Consultation outcome

Government response to the consultation on changes to the building control profession and the building control process for approved inspectors (in future to be known as registered building control approvers)

Updated 17 August 2023

1. Introduction and background

This document sets out the government’s response to the consultation on proposed changes to the building control profession and the building control process for approved inspectors (in future to be known as registered building control approvers). The consultation was launched on 31 January 2023 and ran for 6 weeks. It covered the detailed requirements to implement the changes brought about by the Building Safety Act 2022 and comprised of 42 questions which sought views on the following areas:

• approved inspectors becoming registered building control approvers, and implications for their existing work
• length of registration period for building control approvers and building inspectors
• oversight, sanctions and appeals
• restriction of activities and functions for building control bodies, both public and private
• initial notices
• plans certificates
• information gathering
• consultations with other regulators

The building control profession is fundamental to delivering Dame Judith Hackitt’s recommendations on managing fire and structural safety risks in high-rise multi-occupied residential buildings and across the whole built environment. These are set out in her Building a Safer Future Report, commissioned by government after the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

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

The Building Safety Act 2022 establishes a regulated building control profession that will be overseen by the Building Safety Regulator (the Regulator), with common competence requirements for individual building control professionals across the public and private sectors. It also introduces changes to who can advise on, and carry out, building control work, with the intention being to improve competence levels, transparency, and accountability in the building control profession. This will ensure that only individuals who have demonstrated the relevant competencies are advising decision-makers before important building control decisions are taken. The reforms will also help to level the playing field between the public and private building control sectors and ensure that the same standards of competence and conduct are enforced across the building control profession.

The key changes that were consulted on are:

• approved inspectors must register as building control approvers, to continue to undertake building control work
• individual inspectors must register with the Regulator and meet certain criteria to be able to provide advice to local authorities and the Regulator (collectively building control authorities) and registered building control approvers
• registered building control approvers and building control authorities must obtain and consider the advice of a registered building inspector before carrying out certain building control functions

2. Methodology

Views were sought from everyone affected by the proposals set out in the consultation. To ensure that all were able to respond as fully and effectively as possible, the consultation was published on GOV.UK with a link to the online consultation platform ‘Citizen Space’. Whilst the majority responded via the online platform, some responses were received by email to a dedicated mailbox.

All responses have been considered and this document provides a summary of the responses and issues raised. Many of the questions prompted respondents to state the extent to which they agreed with proposals whilst others asked respondents to pick from options (some of the responses in relation to the latter are represented in graphical form throughout this response document). Where open questions were asked, or free text boxes provided, all responses were analysed to identify common themes. Respondents were permitted to answer as many or as few questions as they wished. Unless otherwise stated, the figures set out in this document represent the number of responses received for a particular question and not the number of responses received to the overall consultation.

Where questions had multiple parts and respondents answered only some of the questions, there may be some variation in percentage figures. It is important to note that where there was no response given to a free text question, this was still captured and reflected as part of the overall response.

3. Responses

In total, 113 individuals and organisations responded to this consultation. Most responses were received via the online platform ‘Citizen Space’, while 15 responses were received by email. Responses were organised into 2 categories consisting of individuals and those responding on behalf of an organisation, which included a mix of businesses across the built environment and building control professions as well as local authorities and public sector bodies. The broad breakdown of responses by category is shown in the table below:

Respondent category	Percentage
Individuals	78 (69.0%)
Organisation/business	34 (30.1%)

The evidence collected from the consultation is presented in the form of a narrative summary, alongside graphs, and set out under the following 8 sub-sections:

• transition
• registration
• restricted activities and functions
• cancellation of initial notices
• plans certificates
• new initial notices
• information gathering
• further amendments to the Building (Approved Inspector etc.) Regulations 2010

Many questions were in 2 parts, allowing respondents to expand on answers given, or had ‘free text’ boxes which allowed respondents to provide any response they felt was appropriate without a word limit. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Please note that in some cases, this may result in totals just under or over 100%.

The government extends its thanks to all those who shared their views and experiences through the consultation process.

4. Transition

Overview of proposal

The Building Safety Act 2022 provides for registered building control approvers to take over work from approved inspectors, or for former approved inspectors to carry on work once becoming registered building control approvers. The current approved inspector registration regime will conclude on ‘day one’ of the new registered building control approver regime.

To ensure a smooth transition to the new regime, chapter 1 of the consultation included transition proposals for instances where building control work is already underway and covering circumstances where an approved inspector has, or has not, registered as a building control approver.

Paragraphs 10 to 15 of the consultation included proposals that set out that, where an approved inspector becomes a registered building control approver, the initial notices of the approved inspector should be treated as the initial notices of the registered building control approver, provided certain requirements are met:

• that they have registered appropriately as a building control approver with the Regulator
• that their registration covers the specific work with which they wish to continue
• that the registered building control approver is the same legal entity as the approved inspector

Paragraphs 16 to 19, 28, and 30 to 31 of the consultation included proposals for where an approved inspector has, or has not, registered as a building control approver. These included allowing a transition period of 6 months after day one of the registered building control approver regime. This proposal was to allow approved inspectors who did not become registered building control approvers to complete their building control approvals for existing non higher-risk building work.

Approved inspectors will not be able to take on any new work (namely, to submit a new initial notice) during this time. While they will be able to issue amendment notices, this will not include any changes that would result in a non-higher risk building becoming a higher-risk building. To be able to continue to supervise ongoing higher-risk building work that has already commenced, we proposed that an approved inspector must be registered as a building control approver.

At the end of the 6-month transition period, we proposed that all initial notices for approved inspectors who have not registered will no longer be valid, and remaining work will revert to the relevant local authority, unless a registered building control approver has submitted a new initial notice for this work and the notice is accepted. We also proposed that during the 6-month period an approved inspector would be able to cancel its initial notice and a registered building control approver submit a new initial notice for that work.

Paragraphs 20 to 27, and 29 of the consultation included proposals related to the transitional arrangements for higher-risk building work currently being overseen by approved inspectors. This included where work was deemed to be covered by the transitional arrangements, the transfer of work to the Regulator at the end of the transition period, work subject to an initial notice that fails to commence within the transitional period, and work where an initial notice is cancelled, for any reason, during or at the end of the transition.

Consultation analysis

The transition section of the consultation received 113 responses in total. The number of responses varied for individual questions and not every respondent answered every question.

Question 1: Do you agree that where an approved inspector and a registered building control approver are the same legal entity then, with some exceptions, the initial notices of the approved inspector will be treated as the initial notices of the registered building control approver?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Yes	108	95%
No	2	2%
Not answered	3	3%
Total	113	100%

108 respondents (95%) agreed with the proposed approach and 72 respondents went on to provide additional comments.

Of the additional comments received, 56 respondents (50%) reiterated general agreement for the government’s approach, stating that the proposals would allow for a smooth and simple transition for approved inspectors to become registered building control approvers. Six respondents (5%) further noted that the proposals would reduce any additional burdens and minimise bureaucracy for local authorities, applicants and registered building control approvers.

Question 2: Where the approved inspector and registered building control approver are not the same entity, or one of the exceptions applies, do you agree that approved inspectors should have a transitionary period to complete work which is not higher-risk building work and wind up their business?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Yes	110	97%
No	0	00.0%
Not answered	3	3%
Total	113	100%

110 respondents (97%) agreed with the proposals and 70 (62%) went on to provide additional comments.

Additional comments showed there was general support for the government’s proposals, with 42 respondents (37%) reiterating support for the need to have a transitionary period in place. Whilst most respondents that were in agreement supported having a suitable transitionary period, only 2 respondents stated that a 6-month period would provide enough time for approved inspectors to conclude work on non higher-risk buildings, winding up such business. 4 respondents stated that the 6-month period was too short and that 6-12 months would be a more appropriate timeframe to conclude business.

Question 3: Do you agree that 6 months is a sufficient transition time for approved inspectors who do not become registered building control approvers to conclude non higher-risk building work?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Yes	27	24%
No	82	73%
Not answered	4	3%
Total	113	100%

Twenty-seven respondents (24%) agreed with the proposal to include a 6-month transitionary period, and 93 respondents (82%) provided additional comments.

Seven respondents argued that there needed to be a longer transitionary period than 6 months, compared to 11 respondents (10%) who felt the 6-month period was sufficient. One respondent said this period needed to be shorter, and that 3 months would be more appropriate.

Question 4: Do you think a different length of transitionary period would be more appropriate?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Yes	84	74%
No	25	22%
Not answered	4	4%
Total	113	100%

Eighty-four respondents (74%) agreed that there needed to be a different length of time for the transitionary period than the proposals set out in the consultation.

Eighty-nine (79%) respondents provided additional comments setting out different suggestions for timescales. Broadly, most respondents felt that a longer transitionary period was required:

• 43 respondents (38%) felt that the transitionary period needed to be between 6 and 12 months
• 14 respondents (12%) felt this needed to be longer than 12 months
• 1 respondent felt this should be less than the 6-month period
• 4 respondents felt the 6-month timeframe was sufficient for the transitionary period

Question 5: Do you think registered building control approvers should be able to complete existing higher-risk building work in line with the higher-risk building control transitional arrangements?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	103	92%
Disagree	6	5%
Not answered	4	3%
Total	113	100%

103 respondents (92%) agreed with the proposed transition arrangements where approved inspectors have registered as building control approvers. Seventy-eight respondents (69%) provided further information. Key themes in support included:

• the importance of maintaining consistency of building control body
• the need to mitigate against the risks associated with the transfer of a project from existing building control bodies to the Regulator

In general, respondents considered maintaining continuity and consistency for projects to be important where the criteria under the transitional provisions have been met, as this will help stabilise the transition whilst minimising the risks of project delays and additional costs.

Whilst there was broad support for the proposals, 8 respondents called for more reassurance about the resourcing and capabilities of the Regulator in managing the building control profession and the transition to the higher-risk regime.

