to strengthen regulatory oversight before a higher-risk building is occupied.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that where building control approval for higher-risk building work is granted, the client, or someone on their behalf, must give notice to the Regulator at least five working days before the day they intend to commence higher-risk building work?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	51	64%
Disagree	4	5%
Neither agree nor disagree	7	9%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	18	23%
Total	80	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

2.151 There was majority support (64%) for the proposal to require that the client, or someone on their behalf, submits a notice at least 5 working days before commencing higher-risk building work. Those in support considered the proposal to be a reasonable procedure to allow the Regulator time to prepare its operational oversight of the construction phase.

2.152 Four respondents disagreed with the proposal (5%). The primary concern was that the timeframe of 5 working days may be too short to allow the Regulator to commence oversight of the construction phase.

2.153 One respondent (1%) identified that the proposed definition for commencing work was more onerous than before and, therefore, further clarity was required on whether ground works such as the excavation for strip or trench foundations and piling could take place prior to a commencement notice being issued to the Regulator.

Government response

2.154 To calibrate the proposed approach to commencement notices with the intention to strengthen the definition of commencement, we intend to require that applicants notify the Regulator twice. One notification at least 5 working days before the day they intend to start notifiable building work on site, and subsequently when the work has met the new definition of commencement that we intend to set out in regulations. The latter notification will support the Regulator in overseeing the requirement for building work to commence within 3 years to maintain its building control approval. More detail on defining commencement of work is set out in chapter 10 (New wider changes to the building regulations to align the existing system with the new system).

2.155 Requiring 2 separate notices will make sure the Regulator is made aware when work begins on site and, therefore, inspections might be necessary to observe certain activities like the pouring of foundations and when the new definition of commencement has been met.

2.156 Five working days is an extended period compared to the 2 working days currently used for commencement notices under the Building Regulations 2010. We consider this appropriate due to the nature of higher-risk building work. While we appreciate some respondents did not believe this provided enough time for the Regulator to ready themselves to oversee the project, the Regulator will be preparing for the oversight stage in advance of a commencement notice being submitted.

2.157 Following the laying of the regulations in Parliament, operational guidance will be provided to support dutyholders in meeting their requirements.

Site inspection during construction

Overview of proposal

2.158 The Regulator will run a bespoke inspection and enforcement regime for higher-risk buildings during the design and build stage.

2.159 We do not intend to mandate particular stages of work for inspection in legislation, as this will be project specific and will depend on the scope and complexity of the proposed works. Instead, we expect the Regulator and applicant to work together to agree an inspection schedule, tailored to the individual higher-risk building project, when the building control approval application is approved. The government also proposed requiring that the Regulator carry out an inspection on the completed building, to ensure the performance of any safety systems in the building, before a completion certificate is issued.

2.160 In addition, we intend to provide the Regulator with the power to require a client, by notice in writing, to notify the Regulator when a specified stage or point of the higher-risk building work has been reached and to not cover up specified work for a specified period of time. The Regulator will also be able to carry out additional inspection at its discretion, including without notice.

2.161 Finally, the government proposed requiring the Regulator to arrange the final inspection or inspections of the completed higher-risk building work, before determining a completion certificate application.

Consultation analysis

2.162 There were 80 responses to the section on a series of robust hard stops (‘gateway points’) to strengthen regulatory oversight before a higher-risk building is occupied.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach to site inspections of higher-risk building work, including the requirement for the Regulator to inspect completed higher-risk building work before determining a completion certificate application?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	44	55%
Disagree	15	19%
Neither agree nor disagree	7	9%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	14	18%
Total	80	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Should typical stages of inspection of building work be set out in guidance to help provide industry with more certainty?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Yes	57	71%
No	1	1%
Don’t know	5	6%
Not answered	17	21%
Total	80	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Approach to site inspection of higher-risk building work

2.163 The majority (55%) of respondents agreed with the proposed approach to site inspections including that the Regulator would inspect completed work prior to determining a completion certificate application. There were 15 respondents (19%) who disagreed with the proposals, 7 (9%) neither agreed nor disagreed and a further 14 (18%) didn’t respond.

2.164 Five respondents (6%) expressed views related to ensuring inspection of works did not create undue delays in the process of issuing a completion certificate, for example, should agree schedules not be kept to time and the delays having a knock-on impact to the wider programme of work of the development, and the date for the final completion stage. Six respondents (8%) also raised concerns that the inspection by the Regulator before a completion certificate was issued would pass responsibility for compliance with the building regulations on to the Regulator because they had inspected the site.

Stages of inspection of building work set out in guidance

2.165 The majority of respondents (71%) agreed that guidance covering typical stages of inspection should be issued. Only 1 respondent opposed such guidance, however, a further 5 (6%) didn’t know and 17 (21%) did not answer.

2.166 The respondent who did not support the issuing of guidance said that it would be too prescriptive and suggested that inspection without prior warning would carry more weight. A further 6 (8%) respondents also commented that unplanned inspections have a part to play.

Government response

2.167 The government is clear that strong engagement between the client and the Regulator will ensure the inspection schedule is agreed and parties keep to the agreed schedule. Where work has not progressed sufficiently or is moving quicker than expected we expect the client to inform the Regulator and amend the inspection schedule accordingly.

2.168 We do not consider that delays should arise if communication between the parties is working effectively. As outlined in the consultation we expect inspections to be site specific but consider that guidance on some of the key stages, for example, foundation pours, drainage and when fire stopping is being installed, may be beneficial to help clients plan their site schedules before applying for a building control approval application.

2.169 The government is clear that requirements for dutyholders to ensure compliance with building regulations requirements rests solely with those dutyholders involved with the work on higher-risk buildings. The final inspection carried out by the Regulator is to help them assess the completion certificate application and, where necessary, the dutyholder will be required to demonstrate the performance of any safety systems in the building before occupation occurs.

Completion certificate application for new higher-risk buildings

2.170 For higher-risk buildings we are introducing a new building control gateway (gateway 3) at the current completion certification or final notice stage. On completion of building work, applicants will be required to submit a completion certificate application to the Regulator with updated plans and prescribed documents. This will build upon the existing regime by putting in place additional requirements for dutyholders to demonstrate that building work complies with all applicable building regulations’ requirements before building control approval will be granted.

Completion notices

Overview of proposal

2.171 The government proposed that after the higher-risk building work is completed, and before or at the same time as the completion certificate application for the work is submitted, the client, or someone on their behalf, must notify the Regulator in writing that the higher-risk building work has been completed.

2.172 In addition, proposals outlined the importance of determining when work has been completed for the purpose of submitting a completion notice and making a completion certificate application to the Regulator. Views were sought from stakeholders on the point when a dutyholder should be able to submit a completion certificate application, either when all notifiable building work has been completed or when all work including snagging is completed.

2.173 Upon completion of building work, the government proposed that the applicant must submit a completion certificate application to the Regulator for approval. The proposal set-out a list of key information to be submitted to the Regulator. The intention of the information requirements is to build upon the building control approval application for the final, as-built building.

Consultation analysis

2.174 There were 80 responses to the section on a series of robust hard stops (‘gateway points’) to strengthen regulatory oversight before a higher-risk building is occupied.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed requirement that the client, or someone on behalf of the client, must notify the regulator in writing that the higher-risk building work has been completed in addition to making a completion certificate application?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	46	58%
Disagree	8	10%
Neither agree nor disagree	7	9%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	18	23%
Total	80	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: At what point should a dutyholder be able to submit a completion certificate application?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
When all notifiable building work has been completed	32	40%
When all work (including snagging etc) is completed	13	16%
Other	20	25%
Don’t know	4	5%
Not answered	11	14%
Total	80	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the prescribed information and documents outlined above should be required in a completion certificate application?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	42	53%
Disagree	19	24%
Neither agree nor disagree	8	10%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	11	14%
Total	80	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Is there any additional information or documentation that may be necessary for a completion certificate application?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Yes	19	24%
No	28	35%
Don’t know	12	15%
Not answered	21	26%
Total	80	100

Completion notices

2.175 The majority of respondents (58%) supported the proposal to require a completion notice to be submitted after the higher-risk building work is complete, and before, or at the same time, as a completion certificate is applied for. Respondents considered this to be a necessary action to confirm dutyholders have complied with the procedural requirements and are responsible for determining and declaring when work is considered to be complete.

2.176 Eight respondents (10%) disagreed with the proposals. There was concern from these respondents that the notice may be duplicative, considering that completion can be signified through the completion certificate application.

2.177 More generally, concerns were raised that notices and applications should be issued solely by the client and not on their behalf to prevent a risk of blurring responsibilities between the client and the principal dutyholders.

Submitting completion certificate applications

2.178 Thirty-two respondents (40%) were in favour of the completion certificate application being submitted when all notifiable building work is completed, and 13 respondents (19%) suggested the application should be submitted once all work including ‘snagging’ was completed.

2.179 From the detailed responses provided by respondents it is clear that the term ‘snagging’ is a subjective term that has various meanings for those working in the sector. For many respondents snagging was largely confined to minor work immaterial to building regulation requirements that, while important for finishing a building, should be taking place alongside the determination of a completion certificate by the building control body. Those with an opposing view were concerned that issues related to snagging tended to be ignored once a project has received a completion certificate and could include significant notifiable building work.

2.180 Twenty respondents (25%) responded ‘other’ and provided their own approach. This primarily revolved around respondents arguing for information and prescribed documents, when available and ready, to be submitted ahead of notifiable building work being completed.

Prescribed information required in a completion certificate application

2.181 The majority of respondents (53%) agreed that the prescribed information and documents outlined should be required in a completion certificate application.

2.182 Seven respondents (9%) raised the concern that on a complex project no single individual would have the information to allow them to personally sign a compliance statement, or that professional indemnity insurers would be likely to prohibit dutyholders from making compliance statements because of the risks associated with doing so. There was also concern from 2 respondents (3%) that in some cases compliance declarations would not be appropriate, for example when contractors had been dismissed or a client had changed.

2.183 Four respondents (5%) suggested further guidance would be needed to explain the specifics of the information and documents required for a completion certificate application.

Completion certificate application information requirements

2.184 Twenty-eight respondents (39%) answered that there was no additional information or documentation necessary for a completion certificate application. However, 19 respondents (24%) answered that additional information was needed. Of those respondents, 12 respondents (15%) made suggestions for these additional requirements, including ensuring safety systems were in place and fully tested.

Government response

Completion notices

2.185 While there was strong support for requiring a completion notice to be submitted after the higher-risk building work is completed, and before or at the same time as the completion certificate application for the work is submitted, concerns were raised about whether this notice was duplicative considering the proposal to require a completion certificate application. Following further evaluation of the proposal, we intend to remove completion notices as a separate requirement under the higher-risk building work. Instead, we intend for a completion notice to be submitted as part of the information requirements in a completion certificate application. We consider that a completion certificate application provides sufficient clarity on when a higher-risk building project has finished.

2.186 Some respondents identified a potential risk of blurring responsibilities between the client and principal dutyholders and the risk of an application being submitted without explicit sign-off from the client. To avoid a situation where a client can claim they were not aware of what was included in an application when delegating this function, where an application is submitted on behalf of the client, the client will also be required to sign the application. This requirement will not apply to standalone building work in an existing higher-risk building carried out under a competent person scheme or third-party self-certification scheme where the installer is already required to notify the building control authority on the completion of building work.

Submitting a completion certificate application

2.187 Considering the broad interpretations of snagging we consider it appropriate for a completion certificate application to be submitted on the completion of notifiable building work. We would expect the Regulator and dutyholders to engage on any snagging issues to be addressed on the completion of notifiable building work. Furthermore, we intend to work with the Regulator to consider how to provide clarity about snagging. Given that completion may vary for many sites and confirmation might not be until late on in the project, we expect dutyholders to work with the Regulator and give advance warning about when notifiable building work is scheduled to conclude, and when they are intending to make a completion certificate application.

Completion certificate application information requirements

2.188 In the higher-risk regime the applicant must submit a completion certificate application to the Regulator for approval when building work is completed. The requirements of this application include updated prescribed documents reflecting the ‘as-built’ building, compliance declarations and a list of all the written mandatory occurrence reports submitted to the Regulator.

2.189 Most concerns from respondents regarding the requirements of a completion certificate application were around the individual compliance declarations from the client, principal designer and principal contractor. We intend this new requirement to strengthen dutyholder accountability and promote industry culture change. This duty reinforces that responsibility for ensuring compliance with building regulations’ requirements rests solely with the people carrying out the work. Each principal dutyholder is required to sign individual declarations of compliance to further strengthen accountability and avoid causing professional indemnity insurance and contractual liability issues. We recognise that in exceptional circumstances, such as appointments terminated due to compliance issues, compliance declarations cannot be made from previous parties and provisions have been made for these circumstances. In these scenarios, applicants should explain why it has not been possible to provide the information as part of their application to the Regulator.

2.190 The government has considered the additional information requirements suggested for completion certificate applications, mostly relating to ensuring safety systems are in place and fully tested. These suggestions are already covered in the list of prescribed documents and their requirements, for example compliance with building regulations will need to be demonstrated in the building regulations compliance statement and updated to reflect the building ‘as-built’. As part of the completion certificate process and the final inspection, we would expect the principal dutyholders to demonstrate to the Regulator that the safety systems they have in place in the building (including any sprinklers, ventilation, and alarms) work both individually and collectively when part of a system.

Assessing completion certificate applications

Overview of proposal

2.191 The government proposed that the Regulator must consult with the relevant fire and rescue authority and sewerage undertaker before making its decision on a completion certificate application.

2.192 In line with the approach proposed for building control approval applications, we proposed that the Regulator must not determine the completion certificate application before 15 working days after the date on which the plans were provided to the fire and rescue authority and sewerage undertake has passed.

Consultation analysis

2.193 There were 80 responses to the section on a series of robust hard stops (‘gateway points’) to strengthen regulatory oversight before a higher-risk building is occupied.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the Regulator should consult fire and rescue authorities on compliance with the requirements of the Fire Safety Order?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	49	61%
Disagree	7	9%
Neither agree nor disagree	6	8%
Don’t know	2	3%
Not answered	16	20%
Total	80	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the Regulator should consult the sewerage undertaker on Part H of Schedule 1 of the building regulations?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	33	41%
Disagree	10	13%
Neither agree nor disagree	10	13%
Don’t know	10	13%
Not answered	17	21%
Total	80	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that an application must not be determined until at least 15 working days after the date on which the plans are given to consultees unless they have both responded before the 15 working days deadline?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	29	36%
Disagree	14	18%
Neither agree nor disagree	15	19%
Don’t know	4	5%
Not answered	18	23%
Total	80	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Consulting fire and rescue authorities

2.194 There was majority support (61%) for the government to consult the fire and rescue service on compliance with the Fire Safety Order. Of those in support, 8 respondents (10%) stated that the consultation with the fire and rescue authority at this point was necessary for ensuring alignment and parity with the process for all other buildings. Three respondents (4%) argued that this approach should ensure there is better transition between the construction phase and the occupation phase of a higher-risk building.

2.195 Of those in disagreement with the proposal (9%), the primary concerns were around the resource and capabilities of fire and rescue authorities and the Regulator, and the potential additional burden placed on both parties. Some respondents (4%) suggested that introducing a further consultation point on completion of building work would be too late in the process and, if nothing has changed from the building control approval application, may serve little purpose.

Consulting sewerage undertakers

2.196 Thirty-three respondents (41%) agreed with the proposal to require a consultation with the sewerage undertaker before determining a completion certificate application. Those in agreement considered informing sewerage undertakers as to what has actually been installed helpful to ensure compliance with building regulations.

2.197 Ten respondents (13%) disagreed and 7 respondents (9%) outlining that, in their view, an additional consultation would be unnecessary due to the previous points during the new regime for higher-risk buildings where sewerage undertakers are consulted, and would result in unnecessary delay to the determination of completion certificate applications.

Statutory timeframe for statutory consultations

2.198 Twenty-nine respondents (36%) were in support of the 15 working days timeframe from the date plans have been provided to statutory consultees during which a completion certificate application cannot be determined. Respondents appreciated the rigour being provided for in the proposals, however, 4 of those in support of the proposals (5%) raised concerns about potential delays, should sewerage undertakers and fire and rescue authorities not have sufficient resource to respond within the 15 working day period.

2.199 Fourteen respondents disagreed (18%) with the proposal. The prospect of delays due to prompt responses not being received from statutory consultees was the primary concern raised.

Government response

2.200 As set out earlier in this chapter (section on consulting with relevant authorities), we intend to place a duty on the Regulator to consult with the fire and rescue service and the sewerage undertaker before making its decision on a building control approval application, change control application and a completion certificate application. This requirement applies for the creation of higher-risk buildings and for building work to existing higher-risk buildings. The statutory consultation at the completion certificate application stage will follow the same process and timeframes as outlined for building control approval applications and explained above.

2.201 Some respondents raised concerns that some of the proposed statutory consultation points would be unnecessary, particularly at the completion certificate applications stage where construction is completed. The statutory consultation at the completion certificate application stage is to inform the fire and rescue authority and the sewerage undertaker as to what has actually been built so they have up-to-date and accurate information about the building. This is particularly important considering the new occupation regime for higher-risk buildings and the introduction of a safety case approach to managing fire and structural safety during occupation.

2.202 We acknowledge that delays to statutory consultations could impact on the speed at which applications can be determined by the Regulator. There may be circumstances where a sewerage undertaker or fire and rescue service requires longer to provide their views, for example where a particularly large and complex building has been proposed and the plans have significantly changed from what was proposed in the building control application. However, given that any changes that have an impact on statutory consultees also require consultation with them, we do not foresee this being the case as consultees should be aware of any significant changes. We, therefore, do not envisage this consultation period needing to be extended in most cases. Operational guidance will be published to support the Regulator and statutory consultees in managing this process in an effective and efficient manner.

2.203 As outlined in this government response, we expect the statutory consultation points and timeframes to be monitored and reviewed by the Regulator. This will ensure the timeframes are proportionate and do not unduly impact on the speed at which applications can be determined.

Decisions

Overview of proposal

2.204 The consultation proposed that after receiving a completion certificate application and carrying out final inspections the Regulator can issue a certificate if the building work is completed and the dutyholders have demonstrated to the Regulator that it meets all the relevant building regulation requirements, that all the prescribed documents and plans are up-to-date, and that the golden thread of information has been appropriately handed over. If the Regulator is not satisfied with the information or the building work itself, it can reject the application. Without a completion certificate, the building cannot be legally occupied.

Consultation analysis

2.205 There were 80 responses to the section on a series of robust hard stops (‘gateway points’) to strengthen regulatory oversight before a higher-risk building is occupied

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed reasons for which a completion certificate application should be rejected?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	52	65%
Disagree	3	4%
Neither agree nor disagree	8	10%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	16	20%
Total	80	100

2.206 The majority (65%) of responses agreed with the reasons for which a completion certificate application should be rejected.

2.207 Four (5%) respondents suggested that rather than the Regulator confirming the work does comply with the regulatory requirements, the certificate should be issued on the basis of the Regulator being satisfied that the dutyholders have demonstrated the work complies, therefore, the ultimate responsibility rests with the dutyholders.

2.208 A further 4 (5%) respondents expressed views on the timescales for decisions to be issued and raised concerns around potential delays for a certificate to be issued, and the completed building only being able to apply for registration and occupation, once full compliance is demonstrable.

2.209 Two (3%) respondents sought clarity on whether occupation could commence in instances where the Regulator had requested further information before issuing a decision on the application.

Government response

2.210 The government intends to keep the reasons for rejection of a completion certificate application as outlined in the consultation to make sure that suitable checks and balances occur before building work is completed and occupation can begin. The government is clear that the completion certificate application and assessment is to provide regulatory oversight on the building control process, but that responsibility and accountability rest with the dutyholders. As mentioned above, this process will be reinforced with the compliance declaration provided by the dutyholders when applying for a completion certificate.

Time limit for determining completion certificate applications

Overview of proposal

2.211 We proposed a statutory time limit for the Regulator to determine a completion certificate application of 12 weeks. We considered 12 weeks to be a proportionate timeframe that provided sufficient time for the Regulator, with input from its multi-disciplinary team as needed, to carefully consider completion certificate applications for higher-risk buildings, while avoiding unduly delaying project.

Consultation analysis

2.212 There were 80 responses to the section on a series of robust hard stops (‘gateway points’) to strengthen regulatory oversight before a higher-risk building is occupied

Question: Do you agree or disagree that 12 weeks is an appropriate timescale to require the Regulator to determine a completion certificate application?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	19	24%
Disagree	39	49%
Neither agree nor disagree	8	10%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	13	16%
Total	80	100

2.213 There was strong opposition (49%) to the proposed timeframe of 12 weeks, which respondents considered to be a disproportionate considering the Regulator would be closely engaged with the project at the point of completion having overseen it as the building control authority through the design and construction phase of development. It was also noted that the proposed timeframe was not aligned with the current assessment period of up to 8 weeks.

2.214 Some respondents were concerned about the cost to industry due to buildings remaining unoccupied for a period of 12 weeks and the potential knock-on implications for contracts, warranties and mortgage offers. The general view of those who disagreed was that the proposals would result in a completion process that would not proceed smoothly in practice.

2.215 Nineteen respondents (24%) agreed with the proposed timeframe. Those in favour of the proposal supported the consistency with applications for building control approval, and felt it reflected the increased amount of information to be reviewed at the completion stage.

Government response

2.216 The government acknowledges the concerns about the proposed 12-week time-limit for the determination of a completion certificate application. It is not the intention to delay projects when notifiable building work is complete.

2.217 The department has worked with the Regulator and intends to reduce the statutory time-limit for determining a completion certificate application from 12 weeks to 8 weeks. We envisage a more dynamic process at the completion certificate application stage where required information can be shared with the Regulator in advance of work completing on site. The applicant will still be required to submit a full completion certificate application when notifiable building work has been completed, but the sharing of information and prescribed documents can occur before this point to support the Regulator in reviewing the information in a more efficient manner.

2.218 As set out elsewhere in this response, the actual time it takes for an application to be determined is dependent on a number of variables including the complexity of the build, the quality of the application and the regularity of engagement with the Regulator. Nonetheless, we have listened to stakeholder’s views in order to improve the dynamism of the completion phase and the impact imposed by the hard stop.

Partial completion

Overview of proposal

2.219 Where a dutyholder intends to partially complete a new higher-risk building, by completing work in stages, and occupying parts of the building before building work on other parts has been completed, we proposed to introduce additional information and safeguards to ensure it is safe to occupy.

2.220 Dutyholders applying for a partial completion certificate will be expected to demonstrate to the Regulator that there are adequate building safety measures in place (including any sprinklers, ventilation, and alarms), and that these will be in full working order for the residents while building work continues.

2.221 The Regulator will carry out final inspections of the building work and assess whether the partial completion certificate application meets the same requirements as set out for completion certificates (the dutyholder has demonstrated compliance with the building regulations requirements, provided all the relevant documentation to the Regulator and handed over the golden thread of information).

2.222 We proposed the same 12-week time-limit for determining partial completion certificate applications as standard completion certificates, and the same process for consultation with statutory consultees.

Consultation analysis

2.223 There were 80 responses to the section on a series of robust hard stops (‘gateway points’) to strengthen regulatory oversight before a higher-risk building is occupied.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the proposed requirements and prescribed documents for partial completion certificate applications are sufficient to ensure building work complies with building regulations?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	35	44%
Disagree	12	15%
Neither agree nor disagree	17	21%
Don’t know	2	3%
Not answered	14	18%
Total	80	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Is there any further information that should be required as part of a partial completion certificate application?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Yes	15	19%
No	34	43%
Don’t know	13	16%
Not answered	18	23%
Total	80	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed consultation requirements for partial completion certificate applications?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	39	49%
Disagree	9	11%
Neither agree nor disagree	9	11%
Don’t know	3	4%
Not answered	20	25%
Total	80	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach to inspections for partial completion certificate applications?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	44	55%
Disagree	5	6%
Neither agree nor disagree	11	14%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	19	24%
Total	80	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed reasons for which a partial completion certificate application should be rejected?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	43	54%
Disagree	6	8%
Neither agree nor disagree	11	14%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	19	24%
Total	80	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach outlined for the Regulator to provide notice of their decision to applicants?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	49	61%
Disagree	1	1%
Neither agree nor disagree	10	13%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	19	24%
Total	80	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree that 12 weeks is an appropriate timescale to require the Regulator to determine a partial completion certificate application?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	17	21%
Disagree	34	43%
Neither agree nor disagree	12	15%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	17	21%
Total	80	100

Partial completion certificate application information requirements

2.224 Thirty-five respondents (44%) agreed with proposed requirements and prescribed documents needed for partial completion certificate applications. Two respondents (3%) disagreed with the partial completion policy in general because they considered it increased the risk of building safety events occurring.

