Consultation outcome

New build developments consultation: delivering gigabit-capable connections - government response

Updated 22 September 2022

Ministerial foreword

We are delighted to be bringing forward these important changes to the Building Regulations 2010 that will aid delivery of world class digital infrastructure to new homes. We all need access to reliable, high quality digital connectivity. The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated how vital digital connectivity is to enable people to stay connected.

By 2025, we are targeting a minimum of 85% gigabit-capable coverage, and it is vital that modern home developments provide access to all of the benefits of gigabit connectivity. In developing these proposals, my officials have worked closely with counterparts at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC). The deployment of gigabit-capable broadband to new homes is consistent with DLUHC’s mission to have national gigabit-capable broadband by 2030, and its wider work to level up communities. Fast and reliable broadband will help owners and residents of new homes throughout the country to live and work more flexibly and will help to support social inclusion and growth.

We have worked with industry to ensure that the new requirements are proportionate and achieve our policy aims. The new requirements build on existing in-building physical infrastructure requirements for high-speed broadband (an electronic communications network which is capable of delivering broadband access services at speeds of at least 30 megabits per second (mbps), also referred to as ‘superfast broadband’) that already apply to developers. Whilst the new requirements go further, a cost cap ensures that the requirements are proportionate. Developers are to be further supported through commitments to make financial contributions that we have secured from key network operators.

I want to thank all of those who responded to the consultation. We received a range of views from stakeholders, and we believe that the changes will achieve our aim of ensuring new homes are future-proofed for fast, reliable broadband, in a way that complements the current market practice. Taking account of the information received, this response sets out the changes we will make to the Building Regulations 2010 and the Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2010 to ensure our policy aims become a reality.

Julia Lopez

Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport

Executive summary

The COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally changed the way many of us live and work and has demonstrated the importance of accessing fast, secure and resilient services through digital infrastructure. As the UK builds back better and levels up across the country through deployment of gigabit broadband networks, it is essential that new homes provide access to this world-class digital infrastructure from the outset. Today, over 70% of premises can access gigabit-capable networks, up from just one in ten in November 2019. By 2025, the government is targeting a minimum of 85% gigabit-capable coverage. The government is investing £5 billion as part of Project Gigabit to ensure the hardest-to-reach areas in the UK receive coverage. This is aligned with the government’s commitments to deliver nationwide gigabit connectivity as soon as possible and with DLUHC’s Levelling Up mission - as set out in the Levelling Up the United Kingdom White Paper - for the UK to have nationwide gigabit-capable broadband coverage by 2030.

In addition to Project Gigabit and legislative changes for new homes, there are a number of other steps being undertaken to aid the nationwide rollout of gigabit-capable broadband. These are set out below:

• Following a consultation on the Electronic Communications Code, which closed on 24 March 2021 having received over 1200 responses, the Government introduced the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (PSTI) Bill to Parliament on 24 November 2021. The Code regulates agreements between landowners and telecommunications operators regarding the installation of telecommunications apparatus on private and public land. The Bill facilitates the rollout of future-proof, gigabit-capable broadband and 5G networks through reforms to the Code which fall into three main categories: issues relating to requests for new agreements and dispute resolution; rights to upgrade and share apparatus; and renewing expired agreements. It is expected to receive Royal Assent later in this Parliamentary session.

• The government is also preparing to implement the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021, which creates a new route through the courts that operators can use to access blocks of flats and apartments if a landowner is repeatedly unresponsive to requests for access. The Act will prevent a situation where a leaseholder is unable to receive a service due to the silence of their landowner. The implementing regulations for the Act will be laid as soon as Parliamentary time allows, after which the Act can take full effect.

• We are consulting on the Communications (Access to Infrastructure) Regulations 2016 (‘ATI Regulations’) to ensure telecommunications operators can request information about and access to the physical infrastructure (e.g. duct, poles and other passive infrastructure) of other telecommunications, utility and transport operators. Responses to a review of the ATI Regulations through a Call for Evidence published in June 2020 identified a number of potential improvements to the regime. The government response to the Review was published on 24 November 2021. DCMS has proposed the necessary legislative change in the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill to allow the Secretary of State to amend the Regulations through secondary legislation, subject to consultation and the affirmative resolution procedure.

As with many of these measures, the changes to the Building Regulations 2010 will provide greater certainty to industry and lower the costs of building networks, enabling the market to deploy gigabit-capable broadband as fast and as far as possible.

In order to realise these ambitions, it is essential that building regulations support the deployment of gigabit-ready digital infrastructure to new homes at the point of construction. That is why DCMS and DLUHC have worked together to undertake a technical consultation on proposed changes to the Building Regulations 2010.

We carried out an initial consultation process in 2018 on the core policy and published a response to that consultation in March 2020, setting out our proposals. We then carried out a technical consultation for eight weeks starting at the end of 2021, pursuant to section 14(3) of the Building Act 1984. The technical consultation closed on 28 February 2022.

In line with the original policy set out in our response to the first consultation, this technical consultation outlined proposals for creating a legal framework to enact our new dwelling connectivity policy, using existing powers in the Building Act 1984 to amend the Building Regulations 2010. These proposals provided for gigabit-ready physical infrastructure installation and the facilitation of a gigabit-capable public electronic communications network connection (‘gigabit-capable connection’) during the construction of new homes significantly reducing the need for disruptive and costly works at a later date.

This policy represents another significant step in the government’s plan to level up the UK and accelerate the nationwide rollout of world-class broadband.

This technical consultation response sets out the final policy decisions for forthcoming changes to the Building Regulations 2010. A summary of the changes we will make to the Building Regulations is set out under the heading immediately below. The changes will be made by way of secondary legislation as soon as Parliamentary time allows. These changes will be supported by statutory guidance set out in a new Volume 1 to the Approved Document R in a similar form to the draft guidance published with the technical consultation document. In addition, Volume 2 to the Approved Document R will provide guidance on the retained requirements for physical infrastructure for high-speed electronic communications networks. As building regulations are a devolved matter, the proposals consulted on will apply to England only. Please note that, unless the context suggests otherwise, references in this document to changes to the Building Regulations 2010 includes the Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2010.

Summary of changes to the Building Regulations 2010

Requirements

Having carefully considered the responses to the technical consultation, the government has decided to take forward the following changes to the Building Regulations 2010. We will introduce legislative requirements for developers to install the following for new dwellings:

1. Gigabit-ready physical infrastructure necessary for gigabit-capable connections (consisting of physical infrastructure including ducts, chambers and termination points) up to a network distribution point, or as close as is reasonably practicable where the developer does not have the right to access land up to the distribution point; and

2. Subject to a £2,000 cost cap per dwelling, a gigabit-capable connection (which may include equipment such as an optical fibre cable or other technological means of facilitating such a connection). Where a developer is unable to secure a gigabit-capable connection within the cost cap, developers must install the next fastest technology connection available, provided this can be done without that connection also exceeding the cost cap.

In the first instance this should be at least a superfast broadband connection and failing that, at least a Universal Service Obligation-standard public electronic communications network connection, as defined in Schedule 1 of the Broadband Universal Service Obligation (a USO-standard connection).

Where the developer has no right over intervening land in which it would need to install gigabit-ready physical infrastructure to reach the network distribution point, no gigabit-capable connection, they are still required to install gigabit-ready physical infrastructure to one of the following points in order of priority:

(i) as close as reasonably practicable to a location at which it is likely that a distribution point is to be installed within the relevant 2-year period (a ‘likely future location’).

(ii) where there is no likely future location that is closer to the building than the closest distribution point already installed, an access point for gigabit-capable public electronic communications networks.

The relevant 2-year period is a period of 2 years beginning with the earlier of (a) the day on which a building notice, initial notice or public body’s notice is given or (b) the day on which full plans are deposited.

Where the developer is proposing to install infrastructure to such a point because it is unable to install it all of the way to a distribution point elsewhere due to access issues, the developer will need to demonstrate the steps taken to establish the location of the distribution point (by liaising with a network operator).

This means that the first requirement to install the physical infrastructure necessary for gigabit-capable connections (to which the cost cap does not apply), will still apply in almost all circumstances to ensure that the dwelling is future-proofed and ready for gigabit connectivity.

The requirements are to apply to new dwellings in England; that is, the construction of a self-contained building or part of a building to be used as a new residential dwelling. This includes residential dwelling aspects of a mixed-use building (including live/work units, e.g. a flat (dwelling) that is a workplace for people who live there, its occupants, and for people who do not live on premises) and self-built dwellings. New dwellings developed within conservation areas are to be in scope of the requirements, noting that local planning conditions should be met.

They will be applicable to each dwelling or building containing one or more dwellings for which a full plan, building notice, initial notice or public body’s notice has been submitted for building control purposes. Building control may be carried out by building control bodies, either local authorities or by independent Approved Inspectors (AIs). This submission will include compliance evidence submitted by developers. To assist with this, a model form ‘connectivity plan’ is to be set out in an Appendix to Volume 1 of Approved Document R.

The requirements for gigabit-ready physical infrastructure and a gigabit-capable connection will not apply: to new dwellings created by a material change of use (conversion); to the erection of a new building other than a dwelling; or when an existing building (including an existing dwelling) is subject to major renovation works.

Other building works exempted from existing Building Regulations 2010 requirements, for example, buildings to be occupied by the Ministry of Defence or the armed forces of the Crown, or to be otherwise occupied for purposes connected to national security, are excluded from the scope of the requirements.

Application

Building regulations are a devolved matter. Therefore, the legislative changes to the Building Regulations 2010 will apply to new dwellings in England only. However, the provision of gigabit-ready physical infrastructure and gigabit-capable connections to new dwellings is a priority for the government across the whole of the UK. We are therefore working closely with the Devolved Administrations to enable policy implementation everywhere in the UK.

Transitional arrangements

The new requirements will come into force three months after the legislation is laid before Parliament. This will provide stakeholders with a period of time for familiarisation with the new requirements. DCMS and DLUHC will support stakeholders by raising awareness of the new requirements.