Six respondents (5%) disagreed with the proposal. The main concern raised was that the proposals would enable higher-risk building work to be built out under existing building control bodies for many years after the new regime had come into force, undermining the intention to remove dutyholder choice.

A number of respondents requested more information about how the policy proposals relating to the transfer to the registered building control approver regime would align with the transition to the proposed higher-risk regime. There was particular interest in the conditions of the transitional arrangements, the lapsing of initial notices under the higher-risk regime’s transitional arrangements and the role of final certificates. In addition, 1 respondent asked whether the proposals aligned with the Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2023, insofar as it appeared that parts of higher-risk buildings undergoing refurbishment work that are not used exclusively for higher-risk building purposes could continue under the existing building control regime.

Question 6: Do you agree that ending the ability for an approved inspector (who is not registered as a building control approver) to oversee higher-risk building work is appropriate?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	83	73%
Disagree	27	24%
Not answered	3	3%
Total	113	100%

Eighty-three respondents (73%) agreed with the proposals in relation to approved inspectors who have not registered as a building control approver. Seventy-five respondents (66%) provided further comments, with a key supportive theme being that the measure is important for meeting the objectives of the higher-risk regime, improving industry competence and, importantly, enabling the demonstration of competence by private sector building control. Furthermore, respondents considered enabling unregistered professionals to continue to oversee higher-risk buildings would undermine the higher-risk regime in its formative years.

Whilst there was majority support for the proposals, 8 respondents (7%) who were in support raised some concerns about its implementation. The concerns raised included the potential increased risk for clients and the Regulator in transferring over higher-risk building work where an initial notice has been given to the local authority prior to 1st October 2023 (or ‘in-flight’ higher-risk buildings) from approved inspectors, the resource and capability of the Regulator to oversee the transition of these projects and the proposed 6-month period which some respondents considered too short for the industry to prepare appropriately.

Twenty-seven respondents (24%) disagreed with the proposals. A common reason for this was that respondents considered private sector building control to be sufficiently competent and resourced to oversee higher-risk building work regardless of whether they register as building control approvers. It was highlighted that there could be a potential impact on the supply chain of competent people due to the registration requirements.

Question 7: Do you think an approved inspector should be able to appeal a decision from the Building Safety Regulator not to register it as a registered building control approver in the Courts?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	91	81%
Disagree	19	17%
Not answered	3	3%
Total	113	100%

*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.

Ninety-one respondents (81%) agreed with the proposal that an approved inspector should be able to appeal a decision of the Regulator to refuse its registration as a building control approver. Eighty-one respondents provided further comments. Key themes included:

• 43 (38%) respondents raised the need for checks and balances where regulatory decisions are made, noting that the right to appeal is important to ensure transparency, fairness and accountability when decisions on registration applications are made by the Regulator
• 16 (13%) respondents specifically reiterated their agreement with the principle that everyone should have a right to appeal decisions taken by a regulatory body

Nineteen respondents (17%) disagreed with the proposal. The primary reasons given for opposing appeals was that these could result in delays to the transfer of higher-risk building work to the Regulator and that if the registration criteria and the Regulator’s decision are clearly set out an appeal should not be necessary.

Question 8: Do you agree with the proposed approach to initial notices and plans certificates where higher-risk building work is uncommenced at the end of the transitional period?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	66	58%
Disagree	44	39%
Not answered	3	3%
Total	113	100%

Question 9: Do you agree that where an initial notice is cancelled, the plans certificate should be cancelled and the Building Safety Regulator should be able to take enforcement action for any work not covered by a final certificate?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	76	67%
Disagree	33	29%
Not answered	4	4%
Total	113	100%

Seventy-six respondents (67%) agreed with the proposals where an initial notice is cancelled. Sixty-eight (60%) respondents provided further comments. Key themes in support included:

• 22 respondents (19%) considered this to be a sensible approach that is necessary to ensure compliance with applicable building regulations
• 10 respondents (9%) agreed that the proposal enables the Regulator to have the full range of enforcement tools when a project is transferred to their jurisdiction, allowing non-compliant aspects of transferred projects to be rigorously inspected and, if necessary, remediated

Of those who disagreed with the proposals, 12 respondents (29%) believed it was better to maintain consistency of building control body by allowing projects to continue under the approved inspector. They argued that an approved inspector would follow a rigorous process before issuing a plans certificate and therefore, the approvals and protections provided should be maintained.

Similarly, 10 respondents (9%) considered the proposed approach to contradict current legislation around plans certificates and felt it would undermine the principles underpinning their use in the building control process. Five respondents (5%) were concerned that without the security provided by plans certificates, projects might need to be redesigned and remediated causing delays in buildings going to site with financial implications for developers.

Both supporters and opponents of the proposals requested clarity on the status of plans certificates and final certificates issued by private sector building control when an initial notice is cancelled for higher-risk building work, and whether the cancellation of the initial notice would only affect the parts of the works that had not been commenced. There was also concern that this proposal might be difficult to operationalise in practice where multiple blocks or buildings are under a single initial notice and only some building work has met the conditions of the transitional arrangements.

Government response

It is customary for changes to building regulations to be accompanied by a transitional period to provide clarity to building control bodies and those commissioning, designing and carrying out building work. It also reduces the risk of developers being impacted by changes to requirements part way through the design and construction process. This rationale is important when considering the requirements of the transition to the new regime for higher-risk buildings and from the ‘approved inspector’ regime to the ‘registered building control approver’ regime.

The government has considered the responses received to the consultation, and the overall high level of support for the proposals. Accordingly, the government intends to proceed as outlined in the consultation proposals. Registered building control approvers will be allowed to complete existing higher-risk building work in line with the proposed transitional arrangements for the higher-risk regime. Where higher-risk building work is overseen by private sector building control when the higher-risk regime comes into force, they may continue to oversee that work, provided they register as a building control approver within 6 months.

An approved inspector that fails to register as a building control approver will not be able to continue to oversee existing higher-risk building work and any initial notice they submitted in relation to higher-risk building work will lapse 6 months after the register opens. This approach is considered proportionate for both private sector building control and those involved in the commissioning, design and construction of ‘in-flight’ higher-risk building work, because it allows the approved inspector adequate time to register and demonstrate their competence. Furthermore, the measures proposed will be able to facilitate a more seamless transition for these projects without creating unnecessary costs and delays.

An approved inspector will be able to appeal a decision from the Regulator in relation to the register of building control approvers. This approach provides approved inspectors with necessary access to justice and a ‘reviews and appeals’ process will be put in place. In the first instance, the applicant should apply to the regulator for a review. If the decision is upheld, they can appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (the Tribunal).

Regarding timing, where individuals or bodies wish to appeal a decision by the Regulator in relation to the register of building control approvers, they must do so within 21 days of the original decision. This is the standard time period in English civil courts and exists so that significant change in the circumstances of both the applicant and respondent will not elapse over time. There is, however, the right to appeal to the Tribunal claiming special dispensation if the deadline is missed.

Some respondents asked for further information on the registration criteria. The registration criteria will be published by the Regulator in due course. The Regulator has already published, in draft form, the Building Inspector Competence Framework, the Code of Conduct for building inspectors, the Professional Conduct Rules and Operational Standard Rules for building control bodies. These will be effective from April 2024.

We continue to work with the Regulator to make sure the criteria for registration are communicated with clarity in order to make sure the new regime operates as effectively as possible.

Several respondents asked how the transition proposals for the registered building control approvers regime align with the transition proposals for the proposed higher-risk regime. We will align the transition to the registered building control approver regime as closely as possible with the transitional arrangements for the higher-risk regime. Where higher-risk building work subject to an initial notice does not meet the conditions of the transitional arrangements for the higher-risk regime (as set-out in the consultation on implementing the new building control regime for higher-risk buildings), or the approved inspector fails to register as a registered building control approver, the initial notice for the building work will cease to be in force.

Some respondents suggested that where an initial notice ceases to have effect, those carrying out proposed higher-risk building work would need to receive a new initial notice in order to continue with their project. To clarify, this is not how the regime being proposed will work.

Under the provisions we are introducing, as soon as an initial notice ceases to have effect for in-scope work after the higher-risk regime comes into force the Regulator automatically becomes the building control authority for the work. As a result, the developer would then be required to submit an application for building control approval to the Regulator under the higher-risk regime to continue with their building work.

Once an in-scope project has transferred to the Regulator, the initial notice cannot lawfully be reinstated. And while an approved inspector can appeal the decision of the Regulator to not register them as a building control approver, should the appeal be upheld the project will remain with the Regulator.

The government appreciates that splitting up multi-building sites and initial notices into those that have and have not met the conditions of the transitional arrangements for the higher-risk regime may result in additional time and resource being expended. However, it is untenable for in-scope buildings on a multi-building site that haven’t sufficiently progressed to be built out years later to regulatory requirements that will be significantly out of date, and potentially supervised by building control professionals who are not subject to appropriate oversight. Current legislation already enables the lapsing of an initial notice in whole or in part and as such it is possible for sites to be overseen by different building control bodies. The government does not believe that procurement methodologies would inhibit higher-risk building work on multi-site projects from being transferred to the jurisdiction of the Regulator.

Where the initial notice that covers ‘in-flight’ in-scope building work ceases to be in force, it is intended that the plans certificates covering that building work should also lapse. It is also intended that final certificates should lapse where the initial notice to which they relate ceases to be in force and the building work has not met the conditions of the transitional arrangements. This approach is essential to ensuring an effective transition to the higher-risk regime and the ending of dutyholder choice in respect of building control bodies. Some respondents raised concern that uplifts to functional requirements or difference in interpretations of compliance between the Regulator and the previous building control body may result in additional costs and delays for developers. While the requirements of the higher-risk regime will apply to transferred building work, and the Regulator will have enforcement powers, the transfer is not a mechanism expected to fundamentally challenge building work that is being carried out in accordance with approved plans.