2.225 Comments from 4 respondents (5%) noted that it should be essential that dutyholders ensure fire safety systems that serve the partially completed areas are fully functional prior to occupation.

2.226 Thirty-four respondents (43%) answered that no further information was required as part of a partial completion certificate application. Of the respondents who thought additional requirements were needed, nine respondents (11%) provided suggestions. The focus of these was around ensuring safety systems were in place and fully functioning, with requirements met to allow partial occupation.

Statutory consultations

2.227 Thirty-nine respondents (49%) agreed with the proposed consultation requirements for partial completion certificate applications and considered it to be a sensible proposal for ensuring compliance with building regulations.

2.228 However, 7 respondents (9%) suggested that the requirement to consult with the relevant fire and rescue authority and the sewerage undertaker for every partial completion application for a given building would be a duplication of work, was unduly onerous and could cause delays. Four respondents (5%) expressed their opposition to any partial completion approach that would see parts of a building occupied before the building work for the whole building was complete.

Inspections

2.229 Forty-four respondents (55%) agreed with the proposed approach to inspections for partial completion applications. A minority, 5 respondents (6%), disagreed. A further 11 respondents (14%) neither agreed nor disagreed, while one (1%) did not know and 19 (24%) did not provide an answer to the question.

2.230 Seven (9%) respondents commented to say their views on partial completion reflected their views on full completion and gave no further comments. One respondent (1%) reiterated their objection to any partial completion approach.

Grounds for rejection

2.231 The majority (54%) of respondents agreed with the proposed reasons for which a partial completion certificate application should be rejected. One respondent (1%) reiterated concerns that the Regulator providing a completion certificate diluted the accountability provided by the dutyholders provisions.

2.232 A further respondent suggested that in the event an application was rejected, when a follow-up application was made it should not be subject to the same 12-week assessment period.

Notice of decision

2.233 The majority (61%) of respondents agreed with the proposed approach for the Regulator to provide a notice of their decision to applicants. Only 1 respondent (1%) disagreed. A further ten respondents (13%) neither agreed nor disagreed, while 1 (1%) did not know and 19 (24%) did not offer a view.

Time limit for determining partial completion certificate applications

2.234 With regard to the proposed time limit of 12 weeks for the Regulator to determine a partial completion certificate application, 34 respondents (43%) were against the timeframe. Those against considered 12 weeks to be too long and raised concerns, many similar to previous concerns raised for the timeframe for full completion certificates about buildings remaining unoccupied for 12 weeks.

2.235 Respondents in support of the proposal (21%) favoured the consistency with applications for building control approval, the implementation of the hardstop by preventing partial completion certificate applications being approved by default if a response was not given within the 12-week timeframe and the importance of creating a timeframe that reflects the increased amount of information to be reviewed by the Regulator.

Government response

2.236 An application for a completion certificate for part of a higher-risk building can be made while building work continues elsewhere. This approach will allow buildings to be registered, and parts of them to become occupied, before all work is complete and the whole buildings moves into the next phase of its lifecycle.

2.237 We expect that where a dutyholder intends to complete a development in phases, this approach will be clearly set out to the Regulator as part of their initial building control approval application. The application will be expected to take account of the challenges associated with occupying a partially completed building and provide assurances that appropriate arrangements are in place to deliver this.

2.238 The intended use of a partial completion approach is not to allow individual flats to be signed off one by one. Rather, partial completion applications will be expected for larger sections of a higher-risk building. In line with this, we remain of the view that it is appropriate for the Regulator to consult the relevant fire and rescue authority and the sewerage undertaker on each application. Statutory consultations will be required in the same manner as for completion certificate applications.

2.239 For a partial completion certificate application to be successful, the applicant must demonstrate that all relevant requirements of the building regulations have been met, including ensuring fire safety features and arrangements are operational. If such a demonstration is not possible, the Regulator must reject the application.

2.240 No part of a higher-risk building may be occupied until the relevant completion certificate has been issued, and the building is registered with the Regulator.

2.241 We recognise the additional challenges this can represent and believes this approach strikes an appropriate balance between flexibility for dutyholders and ensuring safety.

2.242 The government intends to permit partial completion for higher-risk buildings and is clear that the intention to occupy a higher-risk building in phases must never come at the expense of resident safety and that it must not introduce greater risk than that of only allowing occupation once all building work is complete. There will be stringent safeguards for partial completion in higher-risk buildings to ensure that residents are safe and feel safe in their homes when parts of their building remain under construction. No residential unit within a new higher-risk building can be occupied without a relevant completion certificate as evidence that the building work in that part complies with building regulations’ requirements. This will ensure that there is a ‘hard stop’ for buildings occupied in stages.

2.243 We have considered comments from respondents noting that it should be essential that dutyholders ensure fire safety systems that serve the partially completed areas are fully functional prior to occupation and agree with this. This will be a requirement for partial completion certificate applications and will be covered in required documents and assessed and inspected by the Regulator.

2.244 We have considered the list of suggestions for additional requirements for partial completion certificate applications, but consider all suggestions are already covered elsewhere, or are not required for the Regulator to determine the application.

2.245 Many of the views in relation to the statutory time-limit for the Regulator to issue a decision were similar to previous concerns raised for the timeframe for full completion certificates.

2.246 We acknowledge the concerns raised by respondents. In line with standard completion certificate application process, we intend to reduce the statutory time-limit from 12 weeks to 8 weeks for determining a partial completion certificate application.

2.247 As with the standard completion certificate application process, we envisage a dynamic process where required information can be shared with the Regulator in advance of work completing on site. The applicant will still be required to submit a full partial completion certificate application at the point notifiable building work has been completed for the part of the site to be completed, but the sharing of information and prescribed documents can occur before this point to support the Regulator in reviewing the information in a more efficient manner.

2.248 While we appreciate the view provided by some respondents that partial completion certificate applications should involve the consideration of less information than a full completion certificate application, the information to be provided for partial completion certificate applications is significant and the build itself may be just as complex as for a full completion certificate application, for example, the partial completion of 1 tower block of 4 that are connected by a shared platform. By its very nature there are additional considerations for the Regulator to undertake related to the safety of occupants when construction work continues. In light of this, we consider an 8-week timeframe for both partial completion certificate applications and completion certificate applications to be appropriate.

3. Regulator’s Notices

Applying the transitional provisions to individual buildings

Overview of proposal

3.1 Section 32 of the Building Safety Act 2022 allows developers to ask the Regulator to provide building control oversight for non-higher-risk building work projects if they are on the same development as a higher-risk building.

3.2 To do so, an applicant will need to issue, with the Regulator’s agreement, a joint notice to the local authority, ‘a regulator’s notice’. A regulator’s notice cannot be issued where a project does not include higher-risk building work. A developer can decide whether or not to they wish to have the Regulator as the building control body for the entire site, but it must seek consent from the Regulator.

3.3 The proposals outlined the content of a Regulator’s notice and the procedure between the Regulator and the local authority building control body when they receive a notice, including that it must be issued electronically and also the grounds for a local authority to reject it.

Consultation analysis

3.4 There were 47 responses to the section on regulator’s notices.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed information that must be included in a regulator’s notice?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	38	81%
Disagree	2	4%
Neither agree nor disagree	5	11%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	2	4%
Total	47	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed grounds on which a local authority could refuse a regulator’s notice?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	37	79%
Disagree	5	11%
Neither agree nor disagree	2	4%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	3	6%
Total	47	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the rejection of a regulator’s notice must be issued within five working days?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	36	77%
Disagree	2	4%
Neither agree nor disagree	3	6%
Don’t know	3	6%
Not answered	3	6%
Total	47	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

3.5 Thirty-eight respondents (81%) agreed with the proposed information to be included in a regulator’s notice.

3.6 Seven respondents suggested further information that could be included, such as information on the building owner, a wider range of dutyholders, or more detailed plans.

3.7 There was also support for moving to a completely electronic process for the notice, as well as including a Unique Property Reference Number (UPRN), which respondents suggested would help to future-proof the process should a new system be implemented, as the UPRN would remain with the building.

3.8 Thirty-seven respondents (79%) agreed with the proposed grounds specified for refusal.

3.9 There was a suggestion that grounds for refusal should be aligned with the procedure to refuse an initial notice (the notice submitted to a local authority when an approved inspector is being used to offer building control services for a building).

3.10 Thirty-six respondents (77%) agreed with the proposed rejection of a regulator’s notice being issued within 5 working days. It was noted that this aligns with the initial notice rules, which was supported.

3.11 There was some support for a longer timescale, particularly over certain periods of the year, such as Christmas, or in circumstances where there was an error in the application that needed rectifying.

Government response

3.12 The government will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that the regulator’s notices have the right balance between requiring enough information and giving enough time to come to a fair decision, while also not being overly onerous to local authorities or developers.

3.13 The regulator’s notice suggestions consulted on have been included in legislation.

Information required by the regulator’s notice will include the following:

i. Name, address, telephone number and (if available) email address of the client.

ii. A statement that the notice is a regulator’s notice.

iii. The location of the proposed building work.

iv. A description of the proposed building work to which the regulator’s notice is to apply, including a statement explaining how that work is connected to Higher-Risk work and the location on the site of the Higher-Risk building work.

v. A statement giving the date it is proposed the building work will start and complete.

vi. A plan showing details of the site.

3.14 Grounds for rejection of a regulator’s notice will include the criteria for the description of work and required documents not being met, the work not being within the local authority’s area, an application for building control approval, and initial notice or a public bodies notice has been submitted.

3.15 A notice of rejection must be given within 5 days of the day on which the regulator’s notice is given.

4. Building work carried out in existing higher-risk buildings (refurbishments)

Third-party certification schemes and competent person schemes for building work in a higher-risk building

Overview of proposal

4.1 In line with existing practice, the government proposed an intent for third-party certification schemes and competent person schemes to be permitted in higher-risk buildings in relation to building work specified in Schedule 3A and Schedule 3, respectively, of the Building Regulations 2010.

4.2 For work under Schedule 3A of the Building Regulations 2010, such as domestic electrical work, third-party certification schemes will be permitted and that those certifying the work will continue to be subject to conditions of authorisation. Where such schemes are used, it will not be necessary for individuals to submit a building notice or initial notice, or deposit full plans for the work. Under the regime for higher-risk buildings, the scheme operator will need to notify the completed work to the Regulator, in addition to the relevant local authority.

4.3 For work under Schedule 3 of the Building Regulations 2010, competent person schemes will also be permitted. The government considers the use of competent person schemes in higher-risk buildings to be a proportionate approach to specified types of building work, because the incidence of risk is considered low while the high volume of work carried out under competent person schemes means that mandating building control involvement would potentially divert building control resource from areas of high risk.

4.4 Where building work is carried out under a competent person scheme in a higher-risk building, the installer must issue a certificate to the occupier, and separately notify or provide a copy of the certificate to the Regulator within 30 days of completion of the building work. Given the requirements in relation to dutyholders and competence we expect that the competent person should be aware that they are working on a higher-risk building. The person requesting the work – either the accountable person or a resident – should also make them aware.

Consultation analysis

4.5 There were 48 responses to the section on building work carried out in existing higher-risk buildings (refurbishments).

Question: Do you agree or disagree that notification of building work in Schedule 3A should go to the Regulator?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	33	69%
Disagree	5	10%
Neither agree nor disagree	6	13%
Don’t know	1	2%
Not answered	3	6%
Total	48	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposals on the information about building work through third-party certification to be stored in the golden thread?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	34	71%
Disagree	4	8%
Neither agree nor disagree	2	4%
Don’t know	1	2%
Not answered	7	15%
Total	48	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree that competent person scheme certification notices should be sent to the Regulator when work is carried out in a higher-risk building?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	39	81%
Disagree	4	8%
Neither agree nor disagree	0	0%
Don’t know	1	2%
Not answered	4	8%
Total	48	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Should the notification also be sent to the local authority for reasons outside of providing a building control function?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Yes	20	42%
No	9	19%
Don’t know	15	31%
Not answered	4	8%
Total	48	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposals on the information about building work through competent person schemes to be stored in the golden thread?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	37	77%
Disagree	2	4%
Neither agree nor disagree	2	4%
Don’t know	1	2%
Not answered	6	13%
Total	48	100

Notification of building work Schedule 3A

4.6 Thirty-three respondents (69%) agreed that notification of building work in Schedule 3A should go to the Regulator. It was commonly understood that this information would assist in the Regulator’s regulatory oversight.

4.7 Three respondents (6%) were concerned that requiring notification of building work in Schedule 3A to go to the Regulator may overstretch the resource of the Regulator.

4.8 More general concerns relating to the risk of using third party certification and competent person schemes in higher-risk buildings and suggestions for a review of their criteria were made by 3 respondents (6%).

Building work through third-party certification should be stored in the golden thread

4.9 Thirty-four responses (71%) agreed with the proposals that the information about building work through third-party certification to be stored in the golden thread.

4.10 Concerns were raised by 6 respondents (13%) that requirements may become subjective if an accountable person is responsible for deciding the level of detail required in the golden thread, and called for clear guidance on golden thread requirements.

Competent person scheme

4.11 Thirty-nine respondents (81%) agreed that competent person scheme certification notices should be sent to the Regulator when work is carried out in a higher-risk building.

4.12 A concern raised by 2 respondents (4%), was whether the accountable person would receive this information to discharge their responsibilities.

Notification to local authority

4.13 Twenty respondents (42%) agreed that the notification should also be sent to the local authority for reasons outside of providing a building control function. However, almost as many respondents (31%) didn’t know.

4.14 While 2 respondents (4%) reported seeing no value in notifications also being sent to the local authority, several reasons were given by those who considered that it should be sent to the local authority as well. The most frequent reasons given were for conveyancing land searches or CON-29 property searches (3 respondents (6%)) and planning (2 respondents (4%)).

4.15 Three respondents (6%) raised concerns regarding the resourcing impact to local authorities of receiving, processing and responding to these notifications. Two other respondents (4%) suggested avoiding duplication by providing local authorities with access to a central register.

Building work through competent person scheme should be stored in the golden thread

4.16 Thirty-seven respondents (77%) agreed with the proposals on the information about building work through competent person schemes to be stored in the golden thread.

4.17 The only reasons given for disagreeing were from 2 respondents (4%) who thought that the proposals did not go far enough and that information to be stored in the golden thread should be fully prescribed and not left to the discretion of the accountable person.

Government response

4.18 The government remains of the view that third-party certification schemes and competent person schemes should continue to operate in higher-risk buildings and the government considers the use of these schemes in higher-risk buildings is proportionate.

4.19 There was majority support for proposals, with respondents supporting plans that scheme work notifications and certificates be sent to the Regulator and greater support for the requirement that they be recorded as part of the golden thread.

4.20 The government notes the concern from a small number of respondents that requiring notification of building work in Schedule 3A to be sent to the Regulator may overstretch the resource of the Regulator. We are confident that the Regulator will be sufficiently resourced to perform this function. It is the role of scheme operators to ensure that those under their scheme are competent and carry out assessments and checks. The Regulator, therefore, should only need resource for the administrative impact of these notifications.

4.21 Notifications relating to building work carried out under a competent person scheme in a higher-risk building also being sent to the local authority would assist in conveyancing land searches and CON-29 property searches.

4.22 The government considers that there will be no further burden on the local authority beyond receiving and logging the notification. The Regulator remains the relevant building control body for building work carried out in a higher-risk building.

4.23 We recognise the more general concerns raised relating to the risk of using third-party certification schemes and competent person schemes in higher-risk buildings. Originally started through the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and now continuing under the Regulator, work is currently being carried out to review and assess appropriate criteria for scheme members to be deemed competent to work on higher-risk buildings. The Regulator is also leading work to improve how scheme installers evidence their competence and agreed minimum technical competencies are due to be approved later this year.

4.24 The government considers the most appropriate approach for regulatory oversight is that the scheme operator provides notification to the Regulator, the person for whom the work was carried out and the Responsible Person. We have considered the suggestion that this should be the responsibility of the principle accountable person but consider the installer and scheme operator to hold more relevant information.

4.25 When building work only consists of scheme work the certifier must provide certain information to the person for whom the work was carried out, and the Responsible Person. This includes information about fire safety, ventilation, use of fuel and power.

4.26 The government is placing a duty of cooperation between accountable persons and Responsible Persons. If the Responsible Person is not an accountable person for the building, they will then have to share the information with the accountable persons.

4.27 We have considered the concerns that all information should be included in the golden thread. Separate government responses to the consultation on the higher-risk building in occupation regime have been published at the same time as this consultation response, and provide more information on the golden thread requirements in occupation. In addition, the Regulator intends to publish guidance, to provide further clarity, on both sets of regulations in due course.

Building control approval applications for refurbishment building work

Overview of proposal

4.28 The government is of the view that there is a need for continued and determined focus on ensuring compliant building work, and driving improvements in the existing housing stock. Given the impact building work can have, it is important that we have stringent processes in place for work carried out in existing higher-risk buildings.

4.29 It is also necessary to ensure the safety of residents during building work, as residents will often occupy the building while building work is carried out. We therefore proposed to introduce a new, more stringent building control regime for building work in existing higher-risk buildings to ensure such work is subject to appropriate regulatory oversight.

4.30 The consultation proposed categories of refurbishment building work and the prescribed documents needed as a minimum requirement in a building control approval application for each category. This approach provides certainty about the information requirements for different types of building work in an existing higher risk building.

Consultation analysis

4.31 There were 48 responses to the section on Building work carried out in existing higher-risk buildings (refurbishments).

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed categories of building work and the proposed information requirements for each proposed category?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	26	54%
Disagree	12	25%
Neither agree nor disagree	9	19%
Don’t know	1	2%
Not answered	0	0%
Total	48	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the prescribed period of eight weeks for the Regulator to determine building control approval applications?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	29	60%
Disagree	8	17%
Neither agree nor disagree	8	17%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	3	6%
Total	48	100

Question: We intend to establish these categories and non-exhaustive list of what might be in each category in guidance to accompany the regulations so that it can be updated over time quickly. Do you agree or disagree that this should be in guidance?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	38	79%
Disagree	4	8%
Neither agree nor disagree	2	4%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	4	8%
Total	48	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposals about the information about building work in an existing building to be stored in the golden thread?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	41	85%
Disagree	0	0%
Neither agree nor disagree	1	2%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	6	13%
Total	48	100

Categories of building work

4.32 Twenty-six respondents (54%) agreed with the proposed categories of building work and the proposed information requirements for each proposed category.

4.33 Three respondents (6%) felt the policy did not go far enough and all work that effects fire safety should require the same level of information and scrutiny as category A work.

4.34 Ten respondents (21%) raised specific concerns about the work in each of the categories proposed. The most frequent of these concerns were the suggestion to add structural changes (2 respondents (4%)), and to add work effecting passive fire safety systems (2 respondents (4%)).

Eight-week statutory time limit to determine building control approval applications

4.35 Twenty-nine respondents (60%) agreed with an 8-week statutory time limit for the Regulator to determine an application for building control approval. Respondents considered the timeframe to be sufficient for robust review from the Regulator and broadly aligned to the current statutory time period of 5 weeks, extendable to 8 weeks, to determine a full plans application.

4.36 Eight respondents (17%) disagreed with the proposals. Of those, respondents were split on whether the timeframe was too short or too long. Those suggesting the response time was too long (10% of overall respondents) raised concerns around whether the 8-week timeframe would be proportionate for more minor building work carried out in existing higher-risk buildings. Some respondents raised the potential for project delay and uncertainty as well as the potential impacts on project finances and viability.

4.37 Two respondents (4%) argued that the time period should be extended considering the nature of the building work. Respondents suggested the time limit should be consistent with the 12-week timeframe for building control approval applications covering the creation of higher-risk buildings. These respondents were of the view that some building work in an existing higher-risk building may be as complex as the construction of a new-build.

Listing categories in guidance

4.38 Thirty-eight respondents (79%) agreed that lists of categories should be provided in guidance. Of those in agreement, 5 respondents (10%) noted that clear and consistent messaging would be key to ensure industry are clear on the required level of scrutiny and review for each category.

4.39 Two respondents (4%) raised their general disagreement with the category system proposed.

Building work information (existing buildings) should be stored in the golden thread

4.40 Forty-one respondents (85%) agreed with the proposals about the information about building work in an existing building being stored in the golden thread. No respondents disagreed. The importance of maintaining this information was recognised in comments from 4 respondents (8%).

4.41 It was suggested by 2 respondents (4%) that guidance should be provided to describe the specific information a golden thread should contain.

Government response

General

4.42 There was majority support for proposals to categorise different types of building work in existing higher-risk buildings and set different information requirements for building control approval applications for each. A significant majority supported proposals for guidance to be issued to provide further details of each category, and that information about building work in an existing higher-risk building should be stored as part of the golden thread.

4.43 We recognise the concerns from a small number of respondents that all work that affects fire safety should require the same level of information and scrutiny. Following further policy development, and taking into account responses to the consultation and expert advice, we are taking a more simplified approach to categorising work. Work captured under Category A will also include anything that may affect passive or active fire safety systems or the common parts of a building.

4.44 We remain committed to the delivery of stringent regulatory oversight on building work carried out in existing higher-risk buildings and the full details of the hierarchy of categories will be set out in regulations. We believe setting a hierarchy of categories of such work ensures a suitable and proportionate framework, ensuring clarity and flexibility to all, and avoiding the problems associated with a rigid approach.

4.45 We believe that we are striking the right balance to ensure the Regulator receives the right information, including through prescribed documents where necessary, to determine applications.

4.46 Where needed, the Regulator has the power to go beyond these minimum requirements on a case-by-case basis. Any building work undertaken must comply with the requirements of building safety regulations, and dutyholders are required to demonstrate this compliance to the Regulator before the work starts and once completed. In addition, the safety management duties in occupation under the Building Safety Act 2022 will apply while building work is undertaken in an occupied higher-risk building.

4.47 We recognise that further clarity and guidance is needed on the categories created and the specific information about building work in an existing building that needs to be stored in the golden thread. The Regulator intends to publish guidance on the regulations, to provide clarity to industry.

Statutory time-limit for determining building control approval applications for building work in existing higher-risk buildings

4.48 We agree with the majority of respondents that 8 weeks is a proportionate timeframe to determine building control approval applications for building work in existing higher-risk buildings, given the wide variety of building work that can be carried out in existing buildings.

4.49 As set out in paragraph 2.130 the actual time it takes for the Regulator to assess and determine an application for building control approval is dependent on a number of variables, including the quality of the submission and the complexity of the building work carried out.

4.50 Some respondents identified that some building work in an existing building can be as significant as new-build work, particularly in hospitals and care homes. We recognise that some building work in existing higher-risk building may be so significant it requires further assessment from the Regulator. Should the Regulator consider that more time is required to assess the application due to the nature of the work proposed, and the information provided, they have the ability to agree an extension with the applicant.

5. A stronger change control process for higher-risk buildings

Record-keeping

Overview of proposal

5.1 We proposed that any changes to the documents agreed as part of an application for building control approval, including plans or prescribed documents, must be recorded within the change control log. We proposed what information must be included within the change control log for each change.

Consultation analysis

5.2 There were 62 responses to the section on a stronger change control process for higher-risk buildings.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the contents of the change control log?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	46	74%
Disagree	4	7%
Neither agree nor disagree	5	8%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	7	11%
Total	62	100

5.3 Forty-six respondents (74%) agreed with the proposals. A frequent comment given by respondents was that the time when the change was made should be recorded.

5.4 Four respondents (7%) disagreed with our proposal. The reasons given were:

i. The person who has approved the change should be recorded within the change control log.

ii. The act of stating who provided advice on a proposed change being unnecessarily bureaucratic and summarising it could lead to advice being caveated due to a fear of reprisal.

iii. Disagreeing with the proposal to allow changes which would lead to work still complying with the functional requirements of the building regulations but would be deemed to increase the risk from a fire or structural perspective.

5.5 Five respondents (8%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal. One respondent commented the time the change was made should be recorded. Two respondents raised concerns about the volume of information the change control proposals could generate.

5.6 Some respondents raised points relating to what should be a major or notifiable change. These were considered alongside the responses to the relevant questions.

Government response

5.7 We consider that the proposals outlined in the consultation are a proportionate level of detail of the contents of the change control log.

5.8 The building control processes for higher-risk building work will require dutyholders to demonstrate how they comply with building regulations. We, therefore, think it is right that they are named in the change log. A key method for demonstrating how changes will comply with building regulations is through summarising the advice which has been received about an issue and details of the person who has provided that advice. A component of the reforms is that dutyholders must be competent, or be supervised by someone who is competent, and understand the limits of their competence, and a person should only provide advice if they are competent to do so.

5.9 The change control log must be completed before the change has taken place and therefore, we cannot mandate that the time the change was implemented is included as part of it. As part of the internal governance of projects, principal dutyholders may choose to add details of when changes are implemented.

