Consultation outcome

Building Safety Levy: Technical consultation response

Updated 24 March 2025

Introduction

Introduction 

The Building Safety Act 2022 introduced powers to impose a levy on new residential buildings requiring certain building control approvals in England, to raise revenue to be spent on building safety. The Building Safety Levy (the levy) is part of the government’s plan to accelerate the pace of remediation.  It is essential to protect leaseholders from remediation costs and helps deliver the Prime Minister’s promise that building safety is a top priority for this government.  

The Grenfell Tower tragedy laid bare the consequences of failures within successive governments and industry, which led to the loss of 72 lives. The government is determined to create a legacy of change so that no other community has to go through the suffering experienced by the Grenfell community. The government has committed to make sure buildings over 11 metres tall with unsafe cladding are fixed as quickly as possible, and to protect the taxpayer and leaseholders from costs. The building safety levy is one of the measures we are implementing to ensure that the industry responsible makes a fair contribution to fix building safety issues.   

As part of the Remediation Acceleration Plan published in December 2024, the government announced its intention to launch the levy in Autumn 2025. We have now determined that the levy will come into effect in Autumn 2026, with the levy regulations to be laid in Parliament later this year. This will give all local government, the Building Safety Regulator, Registered Building Control approvers around 18 months to prepare for the levy; and housing developers who will pay the levy around 18 months to factor levy cost into their financial planning. The levy rates are included as an annex to this document. 

Following the introduction of the Building Safety Act 2022, the government carried out a first public consultation on the levy. It ran from 22 November 2022 to 7 February 2023. The response to the consultation was published on 23 January 2024 and can be read online. Having considered the feedback to that consultation, this government confirms that the policy proposals outlined in that consultation response will be taken forward. 

The response to the first consultation set out the policy below: 

The levy will be charged on all new dwellings and purpose-built student accommodation in England (with certain exemptions) which require a building control application. Local authorities will act as the collecting authority on behalf of central government as they are the local guardians of the building control process and have tax collection expertise.  Revenue will be returned to central government on a quarterly basis. Councils will receive new burdens grant funding before the levy becomes operational in order to cover their preparation costs, and, going forward, will retain revenue to cover the costs incurred in administering and collecting the levy. ​​​​​  

The levy charge will depend on the floorspace of the development. Rates per square metre will be set per local authority area to capture the geographical variation in house prices, so that levy rates will be highest in those areas with the highest house prices, and lowest in low-house-price areas. This measure is designed to protect the viability of house building across England. There will be a discounted levy rate of 50% for developments built on previously developed land (PDL), also known as ‘brownfield’ land 

Certain residential buildings which provide important community facilities and certain types of communal accommodation will be exempt from the levy charge, so as not to deter their development. These include affordable housing, non-social homes built by not-for-profit registered providers, NHS hospitals, care homes, supported housing, children’s homes, domestic abuse shelters, accommodation for armed services personnel, criminal justice accommodation, and developments of fewer than 10 units (as a protection for small and medium-sized sites and enterprises). 

The sanction for non-payment of the levy will be the withholding of a building control completion certificate, or rejection of a final certificate. As completion certificates are a legal requirement for buildings over 18m in height, and are required by many mortgage lenders, this means that the developer will struggle to sell and occupy that building upon completion if the levy is not paid.   

​Feedback from that consultation was used to develop the proposals outlined in a second “technical” consultation, which provided a greater level of detail on the operation of the levy, covering the following areas:  

• ​methodology for levy calculation

• the collection process

• disputes and appeals

• further exclusions

• public sector equality duty 

This technical consultation ran from 23 January 2024 to 20 February 2024. Members of the public and organisations were able to respond using the online response tool provided and by email. 

Government received a total of 80 responses to the consultation. This document summarises the feedback and the government’s response.

Breakdown of respondents

Type of respondent	Number of responses	Percentage of total
Local Government	44	55%
Developer	15	19%
Other	21	26%

For the purpose of the consultation analysis, respondents have been grouped into three categories: Local Government, Developer and Other. All respondents  that develop and build properties have been classed as developers, whilst all levels of local government have been classed as Local Government. All other respondents, including those associated with the building industry such as architects, some trade bodies and members of the public have been classed as Other.

Consultation responses

The responses to consultation questions are set out below. Please note the totals may not add up to 100% due to some respondents not answering all questions or rounding methods. Feedback for each question is structured as follows: 

• numerical and statistical breakdown of responses to the question, except where responses were qualitative only 

• summary of qualitative responses to the question 

• government response 

In reporting the overall response to each question, ‘majority’ indicates the view expressed by the highest number of responses to that question. In some cases this will equate to less than 50% of overall respondents, particularly where not all respondents provided an answer. Where we have used the term “some” this reflects where several respondents made the same point, but it does not constitute a majority.

Question 1: The proposed levy rate calculation methodology

Do you have any comments on the proposed levy rate calculation methodology?

Summary of qualitative responses

A statistical breakdown of responses to this question is not provided, as answers were qualitative only.  

Some respondents welcomed the proposals to apply both a differential geographic rate based on local authority (LA) areas, and a reduced 50% rate for projects on previously developed land (PDL, sometimes abbreviated to “brownfield”). They felt this made the levy rates more equitable, reflecting local house prices and the higher cost of developing on PDL. They noted that this would reduce the risk of projects becoming unviable. Others noted that the calculation methodology described seemed fair and reasonable.  

Some respondents also agreed with the proposal to charge the levy on a per square-metre basis, noting the parity with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), whilst others felt that a per-unit charge would be simpler to calculate and reduce the administrative burden of the levy on local authorities (LAs) and on developers, who will be designated collecting authorities, and on developers.  

Some respondents remained concerned that the differential geographic rate and reduced brownfield rate did not go far enough to protect housing supply, and that the methodology outlined risked developments becoming unviable. They noted that house prices may vary across an LA area, and that a flat rate across the LA could therefore risk the viability of developments in areas with low house prices. They also noted the high cost of development in urban areas, which puts sites on previously developed land nearer the viability threshold. Some respondents therefore called for a more granular method of charging the levy, such as basing the charge on the value of individual properties.  

Some respondents also welcomed the proposal that government set rates centrally in regulations. They felt that this would reduce the burden on LAs, and provide clarity to developers over what they can expect to pay. However, a few noted they would prefer LAs to have greater control over levy rates in their area, as they have a better sense of development plans and viability issues in their area.  