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. This may include the appointment of the previous building control professional overseeing the higher-risk building work if they register as a registered building inspector with the Regulator. The approach will support consistency of decision making when a project is transferred from the previous building control body to the Regulator. It is recognised that a number of new requirements will be placed upon developers that have finished the design phase of their build. The Regulator will be resourced and prepared to support duty holders to make this transition and to meet the new requirements of the building control regime for higher-risk buildings. More broadly, the Regulator will be sufficiently resourced to fulfil its building control function and manage the building control profession.

In general, respondents have asked for clarity and certainty on the transitional arrangements for the higher-risk regime. Following review of consultation responses and engagement with industry, the government has made some changes to the transitional arrangements for the higher-risk regime previously proposed, and provided further detail on how they will operate. Further information can be found in the government response to the consultation on implementing the building control regime for higher-risk buildings and wider changes to the building regulations. To support industry further, the Regulator will be providing operational guidance to facilitate the transition ahead of the higher-risk regime coming into force, and this will provide further detail for industry on how the transitional provisions will operate in practice.

5. Registration

Chapter 2 of the consultation covered the requirements relating to the registration of registered building control approvers and registered building inspectors. We proposed that building control approvers should be registered for a period of 5 years and that registered building inspectors should be registered for 4 years.

Paragraphs 37 to 42 of the consultation included proposals relating to when the Regulator would notify local authorities of any disciplinary orders for, or interim suspensions of, registered building control approvers. We proposed that the Regulator should send a copy of a disciplinary order to every local authority in England in the following circumstances:

• a variation of a registered building control approver’s registration
• a suspension of registration for a specified period
• a cancellation of registration from a specified date
• an interim suspension where a serious contravention is suspected or
• where an improvement notice has been issued to a registered building control approver

Paragraphs 43 to 53 of the consultation contained proposals related to building control profession appeals. We proposed that individuals or bodies should be able to appeal a decision or action by the Regulator to the Tribunal in relation to the following decisions:

• applications for registration as building inspector
• sanctions for professional misconduct
• interim suspension for suspected serious professional misconduct
• applications for registration as building control approver
• sanctions for contravention of professional conduct rules and
• interim suspension for suspected serious contravention

In relation to an application for registration as building inspector and an application for registration as building control approver, we proposed that there should be an internal review by the regulator prior to any appeal to the Tribunal.

Overview of responses

This section of the consultation received 113 responses in total. The number of responses varied for individual questions and not every respondent answered every question.

Consultation analysis

Question 10: Do you agree that registration length for registered building control approvers should be 5 years?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	77	68%
Disagree	32	28%
Not answered	4	4%
Total	113	100%

Seventy-seven respondents (68%) agreed with the proposed registration length for registered building control approvers. Forty-eight respondents (42%) went on to provide further comments.

A number of respondents gave their reasons for agreeing with the proposal, including that it aligns with the current system under the Construction Industry Council Approved Inspectors Register (CICAIR), that registered building control approvers will not be working on higher risk buildings (which might predicate the need for a shorter transition period), and that this approach should include the ability to call a review at any time.

Nineteen respondents (17%) specifically questioned whether re-registration was necessary on the basis that registered building control approvers will be subject to annual monitoring, audits, and the Operational Standards Rules.

Question 11: Do you agree that registration length for registered building inspectors should be set at 4 years?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	47	42%
Disagree	63	56%
Not answered	3	3%
Total	113	100%

*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.

Forty-seven respondents (42%) agreed with the proposed registration length for registered building inspectors. Ninety respondents (80%) provided additional comments.

Twenty-one respondents (19%) questioned the rationale for having a 5-year registration period for registered building control approvers and a 4-year registration period for registered building inspectors. Suggestions included that 5 years might be more appropriate for both, to ensure consistency throughout the wider process.

Three respondents felt that 4 years would be too onerous whilst 25 respondents (22%) felt re-registration should occur more frequently than 4 years to ensure competency is up to date.

Question 12: Do you agree that a copy of a disciplinary order should be sent to every local authority in these 4 circumstances?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	54	48%
Disagree	56	50%
Not answered	3	3%
Total	113	100%

*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.

Fifty-four respondents (48%) agreed with the proposals for sharing information with local authorities, and 64 respondents (57%) went on to provide further comments.

It was suggested by 8 respondents (6%) that local authorities only need to know a registered building control approvers’ registration status and whether it is legally entitled to operate. An alternative suggestion raised by 12 respondents (11%) was for the Regulator to publish up to date and accurate information on registered building control approvers online (perhaps via a portal) as this would promote visibility and accountability and ensure consumers are aware of issues.

Nine respondents (8%) were concerned by a lack of parity of approach between local authorities and registered building control approvers and were worried that local authorities could use the information to try to discredit registered building control approvers.

Question 13: Do you agree with the approach to appeals against a decision by the Building Safety Regulator with respect to registration and sanctions as outlined above?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	66	58%
Disagree	40	35%
Not answered	7	6%
Total	113	100%

*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 99%.

Sixty-six respondents (58%) agreed with the proposals relating to registration appeals, with 61 providing further comments. Fourteen respondents used the opportunity to reiterate support for the proposals outlined, citing the importance of having a form of appeal that is embedded within the new system.

While there was broad support for the timeframe (21 days), 2 respondents highlighted that this may be too short, with respondents noting that sanctions on private operators were more onerous than those on local authority building control in some instances. Fourteen respondents, whilst agreeing with the proposals in principle, felt that there should be grounds for internal appeal prior to the Tribunal to avoid unnecessarily lengthy and costly disputes.

Question 14: Do you agree with the approach to appeals against a decision by the Building Safety Regulator with respect to oversight of the building control profession (both public and private organisations) as outlined above?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	65	58%
Disagree	38	34%
Not answered	10	9%
Total	113	100%

*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.

Sixty-five respondents (58%) agreed with proposals related to oversight appeals, with 57 providing further comments. As with the previous question, 14 respondents used the free text to reiterate their agreement with the proposals, noting that the Regulator must have the appropriate powers to instigate sanctions in relation to both the public and private sector where there is poor performance and clear evidence of bad practice.

As set out above, we proposed that the Regulator should send a copy of a disciplinary order or ‘improvement notice’ regarding a registered building control approver to every local authority in England in the relevant circumstances. There was confusion amongst 4 respondents as to why an improvement notice was being submitted to the local authority, as the Regulator only oversees registered building control approvers. As such, these respondents felt that this should only be a matter between the Regulator and registered building control approvers, and not for all local authorities.

Government response

The government has considered the responses received and given the overall high level of support for the proposals, intends to proceed as outlined in the consultation.

Our proposed registration requirements for registered building control approvers and registered building inspectors will allow for a smooth transition from the current regime to the new regime for building control professionals. The new registration system replaces the current approval process for approved inspectors, currently operated on behalf of the Secretary of State by the CICAIR, under section 49 of the 1984 Building Act. The CICAIR approval regime will cease to operate (allowing for a short period of transition) and under the new regime building control bodies will need to register with the Regulator as building control approvers.

The approval period for approved inspectors is currently set at 5 years, and we propose to keep registration length the same going forward for registered building control approvers. This will provide consistency and continuity to the sector.

We propose the registration cycle for registered building inspectors to be 4 years, to run on a different cycle to the registration of building control approvers. This will support the capacity and operations of registered building control approvers firms and building inspectors by spreading registration cycles and easing administrative burdens.

Re-registration every 4 or 5 years will ensure competence requirements remain up to date and relevant, while these lengths of registration cycles will minimise the administrative requirements for both the building control profession and the Regulator. As part of the new building safety regime, we expect building control bodies to adhere to an oversight regime that comprises Professional Conduct Rules and Operational Standard Rules, as well as a code of conduct for individual building inspectors.

The Regulator will enforce registration requirements and will send a copy of a disciplinary order to every local authority in England in the following circumstances:

• a variation of a registered building control approver’s registration
• a suspension of registration for a specified period
• a cancellation of registration from a specified date
• an interim suspension where a serious contravention is suspected or
• an improvement notice, which has been issued to a registered building control approver

The government believes that both local authorities and building control approvers should play an active role in the enforcement of the new regime, and in upholding standards for the sector. Because local authorities have a statutory role as regulators, it is essential that they are kept aware of any sanctions or proceedings against a registered building control approver. The Operational Standard Rules will set out how this information should be used and managed, while the Regulator will adequately monitor compliance. The operational details of how this information will be shared will be set by the Regulator.

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. The regulations also allow that the Secretary of State can add new decisions, and also can withdraw existing ones. This gives the government flexibility in this area to modify the appeals and review process as the new regime settles in. The Regulator can either uphold or vary the decision. The government proposed that decisions about registration should be subject to an internal review by the Regulator, whereas disciplinary matters would be directed to the Tribunal.

The government welcomes the fact that a significant majority of responses agreed with the proposals related to reviews and appeals.

The government notes the concerns from a minority of respondents about the period of time for submission of an appeal and for a response from the Regulator. For submitting an appeal, the government believes a limit is necessary to ensure applicants come forward and request a review while the decision is still relevant and evidence to prove the grounds for the review is still obtainable.

6. Restricted activities and functions

The Building Safety Act 2022 includes provisions which require building control bodies, including registered building control approvers (currently approved inspectors), local authorities and the Regulator, to use a registered building inspector to carry out certain activities and provide advice when undertaking certain functions. A registered building inspector will need to be registered in the appropriate class for the type of work they wish to carry out.

Paragraphs 52 to 61 of the consultation set out the restricted activities that will apply to local authorities and registered building control approvers. The Regulator will not have any restricted activities applied to them, as registered building inspectors will be working within its multi-disciplinary team and expertise will be drawn from across that team.

Paragraphs 63 to 64 set out the proposed restricted functions which will require building control bodies to obtain and consider the advice of a registered building inspector before carrying out a certain function. The consultation proposed decision-making points in the building control process.