5.10 We do not think it is right to limit the type of changes which can be included within the change control log based upon how the risk from fire or structural issues is affected. The functional requirements in the building regulations set the outcomes building work must achieve and we are not altering that approach.

Types of change to building control approval applications

Overview of proposal

5.11 The government is introducing change control for higher-risk building work. There will be 3 types of change – major, notifiable and recorded. The type of change being made will determine the process which must be followed.

5.12 To make a major change, we proposed that a change control application must be submitted to the Regulator. Building work could continue while the Regulator is considering any change control application, but work to implement the major change cannot start until the Regulator has approved it. We consulted on a number of changes that should be categorised as major.

5.13 To make a notifiable change, we proposed that the Regulator must be notified so that it is aware of the proposed change and can intervene where it deems this necessary. We consulted on a number of changes that should be categorised as notifiable.

5.14 Recorded changes are any other changes to the documents agreed as part of an application for building control approval, including plans or prescribed documents, which are not major or notifiable changes. We proposed that these changes, along with major and notifiable changes, must be recorded in the change control log.

Consultation analysis

5.15 There were 62 responses to the section on a stronger change control process for higher-risk buildings.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the list of major changes?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	29	47%
Disagree	20	32%
Neither agree nor disagree	8	13%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	5	8%
Total	62	100

5.16 Throughout the answers to questions about what types of change should be major or notifiable, a small number of respondents provided conflicting answers.

5.17 Twenty-nine respondents (47%) agreed with the proposed list of major changes. 20 respondents (32%) disagreed with the proposed major changes list. The main reasons given were:

i. The proposed list of major changes is too long.

ii. A change to the intended management and maintenance of a building, described as part of the fire strategy in the fire and emergency file, should not be major.

iii. A change to the passive fire systems in a building should not be major.

iv. A change to the number of commercial units within a building should not be major.

5.18 Eight respondents (13%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposed list of major changes. The main reasons given were:

i. There remained a risk of a small change having a disproportionate impact.

ii. A concern about the burden on the Regulator to process the potential volume of change control applications produced by the list.

5.19 Respondents to this question commented on the need for guidance on categories of change, asking for clarification on what large panel systems are and what change of use meant. Respondents questioned the amount of information that would need to be provided as part of a building control approval application so that it was clear a change control application was needed. They also suggested that the list of major changes needed reviewing soon after it is implemented and periodically thereafter.

Question: What types of horizontal changes to the overall building would you consider should be major?

5.20 This open question received 37 responses out of a total 62 responses to this section. A small number of respondents provided answers which conflicted with their responses to the other questions on major changes and with their responses to questions on notifiable changes.

5.21 Respondents provided a range of horizontal changes which they considered to be major. The responses which were repeated at least 5 times were:

i. Changes which effect the travel distances or escape routes.

ii. Changes to the position of compartmentation lines.

iii. Changes which affect firefighter access.

iv. Changes which extend a building’s footprint.

v. Changes to the structural design, for example changes to load bearing walls.

5.22 Two respondents (3%) raised that the addition or removal of a car park should be a major change.

Question: What building work on the external wall of the building would you consider should be major?

5.23 Forty-three respondents (69%) answered this open question.

5.24 Respondents provided a range of changes to the external wall which they considered to be major. The responses which were repeated at least 5 times are:

i. Changing the cladding material.

ii. Changing the insulation material.

iii. Changes which create new openings, for example adding windows.

iv. Any change which affects compliance with Part B functional requirements.

v. Adding attachments.

vi. Changes to the structural design, for example changes which affect the stability of the external wall.

vii. Three respondents (5%) said that any changes to the external wall should be a major change.

5.25 There were 62 responses to the section on a stronger change control process for higher-risk buildings.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that categories and a list is the clearest way to display the major changes?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	45	73%
Disagree	5	8%
Neither agree nor disagree	4	7%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	8	13%
Total	62	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

5.26 Forty-five respondents (73%) agreed with the proposals. Some respondents stated the approach provided clarity for industry.

5.27 Five respondents (8%) disagreed with the proposal. The reasons given were:

i. The categories and list should be replaced by a series of tests, which would need to be determined, that would yield whether a change was a major change.

ii. The approach was too prescriptive.

iii. The principal designer should be responsible for deciding whether a change was a major change, in addition to the list of proposed major changes.

5.28 Four respondents (7%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal. The reasons given were:

i. A preference for a prescriptive list to be used rather than categories.

ii. Another suggestion for the principal designer being able to decide whether a change was a major change, in addition, to the list of proposed major changes.

iii. The wording of the categories required finessing.

iv. The list required further consultation and testing.

5.29 Some respondents raised points relating to what should be a major or notifiable change. These were considered alongside the responses to the relevant questions.

5.30 There were 62 responses to the section on a stronger change control process for higher-risk buildings.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the list of notifiable changes?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	27	44%
Disagree	13	21%
Neither agree nor disagree	12	19%
Don’t know	2	3%
Not answered	8	13%
Total	62	100

5.31 Twenty-seven respondents (44%) agreed with the list of notifiable changes.

5.32 A small number of respondents provided answers which conflicted with their responses to the other questions on notifiable changes and with their responses to questions on major changes.

5.33 Thirteen respondents (21%) disagreed with the proposed list of notifiable changes and 12 respondents (19%) neither agreed nor disagreed. The main reasons given were:

i. Changes to the internal layout of a flats, regardless of whether it affects the common parts of the building, should be a major change.

ii. Substituting a product for another with a fire rating classification which is the same or better should just be recorded in the change control log.

iii. Substituting a product for another with a fire classification which is the same or better should be a major change.

iv. Adding significant structural detail to the design should be a notifiable change.

v. Altering the schedule of people which is part of the construction control plan should just be recorded in the change control log.

vi. The proposed list is not proportionate as some of the changes are minor.

vii. To recommend a different approach for deciding which changes are notifiable, such as those working on the project being responsible for deciding whether to notify the Regulator.

viii. One respondent (2%) raised that consideration should be given to builders work openings as part of the list of notifiable changes.

5.34 Respondents commented on the need for guidance on the categories of change. They also suggested that the list of notifiable changes needed reviewing periodically.

Question: What types of horizontal changes to the overall building would you consider should be notifiable?

5.35 Thirty-one respondents (50%) answered this open question.

5.36 Respondents provided a range of horizontal changes which they considered to be notifiable. There were no responses which were repeated at least 5 times. The responses which were repeated are:

i. Changes which affect travel distances.

ii. Changes to the internal layouts of flats.

iii. All changes apart from those which affect compliance with structure and fire functional requirements.

iv. Changes where building regulations do not apply or where compliance with building regulations is not affected.

Question: Are there some types of building work on the external wall of the building that you consider to be notifiable, if so, why?

5.37 Thirty-six respondents (58%) answered this open question.

5.38 Respondents provided a range of changes to the external wall which they considered to be notifiable. The responses which were repeated at least 4 times are:

i. Changes to the cladding products.

ii. Changes to cavity barriers (product or positions).

iii. Changes to the insulation products.

iv. Changes to balconies, including adding balconies.

v. Substituting a product for another with a fire rating classification which is the same or better.

5.39 One respondent (2%) suggested that changes to wall ties should be a notifiable change.

Government response

5.40 In line with the consultation response, we intend to maintain the approach set out in the consultation defining major and notifiable changes in legislation to provide certainty and clarity to all. This will be supplemented with guidance.

5.41 Some responses suggested that it could be for the principal duty holders to decide if a change would be major and therefore notify the Regulator. We do not consider it appropriate for the dutyholders to make the decisions about whether a type of change falls under a specific category; whether of their own volition or following a series of tests. Responses to this consultation showed that what was considered major or notifiable varied widely throughout the sector. If we, therefore, altered the approach to allow dutyholders to determine a major or notifiable change for each project, this would lead to the Regulator receiving inconsistent information on changes to projects. Establishing a clear list in regulations removes the risk of inconsistency and potential opportunities to circumvent the system.

5.42 While there was general agreement on the proposed categories, there were marked differences in the answers about what should be a major or notifiable change. As a result, we have retained the proposals for what will be a major or notifiable change, subject to the following points below and a commitment by the government to review the categories within 18 months of the new regime being in force.

5.43 Some respondents disagreed with the proposal for changing the number of commercial units being a major change, indicating instead that it should be a notifiable change. Respondents did not provide reasons why this type of change should be a notifiable change and we, therefore, remain of the view that changing the number of commercial units proposed in the plans should be a major change. This is because it could have an impact on whether the proposed building work remains in compliance with building regulations, and impacts the level is risk found within different areas of the building.

5.44 Respondents raised that adding or removing a car park from the proposed building work should be a major change and would not necessarily be covered by a change of use. We have taken this on board and agree, as it could have a significant impact upon how compliance with the relevant building regulations is being achieved. Adding a car park, or removing one from the proposed building work will, therefore, be a major change.

5.45 Though the majority of respondents agreed with the proposal for changes to the fire strategy in the fire and emergency file to be major, some thought that changes to the passive fire protection systems should be a notifiable change. Changes to the passive fire protection systems, however, could significantly impact how the Regulator will carry out its role as the building control body for a project, so we are retaining changes to passive fire protection systems, as described by the fire and emergency file, as a major change. A few respondents also raised a general concern about all changes to the fire strategy within the fire and emergency file being major changes. We have listened to concerns about the volume of changes this could elicit and the impact it could have on projects. Consequently, all changes to the fire and emergency file will be notifiable changes, apart from changes to the active and passive fire protection systems which will remain major changes.

5.46 We sought views from respondents on what should be classified as a major change, or a notifiable change, when alterations were proposed to the planned external wall. There was no consensus across the responses, although some types of change were mentioned multiple times, such as changes to cladding. Changes to planned external wall building work can have a significant impact on compliance with building regulations. While changes to individual products may, theoretically, be fine when considered in isolation, how the entire external wall system works together with any new product needs to be considered. For these reasons, we are designating all changes to the planned external wall system as major changes. This approach will cover the types of change suggested by respondents, but does not go as far as those with the view that no changes should be allowed after the building control approval application is approved by the Regulator.

5.47 Respondents raised concerns that substituting a product for another with an equal or better fire rating classification should be a major or a recorded change rather than a notifiable change. This type of change will remain notifiable, apart from when the change is to the external wall which will be a major change. This strikes a proportionate balance between the potential severity these changes can have without being too onerous.

5.48 One respondent raised that changes to wall ties should be a notifiable change. We agree that this needs consideration as they can have a significant impact upon the structural safety of the wall. Given the decision that all changes to the planned external wall will be major, only a subset of changes to wall ties which are not in the external wall will be notifiable.

5.49 Several respondents raised that changes to the internal layout of a flat should be a major change. Given the impact upon compliance with building regulations will generally be lower and that the Regulator expects to discuss notifications it has received at the next scheduled inspection, changes to the internal layout of a flat will remain a notifiable change. If the change to the internal layout of the flat affects the common parts, then this would be a major change.

5.50 Some respondents stated that adding significant structural detail should be a notifiable change. We disagree with this, as more detail will need to be provided as part of an application for building control approval than can be submitted now, and it would be difficult for dutyholders to quantify when additions to the structural detail are significant.

5.51 One respondent raised that the incorporation of builders work openings should be a notifiable change. Given the use of builders work openings may not be planned and is likely to impact upon the passive fire safety measures, we agree that this should be a notifiable change. This will allow the Regulator to check these at their next scheduled inspection.

5.52 Several respondents raised concerns about changes to the schedule of persons working on a project, which is part of the construction control plan, being notifiable, citing the administrative burden this will cause to both dutyholders and the Regulator. The government has listened to these concerns and will no longer require changes to the schedule of persons in the construction control plan to be notified to the Regulator. This will now be a recorded change in the change control log.

5.53 The variety of responses has shown that there is no consensus about what should be a major change or a notifiable change. On some projects a type of change or sequence of changes may have a more significant impact on compliance with building regulations than on another project. Consequently, we will provide the Regulator with a power to alter the change control procedure a controlled change must go through. The power will allow the Regulator to designate a recorded change as a notifiable or major change; a notifiable change as a major change; or a major change as a notifiable change. This will allow the Regulator to be proportionate to the size and complexity of the project and tailor its approach accordingly.

5.54 The Regulator has accounted for the change control process when developing their approach as a building control authority. The implementation of building control approval applications, and the information which must accompany them, should facilitate design decisions to be made sooner. This should reduce the number of changes made whilst building work is taking place, compared to current practices.

5.55 The Regulator intends to produce guidance on both what types of change are recordable, notifiable and major and on the processes which must be followed if one of those types of change is proposed.

5.56 The definition of a major change and notifiable change are subject to review. In addition to the general requirement to review the regime at least every 5 years provided by section 162 of the Building Safety Act 2022, the Regulator will be monitoring the implementation the new regime.

Timescales for determining major and notifiable changes

Consultation analysis

5.57 There were 62 responses to the section on a stronger change control process for higher-risk buildings.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the prescribed period of 6 weeks for the Regulator to determine change control applications for major changes?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	30	48%
Disagree	14	23%
Neither agree nor disagree	11	18%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	7	11%
Total	62	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the prescribed period of 10 working days for notifiable changes before the change can be made?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	34	55%
Disagree	14	23%
Neither agree nor disagree	5	8%
Don’t know	1	2%
Not answered	8	13%
Total	62	100

Major changes

5.58 Thirty respondents (48%) agreed with the proposal. Three respondents (5%) noted that the proposal could deter dutyholders from making major changes. For example, one respondent suggested that the proposed approach may support project teams in resisting changes after building control approval that are not absolutely necessary. Three respondents (5%) highlighted the importance of proportionality and the use of the Regulators’ Code of Practice, with regard to the assessment period, the importance of ensuring the Regulator has sufficient resource and that industry has sufficient guidance to comply with the requirements and not unduly delay projects.

5.59 Those who disagreed with the proposed time limit (22%) considered the 6-week period to be too long and that it may result in additional delays and costs. The potential exposure of certain elements of construction for long periods of time may cause safety and durability issues. Four respondents (6%) recommended shortening the period to 4 weeks.

Notifiable changes

5.60 Thirty-four respondents (55%) agreed with the proposed time limit of 10 working days. Some respondents with this view considered the approach to be sensible, but 2 respondents (3%) highlighted that the period for assessing notifiable changes may be challenging for the Regulator and adequate resourcing would be necessary.

5.61 Fourteen respondents (23%) disagreed with the proposed time limit, with the majority of those considering 10 working days to be too long, and raising concerns including that it would have a disproportionate impact on the cost and time for the project, and could incentivise the non-disclosure of some notifiable changes.

5.62 In addition, respondents both in support and against the proposals (29%) urged caution at some of the specific changes. Seven respondents (11%) suggested that a ten day pause before carrying out the work was disproportionate for some of the proposed notifiable changes, such as like-for-like product substitutions. Proponents of this view suggested that dutyholders would be penalised for unforeseen changes, such as supply chain issues, and this would unnecessarily drive up the cost of building work.

5.63 There was a recommendation provided by some respondents to enable some notifiable changes to be addressed at an early stage as part of the building control approval application with dutyholders giving different options for the products or processes they intended to use. It was considered that this approach could enable the Regulator to review notifiable changes while they are carried out ‘at risk’.

Government response

Major changes

5.64 While we acknowledge the concerns raised about the potential for delay that could arise from waiting 6 weeks before a change can be carried out, which may impact on project finances, and could lead to difficulties following exposure to the elements of construction. However, we consider the 6-week time limit to be reasonable and appropriate. The purpose of major changes and change control applications is to reflect that design and construction changes carried out post-approval holds risk and may prevent a project from being compliant with all relevant building regulations. We believe it is necessary that there is appropriate regulatory oversight of changes to the original building control approval application, to prevent risks creeping into higher-risk building projects. This is consistent with Dame Judith Hackitt’s recommendations and represents a key part of the reforms to building regulations and the higher-risk regime. Robust change control is essential to promote industry culture change and ensure that building regulations compliance is considered throughout the construction phase.

5.65 The timeframe for determining a change control application will be dependent on many variables including the quality of the application, the type and scale of controlled change proposed and the speed of response from statutory consultees. The range of major changes are varied and so the assessment and determination of a change control application may take less than 6 weeks. However, for complex buildings or the most significant types of major changes, such as changes in the vertical dimensions to the overall building, it may be necessary for the Regulator to take longer than the 6-week statutory time limit. Significant major changes may require a complete revision of the information submitted at the building control approval application stage and therefore, will require comprehensive consideration from the Regulator.

5.66 The duties of the principal dutyholders to plan, manage and monitor both the design work and the building work to ensure compliance with building regulations remain throughout a project, including when changes to designs are proposed. In addition, dutyholders under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 will continue to be responsible for ensuring compliance with health and safety requirements. Changes to original building control approval applications are not to be taken lightly and the general duties in design and construction for those involved in the design and the building work will need to be continually met throughout the project.

5.67 In addition, we will require that the Regulator carries out a statutory consultation with fire and rescue authorities and the sewerage undertaker. As part of this process, we will require that the Regulator does not determine a change control application until 10 working days after the date on which the plans were provided to the fire and rescue authority and statutory undertaker, have passed. We consider 10 working days for these changes to be reasonable and practicable, but this may be extended dependent on the type and scale of the work being proposed.

Notifiable changes

5.68 With regard to notifiable changes, we acknowledge that industry raised concerns around the proposed 10-working day period a developer would need to wait before carrying out this type of change, particularly around the replacement of like-for-like products, and potential impacts this may have, including delays to projects and additional costs for developers.

5.69 We intend to require that principal dutyholders notify the Regulator before carrying out a notifiable change, but we will remove the requirement to wait a ten-day period before carrying out the work. The work related to the notifiable change will be able to proceed at risk.

5.70 We expect the Regulator to review notifiable changes in preparation for a project’s next scheduled inspection point and at the inspection consider whether the change is compliant with all applicable building regulations. The Regulator will still be able to require further information related to a notifiable change and this change must be responded to by the client, or someone on their behalf, within 10 working days. However, there will be no requirement to pause work when responding to this request, work can continue at risk.

5.71 The Regulator will have the power to upgrade a notifiable change to a major change. This may require the opening up of work or remediation and therefore, developers should proceed with caution when carrying out notifiable changes.

Change of client

Overview of proposal

5.72 We proposed procedures to be followed when there is a change of client responsible for a higher-risk building project, as the dutyholder for whom the building work is carried out. The proposals covered a range of scenarios beyond a standard change in personnel including a change of client due to death, incapacitation, insolvency and when a receiver has been appointed under the Law of Property Act 1925.

Consultation analysis

5.73 There were 62 responses to the section on a stronger change control process for higher-risk buildings

Question: Do you agree or disagree that a notification with the information set out above must be made to the Regulator where there is a change of client?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	44	71%
Disagree	0	0%
Neither agree nor disagree	6	10%
Don’t know	1	2%
Not answered	11	18%
Total	62	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

5.74 Forty-four respondents (71%) agreed with these proposals, with some respondents agreeing it is important for the Regulator to be informed of changes to client and to avoid the potential loss of information in the golden thread.

5.75 While there were no respondents who disagreed with the proposals, 2 respondents (3%) asked for further clarity on what exactly amounts to a ‘change of client’ scenario. One respondent (2%) questioned whether the 28-day period proposed for notifications was too long considering the significance of the change.

Government response

5.76 We intend to refine the change of client process for different change of client scenarios and to ensure it maintains clear lines of accountability.

5.77 Where the client changes, we want to ensure the Regulator is notified at the earliest opportunity and both the outgoing and incoming client are closely engaged in the process.

5.78 To that end, we intend to place a duty on the outgoing client to share the golden thread of information, documentation describing compliance arrangements and a declaration that the work to date complies with all applicable building regulations to the new client, before they cease to be the client or within 14 days. We intend to make it an offence under section 35 of the Building Act 1984 for an outgoing client to fail to share this information.

5.79 In addition, the new client will be required to submit a notification to the Regulator, within 28 days after becoming the client, providing their contact details, confirming they have received the necessary documents and a signed declaration from the outgoing client that, to the best of their knowledge, the building work at the point of handover is compliant with building regulations. The new client will also be responsible for updating the change control log and revising the prescribed documents for this change. Should the new client have not received this information from the outgoing client, we would expect the notification to identify this information and the reason why they have not received it. We consider 28 days reasonable given the complex arrangements that may be involved in changing the client on a higher-risk building project.

5.80 The client of higher-risk building work is the person or entity for whom a project is carried out and therefore, the change of client process will only need to be followed where someone other than the original client is the entity instructing higher-risk building work.

5.81 Where a client becomes incapacitated and someone on their behalf acts in the capacity of the client on the project, such as an individual with power of attorney, the appointed person must notify the Regulator within 28 days of taking on client responsibilities. This notification must include the date they assumed client responsibilities and confirm they have the relevant document relating to the project. They must also record the change in the change control log and revise the construction control plan. The Regulator will not be able to take enforcement action against the appointed person should the notification requirements not be met, given the circumstances surrounding this change of client.

5.82 Where a client dies and someone is appointed to administer the estate, the appointed person must notify the Regulator within 28 days of their appointment. The notification must state the date of their appointment, the date of the client’s death and confirmation they have the information relevant to the higher-risk building work. They must also state whether they intend to act as the client in relation to the project. Considering the circumstances surrounding this change of client, the Regulator cannot take enforcement action against the appointed person should the requirements not be met.

5.83 Additionally, there may be scenarios where a client goes insolvent and an entity is appointed to act in relation to the client, either to rescue the business or to sell assets and make payments to creditors. Similarly, a fixed charge receiver or a Law of Property Act receiver may be appointed by the holder of a fixed charge over the higher-risk building. We do not expect a change of client to occur until the higher-risk building is sold, given the roles of an insolvency practitioner and other appointed persons. While insolvency may not result in a change of client, it is important that the Regulator is notified when an insolvency occurs.

5.84 When ‘debtor in possession’ proceedings are enacted, we intend to require the client notifies the Regulator of this fact within 14 days. This notification must provide information on the insolvency proceedings taking place. For all other insolvency proceedings or appointments of official receivers, it will fall on the appointed person, such as an administrator or a fixed charge receiver, to notify the Regulator of this fact within 14 days of their appointment. The notification must provide information on the insolvency proceedings taking place. We intend to disapply enforcement of these duties in these circumstances, so the Regulator cannot take enforcement against them should the notification requirements not be met, given the role of these appointed officeholders and the challenging circumstances surrounding insolvency related issues.

5.85 The notification is important for ensuring the Regulator is aware of any material financial impact on a client that may impact the design and construction of the higher-risk building.

5.86 Where a higher-risk building in the design and construction phase ‘vest’ in an appointed officeholder (which means they are no longer owned by the insolvent person), we expect the officeholder to provide a copy of the golden thread information and other information detailing the work comprised in the project to a new client once the asset is sold.

New principal contractor or principal designer etc notifications

Overview of proposals

5.87 We proposed procedures to be followed when a new principal contractor or principal designer is appointed to a higher-risk building project. In these circumstances the client must notify the Regulator so that it is aware from a building control perspective. We proposed that this notification should include the contact details of the person appointed, a statement the client is satisfied the appointed person has the necessary competence and a record of the steps it took to consider competence. We further proposed the notification should include a compliance declaration, setting out that they have complied with the duties, signed by the outgoing principal dutyholder.

5.88 We proposed that this notification should be made within 28 calendar days of the appointment.

Consultation analysis

5.89 There were 62 responses to the section on a stronger change control process for higher-risk buildings.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that a notification with the information outlined above must be made to the Regulator where there is a change of principal designer or principal contractor for a higher-risk building project?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	46	74%
Disagree	2	3%
Neither agree nor disagree	5	8%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	9	15%
Total	62	100

Question: If you answered agree to the question above, do you consider 28 days to be a reasonable timeframe for this notification?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Yes	37	60%
No	5	8%
Don’t know	5	8%
Not answered	15	24%
Total	62	100

5.90 Forty-six respondents (74%) agreed with the proposal for notification to the Regulator when there is a change of principal designer or principal contractor. Respondents considered the approach to be sensible and correct in principle for the Regulator to be informed of any change of principal dutyholder. In their view, this would avoid the potential loss of information in the golden thread and would confirm to the Regulator that an appropriate amount of due diligence has taken place regarding the competency of the appointed principal dutyholder.

5.91 Two respondents disagreed (3%). Respondents raised concerns that it may not always be possible to obtain a compliance declaration from the outgoing principal contractor or principal designer, for example the dutyholder may have gone insolvent or could just refuse to provide a declaration. To deter dutyholders from not making the compliance declaration, 1 respondent recommended a direct sanction, separate from the building completion process, that can be imposed by the Regulator on the outgoing dutyholder.