Some respondents felt that the methodology outlined was more complex than necessary, and called for greater clarity on which data sources the government will be using to establish previous years’ completions, average house prices, and average floorspace of new residential properties. A few also queried how the revenue target of £3 billion had been reached, and whether or not this was likely to change. Some also argued that the levy should be reviewed more regularly than the proposed 3 yearly review, so that rates could be adjusted to reflect changes in house prices more regularly. A few queried whether or not the levy rates would be indexed to inflation.  

Some respondents also asked for the levy rates to be published, to provide a better indication to developers on the likely cost of the levy on their works.

Government response

Levy rates will be set by central government in regulations, and will not be subject to indexation. If the government decides to amend the levy rates at the review point, regulations will be laid in parliament. We note some respondents’ suggestion that the review be conducted more regularly, to reflect changes in house prices. However, we need to balance the need to reflect the housing market with the need to provide clarity and certainty to developers, to allow them to factor levy rates into their financial planning. As set out in the response to the previous consultation, we will therefore proceed with our proposal to review the levy every 3 years, but will retain the ability to conduct more frequent reviews should the government decide that they are warranted.  

We can confirm that, in setting the levy rates, we have used the methodology outlined in the consultation. The levy rate for each local authority, and the levy rate for works on previously developed land for each local authority area, are set out in the annex to this document. These are the rates which will be charged per square-metre of chargeable floorspace for works on non-previously developed land, and works on previously developed land. The previously developed land rate is half that of the standard rate for each local authority area.  

We note respondents’ requests for greater clarity on which data sources we are using to calculate the levy rates. We will publish a methodology note outlining how the rates were calculated in more detail.  

We appreciate respondents’ concerns that the introduction of the levy will impact the viability of developments. We are aware that the levy may have a small impact on housing supply, particularly where sites are already close to the viability threshold. As set out in the response to our first consultation, we are mitigating the housing supply impact by implementing a differential rate based on house prices in local authority areas, and a reduced 50% rate for sites on previously developed land. We note some respondents’ comments that the housing market may vary even within an LA area but feel that additional granularity would add too much complexity to the levy calculation, adding further administrative burden to collecting authorities.  

The £3.4 billion revenue target for the levy has been calculated to cover the cost of building remediation once exchequer funding, industry pledges and contractual obligations have been taken into account. We will monitor the requirements of government building safety ambitions as they develop, review the figures as work is done and consider adjusting the revenue target as appropriate.

Question 2: Calculating floorspace

Do you think that floorspace should be calculated using Gross Internal Area (GIA)? Please explain your answer.

Statistical breakdown of responses

	Response				% of total consultation responses from each type of respondent				% of those that answered Q2
	Yes	No	Unsure	Not Answered	Yes	No	Unsure	Not Answered	Yes	No	Unsure
Developer	3	8	0	4	20%	53%	0%	27%	27%	73%	0%
Local Government	28	5	8	3	64%	11%	18%	7%	68%	12%	20%
Other	10	4	1	6	48%	19%	5%	29%	67%	27%	7%
Total	41	17	9	13	51%	21%	11%	16%	61%	25%	13%

Summary of qualitative responses

The majority of respondents to this question agreed with the proposal that to assess a developer’s levy liability, the floorspace of the development should be measured using Gross Internal Area (GIA). Many noted that GIA is also used for the calculation of the CIL charge, so would be familiar to LAs, and help to reduce the administrative burden on developers of measuring plans using two separate methodologies. Respondents noted that GIA is a widely used and understood measure in the construction industry, and that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ (RICS) guidance is a well-established framework which can be used for reference. Some also felt that GIA provided a suitable proxy for the value of the property.  

Some respondents argued that using GIA would disproportionally impact developments with a higher proportion of communal space, such as flats, built-to-rent properties, and integrated retirement communities. They argued that the communal spaces in these development types form an integral part of the business model, but are not income generating as they are not sold to homebuyers. They therefore felt that communal areas should be excluded from the levy charge, and a measure such as net internal area be used to measure chargeable floorspace.  

A few respondents called for the levy to be charged on a per unit basis, rather than per-square metre. They felt that a per unit charge would be simpler to administer, as it will not require the measuring of floorplans, and would reduce the scope for disputes between developers and LAs as to the chargeable area.

Government response

We intend to legislate to the effect that, for the purposes of calculating the levy charge applicable to a new development, floorspace should be measured using gross internal area, as set out in the RICS Code of Measuring Practice 6th Edition, which was supported by the majority of respondents to this question. This is because GIA is a widely used and recognised method of measuring floorspace. As GIA is also used in the calculation of the CIL charge, using GIA for the levy will reduce the administrative burden on developers of measuring to two different standards.  

We note respondents’ arguments that the floorspace of communal areas should be excluded from the levy charge. Communal areas will be subject to the levy charge, as they are for the use or benefit of occupants and thus contribute to the value of the building. Where communal space is shared between chargeable and exempt areas (e.g. a lobby which gives access to exempt affordable dwellings and chargeable dwellings for market sale), a proportion of that communal space which is equivalent to the proportion of exempt areas within the building will also be exempt from the levy charge.   

We note that some respondents suggested that the levy be charged on a per-unit basis, rather than a per-square metre basis. Our rationale for charging the levy on a per-square metre basis is set out in the response to our previous consultation.

Question 3: Collection of the levy

Do you have any comments on the process for the collection of the levy?

Summary of qualitative responses

A statistical breakdown is not provided for this question, as responses were qualitative only.  

A range of comments were provided in response to this question. Some respondents felt that the collection process appeared reasonable, and welcomed the reduction in complexity with the move to a single point of payment, rather than the two-step payment process outlined in the first consultation. However, complexity remained a concern amongst many respondents, and greater clarity was requested on a number of points. 

Some respondents noted the requirements for developers to submit information required for the calculation of the levy charge to the LA, at the point at which either an application for building control approval or initial notice is submitted. Further clarity was requested on what form the information would take, and what supporting evidence would be required from developers. Some expressed concerns that LAs would need to devote time and resource to chasing missing information. In particular, some noted that there is no requirement for initial notices to be accompanied by floorplans currently, and that therefore a local authority may struggle to access this information. Others queried what the penalty for non-inclusion of information would be. Some respondents expressed concern that carrying out spot checks would represent a substantial burden for local authorities, and requested greater clarity as to their frequency and form.  