In line with standard Building Regulations practice, the new requirements will not apply to developments commenced before the legislation comes into force. They will also not apply to developments where a building notice or initial notice has been given to a local authority or full plans have been deposited with a local authority before the legislation comes into force, providing that the work is started on site within 12 months of the new legislation coming into force.

Retained requirements

The existing Part R of the Building Regulations 2010 requires the installation of in-building physical infrastructure in new buildings, and buildings subject to major renovation works, so that the buildings are enabled for connections to superfast broadband. Other than the erection of new dwellings, which will be captured by the new changes to the Building Regulations 2010 for gigabit-ready physical infrastructure and gigabit-capable connections, these retained requirements will continue to apply to building developments that are in scope. Guidance in the form of Volume 2 to the Approved Document R will be provided to support these retained requirements for physical infrastructure for high-speed electronic communications networks.

Overview of responses received

The technical consultation

The government published a technical consultation on changes to the Building Regulations 2010 for new dwelling connectivity on 21 December 2021. That was carried out pursuant to section 14(3) of the Building Act 1984 and closed on 28 February 2022. It sought views on the details of implementing reforms set out in an earlier government response to the initial policy consultation (both documents are available on GOV.UK) on the principle of delivering gigabit-capable connections to new dwellings.

The purpose of the technical consultation was to seek views on the proposed changes to the Building Regulations 2010 for developers to install gigabit-ready physical infrastructure and, subject to a £2,000 cost cap per dwelling, a gigabit-capable connection. The consultation included 30 questions addressing five specific issues:

Core requirements and exemptions: This included questions related to the gigabit-ready physical infrastructure and gigabit-capable connection requirements, deployment and location of infrastructure, land access issues, duplication of infrastructure deployment,suitable content for statutory guidance and exemptions

Scope: In addition to seeking views on the forms of building works within the scope of the proposed legislation, we asked specific questions related to the feasibility of including dwellings created by a material change of use (conversion) and listed buildings.

Modifications of requirements: Questions on this topic sought views on next best technology (now next ‘fastest’ technology) requirements, developers seeking quotes from two suitable network operators, timings and criteria for calculating the cost cap.

Process and procedure: These questions were concerned with ensuring the connectivity plan is as comprehensive and clear as possible and to understand how best we could aid the inspection of external infrastructure.

Statutory guidance: This included queries relating to the content and formatting of draft Approved Document R.

Additional points raised

Responses also covered topics outside of the questions, or cut across a number of questions. These covered matters relating to: the impact of compliance with the Building Regulations 2010, consumer costs and the impact across different regions, telecommunications competition matters, network operator connectivity beyond the development, and an additional role for local authority building control to support developers.

Summaries of the responses to the matters above and to those received to each of the consultation questions are set out in the next section along with the government’s response.

Summary of responses

We received 28 responses to the consultation. Not all respondents answered every question. Responses were received from private and public bodies including building developers, telecommunications network operators and professional bodies, alongside local authorities, a local enterprise partnership and a trade union. All responses have been analysed and carefully considered and we are grateful to everyone who took the time to respond. Individual respondents are listed at Annex A.

Responses to the technical consultation

Core requirements and exemptions

We proposed

To ensure new dwellings are developed with gigabit capability, we consulted on requiring the installation of the gigabit-ready physical infrastructure necessary for gigabit-capable connections (typically consisting of infrastructure including ducts, chambers and termination points) up to a network distribution point, as set out below.

A developer would need to install gigabit-ready physical infrastructure necessary to ensure that each new dwelling (including each individual new dwelling in multi-dwelling buildings) is equipped with the required infrastructure to support at least one gigabit-capable connection.

The development of a new dwelling would need to include installation of a network termination point. This is the physical point where an occupier is provided with network access. This would connect to an access point (a physical point, located inside or outside the building, accessible to the network operator). A common access point to infrastructure inside the building for a gigabit-capable connection would additionally be required where the building contains more than one dwelling.

The new dwelling would also need to be equipped with gigabit-ready physical infrastructure external to the building. This can vary across developments but would typically include installation of ducts, chambers, cabinets, towers and poles leading from the typically in-building network termination point, through an access point to a distribution point at which the network operator’s network ends. To avoid third party land access issues, this gigabit-ready physical infrastructure would need to extend via a stepped approach to one of the following points (in order of priority):

• a network distribution point for gigabit-capable connections, which could be off-site;

• where the developer has no right to install gigabit-ready physical infrastructure on intervening land in which it would have to be installed to reach the network distribution point, a point as close as is reasonably practicable to the network distribution point; or

• where the developer has no right to install such infrastructure in land beyond the building, a network termination point’s corresponding access point or common access point.

We asked

1A) Do you anticipate any issues with the stepped approach to the gigabit-ready physical infrastructure requirements extending to the network distribution point? How will a connection be practically resolved should gigabit-ready physical infrastructure not reach a network distribution point under the stepped approach? Would the costs of meeting the network distribution point be prohibitive?

And

1C) Do third party land issues currently prevent connectivity to new build homes and how are these issues resolved?

We heard

Respondents largely agreed with the stepped approach to overcome the third party land access issues that may occasionally impact new build developments. Respondents told us that this process is already followed by some developers and that the approach is both sensible and proportionate.

An alternative to the stepped approach was proposed by one network operator to avoid land access issues. This would require a developer creating a network distribution point at a development site boundary and for network operators to be obliged to meet the costs of connectivity off-site.

A question was raised in relation to infrastructure location under the stepped approach, including when connectivity is not being facilitated.

Telecommunications operators highlighted that existing methods adopted for gaining third party land access through wayleave agreements and the use of the Electronic Communications Code are already built into their practices, which should assist where a developer is unable to reach a network distribution point. However, delay in this process was noted as impacting on the ability to connect new dwellings expediently.

Network operators also expressed support for the government’s reforms set out in Part 2 of the PSTI Bill, including for rural deployments (see Executive summary). Others noted that off-site land issues, arising after a developer has reached an agreement with a network provider for connectivity, would be the responsibility of the network operator (including costs associated with delayed completion of building works). It was further noted that under the technologically neutral approach we have proposed, alternatives to underground cable connections can be used to address land access issues.

Two local authorities suggested that a central government agency should apply obligations between network operators and developers to avoid third party land issues and to expedite dispute resolution. Another request was made for changes to wayleaves so that they can be more easily secured, alongside measures for tree cutting, traffic management and addressing remedial requirements for unadopted roads. In the absence of land access agreements that impeded connectivity, it was suggested that the ultimate resident should be informed by the relevant developer.

Respondents noted that costs will be dependent on the distance from the network distribution point and other site-specific factors. Developers noted that the costs of meeting a network distribution point were not prohibitive (albeit highlighting the impact might be different for small and medium enterprises or ‘SMEs’) but also called for government subsidies to support developers with the costs. Other respondents believed that the costs of reaching a network distribution point could be absorbed by developers, noting the competitive advantage of retailing a new property with gigabit connectivity.

Underpinning the responses to these questions was the need for early engagement between developers and network operators to ensure that any issues that may arise can be dealt with promptly.

Government response

The government has considered third party land access issues and the gigabit-ready physical infrastructure requirement in light of the consultation responses and believes that the proposed stepped approach to the legislation will provide an appropriate means of using existing remedies to overcome barriers to installation of infrastructure for new dwellings.

The consultation responses confirm that third party land access issues are experienced by developers and network operators in relation to the development of a small number of new dwellings. As such, it is appropriate for the gigabit-ready physical infrastructure requirement to include a mechanism to overcome these issues. That requirement will therefore include the stepped approach proposed in the consultation, with the addition of a requirement to account for a likely future location of a distribution point, as explained below. Gigabit-ready physical infrastructure will therefore be required to extend from a network termination point to one of the following points in order of priority:

• a network distribution point for gigabit-capable connections, which could be offsite;

• where the developer has no right to install gigabit-ready physical infrastructure on intervening land in which it would have to be installed to reach the network distribution point, a point as close as is reasonably practicable to the network distribution point;

• where the developer has no right over the land in question and where no gigabit-capable connection is being provided because the requirement is excluded or modified (and would be even if the gigabit-ready physical infrastructure was required to reach as close as is reasonably practicable to the distribution point):

  • as close as reasonably practicable to a location at which it is likely that a distribution point is to be installed within the relevant 2-year period (a ‘likely future location’); or
  • where there is no likely future location of a network distribution point that is closer to the dwelling than an existing distribution point and the developer cannot access land to a distant network distribution point, to an access point: or

• where the developer has no right to install such infrastructure in land beyond the building, a network termination point’s corresponding access point.

As respondents noted, the gigabit-ready physical infrastructure requirement is technologically neutral, allowing wired or wireless technological solutions to be used to circumvent third party land issues. We therefore do not consider that further responsibilities should be placed upon developers to install a network distribution point on the development site.

In the context of queries on the location of infrastructure under the stepped approach, including when gigabit-capable connectivity is not being facilitated, we have considered the potential lack of an appropriate network distribution in the locality of the development.

Instances where the gigabit-capable connection requirement exceeds the cost cap are likely to arise in developments that are isolated from such a network distribution point when a development is planned. However, given government targets and the speed of gigabit rollout, it is likely that this position will be remedied expediently, and a network distribution point made available in the near future. As such, when a gigabit-capable connection is not being facilitated, it is preferable for developers to build the physical infrastructure to a point that they can access that would be closest to the likely future location where a network distribution point will be made available. This will help speed up and reduce the cost of future rollout to these dwellings, rather than simply requiring developers to install gigabit-ready physical infrastructure to a point they can access which is closest to an inappropriate distribution point, for example one which is a significant distance from the new dwelling. This will assist with future proofing the dwelling in the best means possible for a gigabit-capable connection.

As such, the stepped approach has been amended for the small number of cases where a next fastest technology connection is being provided or where no connection can be secured within the cost cap, and where an appropriate network distribution point may therefore not exist.