5.92 Thirty-seven respondents (60%) were in support of the proposal for the 28-day timeframe for notification, Of those in support, respondents considered the timeframe to be sufficient, particularly considering a change of principal dutyholder can be a lengthy process due to the contractual changes.

5.93 Five respondents disagreed with the proposed timeframe (8%). Respondents in this group were concerned that 28 days was unnecessarily long, considering the significance of the change for the project.

Government response

5.94 We intend to take this notification requirement forward. The requirement on the client to notify the Regulator will be a separate process to that required when a notifiable change has been proposed, and a change of principal dutyholder is not a change that can be upgraded by the Regulator to a major change.

5.95 When there is a change of principal dutyholder, the Regulator is not expected to take a decision on whether an individual or entity is competent, as that is the client’s responsibility, and it is for the client to demonstrate to the Regulator that they have carefully considered previous conduct. However, the process will inform the Regulator’s approach to oversight.

5.96 In addition to the notification, the client will be required to record the change of principal dutyholder in the change control log and revise the construction control plan.

5.97 To reduce the risk that an outgoing principal dutyholder may be unable or unwilling to provide a compliance declaration, we intend to place a duty on the outgoing principal dutyholder to send the client a notice that includes a signed declaration they have, while in role, fulfilled their duties. The Regulator may take enforcement action against an outgoing principal dutyholder that fails to provide a compliance declaration.

5.98 We have reconsidered the 28-day timeframe, and intend to reduce it to 14 days, beginning with the date of the appointment of the new principal dutyholder. We consider this approach reflects the significance of making a change in the principal dutyholder during the construction phase. There is no clear reason why the outgoing principal dutyholder and the client cannot meet this timeframe, and early engagement with the Regulator will support an effective transition from one principal dutyholder to another.

5.99 A change of principal dutyholder may also occur where the client is a domestic client. A domestic client is someone who has design work or building work carried out in their own home, which is not in connection with a business. Considering the nature of a domestic client’s role in carrying out building work, we do not expect the domestic client to notify the Regulator. Instead, we expect the outgoing dutyholder to provide a declaration that they have filled their duties towards the domestic client. The domestic client will provide this information to the person they appoint, and the person appointed will notify the Regulator, update the change control log and the construction control plan. We accept that a domestic client may not have the capability to lead engagement with the Regulator and as such, this approach is considered proportionate when a change of principal dutyholder occurs.

6. Regularisation

Overview of proposal

6.1 Regularisation is the process of retrospectively applying to certify that unauthorised notifiable building work complies with the relevant building regulation requirements.

6.2 The government proposes to retain the existing regularisation process if unauthorised building work takes place in higher-risk building, with the Regulator receiving the regularisation application instead of the local authority.

Consultation analysis

6.3 There were 50 responses to the section on Regularisation of building work.

Question: Do you agree with the proposal to apply the current regularisation procedure to higher-risk buildings but with the Regulator as the building control authority, rather than the local authority?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	46	92%
Disagree	3	6%
Neither agree nor disagree	0	0%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	1	2%
Total	50	100

6.4 Forty-six respondents (92%) agreed with the proposal, commenting that it was a sensible approach.

6.5 The 3 respondents (6%) who disagreed either questioned whether regularisation should be allowed in higher-risk buildings at all, or for significant pieces of building work, with concerns that developers may use the process to circumvent the procedures of the new regime or thought regularisation applications should still be sent to the local authority.

Government response

6.6 The government accepts that there are instances where notifiable building work may be done without prior approval, for example emergency building work. We consider that it would be disproportionate for this work to require completion of a building control approval application and a completion certificate application at gateway 2 and gateway 3.

6.7 It is the responsibility of industry to ensure the building work they design and build meets the relevant building regulation requirements. The Regulator will have powers to order completed building work to be reopened, samples taken, and tests undertaken to check compliance with the relevant building regulation requirements.

6.8 The government is clear that we do not expect, nor consider it acceptable, for larger projects to bypass the processes of the new regime in favour getting the work approved retrospectively through the regularisation process. Any attempt to do so will be noted by the Regulator and should the works be significant, we expect them to use their powers to open up work to fully investigate whether the building work is in line with the law.

6.9 We have decided not to define in law a threshold beyond which the scale of the building work is considered too large to go through the regularisation process. This is to provide the Regulator discretion in how they choose to deal with these situations.

6.10 If the Regulator encounters building work taking place on, or in, a higher-risk building which does not have prior approval, they will be able to issue a stop notice to prevent the work from continuing until the proper approvals have been sought. The Regulator will also be able to issue a compliance notice if they deem any of the building work which has already been completed to not meet the appropriate standards. It is an offence to not comply with either a compliance or stop notice.

6.11 In the instances where a new higher-risk building is created and occupied without seeking the appropriate prior approvals, the accountable person for the occupied part will be committing an offence. We consider the possibility of prosecution alongside the sampling, testing and other enforcement powers available to the Regulator to be sufficient safeguards, so there is no need to define a set of circumstances within which regularisation is allowed.

6.12 The Regulator will act as the building control body for higher-risk buildings. Given the information available to the Regulator through its roles in relation to higher-risk buildings, we consider it prudent for the Regulator to act as the building control body for the regularisation process rather than the local authority.

7. Golden thread of information – having the right people at the right time to have information to support compliance with all applicable building regulations

Golden thread principles

Overview of proposals

7.1 We proposed to require that certain information about the design and construction of higher-risk buildings should be kept as golden thread information. The government proposed that this information should be stored and transferred electronically and the standards it should meet before being stored in the golden thread. These are:

• accessible
• accurate and up to date
• secure
• a single point of truth
• interoperable
• transferrable and accessible
• understandable to the intended users
• so far as is reasonably practicable, use consistent language and terminology

Digital

7.2 In line with Dame Judith Hackitt’s recommendations, the government proposed that the golden thread must be electronic to ensure that the information in the golden thread is accessible, can be quickly updated and handed over. In practice, people and organisations may choose to implement the golden thread through very different digital systems. The government considers that it is important to allow for innovation and not to create requirements that would mean people have to invest in new digital systems. We, therefore, proposed not to define digital in law in the consultation.

Consultation analysis

7.3 There were 65 responses to the section on the golden thread of information – having the right people at the right time to have information to support compliance with all applicable building regulations.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to not define digital in regulations?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	35	54%
Disagree	11	17%
Neither agree nor disagree	10	15%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	9	14%
Total	65	100

7.4 Thirty-five respondents (54%) agreed that digital should not be defined in the regulations. Two respondents commented that it was important to avoid over specification as this could restrict innovation. One respondent said that it is not possible to define digital to the extent that it encompassed all relevant systems in operation now, and ones that could be used in the future. Three respondents who agreed with the proposals recommended that the government promote the usage of building information modelling (BIM) standards.

7.5 Eleven respondents (17%) disagreed with the proposal. Their main concern was that without precise regulatory requirements people would use very different systems and golden thread information would not be able to be transferred. Five respondents suggested particular formats, or standards, that the government should mandate.

Government response

7.6 The government considers that it is important not to define digital in regulations, so that innovation is not hindered and potentially useful systems are not prevented from being implemented for the golden thread.

7.7 The government has addressed these concerns through the proposals around accessibility and transferability of information as detailed below.

7.8 The government strongly encourages the use of building information modelling (BIM) standards through the Construction Playbook. The government has also worked closely with industry stakeholders to ensure the government approach aligns with the wider BIM Framework.

7.9 We intend to work with the Regulator to produce guidance for the sector on golden thread requirements.

Principles on how golden thread information is managed, kept and maintained

7.10 It is crucial that the golden thread of information is accessible, and that the golden thread information can be easily transferred. Enabling information to be transferred will ensure interoperability as people can access and use the golden thread information when working on different systems. The government consulted on these principles being included in the standards for golden thread information.

Consultation analysis

7.11 There were 65 responses to the section on the Golden thread of information – having the right people at the right time to have information to support compliance with all applicable building regulations.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with proposed approach to ensure the golden thread is accessible?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	41	63%
Disagree	4	6%
Neither agree nor disagree	9	14%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	11	17%
Total	65	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach for the golden thread operating as a single point of truth and ensuring the information kept within it is one that allows for transfer of information and interoperability as described?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	48	74%
Disagree	2	3%
Neither agree nor disagree	5	8%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	10	15%
Total	65	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with proposals around ensuring that information is able to be transferred?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	47	72%
Disagree	0	0%
Neither agree nor disagree	8	12%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	10	15%
Total	65	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Accessibility

7.12 Forty-one respondents (63%) agreed that the golden thread information should be accessible. One respondent said that it was good that the government was not proposing a “one size fits all” solution on the sector. Another respondent, although they agreed with the approach, said that the golden thread should be publicly available.

7.13 Four respondents (6%) disagreed with this proposal. Two respondents stated that these proposals did not go far enough to ensure accessibility and that to support ease of access the government should require “standardised naming of required documents” and an agreed indexing and coding system.

Single point of truth and interoperability

7.14 Forty-eight respondents (74%) agreed with the proposal that the golden thread should be a single point of truth and enable the transfer of information and interoperability. Two respondents commented that this was essential to allow information to be available throughout the building lifecycle and exchanged using different software systems. One respondent noted that it was important that the government does not mandate particular software and technical solutions, as this would increase costs on the supply chain.

7.15 There were also many comments requesting that the government provide guidance and best practice examples on how to ensure interoperability and transfer of information.

7.16 Two respondents (3%) disagreed with the proposal and 5 respondents (8%) neither agreed not disagreed. Three of these respondents said that for a single point of truth to function the government must mandate specific digital standards.

Transfer of information

7.17 Forty-seven respondents (72%) agreed with the proposal to ensure information can be transferred. Many respondents commented that it was essential that golden thread information is easy to transfer. Three respondents commented here should be a prescribed time limit of 1 or 2 days for the golden thread to be transferred.

7.18 No respondents disagreed with the proposal, and 8 respondents (12%) neither agreed not disagreed with the proposal.

Government response

7.19 The government is committed to ensuring the golden thread supports building safety, through requiring better information management so that people can access and use the information they need to support compliance with the relevant building regulations. To do this, it is essential that the information in the golden thread is accessible, and that information can be easily transferred.

7.20 We consider that mandating particular coding standards or exchange mechanisms as a solution for the whole of industry could create an unnecessary burden. It will be for individual dutyholders to agree the digital solutions and exchange mechanisms that work for their organisations. The client and other dutyholders must ensure that whatever digital solution and formats that are used can be transferred throughout the building lifecycle, so that the golden thread can be handed over to the principal accountable person or the Responsible Person at building completion and that the information is useable and accessible.

7.21 Individual dutyholders and organisations should identify the classification or coding system that works for them and their organisation. The government acknowledges the requests for additional guidance and that this guidance should clearly signpost to existing standards or best practice.

7.22 The government also considers that it would not be appropriate for all the information in the golden thread to be publicly available. Certain information will have security or commercial sensitivities and it will also include personal data. Once buildings are occupied the registration and key building information will be published and residents will be provided proactively with certain information about their building, and will be able to request further information.

Principles on relevance, security, consistency, accountability of golden thread information

7.23 It is essential that the golden thread is up-to-date and relevant, secure, and that it supports greater accountability and transparency across the sector. The government proposed these principles are included in the standards for golden thread information.

Consultation analysis

7.24 There were 65 responses to the section on golden thread of information – having the right people at the right time to have information to support compliance with all applicable building regulations.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal that some information in the golden thread may not be up to date but may still be relevant and will enable someone to have a clear understanding of the building at the present moment in time and support compliance with building regulations?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	46	71%
Disagree	5	8%
Neither agree nor disagree	2	3%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	12	19%
Total	65	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with proposed approach to ensure the golden thread is secure?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	45	69%
Disagree	0	0%
Neither agree nor disagree	8	12%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	12	19%
Total	65	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach to ensuring the language/information in the golden thread is consistent for the building and that the language in the golden thread should be consistent and appropriate for the people who need to use it?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	44	68%
Disagree	5	8%
Neither agree nor disagree	7	11%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	9	14%
Total	65	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the approach not to mandate that the golden thread needs to comply with a particular British standard or International standard or data dictionary?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	31	48%
Disagree	12	19%
Neither agree nor disagree	12	19%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	10	15%
Total	65	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the approach for ensuring accountability?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	44	68%
Disagree	5	8%
Neither agree nor disagree	5	8%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	11	17%
Total	65	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Up to date and relevant

7.25 Forty-six respondents (71%) agreed with the proposal that most golden thread information should be kept up to date. We also proposed that certain information that is not up to date may still need to be retained, as it may be relevant for building regulations compliance. Many respondents agreed this was a sensible approach, and one commented that this was a “fundamental principle of good information management”.

7.26 Five respondents (8%) disagreed with this proposal. One respondent considered that all golden thread information should be up to date, while 2 respondents commented that only the final as-built construction information that was submitted to the Regulator needed to be kept as golden thread information.

Secure

7.27 Forty-five respondents (69%) agreed with the proposed approach for ensuring security. Most respondents did not provide comments on the proposal. One respondent suggested that guidance could highlight existing British Standards security classifications and another respondent suggested marking files for security purposes. Another respondent, who agreed with the proposal, commented that security must be balanced against useability and that organisations needed to be clear about roles and responsibilities and who needed access to golden thread information.

7.28 No respondents disagreed with this proposal.

Consistent and appropriate language and mandating standards

7.29 Forty-four respondents (68%) considered that dutyholders, as far as possible, should ensure that the language and terminology in the golden thread information was consistent and appropriate for the people who use it. Four respondents agreed, but set out that the government should mandate specific standards and suggested various different standards.

7.30 Five respondents (8%) disagreed with this proposal. Most of these did not provide comments. Of the respondents who did, most stated that there should be minimum, mandatory requirements, such as naming standards, data structures and classifications systems.

Mandating a particular standard or data dictionary

7.31 Thirty-one respondents (48%) agreed with the proposal not to mandate that the golden thread of information complies with a British Standard, International Standard or data dictionary. One respondent commented that mandating a particular system would mean that some current systems could not be used, even if they were effective. One respondent said that currently there was a lack of alignment between standards, and a lack of consensus in industry on which standards should be used. We consider that it is, therefore, not appropriate for government to mandate particular standards at this point.

7.32 Another respondent requested that government provide best practice examples of how systems can be utilised effectively to ensure compliance with regulations.

7.33 Twelve respondents (19%) disagreed with this proposal. When respondents provided comments, most simply stated that a standard or dictionary should be mandated. Two respondents said that mandating a standard would help ensure the creation of consistent systems. One respondent said that without agreed standards or dictionaries organisations might not be able to change software provider if necessary. Another said that data dictionaries would help prevent under or over specification.

Accountability

7.34 Forty-four respondents (68%) agreed with the proposed approach for ensuring accountability. One respondent commented that there needed to be clarity in organisations about who had responsibility for updating the golden thread information. Another respondent said ensuring all changes (and who made the change) was recorded would support greater accountability.

7.35 Five respondents (8%) disagreed with this proposal. One respondent said that all user inputs should be recorded, and this should be an automatic digital process.

Government response

Up to date and relevant

7.36 The government is clear that most of the golden thread information should be kept up to date. However, some of the information may be relevant even if it does not reflect the current building. For instance, the building completion certificate would be retained and the certificate itself would not be updated.

Secure

7.37 It is important that the golden thread of information is secure. While accessibility is essential, ensuring the golden thread is secure will mean that dutyholders will trust that sensitive information is safe and can be stored in the golden thread.

Consistent and appropriate language and mandating standards

7.38 The government considers it is important that the golden thread is useable. A key component of this is ensuring there is a consistent and clear use of language, definitions and terminology as far as reasonably practicable. The government has noted the requests for mandating classification codes. As set out in paragraph 7.20 the government considers that imposing a solution for the whole of industry could create a disproportionate burden. It is for individual dutyholders and organisations to identify the classification or coding system that works for them and their organisation. The government recognises the requests for additional guidance, and that this guidance should clearly signpost to existing standards or best practice.

Accountability

7.39 The government is committed to increasing accountability in higher-risk buildings. The golden thread will support greater accountability alongside requirements on change control which will ensure there are clear records of when a change was made, who made the change and who approved the change.

7.40 The government will not mandate how this information is recorded and organisations can decide what is most appropriate for their needs. We expect that digital systems that automatically record changes to information and documents will play a large part in this process.

Overall approach

7.41 Overall, the response to the consultation supported the government’s proposed approach on standards and how it will ensure the right information is available to the people who need it to support building regulations compliance.

7.42 The government will be legislating to require that the golden thread information is kept electronically and can be transferred electronically to another person without the information being lost or corrupted. The golden thread information must also be in a readable format that the people who need the information can access.

7.43 The golden thread information will also have to be accurate, up to date, secure and as far as possible use consistent language, terminology and definitions. In line with change control requirements when the golden thread information is changed or updated the date and the person who made the change should be recorded.

The new more stringent building control process and the golden thread

The golden thread: Building control approval application, partial completion applications and Information handover on building completion

Overview of proposal

7.44 The government proposed that all the information that the applicant must submit as part of an application for building control approval or an application for a completion certificate should be stored as part of the golden thread in accordance with the required digital standards.

7.45 This is the information needed by the client, principal designer, principal contractor and any other relevant dutyholders in order to ensure that they are complying with building regulations, and to demonstrate this compliance to the Regulator.

7.46 As part of the completion certificate application, the client must handover the golden thread information and certain information related to fire safety, ventilation, and the use of fuel and power to the relevant person, in an accessible and useable format to manage building and fire safety during occupation.

7.47 For buildings in scope of part 4 of the Building Safety Act 2022, the golden thread information must be provided to accountable persons. For the buildings covered by part 3 of the Act, the information must be handed over to the Responsible Person. Therefore, it is important that the client and relevant person co-sign a statement confirming that the design and construction golden thread information was provided to the relevant person, and the relevant person has received that information in a format that they can access.

7.48 All the information required for a partial completion application should be handed over by the client to the relevant accountable persons. The information must be accurate and up to date in relation to the part of the building associated with the application. As further sections are complete, and partial completion certificates granted by the Regulator, the same process of information handover must take place.

Consultation analysis

7.49 There were 65 responses to the section on dutyholder duties in relation to the golden thread during design and construction of new builds and building work in existing buildings.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal that all the information to be submitted in a building control approval application should be stored in the golden thread?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	47	72%
Disagree	5	8%
Neither agree nor disagree	5	8%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	8	12%
Total	65	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree that with the proposals for the golden thread information that should be stored in the golden thread and handed over to the relevant person at building completion?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	46	71%
Disagree	5	8%
Neither agree nor disagree	4	6%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	10	15%
Total	65	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree that as part of the building completion certificate application, the client and the relevant person should co-sign a statement confirming that the client has handed over the golden thread to the relevant person, and that the relevant person has received the golden thread?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	45	69%
Disagree	3	5%
Neither agree nor disagree	6	9%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	11	17%
Total	65	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal that golden thread should be provided to the relevant person for the higher-risk buildings no later than the date of completion?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	36	55%
Disagree	15	23%
Neither agree nor disagree	6	9%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	8	12%
Total	65	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal for information sharing and access to the golden thread between the client, the principal accountable person and the accountable persons through the process of partial completion?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	44	68%
Disagree	4	6%
Neither agree nor disagree	5	8%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	12	19%
Total	65	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the need for an ongoing duty to co-operate on the Client the principal accountable person and the accountable person(s) through the process of partial completion?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	36	55%
Disagree	2	3%
Neither agree nor disagree	0	0%
Don’t know	4	6%
Not answered	23	35%
Total	65	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Building control approval application and the golden thread of information

7.50 Forty-seven respondents (72%) agreed with the proposal that all the information to be submitted in a building control approval application should be stored in the golden thread. Most of these respondents did not provide comments beyond that they agreed with the proposal. One respondent commented that it was vital that fire and structural safety information could be easily identified.

7.51 Five respondents (8%) disagreed with the proposal. One respondent noted that this could be a significant amount of information and it would need to be indexed and easily searchable to be useful.

7.52 Forty-six respondents (71%) agreed with the proposals for the information that should be kept as golden thread information and handed over to the relevant person at building completion. One respondent said that the principal accountable person would need to check that the information handed over enabled them to manage their building safely.

7.53 Five respondents (8%) disagreed with the proposal. Many respondents seem to have misunderstood the proposals, for instance one respondent said that it was a mistake to allow the handover of paper copies of documents. The government is mandating that the golden thread of information is electronic and that all information handover is electronic. More detail is set out on the proposal for the golden thread of information to be digital in paragraphs 7.2 to 7.9.

7.54 Forty-five respondents (69%) agreed with the proposal that the client and the relevant person should co-sign a statement confirming that the client has handed over the golden thread information to the relevant person. Two respondents said that this usefully demonstrated a clear handover of responsibility. One respondent who agreed the proposals said that the client should also confirm that the information is in a format that the relevant person can use.

7.55 Three respondents (5%) disagreed with the proposal. One respondent said that all dutyholders should sign the statement, rather than just the client.

7.56 Thirty-six respondents (55%) agreed with the proposal that golden thread should be provided to the relevant person for the higher-risk buildings no later than the date of completion.

7.57 Fifteen respondents (23%) disagreed with the proposal. Two respondents said this was too late and the information needed to be provided sooner to enable accountable persons to set up their safety management systems. Ten respondents said that it would not be possible to provide this information at this point. One respondent suggested that the client should be allowed to provide the information up to 6 weeks after practical completion.

Golden thread and partial completion

7.58 Forty-four respondents (68%) agreed with the proposal for information sharing, and access to the golden thread, when a building goes through partial completion and 36 respondents (55%) agreed with the proposal for an ongoing duty to cooperate on the client and the accountable persons during the process of partial completion. Most respondents did not provide comments on the proposal. One respondent who agreed with the proposal said this reflected current best practice.

7.59 Four respondents (6%) disagreed with the proposal for information sharing, and 2 respondents disagreed with the duty to cooperate during the process of partial completion. One respondent said that the duty to cooperate should apply to all dutyholders.

Government response

Building control approval application and the golden thread of information

7.60 For a building control approval application to be accepted by the Regulator, the applicant must demonstrate that, when developed, the proposed building or building work would be fully compliant with all of the relevant building regulations requirements. The government considers it important that this information is recorded as part of the golden thread. The government has noted concerns about ensuring the golden thread of information is easily searchable. The government has addressed these concerns through the proposals around accessibility and transferability of information. More detail on these proposals is set out in paragraphs 7.10 to 7.22.

7.61 The information that demonstrates that the building or building work will comply with the building regulations is required to be maintained, kept up to date, and relevant. The government is clear that dutyholders are, therefore, obliged to ensure that throughout a development project when building plans or prescribed documents, or any other required information are amended, the current version is always recorded and stored as part of the golden thread. This is vital to ensuring that those who need the information to undertake the work assigned to them are not working from outdated or incorrect information.

Information handover on building completion

7.62 The golden thread information should be handed over to the relevant person. The information should be provided in such a way to ensure none of the information is lost or corrupted. We expect parties to work cooperatively to ensure this objective is achieved.

7.63 For a completion, or partial completion, certificate application to be accepted by the Regulator, the applicant must demonstrate that the building, part of the building or building work to which the application relates, complies with all of the relevant requirements of the building regulations. The information and documents provided with the application will be instrumental in providing this demonstration. The government remains of the view that this information, recorded as part of the golden thread information, should be provided to the relevant person who will need it to support their meeting of various duties and obligations as the building moves into the next phase of its lifecycle.

7.64 As part of the building completion certificate application, the client and the relevant person should co-sign a statement confirming that the client has handed over the golden thread to the relevant person, and that the relevant person has received the golden thread. This reinforces the importance of this step and will support culture change across industry. The government considers that it is important that there is clear accountability on each dutyholder for meeting their statutory duties. However, the client has overall responsibility for the building and the other dutyholders are answerable to the client. It is, therefore, the client who should be responsible for signing the statement and for handing over the golden thread information.

7.65 The government has noted that the golden thread information needs to be handed over in a format that the accountable persons can access. The government has addressed these concerns through the proposals around accessibility and transferability of information.

Golden thread and partial completion

7.66 Given the additional complexities associated with partial completion of a higher-risk building, where parts of it may become occupied before building work in other parts have been concluded, it is necessary that the client and accountable persons cooperate with each other beyond the handover of information.

7.67 We note the comments in response to the provision of completion, and partial completion, certificates from the client to the relevant person when an application has been accepted by the Regulator. Accountable persons will require the completion, or partial completion, certificate to register a building with the Regulator, ahead of occupation. Regulations will make clear that following the awarding of any relevant completion certificate, the client must ensure it is handed over to the relevant person.

7.68 The client will be under a duty to cooperate with the principal accountable person and accountable persons through the process of partial completion. The principal designer and principal contractor are under a separate duty to cooperate with the client. The government considers these duties will ensure appropriate cooperation and information sharing for partial competition buildings.