LA capacity to carry out the levy collection process was raised as an issue. Whilst a few respondents welcomed the government’s intention not to specify in regulations which teams within local authorities should carry out levy tasks, some noted that the functions which will require action by building control staff would put additional pressure on these teams. They noted that many building control teams are under resourced, and that carrying out levy duties would risk delaying building control processes. Some respondents emphasised the need for LA costs in administering the levy to be met, including resourcing, training, and IT updates, and requested further information on how this would be achieved.  

Some respondents were also concerned that collecting the levy would put local authority building control teams at a disadvantage, compared with Registered Building Control Approvers (RBCAs). They felt the perception of LAs as a tax collector would encourage developers to choose RBCAs to carry out building control functions on their sites, reducing LA building control income.  

Many respondents noted the proposal that the levy liability would need to be paid before a completion certificate could be issued or a final certificate approved. They queried whether part completion certificates could be issued or part final certificates approved before the whole levy liability is paid, noting that larger developments are often completed in phases. Some argued that staged payments should be allowed in order to reflect this, to allow some plots to be sold ahead of all works completing. However, others noted that staged payments create additional complexity and administrative burden. Some respondents also queried whether the proposal that withholding of a completion certificate or rejection of a final certificate is the primary consequence for non-payment of the levy is strong enough, noting that it is not always a legal requirement to obtain a certificate before occupation.  

A couple of respondents were concerned by the suggestion that payment of refunds may be withheld until completion of works, arguing that this unfairly penalised developers who wished to make changes to works.  

Some respondents felt that the levy should more closely reflect the collection process for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), and therefore be collected as part of the planning process. Others argued that LAs should not act as the collecting authority at all, and that a central system for levy collection should be implemented.

Government response

We have considered the feedback provided to this question and set out below how the government intends the levy collection process to operate. This is subject to approval of levy regulations by parliament. Full details will be set out in regulations and in guidance. We will also expect local authorities to set out details as to how they will accept levy payments on developments in their areas.

Submission of information

The provision of information will now be split between application/initial notice stage and commencement stage. The client (developer) will submit information which will allow the collecting authority (local authority) to calculate levy liability. Some levy information will be provided when either an application for building control approval is submitted by the client to the local authority or the Building Safety Regulator (BSR), or an initial notice is submitted by an RBCA and the client to the local authority. Further information will be provided with the first commencement notice submitted in respect of the relevant initial notice or application. We will amend the Building Regulations 2010 (2010 Regulations), and the Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (England) Regulations 2023 (HRB Regulations) to require that an application for building control approval for one or more dwellings or purpose built student accommodation (PBSA) must include specified information for the calculation of the levy payable. We will also amend the form of an initial notice required by the Building (Registered Building Control Approvers etc)(England) Regulations 2024 (RBCA Regulations) to include this information. The requirements for commencement notices will also be updated in the 2010 Regulations, HRB Regulations and RBCA Regulations. 

Respondents asked for greater clarity as to what information would be required at this stage. Information that will be required at application/ initial notice stage will include:  

• Information regarding the planning permission or planning application under which the development in the application or notice is to be carried out;  

• The number of dwellings which will be created as a result of the development, or bedspaces in the case of Purpose Built Student Accommodation. 

Information that will be required at first commencement notice stage will include: 

• Information as to whether exemptions to the levy charge apply; 

• If the works are chargeable, confirmation as to whether the development is on previously developed land (see government response to questions 4 and 5); 

• If the works are chargeable, the GIA of the chargeable floorspace of the development, including communal areas.  

Supporting evidence will also be required, and we will set out what is considered appropriate evidence in guidance.  

Some respondents asked for greater clarity as to the consequence for non-inclusion of levy information and were particularly concerned that LAs would need to chase missing information. We intend to add failure to provide levy information as a ground for the rejection of an application for building control approval or initial notice. This will reduce the burden on LAs of chasing missing information.

Spot checks and calculation of the levy charge

The levy information provided by the client may be subject to a spot check for accuracy by the local authority. Greater clarity was requested as to the form and frequency of spot checks. We intend that collecting authorities will spot check levy information on a minimum of whichever is the greater of: 

• 10% of applications for building control approval and 10% of initial notices per quarter

• one application for building control approval and 1 initial notice per quarter

We will set out our expectations for spot checks in guidance, but this will include checking the levy information the client has provided against the supporting evidence the client provided and any other information that the collecting authority has available; for example, checking floorspace figures against approved plans, or consulting the Local Planning Authority (LPA) as to the previously developed land classification of the site. If the collecting authority finds that the information provided by the client was inaccurate, the levy liability will be calculated using the updated accurate information. We note concerns that some LAs may struggle with the capacity to carry out spot checks. As set out below, LAs will be able to retain levy revenue to cover the cost of levy administration, and this will include the cost of carrying out spot checks.  

The collecting authority will then, within 5 weeks of submission of the levy information accompanying the first commencement notice by the client (or 8 weeks if a spot check is taking place), calculate the levy amount due based on the levy information. For works on non-previously developed land, the total chargeable floorspace in square-metres will be multiplied by the levy rate for works on non-previously developed land in the local authority area in which the works are taking place. For works on previously developed land, the total chargeable floorspace in square-metres will be multiplied by the levy rate for works on previously developed land in the local authority area in which the works are taking place. The levy rates for each local authority area are set out in the annex to this document.  

The collecting authority will issue the client with a notice of levy liability for the levy amount, or confirmation that the levy is not applicable and no payment is due. A copy of the notice of levy liability will also be provided to the RBCA, where relevant.

Payment of the levy

The levy can be paid following receipt by the client of the levy liability notice and the client will then have some flexibility over when they pay the levy charge. The levy should be paid prior to the client applying for the first completion or final certificate for the works under the application or notice. The collecting authority will issue the client with a notification confirming the levy has been paid within two weeks of receipt of the payment.

Changes to works and refunds

If an amendment notice, a further application for building control approval, or a change control application (for higher-risk buildings) is submitted during construction, the client will need to provide updated levy information reflecting changes to any information which may impact the levy liability, such as additional chargeable floorspace. We will change the form of an amendment notice so it must include the levy information, and will include the failure to provide levy information as a ground for rejection of an amendment notice. We will also amend the Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (England) Regulations 2023 to require that a change control application must include the levy information, and that failure to provide this information be included as a ground for rejection. 