This will mean that, in circumstances where a gigabit-capable connection has not been secured, and developers have no right to access land to reach a network distribution point, developers are required to install infrastructure as close as is reasonably practicable to a likely future distribution point, should one exist. Developers will need to provide evidence of the steps taken to establish the likely location of a network distribution point to building control bodies, in the event that they are not providing a gigabit-capable connection and their gigabit-ready physical infrastructure does not reach the network distribution point due to land access issues. This will require a developer in these circumstances to engage with a suitable network operator. If there is no likely future location that is closer to the building than the closest distribution point already installed, and the developer has no right in land to extend infrastructure beyond the building, then the developer is only required to install infrastructure to the access point, so the stepped approach continues to apply.

Developers will need to work with network operators to ascertain this location at the point that a quote is sought. In many instances, the location of an appropriate network distribution point will be at the point that the site meets the public highway.

Whilst the stepped approach constrains the future proofing of gigabit-ready physical infrastructure to the new dwelling itself, we consider it appropriate to ensure the requirements are proportionate and anticipate it will apply in less than 2% of new dwellings developed each year.

Further government interventions will assist with gigabit deployment. We recently published the government response to the consultation on regulations to implement the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021. The aim of the Act is to encourage landowners to respond to requests for access issued by network operators. These access rights are essential for the delivery of connectivity as operators are unable to deploy their services without first obtaining permission, either from the landowner or a court, to install their equipment on connected land in order to deliver a service to leased premises. The Act does this by creating a new route through the courts that operators can use to access blocks of flats and apartments if a landowner is repeatedly unresponsive to requests for access. The Act will prevent a situation where a leaseholder is unable to receive a service due to the silence of a landowner. At all times, government policy in this area maintains a proportionate balance between public benefits and the rights of individual landowners.

Evidence provided through the consultation suggests that land access issues impact deployment to new dwellings infrequently and therefore we consider that the establishment of a new government agency for these changes to the Building Regulations 2010 would not be proportionate. It is in the commercial interests of network operators to deploy to new dwellings and no obligations are to be applied to network operators. Similarly, we do not consider that addressing issues related to the processes for securing wayleave agreements, measures for tree cutting, traffic management, unadopted roads or consumer policy through amendments to the Building Regulations 2010 is appropriate.

In line with the evidence from the consultation, it is clear that overcoming installation and land access issues requires early engagement between stakeholders, which we strongly encourage.

To address issues relating to evidence and the building control role, the connectivity plan has been reworked to provide a template for evidencing compliance with the gigabit-ready physical infrastructure requirement (see Process and procedure section). This will help to ensure that building control bodies receive the appropriate information. This evidence will in most cases be available in agreed build plans between developers and network operators.

We asked

1B) In line with existing Part R requirements, physical infrastructure will need to lead from a network termination point. This is a physical point at which an occupier is provided with access to an electronic communications network, i.e. a point on the dwelling where the connection is provided. This is typically installed within dwellings, should a network termination point be installed outside the dwelling, would this provide an occupier access to a service or create difficulties complying with the gigabit-ready physical infrastructure requirements?

We heard

The vast majority of respondents to this question noted that a network termination point should be internal to the dwelling. Other respondents noted that an external network termination point would require additional building access and installation works to facilitate a connection, incurring further costs and delays in service access.

It was noted that externally located infrastructure may be easier to upgrade and would reduce developer burdens. It was also highlighted by a network operator that some developments currently do not allow for drilling through external walls, noting that optimal solutions for each development may need to be considered and that requirements should not be prescriptive.

One network operator requested that the legal requirements for developers mirror their existing deployment approach to new build dwellings. This model does not include installation of in-building physical infrastructure until a resident requests a connection.

Government response

The gigabit-ready physical infrastructure requirement for developers will be maintained to require physical infrastructure installation from a network termination point. This is a physical point at which an occupier is provided with access to an electronic communications network in the dwelling. This avoids the practical difficulties highlighted by respondents and the need for significant additional building works to facilitate connectivity in a new dwelling after construction.

Whilst it is noted that the burdens would be reduced for developers if no in-building infrastructure was required, our analysis shows that the cost burdens of both infrastructure and connectivity requirements for developments containing 1-19 dwellings would only exceed £2,000 in under 2% of cases each year. As such, the burdens are minimal for each dwelling and costs could be passed on to residents if additional works are required.

The requirement is not prescriptive and allows varied methods to be deployed to allow service access to an electronic communications network. Developers taking account of the new requirements as part of the planning and development of a newly constructed dwelling should reduce issues with installation of gigabit-ready physical infrastructure in a building to enable service access.

We asked

1D) Do developers envisage difficulties with knowing the best location for the physical infrastructure in relation to a network distribution point or which network distribution point would be applicable?

And

1E) Is it possible that the physical infrastructure deployed will not be appropriately located and if so, how will developers and network operators resolve the issue?

We heard

Respondents do not envisage difficulties of the nature raised in the questions, as installation issues are addressed on a site-by-site basis through developer and network operator engagement. In practice, network operators assist developers with site plans and the design and appropriate location of infrastructure. One developer noted that the requirements should prohibit “inappropriate routing of infrastructure”. In any event, where the agreed location of infrastructure is not followed or departed from by developers, meaning they are not able to facilitate a connection due to an inappropriate location of infrastructure, network operators noted that they have existing defect processes to remedy such installations.

Conflicting views were provided on the role of building control bodies should disagreements over the location of infrastructure occur between developers and network operators. Some supported building control intervention and others noted that issues should be resolved by the parties, and it would not be appropriate for building control to act as an arbitrator. Queries were raised as to how the location of infrastructure would be agreed between parties and communicated to building control bodies and the building control role.

Developers noted that network operator guidance in published practice guides would assist with deployment. Respondents also noted the importance of network equipment records, including where deployment of connections is through another network operator’s infrastructure. It was additionally noted that local authorities could assist developers through information provision and training which, in turn, would help local authorities ensure delivery by developers.

Government response

As noted by respondents, current practices between developers and network operators ensure agreements on designs and the location of equipment. Where installation of gigabit-ready physical infrastructure deviates from these designs, connectivity can still be facilitated in some instances, but in others, remedial action is required. This is resolved through existing processes and covered by the agreements reached between developers and network operators. These processes should be undertaken prior to submitting the relevant documentation to building control bodies and should, in many cases, prevent the need for building control intervention.

The technological neutrality of the requirements and need for site-by-site variations to address issues means that routing variations and flexibility is required and no definitive statement as to what would amount to “inappropriate routing of infrastructure” is appropriate.

Network operators often provide guidance - including written guidance, which in some cases is already published - to assist developers with infrastructure installation. In other cases, network operators will directly install infrastructure on behalf of developers. Our information campaign will ensure that this information is disseminated to all parties to assist with infrastructure installation.

We consider that including measures to amend the Building Regulations 2010 to address any issues regarding network operator record keeping in this policy would not be appropriate. It should be noted that the Geospatial Commission is working to develop a National Underground Asset Register (NUAR) covering telecommunications, electricity, gas and water networks, and is looking at answering some of the wider challenges of infrastructure data sharing to enable more efficient and safe excavation practices.

In terms of communicating evidence of compliance with the gigabit-ready physical infrastructure requirement, we have included a new section within the connectivity plan (the plan will be included as an Appendix to the statutory guidance Approved Document R, Volume 1: Physical infrastructure and network connection for new dwellings, which will be available on GOV.UK when legislation is laid) to assist developers in demonstrating the site layout and the proposed location of the infrastructure. This should assist building control bodies in ascertaining the location of physical infrastructure on a site when considering whether the requirements to install gigabit-ready physical infrastructure have been met.

As noted above and elsewhere in this response, notably in the Process and procedure section, an information campaign will be undertaken prior to the requirements coming into force to ensure that all parties have relevant information and materials to aid compliance and to understand the role of building control bodies in the context of the new requirements.

We asked

1G) How often will a next best technology connection not use gigabit-ready physical infrastructure capable of supporting a gigabit-capable connection? Are there any anticipated problems or burdens to the installation of two forms of infrastructure to support a next best technology connection and gigabit-ready physical infrastructure?

We heard

Some respondents raised concerns with the costs, burdens and impact of installing two sets of physical infrastructure to support a gigabit-capable connection and another form of next best technology connection. Others, however, believed that it would be justified on the basis of the additional costs involved in installing further infrastructure (i.e. to support gigabit connectivity) after the building development has been completed.

However, a number of respondents noted that the vast majority of gigabit-ready physical infrastructure installations use a ducting system that would be adaptable for a next best technology connection and therefore duplicate infrastructure would not be required save for in very exceptional cases.

Government response

Our analysis indicates that approximately 1.7% of premises in new build developments with between 1-19 units have deployment costs above the £2,950 threshold, being the total of the developer cost cap and the assumed operator contribution. Within this 1.7%, as noted by respondents, next fastest technology connections (see Modifications of requirements) may be able to be provided using infrastructure also capable of fulfilling the gigabit-ready physical infrastructure requirements. Additionally, where no connection can be secured within the cost cap, it is possible that the “isolated area’’ exemption (see Core requirements and exemptions) may also be engaged, removing the requirement for gigabit-ready physical infrastructure altogether. As such, very limited cases will require the deployment of separate physical infrastructure to support a next fastest technology connection, in addition to the gigabit-ready physical infrastructure required.

We believe that it is appropriate that all new dwellings are equipped with gigabit-ready physical infrastructure to ensure that when gigabit-connectivity becomes available in the future, the resident is able to access the fastest services.

We proposed

The requirement to install gigabit-ready physical infrastructure exists irrespective of compliance with the requirement to facilitate a gigabit-capable connection. This was to ensure that the dwelling will still be built with the right infrastructure to support a gigabit-capable connection in the future.

We sought views on any practical difficulties anticipated with a blanket application of this requirement, and if any exemption would be appropriate. The existing exemption from the Part R requirements (set out in regulation 44B(c) of the Building Regulations 2010) was noted and applies to:

“buildings situated in isolated areas where the prospect of high-speed connection is considered too remote to justify equipping the building with high-speed ready in-building physical infrastructure or an access point.”

We asked

1H) Are there circumstances where it would be difficult to meet the gigabit-ready physical infrastructure requirements, and would these necessitate an exemption?

And

1I) Do you agree that the existing Part R exemption should be applied for the limited circumstances set out?