The intention is for these functions to be slightly different for each building control body, due to the different types of work they can oversee.

The intention with restricted functions and activities is to ensure competent people are involved in, and advising on, the most significant building control decisions. The building control body will need to use an inspector that holds registration that covers the type of work they are providing advice on.

Overview of responses

This section of the consultation received 113 responses in total. The number of responses varied for individual questions and not every respondent answered every question.

Consultation analysis

Question 15: Do you agree with the restricted activities set out for local authorities and registered building control approvers?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	84	74%
Disagree	25	22%
Not answered	4	4%
Total	109	96%

Eighty-four respondents (74%) agreed with the proposed restricted activities as set out for local authorities and registered building control approvers.

Thirty-eight respondents went on to provide further information to their disagreement with restricted activities. Key themes in responses included:

• 22 respondents requested to allow supervision, where a registered building inspector may be training and needs to have experience carrying out activities on site whilst supervised by more experienced inspectors
• 16 respondents called for further clarity on the registration class for building inspectors expected to carry out these activities
• a number of respondents also noted the need for further guidance on how this would work in practice

Question 16: Do you think any other activities should be included as restricted?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	26	23%
Disagree	80	71%
Not answered	7	6%
Total	106	94%

Eighty respondents (71%) disagreed with the need to include more restricted activities for registered building control approvers and local authorities, whilst 26 respondents (23%) agreed. Of those who agreed there should be more, the most common themes were:

• site inspections, whether for enforcement, unauthorised works or dangerous structures inspections
• the needs to restrict activities related to safety at sports grounds
• activities that correspond to issuing or accepting a final certificate

Four respondents argued that activities related to enforcement of the building regulations should be restricted. It was noted that this activity should be carried out by qualified persons. Five respondents raised concerns with building notices, highlighting that these should be restricted to a competent registered building inspector. Three respondents raised the need to restrict activities related to unauthorised works, dangerous structures inspection and decisions, final certificate and safety at sports grounds.

Question 17: From the list below, please tick any functions you do not think should be restricted functions for registered building control approvers.

Option	Number of responses*	Percentage
Submitting initial notices	28	25%
Issuing plans certificates or a combined certificate with initial notice	20	18%
Giving a cancellation notice in cases of a contravention of building regulations under section 52(1)(c)	21	19%
Giving a cancellation notice when work becomes higher-risk building work under section 52A(1)	21	19%
Determining whether to issue a final certificate	19	17%
Submitting an amendment notice under section 51A where there is a variation of work	26	23%
Submitting a new initial notice under section 53(7) where the original initial notice ceases to be in force, but no final certificate has been issued.	25	22%
Giving a transfer certificate and report under section 53B for a new initial notice where there is a change of registered building control approver.	24	21%
Not answered	83	74%

*in total, 30 respondents answered this question

Question 17B: Are there any functions not included above that you think should be restricted for registered building control approvers?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	40	35%
Disagree	63	56%
Not answered	10	9%
Total	113	100%

Forty respondents (35%) agreed there should be more functions restricted for registered building control approvers. Of those who agreed, the most common suggestions were:

• issuing notices such as a cancellation notice under section 52(1)(a) and 52(1)(b), as well as a notice of contravention or stop notices
• determining whether to issue a final or part final certificate or submitting requests for an extension of time
• consultation with the fire and rescue authority as well as other statutory consultations

Twenty-five respondents (22%) raised the need to restrict the issuing of a notice of contravention once advice has been sought from a registered building inspector. Twenty-three (20%) raised that determining whether to issue a part final certificate should be included as a restricted function, alongside the issuing of a final certificate. Fourteen (12%) highlighted the request for an extension of time to be advised by a registered building inspector. Thirteen (12%) mentioned the need to restrict issuing a cancellation notice under section 52.

Some respondents also highlighted that consultation with statutory consultees, including the fire and rescue authority, should be only carried out on advice of a registered building control inspector.

Question 18: From the list below, please tick any functions you do not think should be restricted functions for local authorities.

Option	Number of responses*	Percentage
Determining a building control approval application	14	12%
Determining whether to accept or reject a transfer certificate and report	30	27%
Determining whether to issue a completion or partial completion certificate	13	12%
Issuing a direction to Relax or Dispense with a requirement of the building regulations	13	12%
Decisions on matters relating to the use of short-lived materials in sections 19 & 20 of BA84	14	12%
Decisions on matters dealing with the drainage of buildings in sections 21 & 22	15	13%
Decisions on matters dealing with the provision of water supply in section 25	15	13%
Tests for conformity with building regulations in section 33	14	12%
Deciding if there is a contravention of building regulations under section 35	15	13%
Giving compliance (S35B) & stop (S35C) notices	16	14%
Giving or withdrawing a section 36 notice or the decision on execution of section 36 notices (removal or alteration of offending work)	14	12%
Provision of facilities for refuse under section 23	15	13%
Determining an application for a certificate for unauthorised building work under BR2010 regulation 18(5) (regularisation certificate)	12	11%
Deciding, with partly completed work (under regulation 19 of Building (Approved Inspectors etc) Regulations 2010), whether the plans are sufficient to show the work will not contravene building regulations or when the work needs to be cut into, when work reverts to a local authority.	11	10%
Not answered	72	64%

*in total, 41 respondents answered this question

Question 18B: Are there any functions not included above that you think should be restricted for local authorities?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	27	24%
Disagree	73	65%
Not answered	13	12%
Total	100	89%

Twenty-seven respondents (24%) agreed there are additional functions that should be restricted for local authorities. Seventy-three respondents (65%) disagreed that there should be additional functions.

Thirty-eight respondents (34%) went on to provide their choice for additional functions that should be restricted. Nine respondents (8%) suggested building notice applications should be a restricted function. Four respondents (4%) suggested determining whether initial notices are valid, whilst 3 respondents mentioned safety at sports grounds as a restricted function.

Question 19: From the list below, please tick any functions you do not think should be restricted for the Building Safety Regulator for higher risk building work.

Option	Number of responses*	Percentage
Approving a building control application for a higher-risk building	12	11%
Determining whether to issue a completion certificate or partial completion certificate	13	12%
Issuing a direction to Relax or Dispense with a requirement in building regulations (section 8(3A))	10	9%
Decisions on matters relating to the use of short-lived materials in sections 19 & 20	10	9%
Decisions on matters dealing with the drainage of buildings in sections 21 & S22	12	11%
Decisions on matters dealing with the provision of water supply in section 25(1)	12	11%
Tests for conformity with building regulations in section 33	11	9%
Deciding if there is a contravention of building regulations under section 35	12	11%
Giving compliance (S35B) & stop (S35C) notices	11	10%
Giving or withdrawing a section 36 notice, or the decision on execution of section 36 notices (removal or alteration of offending work)	10	9%
Giving approval, in the cases where it is required when building control approval was given, so that work can progress past a stage or point.	10	9%
Determining the outcome of a regularisation certificate application for a higher risk building	10	9%
Provision of facilities for refuse in section 23	13	12%
Determining a higher-risk building change control application	10	9%
Not answered	98	87%

*in total, 15 respondents answered this question

Question 19B: Are there any functions not included for higher-risk building work that you think should be restricted for the Building Safety Regulator?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	7	6%
Disagree	86	76%
Not answered	20	17%
Total	93	82%

Seven respondents (6%) agreed that further functions should be included for the Regulator and 18 respondents (16%) provided further comments suggesting that different functions from the ones proposed should be included. These suggestions included:

• statutory consultations with fire and rescue authorities and sewerage undertakers
• matters relating to a notice of demolition
• inspecting building works
• working on dangerous structures
• carrying out functions of the Building Act 1984 and the Building Safety Act 2022
• the provision of advice before the submission of an application

Question 20: From the list below, please tick any functions you do not think should be restricted for the Building Safety Regulator carrying out non higher-risk building work.

Option	Number of responses*	Percentage
Determining a building control approval application	15	13%
Issuing a completion or partial completion certificate when a Regulator’s Notice has been given to the local authority	15	13%
Issuing a direction to Relax or Dispense with a requirement	13	12%
Decisions on matters relating to the use of short-lived materials in sections 19 & 20 of BA84	13	12%
Decisions on matters dealing with the drainage of buildings in sections 21 & 22	15	13%
Decisions on matters dealing with the provision of water supply in section 25(1)	15	13%
Tests for conformity with building regulations in section 33	15	13%
Deciding if there is a contravention of building regulations under section 35	16	14%
Giving compliance (S35B) & stop (S35C) notices	13	12%
Giving or withdrawing a section 36 notice, or the decision on execution of section 36 notices (removal or alteration of offending work)	13	12%
Provision of facilities for refuse under section 23	16	14%
Determining an application for a certificate for unauthorised building work under BR2010 18(5) (regularisation certificate)	14	12%
Not answered	95	84%

*in total, 18 respondents answered this question

Question 20B: Are there any functions not included for non higher-risk building work that you think should be restricted for the Building Safety Regulator?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	6	5%
Disagree	89	79%
Not answered	18	16%
Total	95	84%

Six correspondents (5%) felt that additional functions should be included for non higher-risk building work, and 19 respondents provided further comments. The vast majority of these were ‘not applicable’ or ‘no comment’. Other comments included suggestions to restrict functions for complex buildings, inspecting building works, a response on behalf of the Regulator to a Gateway One submission and statutory consultations. Two respondents raised the need for further clarity on the restricted functions for the Regulator.

Government response

Our proposal for restricted activities and functions is to ensure that people who are carrying out certain building control work are adequately skilled and experienced to do that work or receive appropriate advice to do so. A registered building inspector will need to be registered in the appropriate class for the type of work they wish to carry out.

The government has considered the responses received and the overall high level of support for the proposals and intends to proceed as outlined in the consultation.

Restricted activities will apply to local authorities and registered building control approvers. The Regulator will not have any restricted activities applied to them, as registered building inspectors will be working within its multi-disciplinary team and expertise will be drawn from across that team.