In addition, if qualification for exemptions from the levy charge changes during the course of construction (for example dwellings which were previously intended to be used as private market sale are changed to affordable use) the client may provide updated levy information to the collecting authority. 

A further levy liability notice will be issued by the collecting authority within 5 weeks of receipt of any updated levy information (or 8 weeks if a spot check is taking place), reflecting the new levy liability. If the client has paid the amount set out in the original levy liability notice, the payment will be credited against the new total. If, where the levy liability has decreased, an overpayment has been made by the client, the client will be entitled to a refund of the difference. We note concerns raised by respondents that the proposal to withhold payment of a refund until completion is unfair. We will instead provide that a refund must be issued by the collecting authority to the client within 2 weeks of issue of the updated levy liability notice showing the overpayment.

Confirming levy payment at completion

We will provide that a completion certificate must not be issued by the Building Control Authority (BCA) (the local authority or the BSR) to the client (or for clients using an RBCA, the local authority must reject any final certificate given), if the levy has not been paid. We note respondents’ concern that a completion/final certificate is not a legal requirement for works which fall outside the higher risk building regime. However, many mortgage lenders require a completion or final certificate before agreeing to lend on a property, so the lack of one will impede a developer’s ability to sell that property.  

Many respondents asked for clarity as to whether the levy would need to be paid ahead of a partial/interim completion certificate being issued, or a partial/interim final certificate being approved. We can confirm that the client will need to have paid the whole levy liability for the works specified in an application or notice, before any completion certificate can be issued or final certificate accepted for any part of the works specified in the application or notice, including partial or interim certificates. We do not intend to provide for payments to be staged or phased, given the additional administrative burden this would place on the collecting authority. 

For LA-supervised works, where the client notifies the local authority building control that the relevant building works have completed, the client should confirm whether the levy has been paid for the development, or the levy was not payable. We will amend the 2010 Regulations to require that as part of any completion notification in respect of building works that include dwellings or student accommodation the client must make a statement to this effect. The local authority building control team should then check with the collecting authority team that the levy either has been paid for the development, or was not due. Where the collecting authority is able to confirm this, and can verify that the request for a completion certificate relates to all or part of the same development for which the payment has been made (or was not due), the local authority building control can issue a completion certificate, providing all other applicable building regulation requirements are met.  

For BSR-supervised works, where the client applies to the BSR for a completion certificate, the client should confirm whether the levy has been paid in respect of the works, or the levy was not payable. We will amend the HRB Regulations to require that as part of any application for a completion certificate that includes dwellings or student accommodation the client must make a statement to this effect. The BSR must obtain confirmation of levy payment from the collecting authority and verify the application for a completion certificate relates to all or part of the same development for which the payment has been made. The BSR can then issue a completion certificate, providing all other applicable building regulation requirements are met.  

For RBCA-supervised works, where the client notifies the RBCA that building works are completed, the client should confirm whether the levy has been paid in respect of the works, or the levy was not payable. We will amend the RBCA Regulations to require that as part of this notification the client must make a statement to this effect. Where the client has confirmed payment of the levy in relation to the works to which the proposed final certificate relates, the RBCA can provide confirmation to that effect in the final certificate and send the certificate to the LA for acceptance. We will amend the form of final certificate included in Schedule 1 to the RBCA Regulations to include a statement from the RBCA that they have received confirmation from the client that the levy has been paid or was not due, in respect of the buildings to which the final certificate relates. On receipt of the final certificate the collecting authority will check the levy statement in the final certificate aligns with their records and provided all other requirements are met the LA will accept the final certificate.

LA capacity

We appreciate concerns from respondents that LAs may lack the resource and capacity to undertake levy duties, particularly where the levy collection process requires involvement from building control specialists. We have worked closely with local authorities and their representative bodies to design the levy in a way which minimises the burden on building control teams. We are providing upfront funding to LAs to enable them to prepare for their role as collecting authorities. Once the levy has launched, LAs, in their capacity as collecting authority, will be able to recover administrative expenses from levy revenue.

Question 4: The proposed approach to identifying Previously Developed Land

Do you have any comments on the proposed approach to identifying PDL (Previously Developed Land) and application of the 50% rate?

Do you think that, to qualify for the discount rate, more than 50% is the correct threshold for the area within the planning permission redline that must constitute PDL types?

Statistical breakdown of quantitative responses

	Response				% of total consultation responses				% of those that answered Q4
Yes	No	Unsure	Not Answered	Yes	No	Unsure	Not Answered	Yes	No	Unsure
Developer	2	4	0	9	13%	27%	0%	60%	33%	67%	0%
Local Government	10	4	22	8	23%	9%	50%	18%	28%	11%	61%
Other	5	2	3	11	24%	10%	14%	52%	50%	20%	30%
Total	17	10	25	28	21%	13%	31%	35%	33%	19%	48%

Summary of qualitative responses

Some respondents expressed appreciation of a discounted rate and the government’s recognition of the often higher cost of developing previously developed land (PDL) as opposed to developing non-PDL. They saw the proposals relating to identifying PDL as reasonable, achieving the correct balance between fairness and simplicity. Conversely, it was also noted that to include any discounted rate added unwelcome complexity. 

Some respondents commented on the 50% discount level in particular – arguing that the proposed 50% discount would not adequately address viability concerns in some cases. Some respondents felt that the figure of a universal 50% discount for eligible developments was arbitrary and they felt that it does not capture the nuance and varying costs of developing PDL. However, it was also suggested that a single levy rate for all in-sight developments would be less burdensome on collecting authorities.  

Other respondents commented on the proposal that 50% of the redline area of the site would need to constitute PDL in order for development on the site to qualify for the discount rate. They noted that the costs to develop sites that contain less than 50% PDL can still be expensive. 

Some respondents felt that the threshold of more than 50% of the redline being PDL to qualify for the discount rate was too low. Some felt that allowing a development with almost 50% of non-PDL to benefit from a significant reduction in the levy would not be equitable, disadvantaging developers operating in LAs which contain high proportions of PDL in which almost all parts of all developments would be built on PDL. It was suggested that 80-100% would be a more suitable threshold. 

Many respondents expressed the need for unambiguous definitions and clear guidance around what constitutes PDL and the criteria to assess whether a development should receive the discounted rate. It was felt that this would reduce the number of disputes. Concerns were also raised about the collecting authority’s capacity to verify information provided by developers about PDL. Concerns were also raised about the potential difficulty for developers to obtain clear evidence that land is PDL.  