We heard

Some stakeholders referenced the need for new streetworks and permits together with “different considerations for conservation areas” when considering compliance with the gigabit-ready physical infrastructure requirements.

Additionally, in the context of other exemptions such as the cost cap, it was noted that if a connection is not being facilitated in line with the requirement to provide a gigabit-capable connection, but gigabit-ready physical infrastructure is installed to future proof the dwelling, consideration should be given to the location of the infrastructure (such as ducting) to ensure that the infrastructure is not exposed to the elements and is able to facilitate future connectivity.

A trade association and a developer noted that exemptions were not required. Network operators had contrasting views and noted that, given current and future gigabit coverage, it would be more cost efficient to assume that any new build dwelling will ultimately have a gigabit-capable connection even if they currently appear unlikely to receive one. Others noted that an exemption may be required for instances where a development consists of a small number of dwellings and is in an area that is not close to any network. It was noted that alternative technologies such as fixed wireless access or satellite equipment may provide better connections than a USO-standard connection and should be considered before exemptions are relied upon.

Respondents who agreed that the existing Part R exemption should be applied noted the need for careful consideration around the definition of an isolated area, how to evidence where there is reliance on the exemption (including in a rural setting) and how building control bodies would assess its applicability. One local authority believed that the application of the existing Part R exemption would rule out properties within their region. A developer noted that further exemptions may be required to account for difficult ground conditions, water table heights and where gigabit-ready physical infrastructure is installed, to future-proof a property to ensure the installation remains protected. A local authority noted that another exemption may be needed for self-built dwellings.

Government response

Whilst it is the case that additional streetworks (requiring permissions) may be required to facilitate connectivity as noted in the Core Requirements and Exemptions section, early engagement between developers and network operators to plan installation, connectivity and the works required can mitigate this. In the context of new dwellings in conservation areas, there may be specific circumstances or local planning conditions that a developer has to take into account when complying with the infrastructure requirement. These could include the impact of an access point placed visibly on the side of a building or the above ground installation of telecommunications poles, masts or cabinets in conservation areas. In such circumstances, developers and network operators should cooperate to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the Building Regulations 2010 and to any relevant conservation area or planning conditions. In determining specific solutions in conservation areas, the building control body should consider information provided by developers including any advice of the local authority’s conservation officer.

Regarding concerns raised that where a gigabit-capable connection is not provided, but gigabit-ready physical infrastructure is installed and ‘future-proofs’ the dwelling, Volume 1 of Approved Document R provides guidance that infrastructure should be installed in such a way that it is protected from any deterioration resulting from exposure to the elements or similar factors, so that it remains fit and ready to host a connection to a gigabit-capable connection when this becomes possible.

In the context of exemptions, our evidence base notes that approximately 98% of new dwellings per year will be facilitated with a gigabit-capable connection. As such, and as noted above (see Core requirements and exemption section), an exemption to the gigabit-ready physical infrastructure requirement would not be applicable to the majority of properties. Of those that are to be served by next fastest technology connections, it is appropriate for these dwellings to have gigabit-ready physical infrastructure as existing connectivity options are available for the dwellings.

We agree with the majority of respondents that the exemption is required for limited circumstances and should only have very limited application. It should therefore only apply in isolated areas where the prospect of securing any connection is considered too remote to justify equipping the building with gigabit-ready physical infrastructure and where the developer is unable to secure a USO-standard public electronic communications network connection within the cost cap. To provide clarity on what an ‘isolated area’ amounts to, as remote or rural areas may be served by good connectivity, an isolated area will be one that is isolated from existing digital infrastructure capable of providing any of the connections noted within the requirements. This would include isolation from infrastructure serving gigabit, superfast, or Universal Service Obligation-standard public electronic communications network connections. A development would therefore need to be so isolated geographically from network infrastructure that it is unlikely that any form of existing connectivity could be provided. This would cover circumstances where no form of technology has been able to deliver connectivity to the region previously. Additional wording to this effect is to be included in Volume 1 of Approved Document R.

To rely on this exemption, a network operator will need to be able to demonstrate to building control bodies the lack of infrastructure available in a region. In practice, this will typically be best supported by evidence from a network operator provided by the developer in the connectivity plan that the prospects of connectivity within the region are exceptionally remote and that connections have not been able to be established in the locality. A developer may wish to obtain this information through their work with suitable network operators when obtaining a quote for a gigabit-capable connection.

Whilst land conditions may present more challenging installation issues, we do not consider that further exemptions are needed on the basis that the requirements are both technologically neutral and allow inherent flexibility to meet site-by-site challenges. Residents of properties in such areas will also require the benefits of good connectivity, which is also the case with new self-built dwellings, and in the absence of a rationale for a further exemption, these will continue to be within scope.

Scope

We proposed

We set out in the technical consultation that the new gigabit-ready physical infrastructure and gigabit-capable connection requirements would apply to ‘new build’ dwelling. That is, the construction of a self-contained building or part of a building to be used as a new residential dwelling in England.

This included the following forms of buildings:

• residential;
• mixed-use (applying to the part of the mixed-use development which is used as a residential dwelling);
• dwellings developed from a material change of use (conversion) from a different form of building, e.g. from an office into new dwellings, or from a house into a number of flats.

These forms of building extend to residential dwelling aspects of a mixed-use building (including live/work units, e.g. a flat (dwelling) that is a workplace for people who live there, its occupants, and for people who do not live on the premises), and self-built dwellings.

It included new dwellings developed within conservation areas, and those developed through a material change of use or conversion. We further set out that the requirements would be applicable to each dwelling or building in scope containing one or more dwellings for which a full plan, building notice, amendment notice, or initial notice has been submitted for building control purposes.

Those out of scope of the requirements included existing residential buildings subject to major renovation works, and listed buildings. Schools, hotels, and buildings occupied by the Ministry of Defence or the armed forces of the Crown, or otherwise occupied for purposes connected to national security, were noted as excluded from the scope of the requirements.

The current requirements relating to the installation of physical infrastructure for superfast broadband contained in Part R of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010 are to be retained in an amended form, applying to new non-residential buildings, and existing residential and non-residential buildings that are subject to major renovation works.

We asked

2A) Are there any concerns around the scope of the new requirements?

We heard

Respondents were generally in agreement with the scope of the requirements. Some noted that schools, hotels and major renovations and commercial premises should, however, be within the scope of proposals, alongside “residential institutions”.

A question was raised as to whether major renovation works were in scope of the new requirements, alongside a request for amendments to the Approved Document R definition and clarity on the application of major renovation works under the existing Part R requirements that will continue to apply. Others noted that internal infrastructure should be deployed in dwellings subject to major renovations.

Others noted the cost cap could potentially lead to developers justifying the use of slower next best technology provisions when they could otherwise provide a gigabit-capable connection or a superfast broadband connection. Monitoring the provision of commitments by network operators was also suggested and, in the absence of these commitments it was suggested that government subsidies may be needed.

Issues were raised around external infrastructure in conservation areas in the context of upgrading equipment in the future as opposed to deployment to new build developments.

We also heard that listed buildings and conservation areas could present a challenge when applying Approved Document R. Consideration for positions of access points on/within buildings where the facades remain unchanged and excavations for the infrastructure could be restricted by planning authorities. Consideration should be given to how any restrictions due to planning requirements, or due to a building being in a conservation area, are communicated to the relevant building control body.

Responses to this question relating to the building control role are addressed in the Additional points raised section.

Government response

The government recognises the importance of connectivity to buildings outside of the proposed scope of the new requirements. The focus of the new requirements is to ensure that the residents of new dwellings are able to take up gigabit broadband services. While these requirements relate to connectivity in new dwellings, the government is committed to delivering nationwide gigabit connectivity as soon as possible across both residential and business locations. As noted, over 70% of premises - which includes non-residential premises - can now access gigabit-capable networks, up from just one in ten in November 2019, and by 2025, the government is targeting a minimum of 85% gigabit-capable coverage, which applies across residential and business locations. This aligns with DLUHC’s Levelling Up mission for the UK to have nationwide gigabit-capable broadband coverage by 2030.

We understand the rationale for applying requirements to existing dwellings subject to renovation. However, there are significant differences between new dwellings and existing dwellings that are renovated. The building works for renovated dwellings are different and may not require external building works. Compliance could therefore significantly increase the costs of installing physical infrastructure. Additionally, the property may already be served with broadband connectivity. As such, different measures may be required to address any market issues. Further consideration is required as to the best means of addressing connectivity to other forms of building developments - including dwellings - subject to major renovation.

Buildings including dwellings subject to major renovations are not to be subject to the new requirements. Whilst we appreciate the benefits of applying the requirements to these forms of building works, the potential burden and cost needs further consideration as not all major renovations will require the same building works that will assist with installation of gigabit-ready physical infrastructure.

As noted above (see Retained requirements), the existing Part R requirements will continue to apply. Part R will still require the installation of superfast-ready in-building physical infrastructure for the erection of a new building other than a dwelling or when an existing building (including an existing dwelling) is subject to major renovation works, so that the buildings have infrastructure capable of supporting superfast broadband connections. Other than the erection of new dwellings, which will now be captured by the new changes to the Building Regulations 2010 for gigabit-ready physical infrastructure and gigabit-capable connections, these existing requirements will continue to apply to building developments that are in scope. In the absence of evidence of problems with the application of the existing requirements to buildings in scope, no further amendments will be made to the requirements and Approved Document R in this context. This is consistent with the findings of the first government Review of existing Part R requirements carried out in 2021.

In the context of cost, whilst it is acknowledged that we will be introducing new requirements for developers, the vast majority of dwellings developed are currently already in receipt of gigabit connectivity. The costs associated with connectivity are minimal when considered in the context of the costs of a whole development. Further, the new requirements are designed to align with current practices. This will ensure that any burden on developers required to equip new dwellings with gigabit-ready physical infrastructure and gigabit-capable connections will be kept to a minimum. The application of the policy and the new requirements will be subject to a statutory review taking account of its effectiveness.