Handover of information in Higher-Risk Buildings (new build and refurbishments) and regulations 38 to 40 of the Building Regulations 2010

Overview of proposals

7.69 For higher-risk buildings we have set out our intention to disapply Regulations 38, 39, and 40 of the Building Regulations 2010.

7.70 The golden thread information handover requirements mean the handover of information will already be covered.

Consultation analysis

7.71 There were 65 responses to the section on dutyholder duties in relation to the golden thread during design and construction of new builds and building work in existing buildings.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal that the golden thread requirements will be sufficient and regulation 38, 39, 40 cannot apply to buildings in scope of the more stringent regime?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	36	55%
Disagree	7	11%
Neither agree nor disagree	9	14%
Don’t know	1	2%
Not answered	12	19%
Total	65	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

7.72 Thirty-six respondents (55%) agreed with the the golden thread requirements will be sufficient. Most respondents who provided comments agreed that it was unnecessary duplication.

7.73 Seven respondents (11%) disagreed with the proposal. Respondents considered that duplicating the requirement would provide a backstop and ensure compliance. There were also concerns that removing the requirements would mean fire safety information would be less accessible and be buried in the golden thread information.

Government response

7.74 The government remains committed to disapplying Regulations 38, 39, and 40 of the Building Regulations 2010 in relation to higher-risk buildings.

7.75 We consider that the information that will be provided to relevant persons (accountable persons and Responsible Persons) via the handover of the golden thread ensures that all relevant information that would be required to meet those regulations will be received. It is the government’s view that the golden thread information goes beyond the requirements set out in Regulations 38, 39, and 40 of the Building Regulations 2010.

7.76 However, as noted above, it is important that people can access the correct information when they need it and we have noted concerns from some that the information required under Regulations 38, 39, and 40 of the Building Regulations 2010 could become lost amongst the wider golden thread information. Therefore, the client will be required to handover the golden thread information and separately provide information about fire safety, ventilation, and the use of fuel and power. This will ensure that this information is easily accessible.

Dutyholder duties in relation to the golden thread during the design and construction of new builds and building work in existing buildings

Overview of proposal

7.77 The government set out proposed duties on the different dutyholders with regard to the golden thread. These duties reflect the different roles that the client, the principal designer, the principal contractor and other dutyholders have during the design and construction of a higher-risk building and their different roles in setting up, developing, managing and maintaining the golden thread.

7.78 The golden thread information should be maintained and managed so that the golden thread remains relevant, useful and proportionate. We consider it is important that only relevant information is kept in the golden thread. All dutyholders will be expected to cooperate and to share information with each other.

Consultation analysis

7.79 There were 65 responses to the section on dutyholder duties in relation to the golden thread during design and construction of new builds and building work in existing buildings.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed duties on the client in relation to the golden thread?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	47	72%
Disagree	10	15%
Neither agree nor disagree	3	5%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	5	8%
Total	65	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed duties on the client in regard to building work in an existing, occupied, higher-risk building in relation to the golden thread?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	44	68%
Disagree	4	6%
Neither agree nor disagree	6	9%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	11	17%
Total	65	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed duties on the principal designer and principal contractor in relation to the golden thread?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	45	69%
Disagree	13	20%
Neither agree nor disagree	5	8%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	2	3%
Total	65	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed duties on the principal designer and principal contractor regarding building work in an existing, occupied, higher-risk building in relation to the golden thread?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	41	63%
Disagree	11	17%
Neither agree nor disagree	7	11%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	6	9%
Total	65	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed duties on other dutyholders in relation to the golden thread?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	44	68%
Disagree	5	8%
Neither agree nor disagree	6	9%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	10	15%
Total	65	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal that through the design and construction process there should be a duty on all dutyholders to review the information within the golden thread to ensure it remains relevant and proportionate and supports compliance with building regulations?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	49	75%
Disagree	5	8%
Neither agree nor disagree	2	3%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	9	14%
Total	65	100

Client’s duties in new and existing HRBs

7.80 Forty-seven respondents (72%) agreed with the proposed golden thread duties on the client in during the design and construction of a new higher-risk building, and 44 respondents (68%) agreed with the duties on the client during building work in an existing higher-risk building.

7.81 Twelve respondents agreed on placing these duties on the client, with one respondent commenting that it is appropriate that the client has overall responsibility for the golden thread.

7.82 Ten respondents (15%) disagreed with the proposals for duties on clients for new-build higher-risk buildings, and 4 respondents (6%) disagreed with the proposals for duties on clients in existing higher-risk buildings.

7.83 Eight respondents set out concerns about the client having sufficient skills to comply with these duties. Three respondents had concerns during building work in existing building the client to potentially use a different information management system than the accountable persons. The concerns were largely that this potentially makes the system more complex and could mean that it is more difficult to “share and access information as required”. One respondent had concerns that often clients just commission work but would not expect or be able to access the golden thread of information.

Principal designer and principal contractor duties in relation to the golden thread

7.84 Forty-five respondents (69%) agreed with the proposed duties on the principal designer and the principal contractor in relation to the golden thread throughout the design and construction of a new higher-risk building, and 41 respondents (63%) agreed with the duties during building work in an existing higher-risk building.

7.85 Thirteen respondents (20%) disagreed with the proposed duties for new-build higher-risk buildings and 11 respondents (17%) disagreed with the proposed duties for new-building work on existing higher-risk buildings. Of these respondents, 8 commented that in design and build projects the principal contractor will take on the duties of the principal designer. The respondents considered this should be explicitly stated in any regulation. In addition, 4 respondents suggested that the government should prevent overlaps between the design and construction phases and mandate a clear point of handover.

7.86 Three respondents raised concerns that the principal designer or the principal contractor would not be able to get information on an existing building.

Other dutyholder duties in relation to the golden thread

7.87 Forty-four respondents (68%) agreed with the proposed duties on other dutyholders in relation to the golden thread.

7.88 Five respondents (8%) disagreed with the proposal. Two respondents were concerned that the government expected other dutyholders to interact directly with the golden thread. One said that different clients, principal designers, and principal contractors will have their own systems and will “impose onerous requirements on their supply chains for the provision of information”.

Golden thread information remaining relevant and proportionate

7.89 Forty-nine respondents (75%) agreed with the proposed duties on all dutyholders to review the information within the golden thread to ensure it remains relevant and proportionate.

7.90 Five respondents (8%) disagreed with the proposal. Two respondents had concerns that if the duty is on all dutyholders then it could mean that no one does it and that everyone will assume that someone else will do it. Another respondent said there needed to be more clarity on exactly who was responsible for reviewing which information to ensure that it is actually done. Two respondents said there needed to be guidance produced on what is relevant information.

Government response

Client’s duties in new and existing HRBs

7.91 It is important that the client is responsible for putting in place the golden thread of information and ensuring that other dutyholders are meeting their duties with regard to the golden thread.

7.92 The government is clear that the client is the person responsible for commissioning the building work and they have overall control over the project and, therefore, it is appropriate that they are ultimately responsible for the golden thread. Although the client can delegate tasks, they cannot delegate responsibilities. The principal designer and the principal contractor need to be satisfied that the client is aware of their duties, including in relation to the golden thread of information, and the client will need to ensure that those they appoint have the right competencies to take on these roles.

7.93 The government agrees that it is preferable if the same information management system can be used by the client and the accountable persons as this will enable information to be shared quickly and easily. However, this may not be possible in practical terms, specifically for large projects. If separate information management systems are used, then the client and the accountable person would need to agree this. This will not be a decision that the client can solely make. As set out in paragraph 7.97, information will have to be shared between the client and the accountable persons to ensure that they can meet their duties to comply with building regulations and to manage building safety under the Building Safety Act 2022.

Principal designer and principal contractor duties in relation to the golden thread

7.94 The government is clear that when an individual or an organisation is appointed for design work or building work, they must be competent (or in the case of an organisation, have the organisational capability) for the work they are to undertake, and to be able to comply with their duties. If, under a ‘design and build contract’, the same person or organisation is appointed as both the principal designer and the principal contractor then that person or organisation would have to meet all the statutory obligations of both dutyholders, and be competent for both roles.

7.95 The government notes the concern about the client’s access to the golden thread. Under the government’s proposals the client will have duties to make suitable arrangements for planning, managing and monitoring a project, and for reviewing those arrangements. Those arrangements will include how information is shared between dutyholders and therefore how the golden thread of information is maintained. Both contractors and designers must be satisfied that the client is aware of their duties before they begin work, and it would be expected that, if necessary, they would make the client aware of their duties regarding the golden thread. The principal designer and principal contractor will also be under a duty to cooperate with the client throughout the design and construction process.

7.96 When there is building work in an existing higher-risk building, there needs to be collaboration and cooperation between the client, principal designer, principal contractor and the accountable persons. This includes the timely sharing of information. The government plans to mandate that relevant information should be shared and stored in the golden thread so that all the people who need the information can access the information to ensure compliance with building regulations.

Other dutyholder duties in relation to the golden thread

7.97 The government is clear that it is essential that other dutyholders provide information throughout the design and construction process to support the golden thread objectives and that it will not mandate how the sharing of the golden thread is achieved so all can use it. It will be for individual organisation to decide how to implement the golden thread of information and whether it is appropriate for their organisation or business model to have other dutyholders directly interacting with the golden thread of information.

Golden thread information remaining relevant and proportionate

7.98 The golden thread information must be regularly reviewed to ensure it remains relevant and proportionate. The government will not be mandating how organisations operate and is clear that there is a duty on all dutyholders to ensure the golden thread is relevant and proportionate. For some it may be appropriate for the person who created the information to review it. However, for some projects that might not be feasible. It is for individual dutyholders to decide how this duty should be delivered in individual projects or organisations.

8. Mandatory occurrence reporting

Overview of proposal

8.1 We proposed a mandatory occurrence reporting regime during the design and construction of higher-risk buildings and building work on an existing higher-risk building. This proposal would place duties on the principal designer and the principal contractor after the building control approval application stage to establish and operate an effective mandatory occurrence reporting system to enable those undertaking design work or building work to report safety occurrences to the dutyholders and to report safety occurrences to the Regulator in a required manner.

Consultation analysis

8.2 There were 52 responses to the section on mandatory occurrence reporting

Question: Do you agree or disagree that, when a dutyholder has become aware of an occurrence they must report the occurrence to the Regulator without undue delay and provide a written report within 10 calendar days?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	31	60%
Disagree	13	25%
Neither agree nor disagree	8	15%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	0	0%
Total	52	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed definitions of safety occurrence and risk condition?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	25	48%
Disagree	18	35%
Neither agree nor disagree	4	8%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	5	10%
Total	52	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the proposed information required when reporting a safety occurrence is appropriate?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	32	62%
Disagree	8	15%
Neither agree nor disagree	6	12%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	6	12%
Total	52	100

Reporting safety occurrences to the Regulator with 10 calendar days

8.3 Thirty-one respondents (60%) agreed with the proposals for the timescale for the reporting of safety occurrences to the Regulator within 10 days.

8.4 Of the 15 respondents (29%) who either agreed, disagreed, or neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal for reporting of occurrences and provided an explanation, there was not a clear consensus. Some felt the proposal allowed sufficient time for the report to be made, others that it was either too long or too short a time. Four respondents (8%) suggested that the process should be more relaxed, and not subject to mandatory time constraints.

8.5 Of those 13 respondents who disagreed (25%), the most common reason given, from 5 respondents (10%) was that the duty to report should also be placed on the client, while one respondent felt that mandatory occurrence reporting was an unnecessary burden.

Definition of safety occurrence and risk condition

8.6 Twenty-five respondents (48%) agreed with the proposed definitions of safety occurrence and risk condition.

8.7 It was noted by 12 respondents (23%) that further guidance would be needed to provide clarity about the definition of safety occurrences. Six respondents (12%) stated that the use of the term ‘significant’ in the risk condition, was not an appropriate threshold for reporting of safety occurrences.

Information required when reporting safety occurrence

8.8 Thirty-two respondents (62%) agreed with the proposed information required when reporting a safety occurrence.

8.9 Eight respondents (15%) commented that the information provided to the Regulator should in include measures taken by the dutyholder to either remedy or mitigate the situation.

Government response

8.10 The government intends to require that design and construction dutyholders implement a mandatory occurrence reporting system when carrying out building work on higher-risk buildings. The system will require the dutyholder to notify the Regulator of a safety occurrence without undue delay and provide a written re of the occurrence within ten days. It is intended that the information provided to the Regulator will also include the measures taken by the dutyholder to remedy the situation.

8.11 A number of respondents referred to Section 8 of the Building Safety Act 2022, the requirement for the regulator to make arrangements for a person to establish and operate a voluntary occurrence reporting (VOR) system, and suggested that dutyholders be required to submit a report to the person operating the VOR system. VOR did not form part of this consultation, as reports under VOR are intended to be made voluntarily. The VOR system is intended for any occurrence across the whole built environment, not just in higher-risk buildings, and which does not meet the criteria of a Mandatory Safety Occurrence. VOR is part of the wider system to improve the safety culture in the design and construction industry.

9. More rigorous enforcement powers. A wider and more flexible range of powers will be created to focus incentives on the creation of reliably safe buildings from the outset. This includes compliance and appeals.

Contents of compliance and stop notices, withdrawal, extension amendment of notices, exceptions to enforcement action

Overview of proposal

9.1 The Regulator and local authorities will be able to issue compliance and stop notices where building regulations are breached. Compliance notices will require remedial action by a set date and stop notices will require work to be stopped altogether until remedial action has been taken. We sought views on the content of notices and who should be notified when they are issued. We also consulted on withdrawing and amending notices.

Consultation analysis

9.2 There were 52 responses to the section on more rigorous enforcement powers.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the contents of compliance and stop notices detailed above? Is it fit for purpose?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	33	64%
Disagree	8	15%
Neither agree nor disagree	8	15%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	3	6%
Total	52	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the persons/bodies mentioned above should be notified after a compliance or stop notice is issued?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	39	75%
Disagree	5	10%
Neither agree nor disagree	3	6%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	5	10%
Total	52	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Service and content of compliance notices

9.3 Thirty-three respondents (64%) agreed with our proposals on the contents of compliance and stop notices.

9.4 Of those who agreed, there was concern from 3 respondents that including directions on notices could make the building control authority a designer in their own right.

9.5 Given that the government was granting additional enforcement powers to the regulator and local authority building controls bodies, one respondent thought that these powers, for example, compliance notices, should equally be available to private sector building control approvers.

Notification after a compliance or stop notice is issued

9.6 Thirty-nine respondents (75%) agreed with the proposed approach to notifications and thought that the notification parties list was correct. Two respondents agreed in principle but felt that fire and rescue services should only be notified where there was a clear risk. One reply stated that the notice should be published.

Withdrawal, extension & amendment of notices

Question: Would you like to provide any comments on our proposed approach for amending, extending and withdrawing compliance and stop notices?

9.7 This open question received 31 responses. In the main, respondents agreed with the approach, with some commenting that this approach was flexible, practical and sensible.

9.8 Two respondents suggested improving the approach. The suggestions were that that stop notices should only be used as a last resort, and that the Regulator should publish guidance on how the process would work in practice.

Government response

9.9 On the service and contents of notices, some respondents requested that those who provide private building control services should also have enforcement tools, such as notices. The government is not minded to give private companies or individuals a general duty to indict. This is reserved for state approved enforcement agencies, regulators with warranted officers, and the police.

9.10 The government still considers that private sector building control bodies have an important role in securing compliance with the building regulations and enforcing against dutyholders who are failing in their duties. Where there is clear non-compliance with building regulations, and discussions between the building control body and the dutyholders have been unable to secure compliance, the initial notice should be cancelled and the work referred to local authority building control, who can deploy stronger sanctions.

9.11 Section 35C(1)(a) of the Building Act 1984 (as amended) sets out the grounds and reasons for issuing stop notices. To facilitate the smooth delivery of the new regime for higher-risk buildings, the government will also allow stop notices to be issued where higher-risk building work is required to wait for approval at certain stages of the building work but proceeds without approval. This is where the work is subject to staged applications, change control applications and requirements attached to building control approval. This is to make sure stop notices can be directly issued by the Regulator in all scenarios where major work is required to stop and wait until approval has been sought.

9.12 On notification of interested and relevant parties, the government will limit when fire safety authorities should be notified of notices linked to breaches directly relevant to their regulatory role. We propose to require only notices which concern breaches of Part B requirements (fire safety) under Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 2010 in a building be notified to them.

9.13 The government is also providing that additional parties should be notified where a compliance/stop notice has been served. This is to ensure the sharing of information that may be pertinent to relevant regulatory bodies/parties and their respective regulatory/management functions. The additional bodies to be notified are:

i. local authority for the area (where they are not the building control authority);

ii. local housing authority where a notice is issued and the client is a private landlord;

iii. the Regulator for Social Housing where a notice is issued and the client, in relation to new building work, is a private registered provider of social housing and where the client, in relation to refurbishment work, is a private or public registered provider of social housing; and

iv. the accountable person where they are not the client and the notice is issued in relation to refurbishment work in their part of the building as they have an interest in this construction work.

9.14 The government is removing the requirement to notify the Regulator where a compliance/stop notice is issued, and they are not the building control authority. This is because local authority building control will be required to take reasonable steps to record all contraventions as well as evidence of resolutions made under the Regulator’s operational standard rules for building control bodies and must send reports of this information as directed to the Regulator. (The operational standard rules (PDF, 179KB) are currently in draft on the Health and Safety Executive’s website.)

9.15 The government accepts that where a notice requires remedial action, the regulations will permit that regulators can specify what actions the recipient should take to rectify the breach. However, they should not exceed what has been set out in the building regulations. To ensure building control authorities stay within their remit and do not attract designer duties, the Regulator will clarify this in operational guidance.

9.16 Regarding the withdrawal of notices, the government will take forward the ability for building control authorities to withdraw notices. On further consideration, we are removing the ability of building control authorities to amend notices. Withdrawing and reissuing new notices where the original does not contain the right information or is no longer required will have the same effect.

Exceptions to enforcement action

Overview of proposal

9.17 We proposed options concerning existing building regulations which are exempt from enforcement action via section 35 of the Building Act 1984 (penalties and offences for contravening building regulations etc.). These options were:

i. Option 1 - to remove the existing exemption set out in regulation 47(a) of the Building Regulations 2010 or

ii. Option 2 - to retain this exemption and ensure the same regulations are exempt from enforcement action via compliance notices.

Consultation analysis

9.18 There were 52 responses to this question.

Question: Which proposed option outlined for prosecutions under s35 and compliance notices under s35B do you prefer?

9.19 Twenty respondents (38%) preferred option 1 to not have exemptions in relation to some or all of the regulations between 25A to 44, in line with the effort to raise standards across the building control regime.

9.20 Twelve respondents (23%) preferred option 2 to replicate some or all of the exceptions mentioned above as exceptions to enforcement action through compliance notices.

9.21 It should be noted that many respondents to this chapter (38%) either answered ‘don’t know’ or did not answer at all when asked whether the exemption to enforcement action for certain regulations under regulation 47(a) of the Building Regulations 2010 should be removed.

9.22 Of those who chose option 1, 5 respondents stated that this change would raise standards across the sector and 4 respondents said that enforcement would be clearer and more consistent as a result.

9.23 Of those who chose option 2, 2 respondents commented that only life-critical safety defects should be subject to prosecution, another respondent said that the regulations referenced should be removed from exemption over time, not immediately. One respondent said that the decision on whether a regulation is exempt should be based on the seriousness of the breach and, finally, one respondent stated that building control bodies should not be immune from prosecution.

9.24 In conclusion, the preferred option was that the government should remove the current exemptions identified, subject to a wider review at a later stage.

Government response

9.25 Regarding exceptions, the government notes that a majority of respondents agreed to amend regulation 47(a) to remove the exemption on regulations concerning completion certificates, wholesome water, and testing and commissioning (25A, 27, 27A, 37, 41, 42, 43 and 44) of the Building Regulations 2010).

9.26 As such, the government intends to remove the exemption on specified regulations. This means they will be enforceable under new sections 35, 35B and 35C of the Building Act 1984.

9.27 Most existing duties on building control bodies in the building regulations have been exempted from enforcement action via section 35 of the Building Act 1984.The government intends to exempt most new building control body duties in the regulations in line with the existing exemption. This does mean that where a building control body duty is currently not exempted from enforcement action, the new duty which is similar to the existing duty will similarly not be exempt.

Dutyholder and competence requirements enforcement

Overview of policy

9.28 We proposed in the consultation that a breach of the dutyholder duties and the competence requirements will be a criminal offence, contrary to section 35 of the Building Act 1984.

9.29 For higher-risk building work, and work under a regulator’s notice such as a mixed development of higher-risk buildings and non-higher-risk buildings, enforcement of these duties will be by the Regulator as the building control authority for such buildings.

9.30 For non-higher-risk building work that is not overseen by the Regulator, we expect those undertaking inspections of building work to take a risk-based approach to the enforcement of the dutyholder and competence requirements, in a way that is proportionate to the nature and scale of the project, and the level of risks involved.

Consultation analysis

9.31 There were 52 responses to the section on more rigorous enforcement powers.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the enforcement approaches proposed for non-higher-risk buildings, similar to other contraventions under Regulation 18?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	24	46%
Disagree	15	29%
Neither agree nor disagree	7	14%
Don’t know	3	6%
Not answered	3	6%
Total	52	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Should the period for remedying the breaches of the dutyholders’ duties and competence requirements be similar to other contraventions under Regulation 18 (3 months) or shorter?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Yes	31	60%
No	9	17%
Don’t know	9	17%
Not answered	3	6%
Total	52	100

Enforcement approach

9.32 In conclusion, the preferred option was that the government should remove the current exemptions identified, subject to a wider review at a later stage.

9.33 Twenty-four (46%) respondents supported the enforcement approaches for non-higher-risk buildings, and the period for remedying breaches dutyholders’ duties and competence requirements being similar to that of other contraventions.

9.34 Fifteen respondents (29%) disagreed with the proposals. Of those who provided an explanation, comments included:

i. The ability for clients to choose their own building control body must be removed for all building work.

ii. The difficulty of inspectors judging the competence of those undertaking building work.

iii. There should be more stringent expectations/requirements of Approved Inspectors.

9.35 Many respondents identified the need for clear and unambiguous guidance, particularly in relation to dutyholder and competency requirements, and proportionate enforcement expectations. The period for remedying breaches of dutyholders’ duties and competence requirements will reflect that of other contraventions.

Time period to remedy breaches of dutyholder duties and competence

9.36 Thirty-one respondents (60%) agreed that the period for remedying the breaches of the dutyholders’ duties and competence requirements should be similar to other contraventions under Regulation 18 (3 months) or shorter.

9.37 Of the respondents who commented, there were mixed views for shorter and longer timeframes. A very small number of respondents advised that it depends on the breach and in some cases, it might be a requirement to fix it immediately and perhaps to stop work until its fixed.

Government response

9.38 The government intends to proceed with this policy, and we will amend regulation 18 of the Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2010 so it also refers to a breach of the dutyholder duties or the competence requirements. This will enable a notice of contravention to be given requiring remedial action to rectify the breach.

9.39 The Regulator will outline the requirements for building control teams, and registered building control approvers, on regulatory approaches that will support proportionate, consistent, transparent, accountable and targeted regulation on dutyholder duties.

9.40 Both private and public sector inspectors and approvers should enforce these regulations. For local authority building control we expect the approach to be reactive, which includes following observations made during site inspections undertaken by building control, the collation of evidence, referrals, reversions, and complaints from within a local authority by other colleagues such as Trading Standards. Where a dutyholder cannot demonstrate that they are meeting the dutyholder or competence requirements, local authorities can use a range of enforcement tools, from giving verbal advice, serving of a compliance notice, or ultimately prosecution under section 35 of the Building Act 1984.

9.41 Where building control supervision is carried out by registered building control approvers, we expect them ensure the dutyholder duties and the competence requirements are being met. Breaches of the dutyholders and competence requirements should be dealt with in the same way as other breaches of the building regulations. Should they not be able to secure compliance, the registered building control approvers will be expected to give notice of contraventions to the person carrying out the work, that they intend to cancel the initial notice for the building work unless the contravention of the requirement is remedied within the time provided in the notice. If contraventions are not remedied, registered building control approvers will be able to cancel the initial notice, and the work will revert back to the local authority building control for enforcement, who will have the enforcement mechanisms previously mentioned available to them.

Review of decisions and appeals

Approach to appeals and internal reviews

Overview of proposals

9.42 The Building Safety Act 2022 creates statutory routes of appeal for decisions made by the Regulator. It also creates a specialist unit within the First-tier Tribunal to rule on disputes, and transfers appeals under the Building Act 1984 from the magistrates’ court to the tribunal. The consultation sought views on these changes.