Some respondents felt that when defining PDL, using habitat types similar to those that form part of the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) arrangements would align with current practices. Other respondents felt that this would be overly subjective and complex, particularly on large development sites. Several respondents suggested that the levy’s method of determining PDL should align to the National Planning Policy Framework’s (NPPF) definition of PDL. This was favoured by some respondents due to the NPPF definition offering a, perceived, greater level of consistency and being a long-established and well embedded definition – as opposed to the BNG arrangements which are relatively novel.

Government response

Our stance remains that the use of a single discounted levy rate for levy-chargeable buildings on PDL is the most equitable approach. Whilst is it appreciated that every site is different and there are varying costs in developing PDL, we believe that using a single discounted rate is the correct approach to take, balancing the need to protect viability with the need to minimise the administrative burden on LAs as the collecting authority. The PDL rate is half that of the non-PDL rate in each local authority area. The rates per square-metre of chargeable floorspace for each local authority area are included in the annex to this document.  

We have noted the concerns raised by respondents regarding the challenges and complexities of using habitat classification to determine what constitutes PDL. Taking these points into account, we propose implementing a definition of PDL in regulations which draws on the definition of PDL set out in the NPPF (with appropriate amendments to reflect use in regulations and practicalities of application).  

Where 75% or more of the land within the planning permission redline boundary falls within the definition of PDL all levy-chargeable development on the site will qualify for the discount rate. We propose a 75% threshold as this will mean that sites which have a clear majority of land that constitutes PDL qualify for the discount. The developer will apply for the discount rate as part of the levy information provided as part of the first commencement notice and will submit supporting evidence to illustrate the site falls within the levy definition of PDL.  

Where a spot check is carried out on an application or notice which includes an application for the discount rate, we anticipate that the LA levy administrator may refer the matter to the LPA to check the developer’s assertion. The LPA may refer to the evidence submitted by the developer and any other evidence the LPA has available (such as the planning history of the site or documents submitted as part of the planning process).

Question 5: Dealing with disputes

Do you agree with the process for dealing with disputes?

Statistical breakdown of quantitative responses

	Response				% of total consultation responses				% of those that answered Q5
	Yes	No	Unsure	Not Answered	Yes	No	Unsure	Not Answered	Yes	No	Unsure
Developer	5	2	2	6	33%	13%	13%	40%	56%	22%	22%
Local Government	17	8	9	10	39%	18%	20%	23%	50%	24%	26%
Other	5	3	2	11	24%	14%	10%	52%	50%	30%	20%
Total	27	13	13	27	34%	16%	16%	34%	51%	25%	25%

Summary of qualitative responses

The majority of stakeholders who responded to this question agreed with the proposed process for dealing with disputes. Some felt that the process outlined appeared reasonable and straightforward.  

Many respondents noted the timescales outlined for conducting reviews. Some felt that the timescales were too tight, and asked for assurance that these would be expressed in working days, rather than calendar days, to reflect LA working patterns and take account of bank holidays. Others were concerned that the timescales were too long, and might delay development timelines. Some respondents disagreed with the proposal to allow a shorter timeframe for reviews regarding the withholding of a completion certificate or the rejection of a final certificate, arguing that a standard timeline for all review types would be more straightforward, and that LAs would struggle to meet a 14 day turnaround for reviewing a decision to withhold a completion certificate or reject a final certificate.  

Some respondents raised LA capacity to conduct reviews as an issue, noting lengthy disputes with developers would require time and resource, and that LA teams are already stretched. Some asked for reassurance that LA costs for dealing with disputes would be properly reimbursed.  

A few respondents suggested alternative bodies, other than the First-tier Tribunal (FTT), to which disputes could be taken following an internal review, such as the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), and RICS. Some noted that, if a dispute has taken place in the calculation of the CIL, the VOA may already have issued a decision on e.g. the measurement of chargeable floorspace, and asked if this decision would be applied in the calculation of the levy charge.

Government response

The majority of stakeholders agreed with our proposals for dealing with disputes. We therefore intend broadly to proceed with the process outlined in the consultation document where the dispute regards the calculation of the levy liability or refund amount.  

We are aware that, regarding the rejection of an application for building control approval, initial notice, amendment notice or change control application, or the withholding of a completion certificate or rejection of a final certificate, there are existing processes for handling disputes set out in the 2010 Regulations, the HRB Regulations, and the RBCA Regulations. We therefore intend that disputes regarding these decisions will follow the existing processes set out in regulations.

Disagreement over the calculation of the levy liability amount by the collecting authority

In the first instance, the client should seek to resolve the dispute with the LA and request a review of the decision. The client will have 28 days in which to request a review after receiving the decision. A review may involve submitting additional documentation to support their claim (e.g. demonstrating that certain exemptions should be applied). 

The review should be carried out by someone senior to the person who made the original levy calculation, and who had no involvement in the original calculation and/or decision. The LA should review their decision in light of any new evidence provided, and communicate the outcome to the client. The review may conclude that the client is liable for less than, more than, or the same amount as the original sum. 

We note queries as to whether the statutory timescale for completing a review would be expressed in calendar days or working days. We intend to refer to calendar days, in line with timescales for conducting reviews outlined elsewhere in the building regulations.  

Where the client disagrees with the outcome of the review, they will be able to challenge the ruling at the property chamber of the FTT (either the original decision if upheld at review, or if the decision is varied at the review, the varied decision). The client may submit an appeal to the tribunal within 21 days of the review decision. On determining the appeal, the tribunal may confirm, vary, or quash the decision. The tribunal may also issue directions.  

We note responses from stakeholders that the VOA may already have issued a decision on the measurement of chargeable floorspace in relation to the CIL. Whilst the levy charge calculation and review/ appeals process will be separate process to the CIL, and undertaken by the LA and then the FTT, the VOA’s decision may be taken into account, if relevant.   

We note concerns that LAs may have to devote time and resource to managing disputes. Costs incurred by the LA in the course of conducting a review or engaging with an appeal heard by the FTT will be recoverable from levy revenue.

Question 6: Excluding some types of communal accommodation

Do you think that the communal accommodation listed should be excluded from the levy charge?