With regard to the next fastest technology requirements, the ability for a developer to move to slower forms of connection will be based on approaching at least two suitable network operators and failing to secure a connection within the cost cap. As in the Core requirements and exemptions section, our evidence base notes that the cost cap will only be exceeded for gigabit connectivity in a small number of dwellings built each year. Evidence for reliance on the cost cap exemption will be required to demonstrate that these network operators provided quotes that exceeded the cost cap.

As demonstrated by some network operators providing financial commitments towards deployment, it is in the commercial interests of network operators (some of whom only supply connections that would be capable of meeting gigabit performance criteria) to deploy to new dwellings. It is also in the interests of developers to sell dwellings that have the best connectivity available. As the market is increasingly delivering gigabit connectivity to new dwellings, we do not consider that specific targeted subsidies are required to assist with the policy implementation.

However, this policy does not prevent stakeholders from accessing other policies, providing eligibility criteria are met. It will work alongside other programmes, including the £5 billion funding for Project Gigabit which will ensure premises in the hardest to reach parts of the UK get gigabit-capable connections, and the Gigabit Broadband Vouchers Scheme. These programmes will further increase the number of dwellings that can receive gigabit-capable connections.

Regarding external infrastructure in conservation areas, developers and network operators should, when working together, consider the best means of providing gigabit-capable infrastructure for dwellings both immediately and for the future. This will involve weighing up the capabilities and characteristics of external infrastructure in relation to local conservation area conditions.

Matters raised related to the role of building control bodies are addressed in the Process and procedure section.

We proposed

The technical consultation asked questions as to the suitability of new dwellings created through an existing building undertaking a material change of use (conversion) to include one or multiple dwellings.

We asked

2B) Are there any barriers to the policy being effective if the requirements are applied to dwellings created through conversions, including those specific to SME developers?

And

2C) Would developers incur significant costs if the proposed policy applied to conversions? Would these result in fewer conversions being undertaken? Would the costs disproportionately impact on a specific class of developer including SME developers?

And

2D) Are there any practical barriers to the installation of either the gigabit-ready physical infrastructure necessary for gigabit-capable connections or a gigabit-capable connection (or next best technology connection) to dwellings created through the various different forms of material changes of use?

And

2E) Do you have any evidence as to how frequently dwellings created through conversions already have sufficient infrastructure in place to install gigabit connections?

And

2F) Do you have any evidence about the proportion of conversions that are likely to exceed the cost cap for installing gigabit-capable connections and the conditions when this is most likely to happen?

And

2G) Are there any anticipated problems or burdens associated with building control in relation to connectivity requirements for conversions?

And

2H) Would a modified version of the proposals be workable for conversions i.e., if the physical infrastructure requirements only extended to in-building infrastructure?

We heard

No responses were received from developers who undertake material change of use or conversion building works that result in new dwellings. The majority of stakeholders that did respond thought that conversions should be within the scope of the regulations. Telecommunications operators thought that these forms of dwelling creation should be in scope, although one noted that it should particularly be linked to circumstances where building works require the laying of utilities. Local authorities raised the lack of consideration of superfast broadband delivery into existing conversions as problematic. It was suggested that including conversions in scope would help to avoid ‘not spots’ and that doing so would help in potential reductions in expenditure for consumers. Local authorities also noted that the cost cap would largely prevent barriers to the policy being effective and that conversions are likely to be in areas served with good connectivity.

Trade bodies noted that the focus of their members or businesses was on new dwellings rather than on dwellings created by a material change of use. Views were expressed by a developer that conversions may need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

In terms of barriers to the policy being effective, local authorities cited cost, especially for smaller developers, alongside a lack of experience on the part of developers, which could be problematic. Others noted that, where a material change of use results in multiple dwellings, there should be a restricted amount of external infrastructure to prevent requirements for multiple installations on the outside of buildings. Barriers should also be communicated to building control bodies through the connectivity plan.

Telecommunications operators noted that the costs involved should not be materially different to new builds under current arrangements, and that building works would be the ideal point to incorporate in-building physical infrastructure and changes to the electrical installation within the property (with engineering solutions in place to facilitate connectivity). The cost cap was cited as being relevant to smaller scale conversions.

Local authorities noted that developers engaged in the building works would be best placed to advise on costs, although one local authority noted that development viability could be impacted by additional costs.

Respondents generally noted that there were unlikely to be many practical barriers. Planning restrictions in conservation areas relating to external infrastructure, remote conversions that may require alternative technologies to connectivity through cabling, and complex challenges with complying with other requirements of the Building Regulations 2010, such as fire and sound, where the internal infrastructure is routed through existing compartment walls, were cited as barriers.

Respondents’ views on how frequently dwellings created through material change of use or conversion may have pre-existing infrastructure that may assist with gigabit connectivity were mixed. One network operator believed that pre-installed connectivity would be available, and another noted that the buildings in question would likely have been constructed prior to full fibre rollout with existing infrastructure unable to support gigabit connectivity. Both views were shared by local authorities.

Limited evidence was provided as to how many material change of use developments resulting in dwellings would exceed the cost cap, although it was noted that conversions in rural areas may present challenges with connections within the cost cap.

A local authority called for specific exemptions in relation to heritage assets (listed buildings and historic buildings in conservation areas) to take account of the impact on character or appearance, impractical circumstances such as remote buildings, or those where finding a use for the building is difficult even in the absence of additional burdens.

Whilst some respondents noted that a restriction to in-building infrastructure for material change of use developments resulting in dwellings could be an option, network operators noted that the external infrastructure that would facilitate a connection is one of the key benefits of the requirements as proposed.

Government response

The government recognises the importance of residents of all new dwellings having access to the best available connectivity.

No information was received in response to the technical consultation from developers who undertake material change of use or conversions of buildings into dwellings. Limited information is therefore available to undertake an assessment of the impact of introducing requirements for dwellings created through this methodology, particularly in relation to rural areas. Comments raised by some stakeholders in the consultation as to some of the issues with including conversions in scope raise further concerns. In the absence of the potential cost impact, the impact on the viability of undertaking these conversions is unknown. As such, new dwellings created through a material change of use or conversion will not be included within the scope of the new requirements.

In line with building types noted above, further work is required to assess how to best address these forms of building works resulting in dwellings. In the meantime, we understand that in many cases developers will ensure that dwellings created through material changes of use both have the requisite infrastructure and the connectivity that residents require.

We proposed

Listed buildings would not be within the scope of the new requirements.

We asked

2I) Do you agree that listed buildings converted to new build homes should be excluded from the scope?

We heard

Developers who convert listed buildings into new dwellings did not respond to the consultation. Local authorities believe that listed buildings should be in scope to include as many properties as possible, as residents will require connectivity. In their view, inclusion would also allow for works to be undertaken in line with utility provision. They cited the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as a means of protecting nationally significant heritage assets from inappropriate alterations ensuring that connectivity would not be unreasonably detrimental to a listed building. On the other hand, concerns were raised about the impact and competence of those installing infrastructure and that alternative technologies may be required.

Alongside local authorities, others noted the need for building control bodies to look at specific risks and exclusions on a case-by-case basis in line with conversions and that installation methods may need to be altered for listed buildings and those in conservation areas. The need to communicate these issues to building control bodies was highlighted.

Telecommunications operators’ views were divergent, with some noting that very few listed buildings are converted to new dwellings and that they could be excluded from scope, and others noting that if they are in scope, it may save costs should a connection be needed later. Others agreed that undertaking connectivity installation at the point that building works were being undertaken was appropriate and that specific solutions for deployment already exist.

Another respondent noted the exemptions for historic buildings in Part L of the Building Regulations 2010 related to an unacceptable alteration of the building’s character or appearance, in addition to circumstances where special considerations should apply.

Government response

Whilst we recognise that the residents of listed buildings require access to the best available connectivity, respondents noted a number of considerations that will require future work to consider. This includes an assessment of whether installations would lead to an unacceptable alteration of the building’s character or appearance, if the requirements would need to be adapted for consideration of specific risks on a case-by-case basis, or if potential exclusions and revised installation methods would need to be applied.

As we will no longer be imposing the requirements on dwellings arising from a material change of use, listed buildings converted into dwellings will also be out of scope. It is highly unlikely that newly erected dwellings would be listed at the point of construction, but where they are they would be in scope of the requirements. Listed buildings would be a consideration within the scope of the proposals to retain existing Part R requirements for in-building physical infrastructure when an existing building (including an existing dwelling) having listed status is subject to ‘major renovation’.

Modifications of requirements

We proposed

If the £2,000 cost cap were to be exceeded for a gigabit-capable connection (see Requirements), a next fastest technology connection requirement would apply. This would require the developer to seek to obtain a quote for the installation of the fastest possible connection available without exceeding the £2,000 cost cap per dwelling. In the first instance, this would be at least a superfast broadband connection. If a developer was unable to secure a superfast broadband connection within the cost cap, the developer would be required to secure a USO-standard connection. If a developer was unable to provide a USO-standard connection within the cost cap, no connection would be required. The developer would be required to provide evidence where a connection could not be secured without exceeding the £2,000 cost cap; there are corresponding sections of the connectivity plan in which this can be provided.

We asked

3A) Do you have any comments on the ‘next best technology’ requirements?

We heard

Respondents generally approved of the next best technology requirements, noting that it will be assisted by gigabit deployment and Project Gigabit. Some respondents noted that copper should not be included as a next best technology requirement; others noted that USO-standard connections should be kept as a minimum connection with the requirements, and that guidance should be provided on the next best technology where a gigabit-capable connection cannot be facilitated. It was noted that alternative broadband technology solutions and the concept of the next best technology are critical to rural deployments.

Respondents also agreed that infrastructure should still allow for a future gigabit-capable connection where a next best technology connection has been facilitated, noting that network operator solutions can in some cases facilitate both a gigabit-capable connection and a next best technology connection within the same infrastructure.

Local authorities noted that where no connection is being facilitated, the consumer should be informed by the developer of the reason for the absence of a connection and the potential connectivity options available to the resident. Additionally, the developer should be made responsible for pursuing a funding solution. Local authorities also noted that affordability issues can be associated with mobile or satellite-based broadband.