Some respondents asked for further information on how these regulations will be expected to work in practice. The specific details of restricted activities and functions will be published by the Regulator, and the criteria, processes and procedures will include a code of conduct that all registered building inspectors will need to adhere to, whether working in the private or public building control sector.

With regard to restricted activities, some respondents discussed the need for building inspectors to be allowed to carry out building control work, despite not having the relevant qualifications, if being supervised by a registered building inspector who has the necessary competence requirements. This is being considered by the Regulator and there will be guidance to explain how these provisions will be expected to work in practice. We would support the need to allow building inspectors to acquire knowledge and skills whilst working with those more experienced.

A minority of respondents mentioned the need to include further restricted functions for registered building control approvers, such as when issuing a notice of contravention, determining whether to issue a part final certificate, submitting an extension of time or issuing a cancellation notice under section 52(1)(a) and section 52(1)(b) (13) - these have been considered and will be addressed where appropriate in the final regulations.

Where respondents mentioned the need to include further restricted functions for local authorities, such as building notice applications, determining whether initial notices are valid and safety at sports grounds, the majority of respondents did not make reference to these changes and we do not see a need to include these over and above those listed in the consultation.

Although some respondents mentioned including further restricted functions for the Regulator and their involvement in higher-risk building work, including matters relating to a notice of demolition and dangerous structures, we do not think this is necessary because the Regulator will be responsible for overseeing such projects and will make use of multi-disciplinary teams that will draw on expertise from across the construction sector, including registered building inspectors where appropriate.

Similarly, some respondents mentioned the need to include further restricted functions for the Regulator and their involvement in non higher-risk building work, including inspecting building works and complex buildings. These suggestions will be considered and addressed in the Regulations where necessary.

We will work with the Regulator to make sure there is sufficient guidance and oversight so that the new regime operates as effectively and robustly as possible.

7. Cancellation of initial notices

Overview of proposal

The consultation outlined proposals related to the requirement to cancel an initial notice in specific circumstances, such as when the work in the notice relates to higher-risk building work, or when a registered building control approver has received a suspension (either for all their work or for certain types of work) and for de-registration.

The Building Safety Act 2022 removes the ability for persons carrying out work on higher-risk buildings to choose their building control body. Consequently, the following changes proposed to the initial notice process include:

• an additional statement in the initial notice to confirm that none of the work described in it is higher-risk building work
• creating new forms to cancel initial notices when building work includes one or more higher-risk building(s). These forms would include full cancellation and part cancellation options to deal with cases of mixed sites where the initial notice only needs to be cancelled in part and
• amending the public bodies notice to include a statement that building work does not contain any higher-risk building(s), reflecting that public bodies will not be able to carry out their own building control on higher-risk buildings in future

Paragraphs 71 to 76 of the consultation included proposals relating to appeals against the cancellation of an initial notice, including that any appeal of the building control body’s decision must be lodged within 21 days.

Paragraphs 77 to 80 of the consultation included proposals related to the cancellation of initial notices in cases of sanctions. Section 50 of the Building Safety Act 2022 provides that in cases where certain sanctions have been issued against a registered building control approver, its initial notices will have to be cancelled. In such cases, the government proposed to:

• create a new form for local authorities to notify a registered building control approver of a proposed cancellation of an initial notice. This form would include a 7-day period during which the registered building control approver could make representations if they consider the proposed cancellation is not correct
• amend the existing form to allow local authorities to cancel registered building control approvers’ initial notices, and for registered building control approvers to cancel their initial notices, on the grounds of professional sanctions

Consultation analysis

This section of the consultation received 113 responses in total. The number of responses varied for individual questions and not every respondent answered every question.

Question 21: Do you agree with our proposed approach [to the cancellation of initial notices]?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	75	66%
Disagree	9	8%
Neither agree nor disagree	25	22%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	3	3%
Total	113	100%

Seventy-five respondents (66%) agreed with the proposed approach to the cancellation of initial notices, with 31 providing additional comments. Many used the opportunity to reiterate support for the proposals. Key themes included:

• 5 respondents noted the need to make this process as streamlined as possible and reduce complication in the overall process. These respondents noted that the cancellation form should be a single form with an indication at the beginning as to who is submitting it, rather than adding too many forms within the regulations and making them overly complicated
• the need to provide more clarity on the penalties for incorrectly filling out a cancellation form along with suggestions including the need to provide a register of higher-risk buildings which can be accessed by approvers

Question 22: Do you agree or disagree with the government’s approach to appeals [in relation to the cancellation of an initial notice]?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	80	71%
Disagree	6	5%
Neither agree nor disagree	23	20%
Don’t know	1	1%
Not answered	3	3%
Total	113	100%

Eighty respondents (71%) agreed with the proposed approach to appeals, and 25 provided additional comments. Some respondents indicated they were supportive of proposals, but nonetheless raised concerns about the timeframe, with 2 respondents suggesting this needed to be longer than the proposed 21-day period which could allow sufficient time for outcomes to be considered.

Five respondents mentioned the need for clarity in the case that an initial notice has been unfairly cancelled, with some respondents asking whether the initial notice could be resubmitted, or if this required a whole new initial process. They argued that this would delay the overall process and require additional resource.

Question 23: Do you agree with our proposed approach [to cancellation of initial notices in cases of sanctions]?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	53	47%
Disagree	57	50%
Not answered	3	3%
Total	113	100%

Fifty-three respondents (47%) agreed with the proposed approach to the cancellation of initial notices in cases of sanctions. Sixty-one respondents provided further comments.

• 11 respondents argued that further clarification was needed on the details of sanctions. 3 respondents commented specifically on whether any form of sanction or similar process would apply to local authority building control
• 27 respondents raised concerns about who would be issuing sanctions, arguing that the Regulator should have oversight on sanctioning building control approvers, rather than the local authority

Government response

The Regulator will oversee all the building control profession, including competence and standards as well as sanctions for when these are not met. Sanctions will apply to both registered building control approvers and registered building inspectors and will be decided by the Regulator. Local authorities will not be involved in deciding sanctions, although in some cases they will have an administrative role in implementing them such as by cancelling initial notices where a registered building control approver has had their registration varied or they have been deregistered.

The Regulator’s oversight function for the profession will be separate from its role as the building control body for higher-risk buildings to avoid conflicts of interest.

Cancellation of initial notices – higher-risk building work

The government is committed to removing the ability for persons carrying out work on higher-risk buildings to choose their own building control body. The objective behind these proposals is to support the operation of the higher-risk building regime. In practice this means the rejection of initial notices at the application stage when they include one or more higher-risk buildings, or cancellation of initial notices where one has been approved but building work plans change to include one or more higher-risk buildings. These measures will be applicable from the start of the higher-risk building regime.

The majority of consultation responses were supportive of these plans, including the need to make the process as simple as possible.

The government recognises that some comments were received about the number of forms proposed to be introduced. Some respondents suggested that we introduce one new and simpler form. Although we have considered this, our proposed approach closely aligns with the current forms in the Building Regulations. Having a single form for all purposes simplifies the process to an extent, but such a form would be long and complex.

Cancellation of initial notices in cases of disciplinary orders or interim suspensions

The government intends to improve oversight of building control bodies through the measures outlined in the Building Safety Act 2022. Our objective is to ensure the Regulator has sufficient measures in place to sanction a building control body appropriately when there has been a breach of the competence framework or codes of conduct. The sanctions will be introduced in April 2024.

In cases where a variation in registration has been imposed, registered building control approvers will have to cancel some or all of their initial notices – dependent on having any ongoing work of the type they are no longer registered to do. In cases where a de-registration is imposed, they will have all their initial notices cancelled by the local authority.

While it is the role of the Regulator to make decisions with regard to sanctions against a registered building control approver, the local authority will be responsible for processing the cancellation of initial notices in such cases.

Consultation responses were evenly split between those who supported and those who didn’t support this proposal. Concerns included a lack of detail about sanctions and who would decide on sanctions.

The government recognises concerns raised by respondents, such as a lack of specific detail about the sanctions that will be imposed by the Regulator and who will decide these. It is the role of the Regulator to provide robust oversight of the building control sector and details of sanctions will be communicated by them in due course. Although the Regulator will audit, monitor and collaborate with other relevant parties as necessary in such investigations, the Regulator itself will be solely responsible for decision-making on sanctions against registered building control approvers under the new regime.

It is also worth noting that under section 58Z4 of the Building Act 1984 (as inserted by section 42 of the Building Safety Act 2022) the Regulator has the ability to issue an improvement notice to a local authority or registered building control approver if, following an investigation or otherwise, it appears that they have breached its operational standards rules^{[footnote 1]}.

8. Plans certificates

Chapter 5 of the consultation set out proposals in relation to plans certificates, which allow approved inspectors (and in future, registered building control approvers) to certify that detailed plans for building work are in accordance with all applicable building regulations’ requirements. Where a plans certificate is submitted, and not rejected by the local authority, they also provide protection for the developer from enforcement after the work is completed, provided the work is carried out in accordance with the plans certificate.

The government is proposing to: 

• make plans certificates mandatory for any work – provided it falls under the building regulations – to all non higher-risk buildings that fall under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005
• allow for cancellation of initial notices where a registered building control approver or public body is carrying out building control on a building subject to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 without a plans certificate
• allow for cancellation of initial notices related to plans certificates submitted subject to further information to follow but where this has not happened
• amend the form for plans certificates to include a statement stating the developer has confirmed to the registered building control approver that further plans will be provided for inspection by a specific time before the work relating to those plans is started

Overview of responses

This section of the consultation received 113 responses in total. The number of responses varied for individual questions and not every respondent answered every question.