Statistical breakdown of quantitative responses

	Response				% of total consultation responses				% of those that answered Q6
	Yes	No	Unsure	Not Answered	Yes	No	Unsure	Not Answered	Yes	No	Unsure
Developer	2	5	2	6	13%	33%	13%	40%	22%	56%	22%
Local Government	21	3	11	9	48%	7%	25%	20%	60%	9%	31%
Other	9	2	1	9	43%	10%	5%	43%	75%	17%	8%
Total	32	10	14	24	40%	13%	18%	30%	57%	18%	25%

Summary of qualitative responses

Some respondents felt that commercial buildings which generated revenue streams (i.e. hotels and non-NHS hospitals) should not be exempt from the levy. Some felt that developers of hotels, who often compete for land with developers of Build-to-Rent  and purpose-built student accommodation, would receive an unfair advantage due to being exempt from the levy. Others felt that all the proposed exclusions provided a valuable social function. These included the role that hotels play in supporting tourism and an increased demand on social/supported housing and other proposed excluded communal accommodation. 

Some respondents felt that more should be done (regarding exclusions) to protect Small and Medium-sized Enterprises and to exclusively target large developers.  

Some respondents felt that further exclusions should be made to the levy, such as purpose-built student accommodation, Build-to-Rent accommodation, and Integrated Retirement Communities  

Some respondents stressed the need for further clarity in the definitions of excluded buildings to avoid ambiguity and disputes.

Government response

A significant majority of those who answered this question agreed with the further exclusions. It remains our intention to exclude the buildings listed under ‘further exclusions’.  

The government notes the opposition regarding the exclusion of building types which generate revenue streams, in particular hotels. The levy is designed to be charged on primarily residential developments. Hotels serve a primarily commercial function and we therefore intend to exclude them from the levy.  

We note responses which called for the exclusion of independent retirement communities, housing with care (and similar) and age-restricted general market housing; the Built-to-Rent sector; purpose-built student accommodation; and developments greater than 9 units, but fewer than 50. We have set out our intention to include these types of developments and our rationale for doing so in the response to our first consultation, published on 23 January 2024. 

As elsewhere, the government notes the demand for unambiguous definitions and clear guidance and fully recognises the importance of this.

Question 7: The impact on people with protected characteristics

Do you have any views on the potential impact of the proposals raised in this consultation on people with protected characteristics as defined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010?

Summary of qualitative responses

This question had the lowest response rate. Some did not comment, or they stated they did not have an opinion, or lacked the knowledge to respond. 

Several respondents did not believe that any individuals or groups that contain persons that have protected characteristics would be negatively impacted by the proposals raised, commenting that social housing is exempt, mitigating any impact on low-income groups whom they felt may be more likely to include people with protected characteristics. However, some were concerned that the levy may still result in a reduction in affordable housing, and that this would disproportionately affect protected groups.  

A few respondents also noted concerns that developers would pass the cost of the levy onto homebuyers, which may make homes unaffordable to buyers on low incomes, or first-time buyers, whom they felt may be more likely to include people with protected characteristics.

Government response

The potential impact of the proposals raised in response to this question on people with protected characteristics as defined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 will be taken into consideration as part of the overarching Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) assessment for the levy.  

The government expects that in due course the cost of the levy will be reflected in the price that developers pay for land and therefore the cost of the levy should not be passed on to homebuyers.

Next steps

The Government will use the responses to this consultation and the previous levy consultation which ran from 22 November 2022 to 7 February 2023 to inform the Secondary Legislation which is needed to underpin the levy.  

As the levy requires an Affirmative Statutory Instrument, the Secondary Legislation needs to be debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament before it can be made (signed into law) and brought into effect as law. 

Many thanks to all those who responded to the Building Safety Levy consultation. For further queries please contact buildingsafetylevy@communities.gov.uk .

Glossary

Affordable housing 

Government recognises that social housing falls under affordable housing. 

Social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market fall within the definition. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. 

Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision. 

Social rented housing is owned by LAs and private registered providers (as defined in section 80 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008), for which guideline target rents are determined through the national rent regime. It may also be owned by other persons and provided under equivalent rental arrangements to the above, as agreed with the LA or with the Homes and Communities Agency. 

Affordable rented housing is let by LAs or private registered providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social rented housing. Affordable Rent is subject to rent controls that require a rent of no more than 80% of the local market rent (including service charges, where applicable). 

Intermediate housing is homes for sale and rent provided at a cost above social rent, but below market levels subject to the criteria in the Affordable Housing definition above. These can include shared equity (shared ownership and equity loans), other low-cost homes for sale and intermediate rent, but not affordable rented housing. 

Homes that do not meet the above definition of affordable housing, such as “low-cost market” housing, may not be considered as affordable housing for these purposes. 

BtR refers to purpose-built for-rent housing developments, which are retained by an investor on an ongoing basis. Developments, which in the UK are generally located in high-demand urban areas, can be attractive to institutional investors as the offer the potential for steady return over several years. 

BtR was an effectively nascent tenure type in 2011. Since then, and in part due to government support, the sector has grown and is now a more established feature of the UK housing market to meet demand for high-quality, well-managed rental housing. 

BtR is a relatively new industry, having only become established in the last decade. 

Building Regulations 

Building regulations are minimum standards for design, construction, and alterations to virtually every building. The regulations are developed by the UK government and approved by Parliament. 

The Building Regulations 2010  (2010 Regulations), cover the construction and extension of buildings and these regulations are supported by Approved Documents. As mentioned in this consultation response, we also intend to make amendments to The Building (Registered Building Control Approvers etc) (England) Regulations 2024 (the RBCA Regulations) and the Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures)(England) Regulations 2023 (the HRB Regulations). 

Client 

The powers in the Building Safety Act allow the Secretary of State to specify who is to pay the levy. 

We propose to make the ‘client’ of a project as defined within the Building regulations 2010 responsible for paying, or ensuring payment of, the levy. By ‘Client’ we mean any person or organisation for whom a construction project is carried out, including as part of their business. The client has duties set out in the Building Regulations 2010, including having suitable arrangements for planning, managing and monitoring a project (including allocation of sufficient time and other resources) so as to ensure compliance with all relevant requirements. We consider that as the client is a key dutyholder for the project, they should also be responsible for payment of the levy. 

The Client may be a company or an individual and may also be the Principal Designer and/or Principal Contractor. If the Client changes with levy payments outstanding, then we propose that the new Client would take on responsibility for these payments. 