Government response

The next fastest technology requirements are to be included with the requirements as a means of ensuring that, where gigabit connectivity is not available, the dwelling still has a form of connectivity. This will allow a resident to access a service at the point of taking up residency.

In line with the consultation proposal and suggestions from respondents, we will require that a USO-standard connection is delivered through any technology able to meet performance requirements to provide a minimum standard of connectivity. For all forms of connectivity within the cost cap, alternative technologies can be considered. This point has been further iterated in Volume 1 of Approved Document R to note that, where a suitable form of connectivity can be facilitated with an alternative technology (for example, with fixed wireless infrastructure instead of cabled technologies), this should be considered prior to moving to a slower form of connection (guidance is to be provided in Volume 1 of Approved Document R). Such alternative technology may be able to overcome issues present when a new development is isolated from existing cable infrastructure.

We agree that future-proofing a dwelling that is in receipt of a next fastest technology connection is important. As noted by respondents, gigabit connections can often be delivered through the same forms of infrastructure that will facilitate the next fastest technology connection.

Whilst we understand the benefits of developers both seeking funding and providing information to consumers, we are conscious of maintaining a balanced and proportionate set of requirements for developers. In this instance, we do not believe it to be appropriate to increase burdens upon developers where market practice is currently delivering gigabit connectivity to the majority of dwellings and where our evidence bases suggest very few dwellings will not receive gigabit-capable connections. Both the funding and connectivity position will alter over time and therefore any advice provided by developers may not take account of all options available to a resident.

Where a resident seeks information about local connectivity, all operators provide simple postcode checking tools on their homepages to allow local checks, which will also provide a guide to the speed that can be expected. Price comparison websites similarly allow consumers to type in their postcode and be presented with a range of providers in their area. Details of providers can be found by visiting independent broadband websites such as ThinkBroadband or ISPreview, and Ofcom provides similar facilities.

In relation to broadband and internet access affordability, there are low-cost, social tariffs on the broadband market for households in receipt of Universal Credit, together with other means-tested benefits. Furthermore, in order to help consumers with the cost-of-living, the UK’s biggest broadband and mobile companies agreed a set of new commitments with the government in June 2022. The commitments include measures such as allowing customers struggling with bills to move to cheaper packages without charge or penalty, or agreeing manageable payment plans, options to improve existing low cost offers, and increasing promotion of existing deals.

We proposed

Developers will be treated as being able to provide a connection within the cost cap unless, having approached at least two suitable network operators for quotes, they did not receive an offer to provide a connection within the cost cap within a period of 30 working days (from the date the developer invited the network operator to provide a connection). What constitutes a suitable network operator will vary depending on the development circumstances. A developer would need to consider which network operators appear to be most likely to be able to provide a connection. Examples of factors to take into account that were included in the consultation noted:

• the development location;
• the ability of a network operator to provide a suitable connection in the location;
• existing network operators in the location;
• network operator development plans;
• other network operators who could deploy in the area.

The consultation noted that where a network operator is not currently operating in or near the location and does not have plans to deploy in the location, they are less likely to be able to provide a connection.

We asked

3B) Do you envisage any problems with the requirement to approach two suitable network operators for quotes and the criteria for a suitable network operator? Do you envisage circumstances where two suitable network operators would not exist?

We heard

Respondents largely agreed with the need for a developer to have approached at least two network operators before being able to rely on gigabit-capable connection requirement exemptions.

Respondents noted that in general two network operators are likely to be available. Diverging views noted that two network operators may or may not be available in rural areas. Alternative and smaller network operators were cited by some respondents as being available in rural areas.

It was noted that developers having the means to ascertain which network operators are available in an area would assist them with approaching two suitable network operators. A portal was suggested as a means of bringing together useful information on network operators’ availability. It was further highlighted that Ofcom resources and trade bodies such as the Independent Networks Co-operative Association (INCA) and the Internet Services Providers’ Association (ISPA) could assist developers with finding suitable network operators.

It was also noted that, where two network operator quotes are not available, it should be a requirement for the developer to evidence the steps taken in approaching the operators. Developers further called for flexibility in areas where there is a ‘mandated’ single provider or remote areas of the country but noted that in most cases there are multiple options available.

Questions were raised around the evidence that would be needed to be provided to building control bodies and how they would assess the position.

Clarification was sought over whether a suitable network operator would include an operator linked to a developer with a tie-in arrangement relating to service provision. One respondent noted that a single or no provider being available would mean the developer having to pay excessive sums.

A network operator noted that the quote system should not be overly prescribed and that there are circumstances where a suitable second operator will not be able to provide a quote, especially in rural areas. Whilst the rationale for a second quote was accepted, it was noted that it would require research from developers to assess suitability of network operators. Another noted that the requirement to approach two suitable network operators should be in all cases and not just in advance of seeking to rely on an exemption. A local authority noted that the provision should be extended to seeking a third quote in rural areas.

Government response

We will retain the requirement for a developer to have approached at least two suitable network operators before being able to rely on exemptions from the gigabit-capable and next fastest technology connection requirement. We believe this to be a balanced and proportionate requirement for developers. A requirement to obtain quotes from more than two suitable network operators in all circumstances, including where a developer is satisfied with a quote received, would significantly increase the burden of the requirements. As noted in the draft Approved Document R, developers are free to approach as many network operators as they wish and to secure multiple connections on a voluntary basis.

It should however be noted that the Building Regulations 2010 is not a suitable legal instrument to address telecommunications market competition issues. Whilst in some areas, the number of suitable network operators will be limited - including areas where there is a near monopoly on the broadband market - we believe it entirely proportionate to ensure that an alternative suitable network operator has been approached before an exemption is sought. This is especially important in geographic areas where smaller network operators may be operating and where alternative technologies may be the best means of facilitating a connection. Whilst affordability was raised as an issue where there are limited network operators in an area, we believe that the £2,000 cost cap will prevent developers from having to pay significant sums for connectivity. This is further mitigated through the financial commitments secured from network operators.

To ensure that developers are aware of suitable network operators in any given area, we will undertake an information campaign. We agree that reliance on the exemption should be supported by a developer providing evidence as to which network operators were approached and why. This should assist building control bodies in assessing if an exemption is applicable in the circumstances of a particular development. We will not prescribe a specific method for seeking quotes, so as not to interfere with commercial arrangements entered into between developers and network operators. For further information on building control, see the Additional points raised section.

We proposed

Should a developer seek a connection in line with the requirements from a suitable network operator, and the network operator not respond within a reasonable time period, this would amount to being unable to secure a connection.

We asked

3C) Do you have any views on what a reasonable period of time should be for a network operator to respond to a request for a quotation from a developer?

We heard

Respondents provided a variety of time periods across a number of scenarios. Local authorities noted varying times ranging from 20 days through to three months. They highlighted that developer obligations to respond would address issues raised with them by community-led-broadband schemes around slow responses from network operators. It was also suggested that evidence should be provided that a developer has followed up with network operators for a response. Local authorities also noted the varying complexity of the connectivity circumstances as a factor in the timeline for responses.

Other respondents suggested a period of 14 days for responding to a budget enquiry, and 28 days for a full quote. Network operators noted varying times and points including:

• Seven days for a response;
• Ten days for a desktop survey, design and costing (with an additional 20 days if a site survey was required);
• 28 days for a quote;
• Six weeks for all processes (logging requests, assignment, capacity planning); and
• A “reasonable” time period linked to the size of the development.

Government response

We agree that specifying a time period for which a developer could consider a network operator as unresponsive and seek to rely on an exemption from the gigabit-capable connection requirement is appropriate. Taking account of respondents’ views, including those in respect of smaller network operators who may be appropriate in some instances, but where it may take longer for a response to be provided because a site visit may be required, the relevant period will be 30 working days from the date the developer has invited the network operator to provide a connection.

We proposed

In assessing if the cost cap is to be exceeded, we proposed that a developer take account of the costs quoted by a network operator, minus any financial contribution from the network operator. The proposed calculation of the cost to the developer included value added tax but excluded:

• the cost of installing gigabit-ready physical infrastructure
• administrative expenditure incurred by the developer
• the cost to consumers for the provision of a service

We asked

3D) Do you believe anything further is required to be included within the criteria for calculating the cost cap?

We heard

Respondents noted that, if legal requirements were to extend to prescriptive internal wiring locations, these needed to be factored into the cost cap.

A local authority noted that a rate card for the costs for civil works should be required to ensure costs are proportionate and benchmarked. Another noted that guidance as to what constitutes a developer’s reasonable administrative expenditure should be provided.

One developer noted that the costs of installing gigabit-ready physical infrastructure could be significant, particularly as in-ground ducts are a standard solution, and referenced large development sites with high water tables, complex geological issues or gradients.

Government response

No further criteria are to be added to the cost-cap calculation.

The requirements will not extend to prescriptive internal wiring locations and as such, the costs associated do not need to be factored into the cost cap. Whilst we will not prescribe specific internal wiring locations in the legal requirements, Volume 1 of Approved Document R will include a reference to best practice advice to help ensure that residents get the best experience from their service.

We do not believe it would be proportionate to develop a rate card for civil works costs that would apply specifically to new dwellings only. It is in the commercial interests of network operators to deploy to premises and of all parties to ensure that costs are proportionate.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the costs of installing gigabit-ready physical infrastructure may vary in different locations due to specific circumstances, our evidence base suggests that for the majority of properties, both the infrastructure and connectivity requirements combined (when taking account of network operators’ financial commitments) will not exceed £2,000. Indeed, our analysis indicated that approximately 1.7% of premises in new build developments with between 1-19 units have deployment costs above the £2,950 threshold, being the total of the developer cost cap and the assumed operator contribution. The technologically neutral approach also allows for variations in the methodology employed to install infrastructure where a particular installation, such as ducting, may not be the most suitable option.

Process and procedure

We proposed

For building control purposes, a developer would be required to submit evidence of compliance methods or seeking to rely on exemptions with full plan applications, building notices, initial notices and amendment notices provided to a local authority (either directly or through an AI). A template connectivity plan was included in Appendix C of the draft Volume 1 of Approved Document R, as a means of providing this information and evidence.