Consultation analysis

Question 24: Do you agree that plans certificates should be mandatory for any work to all buildings that fall under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	56	50%
Disagree	57	50%
Not answered	0	0%
Total	113	100%

Fifty-six respondents (50%) agreed with the proposal, with 90 respondents providing additional comments. Many of the respondents that agreed with the proposal to make plans certificates mandatory raised concerns about the difficulty of implementation.

While a slightly higher proportion of respondents (57) disagreed with the proposal to introduce a mandatory plans certificate, there was similarity in the comments made by both groups about the difficulties of implementing this in the current system. Summarised, these are:

• plans certificates are not suited to complex projects subject to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005
• this proposal would be a significant change for both registered building control approvers and local authorities, and 5 respondents raised concerns about the ability to deliver it with current resources. There could be an un-manageable impact on local authorities, particularly through an increase in reversions
• 6 respondents noted that the proposal creates differences between registered building control approvers and local authorities and produces an uneven playing field. There are a few references to concerns that local authorities will be able to oversee work on a rejection notice, whereas registered building control approvers will not be able to
• that the new requirement will not work in practice as it is very unusual to have everything signed off at once. If every change required a new plans certificate at every stage, then this would be unmanageable and would restrict flexibility of design
• 9 respondents indicated there was not enough detail in the consultation to respond or comment on proposals

Question 25: Do you agree that a local authority should be required to cancel the initial notice for a building which falls under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 within a prescribed timescale of an initial notice being accepted, where a plans certificate has not been issued?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	32	28%
Disagree	81	72%
Not answered	0	0%
Total	113	100%

Thirty-two respondents (28%) agreed with the proposal that the initial notice for a building which falls under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 should be cancelled where a plans certificate has not been issued within a prescribed timescale.

Ninety-eight respondents provided further comments.

Of the respondents who provided a suggestion of how long the prescribed period should be, the suggestions ranged from 5 working days to 3 years, with 14 respondents proposing a longer time frame, citing the length of time it can take between an initial notice and the commencement of work. However, 5 suggestions given in this part of the question ranged between 10 and 28 days.

Those agreeing and disagreeing both used the free text to highlight difficulties associated with this proposal. These included:

• 8 respondents argued that this proposal provided local authorities with an unfair commercial/competitive advantage, and did not go far enough to ensure there is a level playing field between local authority building control and approved inspectors
• 12 respondents noted that local authorities could ‘game the system’ by cancelling initial notices to secure reversions and work going to the local authority
• 10 respondents raised concerns about meeting the required timescales and the resource implications, particularly on local authorities
• linked to the concerns around timescales, a point raised by 4 respondents was the length of time it can take to get from an initial notice to commencement and then completion, which can be months or even years, with comments that as a result the proposal is ‘impossible to deliver’, ‘total nonsense’ or a ‘poorly thought through idea’

Question 26: Do you agree with the proposed approach to amending the form for plans certificates in situations when the registered building control approver has been unable to inspect full plans at the time of first issuing a certificate?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	71	63%
Disagree	39	34%
Not answered	3	3%
Total	113	100%

Seventy-one respondents (63%) agreed with the proposed approach to amending plans certificates, with 66 providing further comments. Many of those who agreed with the approach simply provided short comments reiterating support, and it is clear that respondents felt the proposal to amend the form was self-explanatory and therefore required little additional comment.

From respondents who disagreed with the proposals, some common themes were raised:

• 7 respondents raised concerns about burdens, particularly on local authorities
• 6 respondents called for parity of approach and ‘creating a level playing field’ with local authority building control bodies, for example on full plans, suggesting that the creation of 2 different approaches could cause problems

Government response

Our overall policy aim is to increase safety in all buildings, not just higher-risk buildings, although they are an important part of our reforms. These measures aim to increase safety in non higher-risk buildings by making plans certificates mandatory for any buildings that fall under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (the ‘Order’). This covers many building types but typically applies to buildings with common parts such as blocks of flats.

Making plans certificates mandatory for these buildings will ensure registered building control approvers consider most or all the plans for the building work in one go and will make their approach more consistent with the local authority ‘full plans’ process. This measure has the potential to increase safety in a large number of developments that fall below the higher-risk building threshold.

This is an existing government commitment made in 2021 in the Fire safety consultation government response.

Responses to this latest consultation’s question about whether plans certificates should be made mandatory in the circumstances described above were evenly split between support for, and opposition to, the proposal. Concerns included the burden it would impose on local authorities and the difference in approach for registered building control approvers and local authorities.

Responses to the further question about whether local authorities should be able to cancel initial notices within a prescribed timescale where a registered building control approver has not submitted a plans certificate for a building that falls under the Order were mostly negative. Concerns centred on the lack of a level playing field between local authorities and registered building control approvers and how the latter would meet a set timescale.

We have considered all these comments. The proposals aim to balance the system and level the playing field between local authorities and registered building control approvers. We consider using plans certificates for registered building control approvers in many – although not all – the circumstances where local authorities use the full plans process to be a more balanced approach.

We do, however, acknowledge the challenges in setting a time limit between an initial notice and the submission of a plans certificate, given the differences between types of projects, the need to consult fire and rescue authorities and sewerage undertakers and the possibility for delay. We will further consider whether to set a time limit for initial notice cancellation and if so, how long, or whether the requirement for a plans certificate should simply be fulfilled before a final certificate is submitted.

9. New initial notices

Chapter 6 of the consultation included proposals related to the power to prescribe the period of time a registered building control approver has to submit a new initial notice. As part of the new transfer process, a new initial notice must be submitted by the incoming registered building control approver once the original initial notice is cancelled.

In paragraph 98, we proposed that the new initial notice must be given before the end of the period of 7 days, beginning with the day on which the original initial notice ceased to be in force, or such other period as may be prescribed in regulations. If an alternative registered building control approver does not decide to take on the work and submit an initial notice within this period, the work will automatically revert to the local authority.

Paragraphs 99 to 100 proposed additional circumstances when a new initial notice relating to any of the work covered by the original initial notice may be given. We proposed to limit this to business cessation, including insolvency, that results in the registered building control approver losing the ability to carry out its functions.

Paragraphs 101 to 103 included proposals related to a transfer certificate and report. This includes requiring the incoming registered building control approver to submit a transfer certificate and report to the relevant local authority to demonstrate that they are satisfied that the building work complies with building regulation requirements.

The proposals included further detail related to this process, including a requirement on the incoming registered building control approver to assure themselves before submitting the transfer certificate and report, and the information that should be included.

Paragraph 104 set out that, once submitted, the local authorities must either accept or reject the transfer certificate and report by notice within 21 days, and the extension of that period where the local authority requests further information. Paragraphs 105 to 106 set out the grounds under which a local authority may reject a transfer certificate and report.

Paragraphs 107 to 110 included proposals relating to where the incoming registered building control approver does not submit a transfer certificate and report or has its transfer certificate and report rejected by the local authority, and therefore the initial notice must be cancelled. Proposals included the information that should be included in the forms for the local authority or person carrying out the work to cancel the initial notice.

Overview of responses

This section of the consultation received 113 responses in total. The number of responses varied for individual questions and not every respondent answered every question.

Consultation analysis

Question 27: Do you believe that a period of 7 days is sufficient for an incoming registered building control approver to familiarise itself with any type of project which could fall under this process?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	25	22%
Disagree	84	74%
Not answered	4	4%
Total	113	100%

Twenty-five respondents (22%) agreed that 7 days would be sufficient to review a project. Eighty-seven respondents provided further comments. Key themes included:

• 34 respondents felt that the 7-day period was too short and would be an unworkable timeframe
• 22 respondents raised concerns about local authority involvement and decision making in the process

Of those respondents who disagreed, many were more flexible in their comments. For instance:

• 19 respondents felt that there should be some flexibility or an extension on the 7-day period for projects that were more complex
• 14 respondents raised concerns about resourcing on both the profession and in local authorities
• 8 respondents felt that the 7-day period was a suitable amount of time

Question 28: Do you agree or disagree with the additional circumstance of business cessation for which a new initial notice may be given?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	99	88%
Disagree	9	8%
Not answered	5	4%
Total	113	100%

Ninety-nine respondents (88%) agreed with the proposed additional circumstances where a new initial notice may be given. Forty-three respondents provided additional comments.

Whilst most respondents agreed with the proposal, 10 respondents asked how this would work in practice and in specific situations. For example, it was noted that it would be beneficial to clarify if a new initial notice will carry any transitional arrangements from the previous initial notice. Depending on what new regulations are in place, this could have a detrimental impact on a project already in build. Further comments included that it would be beneficial to consider insolvency and what controls could be put in place to prevent directors of an existing registered building control approvers who are subject to an investigation or disciplinary proceedings from forming and registering new companies.

In relation to comments from those who disagreed with the proposal, 8 respondents felt that this process would complicate the existing system and ‘add additional bureaucracy’. Three respondents felt that the initial notice should always revert back to the local authority.

Question 29: Do you believe that any further circumstances should be added?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	14	12%
Disagree	90	80%
Not answered	9	8%
Total	113	100%

Fourteen respondents (12%) felt that further circumstances where needed where a new initial notice may be given, whilst 29 provided further comments. Of respondents who felt there were additional circumstances, there were no specific suggestions on what those circumstances would be. The range of suggestions provided included the need to cut through red tape, to ensure the process does not become too complicated, and to provide more flexibility and freedom, for instance where business acquisitions take place.