9.43 The consultation proposed setting up a specialist unit within the First-tier Tribunal. This would deal only with building safety matters, and align the appeals procedure for all building regulations appeals so that they sit with the Tribunal.

Consultation analysis

9.44 There were 52 responses to the section on more rigorous enforcement powers.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the government’s approach to appeals?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	24	46%
Disagree	10	19%
Neither agree nor disagree	13	25%
Don’t know	1	2%
Not answered	4	8%
Total	52	100

9.45 Twenty-four respondents (46%) were in favour of the proposals, with 18 respondents (35%) not knowing, not answering or remaining neutral. Some felt a specialist team with expert knowledge would be better placed to hear appeals; others thought that appeals should remain in the magistrate courts, perhaps because they did not appreciate the full powers held at tribunal. Others suggested that there should be a housing tribunal dealing with all property and housing issues.

9.46 Those who disagreed had concerns about transparency, the length of the process, and technical details around submission of evidence in the Courts.

Government response

9.47 Dame Judith Hackitt was clear that at all stages of a building’s lifecycle, through design, build, on-going occupation and any subsequent refurbishment, there should be “a clear and easy route of redress to achieve resolution in cases where there is disagreement”. The government is committed to delivering swift access to justice. We have designed the reviews and appeals process to be collaborative, fair and transparent.

9.48 The majority of respondents agreed that having a 2-stage system where applicants could seek an initial review from the Regulator was the right approach. This would allow the parties to mediate and resolve matters quickly. The second stage at the courts exists for where parties cannot resolve the issue at hand and require a hearing in the courts. There was also agreement that the tribunal service setting up an expert unit to hear building safety cases was welcome. The number of magistrates courts had greatly reduced since 1984, meaning less availability for hearings in fewer locations, and in setting up a more vigorous building control system for higher-risk buildings, a more detailed and expert approach was required. The government is addressing this by setting up a specialist court, within the First-tier Tribunal to deal with building safety matters.

9.49 The government intends to adopt all its proposals with regard to transferring appeals from magistrates courts to the tribunal, and creating higher routes of appeal to the tribunal following internal reviews by the Regulator supported by procedural guidance.

Section 101A appeals

Overview of proposals

9.50 In this section we set out government’s proposals for a new appeals route under Section 101A of the Building Act 1984. In the consultation, we proposed that when a local authority refuses to consider an application for building control approval, or an initial notice or amendment notice on the grounds that the work is, or includes, higher-risk building work, the developer can appeal this refusal on the grounds they think the building work is not higher-risk building work. The consultation sought views on the procedural requirements of this appeals route, including the timing and format of the appeals.

Consultation analysis

9.51 There were 52 responses to the section on more rigorous enforcement powers.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that applicants who wish to bring an appeal of this nature must do so within 2 weeks of the local authority’s refusal to consider their application for building control approval, an initial notice or amendment notice?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	30	58%
Disagree	8	15%
Neither agree nor disagree	4	8%
Don’t know	2	4%
Not answered	8	15%
Total	52	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree that applicants must submit the plans originally submitted to the local authority to the appeals body considering their appeal?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	38	73%
Disagree	1	2%
Neither agree nor disagree	5	10%
Don’t know	1	2%
Not answered	7	14%
Total	52	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Appeal within 2 weeks

9.52 Thirty respondents (58%) agreed with the proposal for section 101A appeals to be brought within 2 weeks. Respondents who agreed felt that a time limit would provide clarity and prevent any disputes being dragged out.

9.53 Some respondents suggested lengthening the time in which a section 101A appeal must be brought. Suggestions included 21 days, 15 days and one month.

Submitting plans to the appeals body

9.54 Thirty-eight respondents (73%) agreed with government’s proposal that applicants must resubmit their original plans to the appeals body as part of a section 101A appeal. Respondents felt this was a logical and reasonable suggestion, which would allow section 101A appeals to be properly considered.

9.55 A small number of respondents suggested that there may be other information required to allow the appeals body to properly consider section 101A appeals, and that if this occurs the appellant should be required to submit it.

Section 101A appeals body

Question: Would you like to provide any comments on who the appeals body for this appeals route should be?

9.56 There were 22 responses to this open question about who the appeals body for section 101A appeals should be.

9.57 Some respondents suggested that the appeals body should be independent and would need to have the appropriate technical expertise to consider applications.

9.58 Other suggestions included the Regulator, the First-Tier Tribunal, a panel with construction and building control expertise and a new independent panel made up of experts from the industry.

Time period for section 101A appeals to be considered

Question: Would you like to provide any comments on what the time period in which such an appeal must be brought should be?

9.59 Twenty-one respondents provided comments on the time period in which the appeals body should have to consider a section 101A appeal.

9.60 The most common suggestion for what this time period should was 21 days. Other suggestions included one day, 28 days, one month, 2 months and 3 months.

Government response

9.61 We are proposing to set out in regulations that an appeal must be brought in 28 days and considered by the appeals body in 8 weeks.

9.62 We understand the importance of ensuring that the appeals body appointed has all the relevant information needed to be able to make a decision on a section 101A appeal. Therefore, as well as requiring that the original plans and a building control application is resubmitted to the appeals body as part of a section 101A appeal, we are also allowing the appeals body to request further information from the local authority and conduct any required meeting or site visit with the appellant or local authority should they require it.

9.63 We also recognise the need to ensure that an appeals body with the appropriate expertise is appointed. We have allowed the Secretary of State the power to appoint an appeals body to consider section 101A appeals on his behalf. This provides the flexibility to ensure that the right body considers section 101A appeals on an ongoing basis.

Review of decisions and appeals

Overview of proposals

9.64 The Building Safety Act 2022 enables persons directly impacted by the Regulator’s decisions to request a review of such decisions. These decisions are prescribed in regulations and can be added or withdrawn. The Regulator can either uphold or vary the decision. The Regulator can either uphold or vary the decision.

9.65 If the person is not content with the decision reached by the review, they may then appeal this decision to the First-tier Tribunal, within a prescribed period after the conclusion of the review.

Consultation analysis

9.66 There were 52 responses to the section on more rigorous enforcement powers.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with making the decisions outlined above eligible for an internal review by the Regulator prior to being appealed to the tribunal?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	36	69%
Disagree	3	6%
Neither agree nor disagree	6	12%
Don’t know	3	6%
Not answered	4	8%
Total	52	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the reviews process outlined above? (Procedural arrangements for appeals)

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	26	50%
Disagree	13	25%
Neither agree nor disagree	4	8%
Don’t know	6	12%
Not answered	3	6%
Total	52	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the appeals process outlined above relation to reviewed decisions? (Appeals to the tribunal in relation to reviewed decision)

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	33	64%
Disagree	3	6%
Neither agree nor disagree	6	12%
Don’t know	5	10%
Not answered	5	10%
Total	52	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Eligible decisions

9.67 The majority (69%) of respondents were in favour of the proposals. Some felt the timescale was too short, while others felt it would speed up the appeals process and avoid lengthy court hearings. Others thought prescribing these decisions was appropriate to avoid unnecessarily going to the Tribunal, provided restrictions on the timeframe for undertaking this review were applied, to avoid extending the appeals process and delaying development.

The review processes

9.68 The majority of respondents (50%) agreed with the proposals for the review process.

9.69 Timescales were raised as an issue, with some respondents feeling the proposals were too short, while others felt that the process would take too long. One reply felt that a 13-week period for review (as in planning decisions) was too long, and it should be 21 days. Others felt this was reasonable given the complicated nature of higher-risk applications, but stressed that 13 weeks should not be the default, and the Regulator should try to deal with reviews more quickly than the prescribed time period. Summing up, over half of the respondents found the process to be fair and logical.

Route to further appeals

9.70 The majority (64%) of responses agreed to the appeals process and there was broad acceptance that this was the right approach, given the courts were best placed to rule on disputes, and this was standard practice.

Government response

9.71 On balance the consensus was in favour of the proposed approach to appeals, and internal reviews. This will provide the Regulator with the opportunity to review the original decision, taking into account any new information that may be available, and decide whether or not to amend or reverse their decision.

9.72 The government notes the concerns about timescales and has built in flexibility, as the regulations allow for the parties to extend time periods by agreement.

9.73 The government will monitor the practical application of the regulations and continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that the Regulator’s approach to appeals strikes the right balance between quick access to justice via an internal review, and more formal appeals in the Courts.

Section 30A applications

Overview of proposal

9.74 To provide the sector with certainty for project and financial planning, there will be statutory timescales, to which extensions can be agreed, for the Regulator to issue decisions on building control applications. The government considers that if the Regulator does not reach a decision within the statutory timescales, and an extension has not been agreed, applicants will be eligible to make a non-determinations application to the Secretary of State, or a person appointed on their behalf, under section 30A of the Building Act 1984.

9.75 This option will be available for all applications which fall under building control approval applications (including staged applications and applications for work in an existing higher-risk building), change control applications and completion or partial completion certificate applications.

Consultation analysis

9.76 There were 52 responses to the section on more rigorous enforcement powers.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed procedure for applications made under section 30A of the 1984 Act?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	32	62%
Disagree	4	8%
Neither agree nor disagree	8	15%
Don’t know	3	6%
Not answered	5	10%
Total	52	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that an application made under section 30A of the 1984 Act must be made in writing to the Secretary of State within 6 weeks (starting with the day after the expiry of the period for determining the relevant application)?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	32	62%
Disagree	3	6%
Neither agree nor disagree	9	17%
Don’t know	3	6%
Not answered	5	10%
Total	52	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed document requirements outlined in Regulation 40(3) for section 30A applications?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	31	60%
Disagree	0	0%
Neither agree nor disagree	12	23%
Don’t know	3	6%
Not answered	6	12%
Total	52	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that an applicant should notify the Regulator of their intention to make a section 30A application at least two working days before doing so?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	32	62%
Disagree	6	12%
Neither agree nor disagree	7	14%
Don’t know	2	4%
Not answered	5	10%
Total	52	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach taken on electronic submissions for section 30A applications?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	34	65%
Disagree	1	2%
Neither agree nor disagree	8	15%
Don’t know	3	6%
Not answered	6	12%
Total	52	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed process for determining a section 30A application?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	33	64%
Disagree	0	0%
Neither agree nor disagree	9	17%
Don’t know	3	6%
Not answered	7	14%
Total	52	100%

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that where the Secretary of State requires the Regulator to provide specified information, or provide copies of specified documents, the date specified in the notice for providing this must be no fewer than 14 days after the date the notice is given?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	35	67%
Disagree	1	2%
Neither agree nor disagree	7	14%
Don’t know	2	4%
Not answered	7	14%
Total	52	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach for appointing persons to determine a section 30A application?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	32	62%
Disagree	0	0%
Neither agree nor disagree	9	17%
Don’t know	4	8%
Not answered	7	14%
Total	52	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the original application should be treated as refused by the Regulator in the proposed circumstances outlined above? (if the period of 6 weeks in which an applicant can apply to the Secretary of State has transpired without a section 30A non-determinations application being made)

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	28	54%
Disagree	9	17%
Neither agree nor disagree	7	14%
Don’t know	3	6%
Not answered	5	10%
Total	52	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Procedure for applications made under section 30A of the Building Act 1984

9.77 Thirty-two respondents (62%) agreed with the proposed procedure for applications made under section 30A of the 1984 Act. Seven respondents (13%) also commented that the proposals were reasonable and straightforward.

9.78 The main concern raised by 5 respondents (10%) who either disagreed, or neither agreed nor disagreed, was around the perceived burden on the client for the additional application and the perceived unfairness that, if the issue of non-determination stems from the Regulator resource capacity, the client is penalised for something outside of their control.

Six-week timeframe to submit applications in writing to the Secretary of State

9.79 Thirty-two respondents (62%) agreed with the proposal that an application made under section 30A of the 1984 Act must be made in writing to the Secretary of State within 6 weeks (starting with the day after the expiry of the period for determining the relevant application).

9.80 It was highlighted by 2 respondents (4%) that further guidance would need to be provided on how extensions to the 6-week period might be agreed with the Secretary of State.

9.81 A small number of respondents (10%) raised questions or concerns with the proposal that Section 30A applications should be made within 6 weeks, or the application would be deemed as having been refused. Two respondents said a time limit was not needed as it is in the interests of the applicant to progress their application as a matter of urgency, while 1 suggested it could be refined over time.

Documents required under Regulations 40(3) for section 30A applications

9.82 Thirty-one respondents (60%) were in support of the proposed document requirements outlined in Regulation 40(3) for section 30A applications. There were no respondents who disagreed.

9.83 It was highlighted by 2 respondents (4%) that further information may also be needed to allow applicants to have a full understanding of the requirements.

Notifying the Regulator of intentions to make section 30A application

9.84 Thirty-two respondents (62%) supported the proposal that an applicant should notify the Regulator of their intention to make a section 30A application at least 2 working days before doing so. Four respondents also noted that this time period was reasonable and proportionate. There were no respondents who disagreed.

9.85 Two respondents (4%) thought that 2 working days was too short to have a tangible outcome for the Regulator in stopping review process, and suggested 5 working days to be more appropriate.

Electronic submission for section 30A applications

9.86 Thirty-four respondents (65%) agreed with the proposed approach taken on electronic submissions for section 30A applications. Only 1 respondent (2%) disagreed but did not give a reason. Four respondents (8%) noted that applicants are likely to have access to electronic submissions, but welcomed the possibility for exceptions.

9.87 It was highlighted by one respondent that guidance would be needed to ensure applications were made with appropriate formatting for interrogation, and by another that appropriate file sizes will need to be considered.

Process to determine section 30A applications

9.88 Thirty-three respondents (64%) agreed with the proposed process for determining a section 30A application. There were no respondents who disagreed. Six respondents (12%) noted that the proposal was fair and allowed the Secretary of State to be provided with sufficient information from both parties to enable an informed determination to be made.

9.89 The main concern raised by 6 respondents (12%), including those in agreement with the process overall, was the lack of timescale for the Section 30A decision to be made, making planning difficult and adding delays of undetermined length.

Requiring the Regulator to provide specific information

9.90 Thirty-five respondents (67%) agreed that where the Secretary of State requires the Regulator to provide specified information, or provide copies of specified documents, the date specified in the notice for providing this must be no fewer than 14 days after the date the notice is given.

9.91 Only one respondent disagreed, suggesting that in addition to the proposal, an open-ended deadline should not be created.

Secretary of State appointing a person to determine section 30A applications

9.92 Thirty-two respondents (62%) agreed with the proposed approach for appointing persons to determine a section 30A application. No respondents disagreed.

9.93 Five respondents (10%) noted that the proposal was reasonable, so long as the appointed person was independent to both the client and Regulator and had no conflicts of interest.

Deemed refusal of application

9.94 Twenty-eight respondents (54%) agreed that the original application should be treated as refused by the Regulator in the proposed circumstances. Seven respondents (13%) noted that this approach was fair and reasonable and moved away from deemed approval which carries too many risks.

9.95 The main concerns raised by 6 respondents (12%) who either disagreed, or neither agreed nor disagreed, was that the system should not be in favour of the Regulator over the client. It was suggested that deemed refusal may result in a legitimate application being rejected, causing project delays of undetermined length.

Government response

9.96 The government recognises that it is in the interest of the applicant to progress the application as soon as possible and remain of the view that 6 weeks is a reasonable and proportionate timeframe.

9.97 A few respondents highlighted that further information may also be needed to allow applicants to have a full understanding of the requirements. The government is working to develop clear guidance for the Section 30A procedure.

9.98 Some respondents welcomed that in exceptional circumstances, an applicant will be afforded the option of making an application in paper form. The government agrees and highlights the importance of allowing exceptions to make sure this policy is accessible.

9.99 Some concerns were raised regarding the lack of timescale for the Section 30A decision to be made, making planning difficult and adding delays of undetermined length. We do not intend to put a limit on the time for appeals to be decided, as this will allow the appeal body to consider all the information and request further information if needed, without being bound by time limitations. However, we expect decisions on section 30A applications to be made in good time.

9.100 The majority agreed with the proposed approach for appointing persons to determine a section 30A application. We envision that this would be an appointment to cover all section 30A cases, not on a case-by-case basis. It was clear that it was important to respondents that the appointed person is independent of both the Regulator and the applicant. The government agrees that the appointed person should have no conflict of interest.

9.101 The government has committed to implementing Dame Judith Hackitt’s recommendations in the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety. This report made clear that those who create risks must manage them and demonstrate that they are doing so effectively. Therefore, the government remains of the view that it would be inappropriate to grant deemed approval should the Regulator fail to make a decision in the timescales agreed in law.

10. Wider changes to the building regulations to align the existing system with the new system

Lapse of plans, and defining commencement of work

Overview of proposal

Lapse of building control approval and commencement of work

10.1 The Building Safety Act, amended section 32 of the Building Act 1984 changing the current provisions for lapsing plans, making it an automatic procedure rather than reliant on the Local Authority to issue a notice. The amendments to the Building Act 1984 also make lapse of plans apply to building work carried out in each building, based on whether the building, and the building work, and whether it meets the definition of commencement of building work. Meeting the definition means that the plans do not lapse and can be built to the standards that applied when the plan was deposited.

10.2 Currently the definition of commencement is in guidance and some developers interpret it to mean digging a hole on site. This approach allows developers to undertake notional building work quickly but then not build out the site until years later.

10.3 The consultation outlined the government’s proposals for commencement for various types of building work and the intention to set out a definition of commencement in secondary legislation.

Consultation analysis

10.4 There were 51 responses to the section on New Wider changes to the building regulations to align the existing system with the new system.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed definition of commencement of work in relation to new building work?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	27	53%
Disagree	16	31%
Neither agree nor disagree	7	14%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	1	2%
Total	51	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed definition of commencement of work in relation to extending existing buildings? Is it reasonable?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	28	55%
Disagree	16	31%
Neither agree nor disagree	6	12%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	1	2%
Total	51	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed definition of commencement of work in relation to replacing an external wall system? Is it reasonable?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	31	61%
Disagree	8	16%
Neither agree nor disagree	9	18%
Don’t know	2	4%
Not answered	1	2%
Total	51	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed definition of commencement of work in relation to a material change of use? Is it reasonable?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	29	57%
Disagree	12	24%
Neither agree nor disagree	7	14%
Don’t know	1	2%
Not answered	2	4%
Total	51	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Are there other types of building work in existing buildings that we should define commencement in relation to?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Yes	20	39%
No	16	31%
Don’t know	12	24%
Not answered	3	6%
Total	51	100

10.5 Twenty-seven respondents (52%) agreed with the proposed definition for new buildings and 28 respondents (55%) agreed with the proposed definition for the existing buildings definition. Of the respondents to the consultation, 61% provided detailed comments.

10.6 A key issue raised by 9 respondents (18%), was that the proposed definitions of commencement were set too far into the building process and that this would have consequential impacts on the progress of construction, such as an inability to meet the definition within the proposed 3-year timeframe for complex sites. The need for further clarity on the definition and guidance for the sector was also raised by 16% of respondents.

10.7 There were 4 respondents (8%) that expressed that the proposed definitions did not go far enough, and that the dutyholder must demonstrate continuous operation on site across the 3-year period. There were 11 respondents (22%) who also highlighted specific cases where the definitions set out in the consultation would not work in practice, such as vertical extensions and changes to the fire safety for new buildings.

10.8 For existing buildings, 18 respondents gave suggestions for ways the definition could be improved:

i. In relation to extending an existing building, commencement would be reached when foundations and drainage are in place or when full foundation and sub-structure alone is completed.

ii. In relation to the replacing an external wall system to include all cladding systems and to extend the definition to additional floors.

iii. In relation to material change of use, through ensuring that the definition requires construction or installation or the definition of commencement to be met.

Government response

10.9 The government recognises the concerns raised by industry through the consultation. We have, therefore, undertaken further engagement with building experts and we have sought to address concerns about whether the definition would work for complex building sites where significant site preparation and below ground works were needed before reaching the lowest level floor. We have amended the proposed definitions of commencement. The new definition we have developed for existing buildings is specific to different types of building work, addressing the concerns around the complexity of the definition proposed in the consultation.

10.10 The definitions of commencement will be:

i. For complex buildings, work is to be regarded as commenced when the foundations supporting the building and the structure of the lowest floor level of that building (but not the other buildings or structures to be supported by those foundations) are completed.

ii. Where the work consists of a building that is not complex, or a horizontal extension of a building, work is to be regarded as commenced when the sub-surface structure of the building or the extension including all foundations, any basement level (if any) and the structure of ground floor level is completed.

iii. Where the work consists of any other building work, work is to be regarded as commenced when 15% of the proposed work is completed.

10.11 The government believes these amended definitions will support the policy intention: preventing those that do not have the intention to commit to the building work at the time the plan was deposited to no longer be able to build out to old standards through a weak definition of commencement. The amended definition accounts for more complex builds, however, the amended definition for building work in existing buildings simplifies the approach set out in the consultation. Together these should be helpful to both developers and building control bodies.

New procedures for building control approval applications for buildings that are not higher-risk buildings

Overview of proposal

10.12 The Building Safety Act 2022 repeals section 16 (deposit of plans) of the Building Act 1984 and replaces it with a power to make building regulations which provide for applications for building control approval. Aligning with the changes under the higher-risk regime, the government proposed that applicants intending to carry out building work on a building, that is not a higher-risk building, and choosing a local authority building control body, must submit a building control approval application with full plans to the local authority prior to commencing building work. The content of the application is the same as the higher-risk regime but without the prescribed documents. The building control approval application must demonstrate how the proposed building work complies with all applicable building regulations’ requirements.

10.13 In line with existing practice, local authorities should provide an assessment of the building control approval application, as well as an approval or rejection of the application within 5 weeks, unless an extension is agreed between the local authority and the applicant and set out in writing.

10.14 We believe a timeframe of 5 weeks would be appropriate for most cases. However, by not prescribing a timeframe for extensions, local authorities and applicants will be able to adapt the approach to suit the specific project. In the consultation, we asked respondents for views on inserting a route of appeal for dutyholders, if they did not consider the timeframe for determining their specific application reasonable.

Consultation analysis

10.15 There were 51 responses to the section New Wider changes to the building regulations to align the existing system with the new system.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that there should be a route of appeal for dutyholders who consider that the timeframe for determining their application has been extended beyond what they consider to be reasonable?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	29	57%
Disagree	12	24%
Neither agree nor disagree	7	14%
Don’t know	1	2%
Not answered	2	4%
Total	51	100

10.16 Twenty-nine respondents (57%) agreed with the proposal of having a route of appeal for dutyholders who consider that the timeframe for determining their application has been extended beyond what they consider to be reasonable. 24% of responses disagreed with this proposal.

10.17 Other comments included that the route of appeal was redundant, as the application can be resubmitted after rejection and there is no time limit for this and local authorities asking for justifications that are not needed extending the appeal process.

10.18 Another respondent suggested that a new process allowing for staged submissions, or approvals with conditions, is put in place to smooth the process, or that the applications themselves could have to pass a pre-submission test, to make sure basic requirements and documents are included.

Government response

10.19 As the consensus was in favour of the proposed approach to appeals, the government will be including a route of appeal for dutyholders in relation to the timeframes for determining a building control approval application.

10.20 The person who submitted the application will be able to appeal to the Regulator, against the decision of the local authority, within 21 days of receiving the local authority’s decision. The Regulator will be able to grant an appeal on the grounds of the decision being: based on an error of fact; wrong in law; unreasonable or made without following the procedures set out in regulations. If dissatisfied with the decision of the Regulator, the applicant may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal within 21 of receiving the Regulator’s decision.

Building Regulation 2010 provisions not applicable to higher-risk buildings, or only applicable subject to amendment

Overview of proposals

10.21 The consultation outlined the government’s proposals for applying, disapplying or amending current Building Regulations 2010 to higher-risk buildings when the new regime comes into force. These changes are important to ensure current regulations are consistent with the higher-risk regime. We sought views on:

i. Amending Regulation 9 so that buildings defined in class 7 of schedule 2 of the Building Regulations 2010 and building work closely connected to a higher-risk building are no longer exempt from certain requirements of building regulations when it is applied to higher-risk building work.

ii. Amending Regulation 10 to remove the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime exemption from the procedural requirements of building regulations.

iii. Whether under Regulation 11(3) the Regulator should be able to disapply or relax energy efficiency requirements in relation to higher-risk building work.

iv. Disapplying Regulations 12 to 18, 38 to 40B in relation to higher-risk building work as they are to be replaced by separate building control procedural requirements.

v. Amending the notification requirements in Regulation 27, 27A, 27C, 37 and 41 to 44 in their application to higher-risk building work so that the required notices are submitted to the Regulator as building control authority for higher-risk buildings, rather than the local authority.

vi. Disapplying the testing and sampling powers in Regulation 45 and 46 for all building work and replacing them through the commencement of section 33 of the Building Act 1984.