We asked

4A) Do you have any concerns about the content of the connectivity plan or recommendations for additions?

And

4C) Do you have any suggestions as to how it could be clearer or more user-friendly?

And

5D) Do you agree with proposals to include a two-part model form for the connectivity plan with the Approved Document?

We heard

Respondents noted that the connectivity plan would assist with timeliness of engagement between developers and network operators.

Respondents requested guidance about what constitutes suitable evidence and for it to be provided in a prescribed format. Queries were raised about whether network operators are formally required to reply to a request for a quotation or decline to provide a connection and under what circumstances.

A network operator proposed changes to the connectivity plan to assist with network operator market competition. The changes reflect requirements to approach two network operators in all cases, to facilitate two connections, and to provide evidence as to why two connections were chosen not to be facilitated. A network operator noted that the connectivity plan should include provision for evidence around the suitability of network operators approached for a quote.

Local authorities made a number of suggestions, including:

• Timelines for developers to complete various stages;
• Contact details of relevant parties;
• A section for further phases of a development;
• Provision of contracts and invoices for the works;
• Further information around costings, network design and routes in the context of a submission that the cost cap has been exceeded; and
• The use of agreed technical terminology.

In terms of the format of the connectivity plan, respondents noted that it was sufficiently user-friendly. To assist with assessment of information provided, an online or interactive electronic version was suggested. This could prevent incomplete submission, automate a response summary and provide evidence as to how compliance is being achieved. A developer suggested that the network operator should manage the form alongside carrying out audits and inspections. Another recommended that figures, flow charts and step by step guides be added and minor amendments made to the titles of sections. Others requested clarity on retiring the copper network and the implications for developers.

Respondents agreed on a two-part model for the connectivity plan. Suggestions were made that the plan should additionally cover information around the ideal installation of gigabit-ready physical infrastructure under the stepped approach, that suitable network operators have been engaged for quotes where the cost cap has been exceeded, and reasonable timings for a response to a quote request.

Government response

The connectivity plan is designed as a light touch template for developers to provide suitable information for building control purposes. As recognised in responses to the technical consultation, the two-part format ensures the required information is provided while minimising the administrative burden for the parties involved. It will also assist developers and network operators when coordinating work for gigabit connectivity at the application for building regulations approval stage for a new development.

The connectivity plan uses clear and concise language to enable easy use. To ensure standard terms are understood, there is a list of key terms in Volume 1 of Approved Document R. It does not represent a complete set of harmonised terminology used by industry which both varies for similar technology and spans numerous forms of connection technology, given the technologically neutral approach to the requirements.

Amendments have been made to the connectivity plan to assist with the provision of evidence to building control bodies. These include: the provision of information relating the suitability of the network operator (when the cost cap exemption is relied upon) and the methodology of complying with the stepped approach. Further guidance on the forms of evidence that could be provided will be set out in Volume 1 of Approved Document R.

Other amendments to the connectivity plan include clear signposting to Volume 1 of Approved Document R to ensure the connectivity plan is always viewed in the context of the statutory guidance, a provision for further phases of a development to be noted, and contextual information to assist those using the form in understanding the requirements and the additional information that developers may wish to provide to assist with building control inspection. We will provide information as to how infrastructure plans can be set out and further information to support industry in familiarising with the new requirements prior to the date on which the new requirements come into force.

In terms of providing an outline of timelines, the new requirements will sit within the existing building control regime. This information will be covered within the government’s information campaign. The connectivity plan now also includes a section for contact details for the relevant local authority.

The connectivity plan is not currently in an online or interactive electronic format. However, we would encourage developers to work with building control bodies to ensure information is appropriately provided. The requirements do not include obligations for network operators to include any information relating to the management of the connectivity plan. Developers will, however, be able make decisions as to how the plan is managed. Matters relating to the copper network are not addressed within the connectivity plan. Our information campaign will note the applicability of connectivity options in line with the requirements.

We do not believe that the Building Regulations 2010 is a suitable legal instrument with which to address telecommunications market competition issues. The positions in relation to competition and specifically approaching multiple network operators and securing multiple connections is addressed in sections Statutory guidance, and Modifications of requirements respectively.

As noted above, it is in the commercial interests of network operators to deploy efficiently and without unnecessary cost, so we believe that ensuring a developer approaches a suitable network operator will help to mitigate issues around unreasonable quotes.

We proposed

As some new dwellings are developed with only a notice provided for building control purposes, we proposed ensuring the requirements applied to dwellings for which a full plan, building notice, amendment notice, or initial notice has been submitted for building control purposes.

We asked

4B) Do you have any concerns about extending the requirement for a connectivity plan to initial notices and amendment notices in addition to plans?

We heard

Respondents were in favour of a requirement to provide a connectivity plan for initial and amendment notices, as that would assist with ensuring that developers and network operators engage early to facilitate connectivity. Further points were raised regarding approval of the connectivity plan by building control bodies, the building control role and enforcement; these are addressed in the Additional points raised section.

The Local Authority Building Control representative body (LABC) noted that a connectivity plan should be submitted where planned new dwellings are subject to an initial notice. LABC queried whether they will need to assess whether the connectivity plan is sufficient; and whether approval would influence the issuing of a plans certificate.

LABC also noted that where a new dwelling is planned, an application can be submitted as a building notice to LABC so this route needs to be factored into the requirements. A trade association sought to ensure that obligations were also required to be applied to network operators.

A local authority encouraged early developer engagement and noted that the inclusion of initial notices in the requirements will assist this, but also noted that where an AI uses an initial notice, the local authority may not check the initial notice and accompanying connectivity details, as approval is presumed if no objection is raised by a local authority within a five-day window. This means that where an AI and initial notice is used, the connectivity proposals may not have been checked prior to site commencement, and a plans certificate may not have been issued.

Government response

Building control and enforcement matters are addressed in the Additional points raised section.

The new requirements will apply in respect of dwellings in scope for which a full plan, building notice, initial notice or public body’s notice is submitted (an amendment notice submitted to such a notice in respect of new dwellings will also be caught). The inclusion of all of these forms of notices and plans is to ensure that the new requirements apply as widely as possible and that more residents get access to the best connectivity.

Under the current Building Regulations 2010, different forms are submitted depending on the circumstances. Where a local authority is employed to discharge building control services for a construction project such as a new housing development, a full plan is usually submitted, but in other circumstances a building notice (which requires less information) may be used. Where a private AI is employed to carry out building control services, an initial notice is required (this will usually, but not necessarily, be accompanied by a plans certificate).

Regarding the submission of a plans certificate, the new requirements will apply through the submission of an initial notice. A plans certificate can be withheld by an AI, or rejected by the local authority if sufficient information is not included within an initial notice.

With regard to the possibility that, owing to the presumed approval system in place, an initial notice (or building notice) is not checked by a local authority, the new requirements have been designed to be incorporated into the existing Building Regulations regime, with which developers are familiar. We will highlight in the planned information campaign that it is a requirement for connectivity details to be submitted with full plans, a building notice, initial notice or a public body’s notice.

Developers will be required to provide necessary particulars of any public electronic communications network to which a connection will be provided and evidence in support of relevant exemptions relied upon. We encourage developers to submit the model form connectivity plan that will be provided as an Appendix to Volume 1 to the Approved Document R, adapting it where necessary, to assist building control bodies.

We proposed

Existing building control monitoring, certification and enforcement would apply to the new requirements, including inspection of gigabit-ready physical infrastructure.

The aim of the new requirements would be to ensure that the process for installing gigabit-ready physical infrastructure and gigabit-capable connections is as simple as possible for developers. As such, the requirements reflected existing market practices and were designed to use the existing and established Building Regulations 2010 compliance regime. In the first instance, for building control purposes, a developer would be required to submit details around compliance (which will typically take the form of the connectivity plan) with full plans, building notices, amendment notices and initial notices provided to building control bodies.

This connectivity plan would enable building control bodies to be informed of the following:

• the quotes received from network operators to provide a connection and evidence of a network operator being contracted to provide a suitable connection to the dwellings in question;
• that the gigabit-ready physical infrastructure necessary for gigabit-capable connections is to be installed;
• that the suitable installation of a gigabit-capable connection has been arranged with a network operator and the nature of the network to be deployed;
• any exemption or exclusion being relied upon, with supporting evidence; and
• in the absence of a gigabit-capable connection, the form of the next best technology connection being installed within the cost cap.

Should building control bodies require issues to be remedied such as those relating to the installation of gigabit-ready physical infrastructure, this would need to be undertaken by developers to ensure compliance with the requirements. The standard procedure for certification under the Building Regulations 2010 will apply.

Inspection would include the physical infrastructure elements which extend beyond the in-building infrastructure, namely the infrastructure between the network termination point, and the network distribution point. We were conscious that this is a new responsibility for building control bodies and will therefore need to be supported. As such, we will be undertaking an information campaign to assist with these processes.

The new requirements for developers were to be enforced using the existing Building Regulations 2010 enforcement regime. Existing powers conferred on the Secretary of State or local authority to dispense with or relax requirements in the Building Regulations 2010 (under section 8 of the Building Act 1984) will be applied. This will ensure that in certain circumstances, where it would not be appropriate to mandate requirements, they could be relaxed in accordance with other Building Regulations 2010 requirements.

We asked

4D) Do you have views on how inspection of the new physical infrastructure elements beyond in-building infrastructure to a distribution point should be undertaken?

We heard

A number of points relating to the role of building control bodies in the context of their duties, assessment, inspection and enforcement were raised in response both to this question and to others. It was recognised that an information campaign would assist with the building control role.

Several respondents, including LABC and local authorities noted that developing a Competent Person Scheme (CPS) could aid compliance assessment and inspection against the new measures. This was suggested as building control bodies are not currently familiar with broadband deployment and would be incurring a new and additional burden alongside their existing role. In the absence of such a scheme, it was suggested that further information as to what should be inspected, and the timing of inspections, would assist.

Others suggested that National House Building Council (NHBC) standards should guide inspection in terms of quality. In their absence, it was suggested that detail was provided regarding the extent and nature of what requires inspection to ensure consistency. This would assist building control bodies, who respondents noted do not currently have knowledge of existing practices.