Question 30: Do you agree or disagree that the information listed above is sufficient to assure the local authority that unfinished building work, which is not subject to a part-final certificate, does not contravene any provision of the building regulations?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	71	63%
Disagree	37	33%
Not answered	5	4%
Total	113	100%

Seventy-one respondents (63%) agreed with the proposed information to be included in the transfer certificate. Fifty-nine respondents provided further comments, with key themes including:

• 22 respondents suggested that excessive provision was being made for local authorities. This was a common theme, with respondents arguing that there was an ‘unfair balance’ between the private sector and the public sector (local authority building control)
• 16 respondents raised that there were significant resourcing issues, with some noting concerns around the relevant local authority having the necessary qualified and experienced staff in place
• 15 respondents raised concerns about the sharing of information on time, or whether this would happen at all, with the incoming registered building control approvers
• 4 respondents used this opportunity to comment on the 7-day period referred to earlier in the consultation (question 27) and how this was unworkable, calling for a longer timeframe to transfer information over to a new building control approver

Question 31: Do you agree with a 21-day consideration period during which a local authority must either accept or reject the transfer certificate and report?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	50	44%
Disagree	56	50%
Not answered	7	6%
Total	113	100%

Fifty respondents (44%) agreed with the proposed 21-day consideration period. Sixty-four respondents provided further information. Key themes that were highlighted included:

• 33 respondents felt that the 21-day period was unfair and weighted in the local authority’s favour. Some respondents disagreed with the need for a transfer report and the supervisory role being undertaken by the local authority and pointed to the fact that a registered building control approver would be subject to all of the regulatory and insurance compliance requirements, which can effectively deal with the administration already
• 11 respondents felt that the 21-day period needed to be shorter, with 7 raising concerns about the disparity between the proposed 7-day notice period given for an incoming registered building control approver issuing a new initial notice and the 21-day consideration period for a local authority
• 6 respondents felt that the proposed 21-day period was appropriate, whilst 7 stated that it should be longer than 21 days

Question 32: Do you agree or disagree with the 7-day period a registered building control approver has to provide information to the local authority, if requested?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	45	40%
Disagree	59	52%
Not answered	9	8%
Total	113	100%

Forty-five respondents (40%) agreed with the proposed 7-day period to provide further information. Fifty-three respondents provided further comments. Key themes to note included:

• whilst a number of respondents reiterated disagreement with the proposal to introduce a 7-day period, among these some did feel that the introduction of a time-period (possibly longer) was still a favourable proposal
• 17 respondents argued too much weight was being given to local authorities. Respondents argued that the registered building control approver should be the building control body determining whether compliance has or has not been achieved and felt this was not in the spirit of “consistency” across private and public sector, especially as one set of work will be much greater and has been given a shorter time limit
• 14 respondents felt there should be a greater period than 7 days, though they did not stipulate an actual figure. Some respondents here cited the need to consider where a building inspector could be on annual leave or absent due to sickness, and there would need to be some flexibility on the 7-day period

Question 33: Do you agree or disagree that the above list covers sufficient grounds for a local authority to be able to reject a transfer certificate and report?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	66	58%
Disagree	40	35%
Not answered	7	6%
Total	113	100%

*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 99%.

Question 33A: Are there any grounds included in the list above that you think should be removed?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Yes	43	38%
No	58	51%
Not answered	12	11%
Total	113	100%

Question 34: Are there any grounds that are not in the list above that you think should be included?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	1	1%
Disagree	104	92%
Not answered	8	7%
Total	113	100%

Sixty-six respondents (58%) agreed with the proposed grounds for rejections of a transfer certificate and report.

Forty-three respondents felt that there were grounds for rejection on the list that should be removed, with 40 respondents providing further information. Key points to note included:

• 18 respondents felt that there should be less local authority involvement in the process, which included concerns around appropriate resourcing
• 3 respondents felt there should be grounds for rejection if enforcement activity had already commenced
• 11 respondents felt that proposals overall were not realistic and should be reconsidered. Some argued that the aim is to give the industry greater flexibility and capacity, and the grounds included for the cancellation on the initial notice by the local authority would only restrict this
• 6 respondents noted that the transfer certificate and report does not always confirm compliance of any unfinished work

Only 1 respondent agreed that there were grounds for rejection that should be added, and only 3 provided any further information. Two respondents suggested that clear guidance would be needed, and that additional checks would be appropriate when auditing building control authorities, to ensure correct procedures are demonstrated to have been followed. One respondent suggested that written consent should be needed from the building owner to appoint a building control authority.

Question 35: Do you agree or disagree with the information to be included in the above cancellation notices?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	73	65%
Disagree	34	30%
Not answered	6	5%
Total	113	100%

Seventy-three respondents (65%) agreed with the proposed information to include in a cancellation notice. Thirty-three respondents provided further comments, which included:

• 11 respondents had concerns about local authority involvement in the process, relating to previous responses throughout this section of the consultation. This included concerns around local authority resourcing and the need to provide the private sector with greater flexibility. For instance, some respondents noted that it is now common for local authorities to be combined with one another (as far as building control functions are concerned), or for them to employ agency staff and so the provision of information would need to take this into account
• 8 respondents reiterated their agreement that the information outlined should be included on cancellation notices. Alternative and additional suggestions were made including that before the person carrying out the work cancels an initial notice, they should inform the registered building control approver of their intent to do so and confirm on the notice that they have done so. Furthermore, some of these respondents suggested that it may be beneficial to include other factors, such as the location of the affected works.

Question 36: Do you agree or disagree that the above categories cover the necessary circumstances for a new initial notice to be submitted?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	73	65%
Disagree	31	27%
Not answered	9	8%
Total	113	100%

Seventy-three respondents (65%) agreed with the proposed circumstances when a new initial notice should be submitted, with 34 providing additional comments. Key themes included:

• 10 respondents reiterated their agreement that the categories were appropriate. However, a similar number of respondents repeated concerns around local authority involvement in the whole process
• 6 respondents reiterated their disagreement, arguing that the categories included (along with the prescribed changes outlined in the consultation) overcomplicated the current process/system
• 4 respondents explained that they disagreed because they specifically felt the prescribed changes did not cover the event of mergers and acquisitions of building control bodies. For some, this also included the uncertainty created when issuing multiple licenses

Question 37: Do you believe that additional categories should be added?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	10	9%
Disagree	93	82%
Not answered	10	9%
Total	113	100%

Ten respondents (9%) indicated that they felt additional categories should be added, with 22 respondents going on to provide additional comments. Key themes to note included:

• 7 respondents raised concerns about local authority involvement in the process, similar to concerns raised throughout this section of the consultation, with similar comments from respondents
• 4 respondents argued that there should be provisions for unforeseen circumstances, such as insolvency, the death of a sole registered building control approvers or responsible registered building inspector, loss of capacity, loss of insurance, war, or act of God
• 3 respondents raised the need to have a category covering the possibility of a building control approver merger/acquisition, as in responses to question 36

Government response

The government is committed to ensuring flexibility and capacity within the building control system. We have designed the new initial notices process to introduce the option for the responsibility for building projects to be transferred from one registered building control approver to another, instead of automatically reverting to the local authority.

The views and opinions submitted in response to this consultation have been considered, and due to the overall support for most proposals in this section, the intention is to proceed as outlined in the consultation. Registered building control approvers will be able to take over projects where an initial notice has been cancelled and there is no part final or final certificate in place, should there be capacity to do so. This also gives the person carrying out the work the opportunity to continue with an existing private sector building control approver.

This will apply to cases where the initial notice is cancelled due to a disciplinary order issued by the Regulator, as well as in cases where the registered building control approver loses its ability to carry out its function as a result of business cessation.

This process will work by ensuring that an incoming registered building control approver can take over the building control functions in cases where no final certificate is in place for an incomplete project. It will need to submit a new initial notice, relating to all unfinished work, within a 7-day period of the original initial notice ceasing to be in force. The government acknowledges the concerns that have been raised regarding this and has considered these carefully. The responses that have been received have been balanced against practical considerations.

Once the new initial notice is accepted by the relevant local authority, the incoming registered building control approver will need to undertake all reasonable steps to determine whether any unfinished work complies with building regulations. If there is no breach, then a transfer certificate and report will need to be submitted to the local authority to confirm this.

The local authority then has up to 21 days within which to accept or reject the transfer certificate and report, with the option to seek further information if needed. If this accepted, then the project will be transferred to the incoming registered building control approver.

The government has noted the concerns that have been raised, in particular those regarding timelines. A number of respondents have suggested that the 7-day period to submit a new initial notice is not lengthy enough for this process and have suggested longer periods. The government appreciates that this may be a challenging timescale to keep under certain circumstances, however, the time period within which to submit the new initial notice also needs to take into account the overall length of time before approvals can be granted. Given that this provision applies to cases where no final certificate is in place, a thorough process must be followed to determine that building regulations are complied with, as well as enabling the incoming registered building control approver to take on any work within its capacity. Furthermore, work will more than likely be continuing on site unsupervised, and local authorities will need to know as soon as possible whether or not a project will be transferred to another registered building control approver. On balance, to support a process that will ensure the safety of building work and given all of the above reasons, the government has decided to include this proposal in legislation. The government is committed to ensure that the aims of this policy are achieved and will keep this process under review.

Similar concerns were raised with regard to the 21-day time period within which the local authority has to consider the transfer certificate and report. Some respondents have suggested that this time period is weighted in favour of local authorities. We do not accept the suggestion that local authorities would misuse the regime or seek a competitive advantage. The government is committed to creating a level playing field between public and private sector building control that would not be open to misuse. This 21-day time period is designed to allow the local authority to make sure that all of the necessary information has been submitted by the incoming registered building control approver.

The purpose is to ensure that due process has been followed and for there to be assurance that the incoming registered building control approver has satisfied itself that the building regulations are complied with. Given the administrative nature of this process, the government is satisfied that no specific party involved in this process would gain a competitive advantage through it or be disadvantaged by it.

Overall, the government notes the concerns about the complexity of the proposals and the need for clarity. Further and detailed information will be included in guidance for the sector.

10. Information gathering

Chapter 7 of the consultation includes proposals aiming to allow local authorities to seek information from a registered building control approver where that registered building control approver’s initial notice has ceased to be in force and the local authority needs the information after a project has become its responsibility.

Section 53(4A) to (4D) of the Building Safety Act 2022 places a duty on registered building control approvers to provide local authorities with information relating to their building work, as well as any other information the local authority may reasonably require, on request. The consultation included a proposal that such information must be provided by the registered building control approver to the local authority, and to the person carrying out the work, within 21 days of the date of the request.