Consultation analysis

10.22 There were 51 responses to the section on wider changes to the building regulations to align the existing system with the new system.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with our proposed amendments to Regulation 9 of the Building Regulations 2010 in terms of its application to higher-risk buildings?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	37	73%
Disagree	2	4%
Neither agree nor disagree	5	10%
Don’t know	4	8%
Not answered	3	6%
Total	51	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you think that the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime should be exempt from procedural requirements for higher-risk building work?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Yes	5	10%
No	34	67%
Don’t know	8	16%
Not answered	4	8%
Total	51	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the Regulator should not be able to disapply or relax energy efficiency requirements for higher-risk buildings?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	36	71%
Disagree	10	20%
Neither agree nor disagree	2	4%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	3	6%
Total	51	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that it is unnecessary to apply regulations 12-18 to higher-risk buildings as separate procedural requirements for higher-risk building work are being introduced?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	30	59%
Disagree	6	12%
Neither agree nor disagree	5	10%
Don’t know	5	10%
Not answered	5	10%
Total	51	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the notifications currently required under the above regulations should be submitted to the Regulator for higher-risk buildings, rather than local authority?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	37	73%
Disagree	3	6%
Neither agree nor disagree	3	6%
Don’t know	3	6%
Not answered	5	10%
Total	51	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that as section 33 of the Building Act 1984 is being commenced, regulations 45 and 46 should not be applied to all building work as the Regulator and local authorities will have a power under section 33 of the Building Act 1984 for testing and sampling?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	28	55%
Disagree	3	6%
Neither agree nor disagree	8	16%
Don’t know	7	14%
Not answered	5	10%
Total	51	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Regulation 9 of the Building Regulations 2010

10.23 Thirty-seven respondents (73%), agreed with the amendments considering the proposal to be reasonable for reducing potential loopholes.

10.24 While there was considerable support, both those in favour and those who did not support the proposals raised concerns about the detail underpinning the proposals and potential risks. In particular, respondents wanted to better understand the exact details of the exclusions and the types of building work that would be impacted by the proposed changes to the functional requirements of the Building Regulations 2010. Two respondents (4%) believed further evidence was required to justify a change to the exemptions provided for certain types of building classes.

10.25 Two respondents who did not support the proposals (4%) thought that the Regulator should only be concerned with life critical fire safety issues.

Government response

10.26 The government proposed to amend Regulation 9 of the Building Regulations 2010 (exempt buildings and work) in its application to higher-risk building. The proposed amendment would preclude extensions as defined in class 7 of schedule 2 from remaining exempt from some functional requirements of building regulations. We further proposed to clarify that minor building work closely connected to the higher-risk building work such as the creation of bin storage areas are not exempt in relation to higher-risk buildings.

10.27 The government recognises that the consultation document may not have provided sufficient clarity in identifying the proposed measures. Furthermore, the proposed changes go beyond implementing new procedural requirements on higher-risk building work and would have a material impact on the functional requirements of building regulations that certain building work would need to meet. As a result, we do not consider it appropriate to make the proposed changes to regulation 9 at this time, before further evidence on the proposals has been collected.

10.28 To collect further evidence in relation to these proposals, the Regulator and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will conduct a review into this issue once the higher-risk regime comes into force. We will consult further on these measures before any action is taken.

10.29 Whether building work closely connected to a higher-risk building is considered higher-risk building work that must be overseen by the Regulator is prescribed in the Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2023. See further information on the scope of the higher-risk regime.

10.30 The Regulator is the building control authority for higher-risk building work and is solely responsible for overseeing compliance with all applicable aspects of building regulations, not just fire and structure, when building work is carried out on higher-risk buildings.

Regulation 10 of the Building Regulations 2010

Consultation analysis

10.31 There was majority support (67%) for removing the exemption for the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime from the procedural requirements of the Building Regulations 2010.

10.32 Of those, the most frequent response was that there was no clear justification for the exemption and a uniform process should be applied for all buildings in scope of the higher-risk regime. Six respondents (12%) believed this approach would ensure the safety of occupants while improving consistency of how regulations apply.

10.33 Five respondents (10%) supported the exemption, arguing that the proposal was reasonable. Two respondents (4%) caveated their answer that this exemption should be on the basis the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime engage competent internal advisory mechanisms.

Government response

10.34 We agree that the continuation of the exemption is inappropriate and that a uniform process should be applied, as far as is possible, for buildings in scope of the higher-risk regime. We, therefore, propose to remove the exemption in relation to higher-risk building work to make sure that the Regulator has full accountability for regulating all higher-risk buildings within the higher-risk regime.

10.35 We have been working with the Metropolitan Police Authority and their transition to following the procedural requirements for the higher-risk regime.

Regulation 11 of the Building Regulations 2010

Consultation analysis

10.36 There was strong support for not allowing the Regulator to disapply or relax energy efficiency requirements for higher-risk building work (71%). The most common response provided by those in support of the proposals was that the energy efficiency requirements serve an important purpose and should not be relaxed for higher-risk buildings. This was considered consistent with the current approach for all buildings. Five respondents (10%) highlighted the important ethical duty all individuals and businesses have to improve energy efficiency and that this proposal is in line with wider environmental objectives.

10.37 Ten respondents disagreed with the proposal (20%). Their primary concern was whether flexibility may be necessary in some circumstances, such as where meeting energy efficiency requirements may be in conflict with other building regulation requirements. In the view of 5 respondents (10%) there may be clear justification for the Regulator to relax the energy efficiency requirements when the higher-risk regime comes into force.

Government response

10.38 For new higher-risk building work, we do not consider it necessary to set out a different approach for higher-risk buildings, with regard to relaxing energy efficiency requirements. Current energy efficiency requirements should not be in conflict with other building regulations requirements. We consider that enabling the Regulator to dispense with these requirements regarding new higher-risk building work is counterproductive in relation to improving the energy efficiency of the UK’s built environment.

10.39 Under the transitional provisions for the higher-risk regime, however, some work may be transferred from private sector building control to the Regulator following an initial notice ceasing to be in effect. In this scenario, uplifts to functional requirements such as recent changes to building regulations Part L that came into force on 15 June 2022, may be imposed on the building work regardless of whether work has met the conditions under the transitional provisions for the higher-risk regime. In these specific circumstances we consider it to be proportionate for the Regulator to have the opportunity to relax energy efficiency requirements. We expect this power to only be deployed where meeting the new requirements would be unviable for the continuation of higher-risk building work transferred from private sector building control to the Regulator.

Regulation 12 to 18 and 38 to 40 of the Building Regulations 2010

Consultation analysis

10.40 Thirty respondents (59%) agreed with this proposal. The primary response given by those in support was that the proposals were reasonable and would avoid duplication.

10.41 Seven respondents (14%) were concerned that the regulations being disapplied would not be sufficiently covered by the new building control procedural requirements, particularly with regard to Regulations 38, 39, 40, 40A and 40B.

Government response

10.42 The purpose of the new building control regime for higher-risk building work is to strengthen the procedural requirements before, during and on completion of higher-risk building work. These are new procedures dutyholders will need to follow when carrying out higher-risk building work and are intended to replace, in full, the current building control process for buildings overseen by private sector building control or local authorities.

10.43 Regulations 38-40B are comprehensively covered in the new requirements for the creation, maintenance and handover of golden thread information that will be set-out clearly in secondary legislation. We, therefore, intend to remove the duplication and replace these requirements with the new building control procedure for higher-risk buildings.

Notifying the Regulator under the Building Regulations 2010

Consultation analysis

10.44 Thirty-seven respondents (73%) agreed the notifications under Regulation 27, 27A, 27C, 37, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of the Building Regulations 2010 should be submitted to the Regulator when the work is higher-risk building work. Respondents considered the approach to be sensible and should avoid any duplication as the Regulator will be the building control authority for higher-risk buildings.

10.45 Three respondents (6%) were unclear as to whether the notifications that will be shared with the Regulator will be for higher-risk buildings or all buildings. These respondents were keen for the local authority to continue to receive these notifications.

Government response

10.46 The issuing of the notices under the Building Regulations 2010 will be crucial for making sure the Regulator can properly oversee higher-risk building work and grant completion certificate applications.

10.47 To clarify what notifications the Regulator will receive, the Regulator will only receive notifications related to higher-risk building work as the building control authority for this work, or work under a Regulator’s notice.

10.48 In addition, we intend to place a duty on the Regulator to make sure that all building control information for higher-risk building work, relevant for local authority searches they collect as the building control authority, must be shared with the relevant local authority. This duty is necessary to make sure conveyancing searches can continue unaffected once the higher-risk regime comes into force.

Regulations 45 and 46 of the Building Regulations 2010

Consultation analysis

10.49 Twenty-eight respondents (55%) agreed that this approach was logical and avoided duplication in regulations, while achieving the same purpose. One respondent who agreed with the proposals, supported their response by requesting further clarification on how the transitional arrangements will work for sites already commenced and whether sites already commenced fall under the revoked regulations or section 33 of the Building Act 1984.

10.50 Three respondents were against this proposal (6%), recommending that the existing regulations remain as well as the commencement of section 33 to ensure the intent behind the changes is not lost in the transition to the higher-risk regime.

Government response

10.51 These proposals have been developed in collaboration with the Regulator and we have sought the views of industry and building control experts to make sure the new procedures capture the necessary requirements of the existing regime, and go further to support building control authorities to robustly inspect building work.

10.52 We consider the powers in section 33 of the Building Act 1984 to go further than Regulation 45 and 46 of the Building Regulations 2010, as they enable building control authorities to require the owner or occupier of a building to carry out those tests or take samples, with the expense being met by that person.

10.53 Regarding how the transitional arrangements for this regulation will apply to building work that has already commenced, further information on the transitional arrangements can be found in chapter 11 (Transitional provisions to higher-risk buildings). Section 33 of the Building Act 1984 will apply to all higher-risk building work when the higher-risk regime comes into force.

10.54 Concern was raised about how enacting section 33 would impact Regulation 8(1) of The Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2010. Private sector building control do not have formal powers to require tests to be undertaken, just as they do not have formal enforcement powers, but can undertake tests if needed to enable them to discharge their functions to check compliance under Regulation 8. We do not consider it necessary to make changes to Regulation 8(1): if an approved inspector considers tests are needed and dutyholders refuse, the approved inspector has the power to cancel an initial notice so that responsibility reverts to the applicable building control authority, which could take formal enforcement action if necessary.

11. Transitional provisions for higher-risk buildings

The transitional provisions, applying the transitional provisions to individual buildings and Local Authority notifications

Overview of proposal

11.1 In the consultation we outlined the approach we intend to take to transition certain building work notified to a building control body ahead of the new regime coming into force, over to the Regulator. The consultation outlined our intention to apply the new definition of the commencement of work to the transitional provisions. This included proposing a 6-month period, from the day the regime comes into force, for developers that already have building control approval to meet the definition of commencement and enable them to continue under their current building control process.

11.2 In line with the Building Safety Act, we proposed that the transitional arrangements should apply to individual buildings in scope of the higher-risk regime to prevent dutyholders from being able to commence work on one building on a multi-building site and then benefit from the transitional arrangements for all buildings on the site.

11.3 We outlined the process and procedures that existing building control bodies would have to follow, when building work had not been commenced, to notify the Regulator and ensure the smooth transition of building work over to the Regulator.

11.4 In addition, we recently consulted separately on a further condition of the transitional arrangements. In the consultation for changes to the building control profession and the building control process for approved inspectors we proposed that, where the building work is subject to an initial notice, the approved inspector overseeing that project must register as a building control approver by day one of the new Registered Building Control Approver regime (day 1 of that regime will align with the end of the 6-month transitional period).

Consultation analysis

11.5 There were 49 responses to the section on transitional provisions for higher-risk buildings

Question: Do you agree or disagree we should apply the same definition of commencement to the transitional arrangements for regulations covering higher risk buildings?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	26	53%
Disagree	15	31%
Neither agree nor disagree	6	12%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	2	4%
Total	49	100

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal for transitional provisions to only apply to individual buildings as opposed to multi-site projects?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	33	67%
Disagree	10	20%
Neither agree nor disagree	4	8%
Don’t know	0	0%
Not answered	2	4%
Total	49	100

*The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed transitional provisions?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	27	55%
Disagree	15	31%
Neither agree nor disagree	3	6%
Don’t know	2	4%
Not answered	2	4%
Total	49	100

Question: Do you consider there to be any potential challenges with requiring local authorities and approved inspectors (registered building control approvers) to notify the Regulator when building work has not commenced after the transitional period lapses?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Yes	14	29%
No	15	31%
Don’t know	13	27%
Not answered	7	14%
Total	49	100

• The total percentage is not 100% due to rounding. Applying the definition of commencement to transitional arrangements

11.6 Twenty-six respondents (53%) agreed with applying the new definition of the commencement of works, proposed in the consultation in relation to the lapse of building control approval, to the transitional arrangements for higher-risk buildings. Respondents with this view considered the application of the definition important to reduce developers circumventing the process, as well as the benefit of providing greater clarity and consistency in how the requirements related to the commencement of works are applied across the sector.

11.7 Fifteen (31%) respondents disagreed, and 8 respondents (16%) considered the definition to be inappropriate for large, complex developments, where it may take many months or even years for the definition to be satisfied. Respondents were particularly concerned about the cumulative impact on industry of a 6-month transitional period, new definition of commencement and the application to individual buildings. The proposal was considered to be a potentially unviable definition for some projects, increasing the risk of retrospective impact resulting from changes to the regulations and rules dutyholders will be required to follow.

11.8 It was suggested by 3 respondents (6%) that the transitional arrangements should include different definitions of start on site for podium developments and complex sites e.g., commencement of the sub-structure of a building up to an including the foundations.

Applying the transitional provisions to individual buildings

11.9 Thirty-three respondents (67%) agreed with applying the transitional provisions to individual higher-risk buildings, considering the proposal fair, proportionate and in line with improving culture change within the construction industry.

11.10 Ten respondents (20%) disagreed with the proposals, primarily on the grounds the cumulative impact of the proposal and the new definition of the commencement of work could create an adverse impact on projects which include higher-risk building work, causing delays and financial implications. Similarly, 5 respondents (10%) raised concerns that the impact would be particularly acute for higher-risk buildings as they are often procured as a full multi-site project.

The proposed transitional provisions

11.11 Twenty-seven respondents (55%) supported the approach. Respondents, highlighted the importance of limiting the number of buildings that continue to be built out under the current building control regime. Six respondents (12%) noted that the 6-month period for commencing work appeared sufficient and that there had been sufficient notice of the higher-risk regime for the construction sector to prepare themselves for changes to building regulations.

11.12 Fifteen respondents (31%), however, disagreed with the 6-month period and the application of the new definition of commencement applying together for transitional purposes. Respondents with this view were concerned that the impact of the arrangements would mean many buildings would be unnecessarily transferred to the Regulator. Seven respondents (14%) were concerned that the transfer process would cause disruption to building work already underway and unnecessarily delay projects.

11.13 Six respondents (12%) highlighted concerns around the enforcement of requirements for higher-risk buildings once transferred to the Regulator. It was noted by some respondents that there could be a risk of the Regulator taking a different view to an acceptance of a previously agreed compliance solution, which could unnecessarily stifle construction projects.

Building control body notifying the Regulator

11.14 Respondents had mixed views on whether there would be challenges in requiring that building control bodies inform the Regulator when work has not commenced. Of the 15 respondents (31%) that argued that there shouldn’t be any challenges, the most frequent reasons given were that building control bodies should be able to track timescales and report on schemes where timescales have elapsed.

11.15 Of those 14 respondents (29%) who thought there would be some challenges, the most common challenges related to the potential additional resource and monetary cost associated with fulfilling this requirement, and whether building control bodies have the skills and operational capacity available. One respondent (2%) recommended that the obligation to notify should be solely on the client, rather than the local authority or approved inspector.

Government response

Applying the definition of commencement to transitional arrangements

11.16 The government recognises the concerns raised by the industry and the importance of applying a definition that is viable for developers to comply with. As a result, we have worked with the industry to modify the amount of work that must have taken place on site in order to benefit from the transitional arrangements for higher-risk buildings. Further, we intend to make a distinction between the construction of a new higher-risk building and building work to an existing higher-risk building.

11.17 For the construction of a new-build higher-risk building, we intend to require developers to have completed a reasonable amount of work on site to benefit from the transitional arrangements. For this type of higher-risk building work, an initial notice must be given to a local authority (and not be rejected), or full plans must be deposited with a local authority (and not be rejected) before the day the new regime comes into force and work must be ‘sufficiently progressed’ within 6 months of the new regime coming into force.

11.18 We intend to define sufficiently progressed in regulation by building upon the current definition of commencement set out by the department in Circular letters.

11.19 Where the building work consists of the construction of a higher-risk building the building work is sufficiently progressed when the placement of permanent foundations has started. This means the pouring of concrete for the permanent placement of the trench, pad or raft foundations or the permanent placement of piling has begun.

11.20 For building work to an existing higher-risk building, a material change of use or a conversion of a non-higher-risk building to a higher-risk building, there will be a different requirement to reflect the importance of ensuring a straightforward transition to the higher-risk regime. To benefit from the transitional arrangements, an initial notice must be given to a local authority (and not be rejected), or full plans must be deposited with a local authority (and not be rejected) before the day the new regime comes into force and work must have started on site within 6 months.

11.21 We consider the modified approach constitutes a meaningful commitment to carrying out the proposed building work while ensuring the requirements are viable for the majority of projects to meet within 6 months of the new regime coming into force.

Applying the transitional provisions to individual buildings

11.22 There was strong support to apply the transitional provisions to individual buildings. In keeping with changes made through the Building Safety Act 2022, we intend for the transitional provisions to apply to individual buildings in scope of the higher-risk regime that commence within the 6-month transitional period. This approach will prevent dutyholders from being able to sufficiently progress work on 1 building on a multi-building site and then claim the benefit of transitional arrangements for all buildings on that site.

11.23 Regarding the potential impacts on project procurement, we appreciate that the splitting up of multi-building sites into higher-risk buildings that have and that have not sufficiently progressed the work, may result in additional time and resource being expended. We find it untenable, however, for buildings on a multi-building site that have not sufficiently progressed to be built out several years into the future to regulatory standards that are significantly out-of-date. Furthermore, we do not consider procurement methodologies to inhibit higher-risk building work on multi-site projects from being transferred to the jurisdiction of the Regulator.

11.24 We recognise that in applying the provisions to individual buildings it is necessary for dutyholders and building control bodies to have clarity on the definition of a higher-risk building. See guidance on the scope of the higher-risk regime, published by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. This guidance will support industry in clarifying the definition of a higher-risk building and how it applies in practice. Further operational guidance will be forthcoming on the transitional provisions and how specific requirements like the definition of commencement should be met in practice.

The process and procedure for the transitional arrangements

11.25 To make sure the transitional provisions are robust but proportionate for developers, we intend to put in place a 6-month transitional period for a developer to sufficiently progress work in order to benefit from the transitional provisions. Six months is an appropriate period in combination with the proposed changes to the amount of work that must have occurred in order to benefit from the transitional arrangements. Significant forewarning of the higher-risk regime has been provided and we expect the sector to have begun preparations for the new requirements, including factoring in potential new requirements that may be imposed on new projects. We know many developers are already talking to the Regulator about their schemes.

11.26 Where new build higher-risk building work has sufficiently progressed, the building work will not be subject to the requirements of the higher-risk regime and can continue under the existing regime and be overseen by the relevant local authority or private sector building control.

11.27 Where the building work is subject to an initial notice, the approved inspector overseeing the project must register as a building control approver by day one of the registered building control approver regime. An approved inspector that does not register by the end of the 6-month period will not be able to continue to oversee existing higher-risk building work. You can find further information in the government’s response to the consultation for changes to the building control profession and the building control process for approved inspectors.

11.28 Where new building higher-risk building work has not sufficiently progressed or the approved inspector has not registered, the building work will transfer from their building control body under the current regime to the jurisdiction of the Regulator and will be subject to the higher-risk regime. The exact requirements higher-risk building work will need to follow will depend on whether the building work was previously overseen by private sector building control or a local authority. A factsheet covering the detailed process for the transitional arrangements is in Annex B to this response.

11.29 We consider the transitional arrangements to be proportionate in that the rules building work must follow is dependent on whether building work has sufficiently progressed. The process for building work that is required to transfer to the Regulator should enable transfers to take place in a manner that is operationally viable for both the Regulator and those involved in the commissioning, design and construction of building work, regardless of whether the building work was previously overseen by an approved inspector or local authority.

11.30 Concern was raised on the cumulative impacts of these changes on the time and cost to complete higher-risk building work. We have listened to respondents by ensuring greater proportionality in the amount of work that must be completed to benefit from the transitional arrangements. While this approach, including the changes we have set out, is more stringent than previous transitional arrangements, we consider it necessary in order to move to the higher-risk regime in a quick and effective manner to ensure building safety.

11.31 While the Regulator will have enforcement powers in relation to higher-risk building work that has transferred to its jurisdiction, the transfer is not a mechanism to fundamentally challenge building work that is being carried out in accordance with approved plans.

11.32 The Regulator will work closely with other regulators and will act proportionately, particularly in the first few weeks of projects being transferred to their oversight. We recognise that a number of new requirements will be placed upon developers that have finished the design phase of their build and the Regulator will be resourced and prepared to support dutyholders to make this transition and to meet the new requirements of the building control regime for higher-risk buildings.

11.33 To support industry further, the Regulator will be providing operational guidance to facilitate the transition ahead of the higher-risk regime coming into force, this will provide further detail for industry on how the transitional provisions will operate in practice.

Building control body notifying the Regulator

11.34 While we appreciate the option to require a notification from building control bodies when work has not sufficiently progressed results in an additional task being imposed on current building control bodies, we consider it to be essential to ensure a seamless transfer of higher-risk building work to the Regulator.

11.35 We recognise that some respondents were concerned about the resource and monetary cost associated with the building control body undertaking the process of checking whether commencement has been met. This process is not designed to be resource-intensive, the requirement of a notice from the person carrying out the work once work has been sufficiently progressed, will enable building control bodies to have an indication on the progress of work and to identify and triage work that is likely to transfer to the Regulator.

11.36 Some respondents suggested that the obligation to notify should be solely on the client rather than the local authority or approved inspector. We do not consider this an appropriate option, as it would remove the local authority or approved inspector from their role as the building control body and would reduce the opportunity for engagement between them and the Regulator.

11.37 We recognise that there may be scenarios where there is a change to the scope of work carried out after contracts and building control approval has been agreed, but we do not consider this to be a valid reason for a local authority or private sector building control being unable to notify the Regulator of higher-risk building work that has not sufficiently progressed before the end of the 6-month period.

11.38 To ensure a straightforward transfer from current building control bodies to the Regulator clear notification mechanisms are essential to begin the engagement process between all interested parties and to make sure all involved are aware of their roles and responsibilities. We consider this approach to enable effective engagement, while recognising the resource implications on local authorities.

12. Equalities assessment

Overview of proposal

12.1 In this section, we sought views on the potential impacts our proposals may have on people sharing protected characteristics. It was an open question that enabled respondents to identify any potential impacts the proposed higher-risk regime could have on these groups.

Consultation analysis

Question: What do you consider to be the equalities impact on individuals with protected characteristics of any of the policy proposals to be included in the regulations? Please give reasons and any evidence that you consider relevant.

12.2 There were 15 responses to this question and a wide range of views were provided.

12.3 Four respondents did not consider there to be any significant adverse impact of the proposals on groups of people with protected characteristics (27%). Respondents with this view considered the proposals to positively affect the safety of groups sharing protected characteristics and that they supported a culture of change within the construction industry.

12.4 Eight respondents (53%) provided some comments around the impact on individuals with protected characteristics. Six respondents (40%) made comments about addressing the needs of disabled people that live in higher-risk buildings, making reference to the emergency evacuation of disabled people, including raising concerns about the use of Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans and recommending the retrofitting of sprinklers in high-rise residential buildings over 18 metres or at least 7 storeys that are served by a single staircase.

12.5 In addition, there was a concern that designing a building using an approved guidance document may not meet the requirements of safety for the in-occupation stage of the new regime, particularly with regard to ensuring the design is appropriate for occupiers of buildings that share protected characteristics.

12.6 The question was also asked about whether people sharing protected characteristics would be able to understand the processes and requirements being introduced, particularly, when they applied to residents or users of higher-risk buildings.

Government response

12.7 We welcome the comments from respondents on the proposed impact of the proposals on individuals sharing protected characteristics.

12.8 We consider that those most impacted by the higher-risk regime will include local regulators and enforcement bodies, those involved in the commissioning, design and construction of higher-risk building work and residents, owners, landlords and management companies in-scope of the new regime, particularly where building work is carried out in an existing higher-risk building.