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 

The CIL can be charged by LAs on new developments in their area. 

It is an important tool for LAs to use to help them deliver the infrastructure needed to support development in their area. 

The CIL only applies in areas where a LA has consulted on, and approved, a charging schedule which sets out its levy rates and has published the schedule on its website. 

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) 

Government is keen to put supportive measures in place for SMEs . 

There is a generally understood definition of SMEs within the UK as being any organisation that has fewer than 250 employees and a turnover of less than €50 million or a balance sheet total less than €43 million. 

Supported housing 

Supported housing provides help to some of the most vulnerable people in our country. Supported housing is provided alongside support, supervision, or care to help people live as independently as possible. This includes 

• older people 

• people with a learning disability 

• people with a physical disability 

• autistic people 

• individuals and families at risk of homelessness 

• people with experience of the criminal justice system / Accommodation 

• people recovering from drug or alcohol problems 

• young people with supported needs 

• people with mental ill health 

• people fleeing domestic abuse

Annex A: Levy Rates 

The table below sets out the levy rate per square-metre of chargeable floorspace for works on previously developed land, and for works on non-previously developed land, for each local authority area. The total levy liability for works in a building control application or initial notice will be calculated by multiplying the levy rate by the total chargeable floorspace (measured using gross internal area) of the works in the application or notice.  

For example, a building control application is submitted for 20 identical houses in Dover. Each house has a gross internal area of 100m2, so the total chargeable floorspace for the building control application is 2000m2. The houses are being constructed on previously developed land. The levy rate for works on previously developed land in Dover is £15.19. To calculate the total levy liability for the building control application, the total chargeable floorspace (2000m2) is multiplied by the levy rate for works on previously developed land (£15.19). The total levy liability for the building control application is £30, 380.  