Overview of responses

This section of the consultation received 113 responses in total. The number of responses varied for individual questions and not every respondent answered every question.

Consultation analysis

Question 38: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed time period of 21 days for the outgoing registered building control approver to be required to provide this information to the local authority?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	91	81%
Disagree	17	15%
Not answered	5	4%
Total	113	100%

Ninety-one respondents (81%) agreed with the proposed period for providing information to the local authority.

Forty-seven respondents provided further information, and key themes included:

• various suggestions were made for alternate time periods, ranging from 28 to 60 days
• 3 respondents raised the need for flexibility to take into account issues such as annual leave and the number of projects being managed at a given time
• 6 respondents raised the need for a longer period to factor in situations where a registered building control approver goes out of business, in which case the information should be provided at the time their involvement terminates
• 4 respondents raised concerns about the possible ‘burden’ this may place on already overstretched registered building control approvers
• 3 respondents suggested that there should be more flexibility, with a longer timeframe allowed for registered building control approvers managing larger, more complex projects

Question 39: Do you agree or disagree with the same proposed time period of 21 days for the outgoing registered building control approver to provide this information to the person carrying out the work?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Agree	88	78%
Disagree	20	18%
Not answered	5	4%
Total	113	100%

Eighty-eight respondents (78%) agreed with the proposed period for providing information to the person carrying out the work. Forty-four respondents provided additional comments, with the key themes very similar to those provided for question 38. Additional matters raised included:

• 4 respondents raise the need to have parity between providing information to the local authority and the person carrying out the work
• 9 respondents raised the need for clarity on whether the 21 days was calendar or working days

Government response

The government’s aim is to enable local authorities to seek information from a registered building control approver where that registered building control approver’s initial notice has ceased to be in force and the project has become the responsibility of the local authority.

Following positive feedback on this proposal, we intend to proceed with the 21-day period for requiring outgoing registered building control approvers to provide the necessary information both to the relevant local authority and the person carrying out, or intending to carry out, the work coming in to take over works planned.

The government notes the views of respondents on the need for greater flexibility, with particular regard for larger or more complex projects. However, the government believes that these concerns must be appropriately balanced with the need for the local authority to know as soon as possible whether building regulations have been complied with and to assure the safety of building work. The government therefore believes that 21 days is an appropriate amount of time for those involved, reducing the risks and potential for further delays, whilst being fair for those providing the information. To mitigate the detailed concerns raised, the department and the Regulator will work with the sector to produce guidance to help set out clear expectations.

11. Further amendments to the Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2010

Chapter 8 of the consultation included a number of proposed additional amendments to the Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2010, which will be revoked in due course and consolidated in a new set of regulations under the Building (Registered Building Control Approver etc.) (England) Regulations, to reflect the changes brought about by the Building Safety Act 2022 and introduce additional measures to improve the system as a whole.

Paragraphs 118 to 120 related to additional information to be provided on the initial notice regarding the person carrying out the work. This is to provide a clear audit trail which will support effective enforcement work in cases where the registered building control approver is unable to continue.

We proposed that the initial notice form was amended to include the name, address, telephone number and (if available) email address of the person carrying out the work and the registered building control approver. It was also proposed that the public body’s notice was amended to include the name of the organisation, address, telephone number and email address. 

Paragraphs 121 to 123 related to consultation between registered building control approvers and fire and rescue authorities. Currently, approved inspectors must consult the fire and rescue authority before, or as soon as practicable after, an initial notice or amendment notice is submitted in relation to proposed work that triggers Part B (fire safety). It was proposed to introduce a time period by which a registered building control approver must consult the fire and rescue authority after an initial notice or amendment notice is submitted, beginning on the day that such a notice is submitted. The consultation invited views on an appropriate timescale, and whether there are scenarios where longer might be required.

Paragraphs 124 to 125 related to consultation between registered building control approvers and the sewerage undertaker. Currently, approved inspectors must consult the sewerage undertaker before or as soon as practicable after an initial notice or amendment notice is submitted in relation to proposed work, before giving a plans certificate (whether or not combined with an initial notice), and before giving a final certificate.

It was again proposed to introduce a specific time period, and views were invited on an appropriate timescale and whether there are scenarios where longer might be required.

Overview of responses

This section of the consultation received 113 responses in total. The number of responses varied for individual questions and not every respondent answered every question.

Consultation analysis

Question 40: Do you agree or disagree that the above additional information should be included on the relevant forms?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
Agree	68	60%
Disagree	40	35%
Not answered	5	4%
Total	113	100%

*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages totals 99%.

Sixty-eight respondents (60%) agreed with the proposal to include additional information on relevant forms. Sixty-four respondents went on to provide additional comments. Key themes included:

• 20 respondents argued that sufficient information is already provided
• 14 respondents argued that the provision of additional information would only cause delay and/or introduce little value. Fourteen respondents argued that more transparency is needed and that the proposals could in fact go further

Question 41: Do you agree that a time-period within which consultations with the fire and rescue authority are to take place should be introduced?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Yes	45	40%
No	64	57%
Not answered	4	3%
Total	113	100%

Question 41A: If you have answered agree, please state what an appropriate amount of time, in working days, for the registered building control approver to consult the fire and rescue authority would be.

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
5 working days	4	4%
10 working days	6	5%
15 working days	18	16%
Other	55	49%
Not answered	30	27%
Total	113	100%

*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages total 101%.

Forty-five respondents (40%) agreed that a time-period should be introduced for consultation with fire and rescue authorities. Ninety-five respondents went on to provide views, either through question 41A or in free text. Key themes included:

• 52 respondents reiterated general disagreement that there should be a time-period for consultation with fire and rescue authorities. This group of respondents were more likely to advocate that the current system/process works well and that introducing a consultation timeframe would remove any flexibility around requirements, such as the time needed to obtain all the relevant information when consulting
• 7 respondents argued that this would push the initial notice process back and that works would therefore commence without a valid application. Some of these respondents noted that this could represent wholesale change in the way that approvers currently work
• 27 respondents reiterated general agreement with the proposal that there should be a time-period. Their comments expressed a variation of preferences on the exact limit, with some respondents more optimistic about obtaining relevant information in a shorter timescale. However, there were those that felt a much longer time-period was needed with some respondents suggesting up to 60 days as a minimum
• 13 respondents raised concerns about fire and rescue authority resourcing, with many noting that feedback from fire and rescue authorities is not currently provided in a timely manner

Question 42: Do you agree that a time period within which consultations with the sewerage undertaker are to take place should be introduced?

Category	Number of responses	Percentage
Yes	69	61%
No	36	32%
Not answered	8	7%
Total	113	100%

Question 42A: If you have answered agree, please select what you believe would be the appropriate amount of time for the registered building control approver to consult with the sewerage undertaker.

Category	Number of responses	Percentage*
5 working days	14	12%
10 working days	15	13%
15 working days	30	27%
Other	31	27%
Not answered	23	20%
Total	113	100%

*Due to rounding, the sum of the percentages totals 99%.

Sixty-nine respondents (61%) agreed that a time-period should be introduced for consultation with the sewerage undertaker. Seventy-eight respondents went on to provide comments, either through question 42A or in free text. Key themes to note included:

• 22 respondents reiterated their support for introducing a time-period that fell within 15 days (5, 10 or 15 days). However, some free text responses were less specific and didn’t state a preference for a particular time period
• 12 respondents suggested that a consultation should be issued alongside the initial notice to enable a faster turnaround period
• 9 respondents pointed out that limited information was needed when approaching the sewerage undertaker
• 20 respondents argued that the current system was sufficient and didn’t require changing, and/or that proposals to introduce a time-period to consult did not address the issues that currently exist
• 15 respondents argued that introducing mandatory time-periods to consult with the sewerage undertaker would restrict the ability to consult once all the relevant information was available. They were concerned that the process was being rushed, and that consulting without relevant information would ultimately waste the sewerage undertaker’s time.

Government response

The government proposes to improve the system as a whole by introducing wider measures that will encourage greater transparency.

As part of these changes, the government proposes to amend relevant forms within Schedule 1 of the Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2010 to include information on the name, address, telephone number and (if available) email address of the person carrying out the work and/or the registered building control approver. These changes will apply to forms for an initial notice, amendment notice, combined initial notice and plans certificate, public body’s notice and combined public body’s notice and plans certificate.

Given the overall level of support for this proposal, the government has decided to proceed with the proposals. It has been noted that a number of respondents have raised concerns over the necessity of including further information. However, after due consideration, the government has determined that on balance, these changes will provide benefits by strengthening transparency, the audit trail and accountability within the system. The government will consider publishing guidance on this.

As set out above, we also consulted on further changes to regulations 12 and 13, specifically the introduction of a fixed time period of 15 days within which a registered building control approver must consult with the fire and rescue authority and the sewerage undertaker. The purpose of these proposed amendments was to ensure timely consultations and prevent these from taking place too late.

The government has carefully considered the responses to the proposal to introduce a time limit for consultations with the fire and rescue authority, and has decided, given the strength of the feedback in relation to the change proposed for regulation 12, not to proceed with these changes. We judge it is important to align consultation periods with statutory consultees and to keep regulations 12 and 13 aligned. Despite positive responses to the proposals to introduce a time limit for consultations with the sewerage undertaker, the government has also decided to not proceed with this change and therefore with the amendments to regulation 13.

The government is committed to improving the system and will continue to consider further options and proposals with regard to the consultation process with the fire and rescue authorities and sewerage undertaker.

12. Summary

The government is 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.

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.

The regulations are currently subject to the negative parliamentary procedure and will be laid before Parliament in the summer. If approved by Parliament following summer recess, the regulations will be made and are expected to come into force in October 2023.

1. HSE consulted on the draft operational standards rules in October 2022. ↩