12.9 There is limited data available on the makeup of local regulators, enforcement bodies, and those involved in the commissioning, design and construction of higher-risk building work, and there is no data with regard to those sharing protected characteristics within these groups. We have, however, engaged extensively with a wide range of stakeholders on the detailed requirements of the higher-risk regime and sought feedback as through this consultation.

12.10 We have assessed data from the English Housing Survey 2021 – 2022, to support us in understanding potential impacts on residents currently living in high-rise residential buildings, as this group will be impacted by the reforms we are introducing. This survey has identified that certain groups are more likely to live in high-rise residential buildings than others, as social rented is the most common tenure in high-rise flats. The provisions we are bringing forward, could, therefore, impact on some groups sharing the protected characteristics of disability, race and age as these groups are over-represented in the social rented sector when compared with other housing tenures.

12.11 The higher-risk regime will apply to care homes and hospitals during the design and construction phase. There is limited data available on the end-users of high-rise care homes and hospitals and the local regulators, enforcement bodies and those involved in their design and construction. However, we would expect these buildings to have a high prevalence of users with the protected characteristics of age, disability and being pregnant given their use profiles.

12.12 The purpose of these regulations is to strengthen the procedural requirements before, during and on completion of higher-risk building work and replace, in full, the current building control process. This includes building work in existing higher-risk buildings, where the duty of an accountable person for the occupied building is to take all reasonable steps to manage building safety risks on an ongoing basis. In managing the safety of their building the accountable person should consider the characteristics of the residents within the building and ensure their management arrangements are proportionate.

12.13 Together, these changes should support people sharing protected characteristics, whether current or future residents, to be safer, and to feel safer, in their homes, including when building work is undertaken in the higher-risk building in which they reside. As a result, the overall impact of these regulations is expected to be positive.

12.14 We acknowledge the concerns raised by some respondents about accessibility and whether individuals sharing protected characteristics would be able to understand and engage with the higher-risk regime. For those carrying out higher-risk building work, including building work in an existing higher-risk building, the procedural requirements outlined in this consultation will need to be followed. However, these proposals have been designed to be accessible to individuals that share certain protected characteristics.

12.15 We are encouraging applications and notifications to be submitted electronically via a digital system to support the creation of the golden thread. We firmly expect that for the majority of dutyholders engaging with the new procedures and requirements will be accustomed to a digital approach. Nonetheless, the Regulator, as the building control authority for higher-risk buildings, will have the discretion to accept notifications that are submitted in a different way and paper copies of notices can be requested by applicants. The Regulator, is committed to ensuring all its operational systems take into account the diverse needs, requirements and preferences of its users. In addition, the Regulator, as the building control authority for these buildings, will be bound by the Regulators’ Code and must ensure clear information, guidance and advice is available to help those they regulate meet their responsibilities to comply, including publishing guidance and information in a clear, accessible, concise format, using media appropriate to the target audience and written in plain language.

12.16 Dutyholders will be required to create and maintain a golden thread of information. The golden thread covers the information management steps needed to ensure the information is and remains accurate and up to date, easily understandable and can be accessed by those who need it. While there may be residents in a higher-risk building where work is undertaken, residents should not be directly impacted by the requirements to keep the golden thread up to date and accessible as they will be able to send any documentation to the accountable person for inclusion the golden thread. Any impacts should therefore be minor. Residents will be able to request information from the golden thread, and this includes information provided by dutyholders during building work to an existing higher-risk building. Furthermore, if a resident of a higher-risk building carries out building work and is only able to submit paper copies of applications and notices, the golden thread of information will not be compromised. It is for the accountable person / principal accountable person as referenced in the consultation on the new safety regime for occupied higher-risk buildings to ensure the golden thread information is updated.

12.17 Some respondents raised specific concerns with regard to the evacuation of disabled people from high-rise buildings. The government accepted, in principle, all the recommendations in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 report, and we continue to work with counterparts across government to ensure we implement these recommendations, particularly the recommendation to implement personal emergency evacuation plans for disabled residents.

12.18 Some respondents raised their concern about the suitability of Approved Document B regarding the in-occupation stage of the higher-risk regime for those with protected characteristics, such as the provision of evacuation facilities by design. In line with this, they recommended a review of Approved Document B.

12.19 In April 2022, we published a workplan for a technical review of the fire safety guidance in Approved Document B and announced the intention to commission research to inform options for updating the guidance. The Department is reviewing research outputs and have commissioned several workstreams under the technical review. This includes research into whether the relevant provisions in ADB are fit for purpose, grounded in realistic expectation of management and building use, recognise up to date evidence and are effective in meeting the minimum requirements under Schedule 1 Part B1 of the Building Regulations 2010. Further details can be found in the Technical review of Approved Document B: 2022 progress update.

12.20 Respondents also recommended the retrofitting of sprinklers for higher-risk buildings served by a single staircase. In 2020, the government introduced changes to Approved Document B to lower the threshold for provision of sprinkler systems in new blocks of flats from 30m to 11m. The department continues to keep the evidence for the effectiveness of sprinklers under consideration. Sprinklers are recognised to be an effective means of controlling fire, but they are only one of a range of measures which make a building safe. Building owners already have a clear obligation to make sure that existing residential buildings have the appropriate fire safety in place. Some owners may retrofit sprinklers as part of their overall fire strategy, while others may choose alternative measures. Retrofitting sprinklers is not always the right option and other fire safety measures could be taken instead, which may be more appropriate for an individual building.

12.21 We will continue to monitor and assess the impacts on people sharing protected characteristics as we further develop the proposals and the regulations themselves.

Summary

1. We are grateful to all respondents for taking the time to submit responses to this consultation. All responses have been carefully considered and taken into account in the development of the regulations and this document.

2. In light of the comments received, and in consultation with the Regulator, policies have been amended as described in this response to ensure that the new regime delivers its safety aims in a proportionate manner.

3. The regulations will be subject to the negative parliamentary procedure. If approved by Parliament, the regulations will be made and come into force later in 2023.

Annex A: Tables of analysis

The department received a number of emails with general concerns where these are not included in the numbers, but they have been assessed in the consultation.

Some respondents were representing the views of their members and we have analysed them accordingly.

Table 1: Total number of respondents

	Organisation	Individual or N/A	Total
Respondents	154	6	160

Table 2: Number of consultation respondents per section

Consultation Response Sections	Total number of respondents answering at least 1 question within the module	Total number of respondents responding to at least half of the module questions	Total number of respondents responding to all module questions
Ch 1) New dutyholder roles and responsibilities in the building regulations	122	110	27
Ch 2) A series of robust hard stops (‘gateway points’)	80	62	12
Ch 3) Regulators Notices	47	46	14
Ch 4) Building work carried out in existing higher-risk buildings (refurbishments)	48	45	8
Ch 5) A stronger change control process for higher-risk buildings	62	52	6
Ch 6) Regularisation	49	49	27
Ch 7) Golden thread of information	65	54	9
Ch 8) Mandatory occurrence reporting	52	48	21
Ch 9) More rigorous enforcement powers.	52	47	7
Ch 10) Wider changes to the building regulations to align the existing system with the new system	51	48	6
Ch 11) Transitional provisions for higher-risk buildings	49	48	16
Ch 12) Equalities assessment	18	18	13

Annex B: Transitional arrangements factsheet

Transitional arrangements for the higher-risk regime: factsheet

What are we going to do?

1. Following the Grenfell Tower fire, Dame Judith Hackitt proposed significant reform to the way building work is carried out and how it is regulated, including for higher-risk buildings. Part 3 of the Building Safety Act 2022 made changes to the Building Act 1984 to deliver these reforms.

2. Part 3 introduces a more stringent regulatory framework in design and construction led by the Building Safety Regulator (the Regulator) for higher-risk buildings. The higher-risk regime will strengthen regulatory oversight before building work commences, throughout construction including before major changes are made, and before a building is occupied.

3. The Building (Higher-Risk Building Procedures) Regulations 2023 provides the technical and administrative detail underpinning the higher-risk regime and will support its implementation. The regulations will come into force on 1 October 2023.

4. After a change to the building regulations, it is common practice to provide a transitional period – normally somewhere between 2 and twelve months. Under transitional arrangements, those that have already notified a building control body of their plans are allowed to continue under the old rules provided they have met certain conditions such as commencing building work on site. This provides clarity and reduces the risk of developers being adversely impacted by changes to requirements part way through the construction process.

5. When the Building (Higher-Risk Building Procedures) Regulations 2023 come into force on 1 October 2023, the transitional arrangements will determine the rules and procedures that building work in-scope of the higher-risk regime will need to follow if they have already notified a building control body of their plans (‘in-flight’ building work).

6. The transitional provisions included in the regulations will determine the rules and procedures ‘in-flight’ higher-risk building work will need to follow. If developers meet the conditions under the transitional arrangements, they will be able to build out their higher-risk building work to current rules using their current building control body.

7. These transitional arrangements are different to previous provisions that have accompanied changes to building regulations because they are accommodating a change to the procedural requirements of building regulations and a change to the body responsible for overseeing the building work.

8. There will be transitional arrangements for non-higher-risk buildings, after plans have been accepted that building work must start on site. If an application has not been submitted or work has not started on site within 6 months, a new building control approval application must be made and the new procedures and requirements will apply.

9. There will be separate transitional arrangements for the legacy system of approved inspectors into the new system of registered building control approvers. By 6 April 2024, the building control profession will become a registered profession. The transitional provisions for the higher-risk regime will align to these to ensure the timeframes are consistent.

What are the transitional provisions for the higher-risk regime?

How do I benefit from the transitional arrangements?

10. For transitional arrangements to apply to higher-risk building work, 2 conditions must be met:

A. An initial notice must have been given to a local authority (and not be rejected), or full plans must have been deposited with a local authority (and not be rejected) before the day the new regime comes into force (1 October 2023).

B. The higher-risk building work must be ‘sufficiently progressed’ within 6 months of the new regime coming into force (by 6 April 2024).

11. If the 2 above conditions are met, those carrying out the work would not be subject to the higher-risk regime for that individual higher-risk building. They would instead continue under a local authority or private sector building control.

12. Where building work fails to meet the first condition, the work is subject to the higher-risk regime immediately on 1 October 2023 and will be overseen by the Regulator.

13. Where the first condition has been met, but the second condition has not, the building work will transfer to the jurisdiction of the Regulator. The route of transfer and the higher-risk regime requirements applied will differ dependent on whether the building work was previously overseen by the local authority or private sector building control.

14. Separately the building control profession will become a registered profession on 6 April 2024. Higher-risk building work must be overseen by a registered building control approver at this point. Approved inspectors must be registered by 6 April 2024 to continue to oversee existing higher-risk building work.

15. If the in-flight building work is subject to an initial notice, the approved inspector overseeing the project must have registered by 6 April 2024 for the project to continue to benefit from the transitional arrangements and remain under private sector building control.

16. An initial notice may be cancelled at any point after 1 October 2023. Where an initial notice is cancelled after 1 October, the in-scope building work is subject to the higher-risk regime and must be overseen by the Regulator. The requirements of the higher-risk regime will be proportionately applied depending on whether the work covered by a cancelled or lapsed initial notice has sufficiently progressed or not.

What does ‘sufficiently progressed’ mean?

17. For the construction of a higher-risk building, the building work is sufficiently progressed when the placement of permanent foundations has started. This means the pouring of concrete for the permanent placement of the trench, pad or raft foundations or the permanent placement of piling has begun.

18. For building work to an existing higher-risk building or a material change of use, the building work is sufficiently progressed when the work has started.

19. To benefit from the transitional provisions, building work must satisfy the definition of sufficiently progressed before 6 April 2024. The person carrying out the work must notify the local authority no less than 5 days after the point the work is considered to be sufficiently progressed and before 6 April 2024. If the building control body is private sector building control the notice must also be copied to the approved inspector. This ensures that the relevant building control body is aware whether the conditions of the transitional provisions have been met.

Why do projects only have 6 months to ensure work is sufficiently progressed?

20. Six months is an appropriate period in relation to the required amount of work that must have been completed to be deemed sufficiently progressed. The government has worked with industry to ensure the definition of sufficiently progressed is proportionate while representing a physical commitment to carrying out building work.

Are the transitional provisions applied to individual buildings?

21. Yes. In line with the Building Safety Act 2022 and recent uplifts to building regulations, work must have ‘sufficiently progressed’ on each individual higher-risk building to benefit from the transitional arrangements, rather than an entire construction site.

What happens if I meet the conditions of the transitional arrangements?

22. If the conditions of the transitional arrangements are met, the building work will not be subject to the higher-risk regime and will continue to be supervised by local authority building control or private sector building control.

23. On completion, the building work will be granted a completion certificate from a local authority or a final certificate from an approved inspector or registered building control approver. The certificate will satisfy the requirement for an accountable person to be in possession of a completion certificate before a higher-risk building can be lawfully occupied.

24. The building will be subject to all in-occupation requirements brought forward under part 4 of the Building Safety Act 2022. See further information about the in-occupation requirements.

What requirements will be applied to building work transferred to the Building Safety Regulator?

What happens if I do not deposit my plans or give my initial notice to the local authority by 1 October 2023?

25. The building work will be subject to the higher-risk regime on 1 October 2023. Before building work begins an application for building control approval must be approved by the Building Safety Regulator.

My in-flight building work is being overseen by the local authority, what happens if work hasn’t sufficiently progressed by 6 April 2024?

26. Where someone intending to carry out work has deposited full plans with a local authority before 1 October 2023 and the building work is not sufficiently progressed by 6 April 2024, the building work will transfer to the jurisdiction of the Building Safety Regulator. To ensure the transfer can take place as seamlessly as possible, the following process will take place:

• The local authority will be required to notify the Regulator by 6 March 2024 that they are overseeing higher-risk building work yet to have sufficiently progressed. This notice will include details of the building, a description of the building work and an outline of the work undertaken including any inspections. The local authority, the developer and the Regulator will begin to engage during the 28-day period to facilitate the transition.
• When the 6-month period ends on 6 April 2024, if the project has still not sufficiently progressed it will transfer to the jurisdiction of the Regulator on this date and the new regulations for higher-risk buildings will be applied.
• Within 4 weeks of transferring to the jurisdiction of the Regulator, the client of the project will send across a notice to the Regulator which includes all relevant information on the higher-risk building work. The notice must include the contact details of the client and principal dutyholders, the full plans approved by the local authority with any conditions, any changes to the full plans since they were approved and a description of the building work carried out to date, including any inspections.

27. When transferring to the Regulator, the person carrying out the work will not be required to submit an application for building control approval at gateway 2. Dutyholders may continue to build-out to the plans approved by the local authority. However, the Regulator on receipt of the notice may require further information on the project and may enforce against any non-compliance identified.

28. The dutyholders of transferred building work will be subject to all requirements of the higher-risk regime, excluding the requirements related to building control approval applications. A building control approval application will not be submitted and approved before building work begins and therefore, some requirements of the higher-risk regime are modified.

29. The statutory change control process will apply and all controlled changes will need to be recorded in the change control log. However, a controlled change must be in the context of the original full plans application deposited with the local authority before the higher-risk regime came into force. Some changes outlined in the categories of major and notifiable changes include changes to the prescribed documents. The change control requirements related to changes that are linked intrinsically to the prescribed documents will not be applied. With regard to major changes, a change to any assumption made in the design of a proposed higher-risk building before all the work is completed, and a change proposing occupation of any part of the proposed higher-risk building before all the work is completed, are both excluded for work in these cases. With regard to notifiable changes, a change to the construction control plan other than a change to the schedule of appointments contained within it, and a change to the change control plan are both excluded for work in these cases.

30. Mandatory occurrence reporting requirements will apply and safety occurrences which meet the risk condition must be reported to the Regulator within ten calendar days of becoming aware of the occurrence. However, a short time period will be established to support dutyholders in complying with the requirements. The client will need to establish the mandatory occurrence reporting system and provide adequate instruction to each reporting person, within ten calendar days of the transfer to the Regulator.

31. Golden thread requirements will apply, but a short time period will be established to support dutyholders in complying with the requirements. From the point of transfer, the client will be responsible for making sure there are suitable arrangements in place for the creation, maintenance and management of the golden thread. The client will have 45 days from the point of transfer to establish the electronic facility or before a completion certificate application is submitted (whichever comes first). The golden thread at the end of the 45-day period must include the original full plans application and any additional information submitted to the Regulator as part of the transfer notice. All of the information required as part of change control regulations and the completion certificate application will need to be stored in the golden thread and handed over to the relevant person before a completion certificate application can be submitted.

32. An application for building control approval, including the prescribed documents, will not have been provided before building work begins. As a result, a fire and emergency file will not have been created and cannot be provided when complying with change control regulations or completion certificate regulations. To ensure that sufficient fire safety information is provided, instead of a fire and emergency file, the client must provide a document setting out the fire safety design principles, concepts and standards applied to the development including sufficient plans to show how the work would comply with Part B (fire safety) of Schedule 1 to the 2010 Regulations in relation to the higher-risk building or proposed higher-risk building.

33. On completion of building work, a completion certificate application must be submitted and approved before lawful occupation can take place. The completion certificate application will be modified by excluding some prescribed documents to reflect that the building work did not submit an application for building control approval at gateway 2. A construction control plan, change control plan and description of the mandatory occurrence reporting system will not be required as part of the completion certificate application. All other documents and information will be required and should reflect the as-built building.

My building work is overseen by private sector building control, what happens if my initial notice ceases to have effect before work has sufficiently progressed?

34. When higher-risk building work is subject to an initial notice and building work has not sufficiently progressed by 6 April 2024, the initial notice will cease to be in force on that date. Similarly, an initial notice may be cancelled for a different reason between 1 October and 6 April 2024 before work has sufficiently progressed.

35. As soon as an initial notice ceases to be in force, the building work in-scope of the higher-risk regime will transfer to the Building Safety Regulator. The following process will take place:

• Once an initial notice ceases to be in force, the approved inspector or building control approver (if registered) must notify the person carrying out the work as soon as practicable of this fact and confirm the work is now under the jurisdiction of the Regulator.
• Within ten working days of an initial notice ceasing to be in force, the person carrying out the work must notify the Regulator that they are carrying out higher-risk building work. The notification must include contact information of the person carrying out the work, the location of the building, the details of the work to be carried out and a description of any work already carried out under an initial notice. Dialogue between the Regulator and the person carrying out the proposed work is encouraged.
• Before any work can continue on site, the client of the project must submit an application for building control approval. This application must meet all of the relevant requirements of building control approval applications under the higher-risk regime as well as provide sufficient plans of the work carried out on site to show whether any part of the work contravenes any applicable building regulations.
• On receipt of the application, the Regulator will validate the application as soon as reasonably practicable to ensure it satisfies the information requirements. If the application is valid, the building work may continue ‘at risk’ following all applicable regulations.

36. The Regulator will assess the valid application alongside work continuing on the project and during this period, the client must comply with any notice requiring them to lay open, test, sample or pull down building work completed on site that prevents the regulator from ascertaining whether the work contravenes any requirement in building regulations. Any work completed on site will be reviewed and assessed by the Regulator. We expect the Regulator to take a risk-based and proportionate approach to these transfers. While the Regulator is assessing an application, any controlled changes to the application for building control approval submitted to the Regulator before its approval must be recorded in the change control log.

37. Any plans certificates or final certificates issued to parts of the building work will have no effect. The building work has not sufficiently progressed so should not benefit from protection against enforcement from the Regulator.

38. If an application is rejected, no further building work in relation to the project may be carried out until a new building control approval application is submitted and approved by the Regulator. This requirement means a client that has received a rejection for their building control approval application cannot subsequently submit a new valid application and continue the building work, they must wait for the Regulator to determine the application. This approach prevents dutyholders from avoiding the higher-risk regimes hard stop decision points by continuing to submit successive valid applications that meet the grounds for rejection.

39. If an application has been approved, the building work will be subject to all of the requirements of the higher-risk regime.

40. On completion of building work, the client will need to provide a completion certificate application that meets the information requirements of these regulations. If the Regulator is satisfied that the as-built building work is compliant with all applicable building regulations, the client will be issued a ‘transfer and completion certificate’ that will satisfy the requirements to occupy and register the building.

My building work is overseen by private sector building control, what happens if my initial notice ceases to have effect after work has sufficiently progressed?

41. Higher-risk building work subject to an initial notice may have sufficiently progressed by 6 April 2024 but then subsequently the initial notice ceases to have effect. This could be because the approved inspector has not registered as a building control approver by 6 April 2024 and the initial notice ceases to have effect on that date, or the initial notice is cancelled for a different reason.

42. As soon as an initial notice ceases to be in force, the building work in-scope of the higher-risk regime will transfer to the Building Safety Regulator. The following process will take place:

• Once an initial notice ceases to be in force, the approved inspector or building control approver (if registered) must notify the person carrying out the work as soon as practicable of this fact and confirm the work is under the jurisdiction of the Regulator.
• Within ten working days of an initial notice ceasing to be in force or being cancelled, the person carrying out the work must notify the Regulator that they are carrying out higher-risk building work, and it is under the Regulator’s jurisdiction. The notification must include contact information of the person carrying out the work, the location of the building, the details of the work to be carried out and a description of any work already carried out under an initial notice specifying all work covered by a final certificate. Dialogue between the Regulator and the person carrying out the proposed work is encouraged.
• Before any work can continue on site, the client of the project must submit an application for building control approval. This application must meet all of the relevant requirements of applications for building control approval under the higher-risk regime as well as provide sufficient plans of the work carried out on site to show whether any part of the work contravenes any applicable building regulations. On receipt of the application, the Regulator will validate the application to ensure it satisfies the information requirements. If the application is valid, the building work may continue ‘at risk’ following all applicable regulations.

43. The Regulator will assess the valid application alongside work continuing on the project and during this period, the client must comply with any notice requiring them to lay open, test, sample or pull down building work completed on site that prevents the regulator from ascertaining whether the work contravenes any requirement in building regulations. Any work completed on site will be reviewed and assessed by the Regulator. We expect the Regulator to take a risk-based and proportionate approach to these transfers. While the Regulator is assessing an application, any controlled changes to the application for building control approval submitted to the Regulator before its approval must be recorded in the change control log.

44. Any plans certificates issued to parts of the building work will have no effect. However, enforcement protection in relation to the Regulator’s enforcement powers will be provided by final certificates accepted before the initial notice is cancelled. The building work has sufficiently progressed and so continuing the protections provided by final certificates is proportionate.

45. The building work has sufficiently progressed, and therefore, we do not intend to apply all the requirements of the higher-risk regime. The gateway application requirements (excluding prescribed documents), enforcement powers of the Regulator, dutyholder and competence regulations, functional requirements of building regulations and all regulations related to reviews, appeals and non-determinations procedures will apply. All other regulations will not apply.

46. On completion of building work, the client will need to provide a completion certificate application that meets the information requirements of these regulations, with the exception of all prescribed documents. If the Regulator is satisfied that the as-built building work is compliant with all applicable building regulations, the client will be issued a ‘transfer and completion certificate’ that will satisfy the requirements to occupy and register the building.

Will building work transferred from private sector building control to the Building Safety Regulator be subject to uplifts to the functional requirements that took place between the initial notice being given to the local authority and the initial notice ceasing to have effect?

47. Yes. The functional requirements at the time the application for building control approval is submitted will apply. However, the Regulator will be able to dispense with or relax functional requirements, including energy efficiency requirements for this building work. The Regulator will take a proportionate approach in overseeing transferred higher-risk building work to ensure that building work is compliant with relevant standards, but not unnecessarily delayed.

What happens if the Building Safety Regulator has a different view on a compliance solution I agreed with my previous building control body?

48. While the Regulator will have enforcement powers in relation to higher-risk building work that has transferred to its jurisdiction, the transfer is not a mechanism expected to fundamentally challenge building work that is being carried out in accordance with approved plans.

49. The Regulator will work closely with other regulators and will act proportionately, particularly in the first few weeks of projects being transferred to their oversight. Furthermore, the Regulator will be resourced and prepared to support dutyholders to make this transition and to meet the new requirements of the higher-risk regime.

What happens if building control approval lapses before the end of the 6-month period to sufficiently progress work?

50. Where building control approval lapses before 6 April 2024, should dutyholders wish to continue with the proposed building work they must submit a new building control approval application. The building work will be subject to all the requirements of the higher-risk regime and will receive a completion certificate from the Regulator when it is satisfied the as-built building work is compliant with all applicable building regulations.

Transitional provisions: flowchart

To view this flowchart in full size, right click and open in new tab.

* Where an initial notice covers a mixture of higher-risk buildings and other work then reference to the initial notice ceasing is a reference to the part of the initial notice which relates to a higher-risk building.

1. £42 million to support delivery of building safety reforms. ↩