Column 1	Column 2	Column 3
The local authority area of	Previously Developed Land levy rate (£)	Non-Previously Developed Land levy rate (£)
Adur	19.45	38.91
Amber Valley	10.56	21.12
Arun	17.73	35.47
Ashfield	9.69	19.38
Ashford	16.99	33.98
Babergh	14.63	29.26
Barking and Dagenham	21.23	42.47
Barnet	31.68	63.35
Barnsley	8.30	16.60
Basildon	18.02	36.04
Basingstoke and Deane	19.10	38.20
Bassetlaw	8.97	17.93
Bath and North East Somerset	19.60	39.20
Bedford	17.11	34.23
Bexley	24.00	48.00
Birmingham	14.62	29.23
Blaby	14.23	28.47
Blackburn with Darwen	7.28	14.55
Blackpool	7.78	15.57
Bolsover	9.60	19.20
Bolton	10.07	20.15
Boston	10.50	21.00
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole	17.65	35.29
Bracknell Forest	19.88	39.76
Bradford	8.73	17.45
Braintree	16.56	33.12
Breckland	12.21	24.42
Brent	32.35	64.69
Brentwood	23.29	46.58
Brighton and Hove	24.80	49.60
Bristol, City of	21.48	42.97
Broadland	14.95	29.89
Bromley	24.81	49.63
Bromsgrove	17.24	34.48
Broxbourne	20.35	40.70
Broxtowe	12.95	25.90
Buckinghamshire	19.39	38.78
Burnley	6.80	13.60
Bury	12.14	24.29
Calderdale	8.06	16.12
Cambridge	25.44	50.87
Camden	43.56	87.12
Cannock Chase	12.78	25.57
Canterbury	18.19	36.38
Castle Point	16.85	33.70
Central Bedfordshire	17.00	34.01
Charnwood	13.56	27.12
Chelmsford	18.16	36.32
Cheltenham	15.67	31.35
Cherwell	16.78	33.56
Cheshire East	12.39	24.77
Cheshire West and Chester	12.42	24.85
Chesterfield	9.38	18.75
Chichester	19.99	39.98
Chorley	10.14	20.27
City of London	43.52	87.04
Colchester	16.37	32.74
Cornwall	14.79	29.58
Cotswold	20.55	41.10
County Durham	6.35	12.70
Coventry	13.79	27.58
Crawley	20.70	41.40
Croydon	26.01	52.03
Cumberland	7.31	14.63
Dacorum	24.10	48.19
Darlington	7.69	15.38
Dartford	18.64	37.28
Derby	11.21	22.42
Derbyshire Dales	14.51	29.02
Doncaster	8.66	17.32
Dorset	17.24	34.48
Dover	15.19	30.38
Dudley	14.09	28.17
Ealing	33.24	66.47
East Cambridgeshire	13.28	26.57
East Devon	17.03	34.06
East Hampshire	20.09	40.18
East Hertfordshire	20.98	41.95
East Lindsey	10.07	20.14
East Riding of Yorkshire	9.92	19.85
East Staffordshire	10.87	21.75
East Suffolk	13.99	27.97
Eastbourne	18.80	37.61
Eastleigh	16.97	33.95
Elmbridge	21.08	42.17
Enfield	22.06	44.13
Epping Forest	23.09	46.18
Epsom and Ewell	28.31	56.62
Erewash	11.86	23.72
Exeter	16.17	32.35
Fareham	18.03	36.05
Fenland	10.62	21.23
Folkestone and Hythe	15.04	30.07
Forest of Dean	14.83	29.66
Fylde	10.88	21.77
Gateshead	7.97	15.93
Gedling	11.78	23.56
Gloucester	14.42	28.83
Gosport	16.19	32.37
Gravesham	18.23	36.46
Great Yarmouth	11.12	22.24
Greenwich	27.16	54.33
Guildford	23.07	46.15
Hackney	35.75	71.51
Halton	10.52	21.04
Hammersmith and Fulham	45.94	91.87
Harborough	14.74	29.47
Haringey	33.33	66.66
Harlow	19.87	39.75
Harrow	29.94	59.88
Hart	23.06	46.13
Hartlepool	6.41	12.82
Hastings	15.11	30.21
Havant	17.41	34.83
Havering	23.84	47.68
Herefordshire, County of	13.47	26.94
Hertsmere	23.69	47.37
High Peak	13.72	27.43
Hillingdon	27.33	54.66
Hinckley and Bosworth	13.39	26.79
Horsham	20.79	41.57
Hounslow	29.15	58.29
Huntingdonshire	14.56	29.12
Hyndburn	7.41	14.83
Inner Temple	43.52	87.04
Ipswich	12.79	25.58
Isle of Wight	14.71	29.42
Isles of Scilly	14.79	29.58
Islington	39.52	79.04
Kensington and Chelsea	50.17	100.35
King’s Lynn and West Norfolk	10.58	21.16
Kingston upon Hull, City of	8.29	16.58
Kingston upon Thames	28.84	57.68
Kirklees	8.44	16.88
Knowsley	9.95	19.91
Lambeth	30.77	61.54
Lancaster	10.22	20.44
Leeds	12.29	24.57
Leicester	13.64	27.29
Lewes	20.07	40.13
Lewisham	27.42	54.84
Lichfield	15.29	30.58
Lincoln	11.06	22.12
Liverpool	10.81	21.61
Luton	19.22	38.44
Maidstone	17.58	35.15
Maldon	16.90	33.81
Malvern Hills	14.78	29.56
Manchester	14.22	28.44
Mansfield	9.12	18.23
Medway	16.12	32.24
Melton	11.96	23.93
Merton	29.51	59.02
Mid Devon	13.49	26.98
Mid Suffolk	14.26	28.53
Mid Sussex	20.12	40.23
Middle Temple	43.52	87.04
Middlesbrough	6.80	13.59
Milton Keynes	15.32	30.63
Mole Valley	22.50	44.99
New Forest	18.51	37.01
Newark and Sherwood	11.58	23.16
Newcastle upon Tyne	9.85	19.71
Newcastle-under-Lyme	9.89	19.79
Newham	23.61	47.23
North Devon	14.42	28.84
North East Derbyshire	11.07	22.14
North East Lincolnshire	6.88	13.76
North Hertfordshire	18.45	36.90
North Kesteven	11.65	23.29
North Lincolnshire	8.48	16.95
North Norfolk	14.22	28.44
North Northamptonshire	12.98	25.97
North Somerset	16.09	32.18
North Tyneside	10.22	20.45
North Warwickshire	12.26	24.51
North West Leicestershire	11.28	22.55
North Yorkshire	12.44	24.88
Northumberland	8.39	16.77
Norwich	15.31	30.63
Nottingham	11.77	23.55
Nuneaton and Bedworth	12.14	24.28
Oadby and Wigston	12.76	25.52
Oldham	10.27	20.53
Oxford	23.62	47.24
Pendle	6.55	13.11
Peterborough	13.36	26.73
Plymouth	12.06	24.13
Portsmouth	15.52	31.05
Preston	7.59	15.19
Reading	21.89	43.77
Redbridge	28.51	57.02
Redcar and Cleveland	8.19	16.39
Redditch	14.76	29.51
Reigate and Banstead	21.88	43.76
Ribble Valley	12.16	24.32
Richmond upon Thames	36.60	73.20
Rochdale	11.47	22.95
Rochford	18.21	36.42
Rossendale	8.75	17.51
Rother	16.95	33.91
Rotherham	9.11	18.22
Rugby	14.09	28.19
Runnymede	22.86	45.71
Rushcliffe	14.61	29.23
Rushmoor	19.41	38.81
Rutland	15.59	31.17
Salford	15.18	30.35
Sandwell	12.46	24.92
Sefton	10.83	21.66
Sevenoaks	21.08	42.15
Sheffield	11.88	23.76
Shropshire	12.34	24.68
Slough	21.41	42.83
Solihull	17.56	35.12
Somerset	14.23	28.45
South Cambridgeshire	18.98	37.95
South Derbyshire	11.23	22.46
South Gloucestershire	17.77	35.54
South Hams	15.71	31.42
South Holland	11.39	22.79
South Kesteven	12.24	24.47
South Norfolk	14.42	28.84
South Oxfordshire	21.18	42.37
South Ribble	10.06	20.13
South Staffordshire	14.77	29.53
South Tyneside	8.23	16.45
Southampton	16.13	32.27
Southend-on-Sea	19.12	38.24
Southwark	28.47	56.93
Spelthorne	25.81	51.62
St Albans	24.77	49.55
St. Helens	10.37	20.73
Stafford	12.29	24.58
Staffordshire Moorlands	11.05	22.09
Stevenage	21.73	43.46
Stockport	15.34	30.69
Stockton-on-Tees	7.35	14.70
Stoke-on-Trent	8.28	16.56
Stratford-on-Avon	16.03	32.05
Stroud	15.75	31.50
Sunderland	7.13	14.26
Surrey Heath	23.39	46.78
Sutton	27.52	55.03
Swale	15.86	31.72
Swindon	13.53	27.06
Tameside	11.90	23.80
Tamworth	11.92	23.84
Tandridge	22.00	44.00
Teignbridge	14.89	29.78
Telford and Wrekin	12.18	24.37
Tendring	12.40	24.80
Test Valley	18.17	36.34
Tewkesbury	16.00	32.01
Thanet	15.78	31.56
Three Rivers	27.20	54.39
Thurrock	19.31	38.62
Tonbridge and Malling	21.06	42.12
Torbay	13.26	26.52
Torridge	13.86	27.73
Tower Hamlets	30.60	61.20
Trafford	19.92	39.83
Tunbridge Wells	19.62	39.25
Uttlesford	18.12	36.25
Vale of White Horse	18.51	37.01
Wakefield	10.04	20.08
Walsall	12.74	25.47
Waltham Forest	29.98	59.97
Wandsworth	34.25	68.50
Warrington	12.94	25.88
Warwick	17.82	35.65
Watford	25.14	50.29
Waverley	22.43	44.85
Wealden	17.88	35.77
Welwyn Hatfield	22.79	45.57
West Berkshire	19.95	39.90
West Devon	14.80	29.61
West Lancashire	10.53	21.06
West Lindsey	9.29	18.58
West Northamptonshire	13.84	27.69
West Oxfordshire	17.54	35.08
West Suffolk	14.82	29.64
Westminster	49.01	98.01
Westmorland and Furness	9.90	19.79
Wigan	10.11	20.22
Wiltshire	15.80	31.61
Winchester	21.63	43.26
Windsor and Maidenhead	21.09	42.17
Wirral	11.12	22.23
Woking	24.27	48.54
Wokingham	22.49	44.98
Wolverhampton	12.21	24.41
Worcester	14.87	29.74
Worthing	18.66	37.33
Wychavon	16.52	33.05
Wyre	8.93	17.86
Wyre Forest	13.27	26.55
York	15.81	31.61