A network operator queried the consequences of non-compliance in the absence of early inspection with network operators present. An inspection role for network operators was suggested, as was a form of ‘self-regulation’ by network operators with no further assessment or inspection undertaken beyond a review of evidence provided within a connectivity plan. Network operators noted that their notifications that works are complete could be used as a means of demonstrating that building works have been completed to the necessary standards.

Additional queries raised included if the building control role would extend to:

• intervening or adjudicating in commercial negotiations and arrangements between developers and network operators including under the Electronic Communications Code;
• assessing the underlying proposals within a network operator’s quote;
• adjudicating over ‘fault’ in relation to delayed compliance;
• intervening with third parties in relation to access to land issues;
• gathering evidence of non-compliance; and
• assessing against private companies standards.

Further guidance was sought on: how building control bodies would assess whether a suitable network operator had been approached; how to determine whether the cost cap exemption was applicable; what to do if a developer refused to engage with a network operator and extend gigabit-ready physical infrastructure to a point offsite; how to deal with an unreasonable network operator; the ownership of infrastructure; and how and when criminal enforcement procedures could be engaged.

In the absence of a facilitated connection, the ownership of the gigabit-ready physical infrastructure was also queried.

Government response

Many of the issues raised in relation to the role of building control bodies relate to uncertainty as to how to undertake the new role. Our information campaign, drawing on information from network operators will ensure that all stakeholders, including local authorities and AIs, have all relevant information. This will include the extent and nature of inspection as well as the timing of inspection.

Government has given careful consideration to the creation of a CPS. Respondents did not identify who would be available to act under such a scheme. With regard to specialist staffing resources, it takes two years to become a fully productive fibre engineer. In line with government targets for the rollout of full fibre, network operators’ resources, including personnel, are focused on deployment of new infrastructure. It is also noteworthy that network operators are opposed to a CPS.

The establishment of such a scheme would take a significant amount of time. For this to be available in line with the new requirements coming into effect would require a delay to implementation of the policy. To do so would have a material impact on connectivity to new dwellings. The schemes do not generally focus on elements of a development and building works where there is a choice as to the type of work to be undertaken. This is a substantial difference from the new requirements, which are technologically neutral, will be delivered differently by different network operators and will be specifically tailored to an individual site. As such, we believe it to be appropriate for the existing building control mechanisms to be used to assess compliance.

Network operators noted that their completion of works certificates may assist with inspection and certification and we agree that the provision of these by developers to building control bodies may assist with evidencing compliance. However, as compliance is assessed by the relevant building control bodies as independent third parties as is the case under the Building Regulations 2010, we do not believe it would be necessary for a network operator to effectively undertake the role of building control compliance.

Whilst it is acknowledged that compliance with the requirements will require arrangements between developers and network operators, we will not prescribe a form of commercial and contractual agreements to be entered into. It will be the responsibility of developers to ensure that they approach suitable network operators and secure arrangements in line with the requirements. This includes arrangements relating to: the type and location of infrastructure (including where a network operator requires recourse to the Electronic Communications Code for land access issues), ascertaining an appropriate network distribution point, and any remedy required due to inappropriate installation of infrastructure or departures from agreements reached resulting in delay. Parties are encouraged to engage as early as possible to resolve issues drawing on current market practices.

Given the commercial incentives for network operators deploying connections to new dwellings, it is unlikely that a suitable network operator would deliberately inflate deployment costs or require unsuitable arrangements. Where a developer has not been able to secure a connection within the cost cap, they may wish to provide evidence as to why they had deemed the network operators approached as suitable taking into account factors detailed in the Modifications of requirements section. To assist, references to typical ways to provide this evidence will be made in Volume 1 of Approved Document R. A building control body’s consideration would relate to whether the developer did not determine that the operator was suitable.

In the context of inspection against private company standards, Volume 1 of Approved Document R and the Building Regulations 2010 are to contain the standards against which inspection will need to take place. Whilst there is a need for cooperation between developers and network operators, the new requirements are placed solely upon developers and therefore they should work to ensure compliance.

In the context of ownership of gigabit-ready physical infrastructure in the absence of a facilitated connection, by virtue of the revised stepped approach for compliance with the gigabit-ready physical infrastructure requirement, this infrastructure will always be deployed on land over which the developer has the requisite access rights to do so. Ownership will therefore relate to the existing arrangements between the landowner and developer.

It is the responsibility of those carrying out building work to comply with the Building Regulations 2010. Breach of the Building Regulations 2010 is a criminal offence under section 35 of the Building Act 1984 and action may be taken by local authorities.

The Building Act 1984 provides that local authorities are responsible for enforcing breaches of the Building Regulations 2010 in its area.

Local authorities will often seek compliance by informal means. However, if a person carrying out building work contravenes the Building Regulations, the local authority may prosecute them. This is usually undertaken through the issue of a civil procedure notice.

The local authority may also serve an enforcement notice on the building owner under section 36 of the Building Act 1984. These notices require alteration or removal of work which contravenes the regulations. An enforcement notice would enable the local authority to require the building work to be corrected to ensure that the new requirements were adhered to.

Where building work is supervised under an initial notice by an AI and the AI finds a contravention during the construction stage or at completion, they should notify the developer, requiring it to be remedied and if the contravention in question is not remedied within three months, the AI must cancel the initial notice, which will put the developer in scope of the local authority enforcement set out in the Building Act 1984. If an initial notice is cancelled then any part of the work not already covered by a final certificate would then be in scope of the local authority enforcement action as mentioned above.

Statutory guidance

We proposed

A draft updated edition of Approved Document R was provided with the technical consultation. Approved Document R is to be split into two volumes. Volume 1 contains guidance about how to comply with the proposed new requirements for gigabit-ready physical infrastructure and gigabit-capable connections for new dwellings. Volume 2 contains guidance about the retained requirements for physical infrastructure for high-speed electronic communications networks upon the erection of a new building other than a dwelling or when an existing building (including an existing dwelling) is subject to major renovation works. Approved Document R is designed to assist building control bodies with monitoring and enforcement, as well as developer compliance when carrying out the work.

We noted the possibility of including Streetworks UK guidance as indicative guidance that did not amount to a legal requirement, and for the suitable placement of a network termination point to assist with ensuring there is a good connectivity signal inside a dwelling.

We asked

5A) Do you agree with proposals to publish an updated edition of Approved Document R?

We heard

Respondents agreed that it was appropriate to publish a new Approved Document covering the requirements. It was noted that clarity on roles, responsibilities and obligations for network operators was key, alongside further guidance for industry and building control bodies, to ease the impact of the requirements and the building control role. It was also noted that references to external sources of material that were not freely available impact smaller developers and therefore information accessible in the Approved Documents is beneficial. Further detail on specification of ducting, access points and connections for developers to adhere to was also requested.

Government response

An updated edition of Approved Document R is to be published with volumes covering both sets of requirements for new dwellings and the retained Part R requirements. As noted above, this includes providing clarity on the new requirements, practices and procedures and roles alongside references to freely available guidance specifying installation methods. In advance of the requirements coming into effect, an information campaign will ensure that further relevant information is provided.

We asked

5B) Do you agree with proposals to refer to Streetworks UK guidance for external gigabit-ready physical infrastructure in the Approved Document?

We heard

Respondents queried whether Streetworks UK guidance was suitably technical in nature to assist with enforcement and to be included, alongside querying its application to infrastructure inside and outside of a plot boundary. Others noted that it would assist with compliance in conjunction with guidance issued by network operators (on the variance in their deployments).

A network operator noted that Approved Document R should include guidance to demonstrate that two suitable network operators can be accommodated using the same physical infrastructure. Another noted the inherent need for flexibility and departure from guidance to enable technological innovation.

A developer noted that SMEs benefit from guidance to be freely available to avoid the costs of purchasing additional documents and a local authority noted that the DCMS Digital Infrastructure Toolkit could also be referenced.

Government response

As Streetworks UK guidance has to be complied with by network operators, it will be included in Volume 1 of Approved Document R as best practice advice. Subject to agreement, individual network operators’ deployment guides can be incorporated or signposted in information materials to assist developers with obtaining information at no additional cost. As noted in the Process and procedure section, building control bodies will not have to assess against the guidance or private company deployment guidelines.

The draft version of Volume 1 of Approved Document R published in the technical consultation will be amended to demonstrate that to demonstrate that, whilst the legal requirement is for at least one connection to be facilitated within installed infrastructure, multiple network connectivity equipment can be included within the same physical infrastructure and developers are free to provide connectivity from multiple network operators.

The new requirements are technologically neutral and allow for existing and future wired and fixed wireless connectivity options, so as not to stifle technological innovation. Whilst the guidance primarily draws on cabled solutions, these are not the only means of complying with the requirements, allowing developers to find appropriate solutions with network operators for individual development sites.

We proposed

We noted that Approved Document R could provide guidance on the preferred location of the network termination point inside the dwelling and suggested means of ensuring the best connectivity experience for residents within their dwelling. We queried whether best practice guidance in the current Approved Document R should be included in Volume 1.

We asked

5C) Do you agree with proposals and guidance for network termination points and the inclusion of best practice advice to improve connectivity within the individual dwelling?

And

1F) Should any other existing guidance supplement or replace the Publicly Available Specification and the National House Building Council’s best practice guidance within the Approved Document supporting the new provisions within Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 2010?

We heard

Respondents agreed with the addition of best practice advice to improve connectivity within the dwelling to to Volume 1 of Approved Document R. It was noted that this guidance could form part of the legal requirements to prevent poor in-dwelling experiences. Others noted that guidance could additionally include minimum requirements for the network termination point and associated distribution equipment (such as the number of sockets) and go further to note all of the different possible installation circumstances or reference other published materials. It was also noted that guidance could be provided for internal distribution of broadband services within the dwelling and that Publicly Available Specification guidance (BSI PAS 2016:2010) should be retained.

One network operator noted that interventions in in-building wiring and network termination points could have unintended consequences, such as locking in inferior technological solutions, and whilst best practice can be used, network operators and developers should work together to find optimal solutions for particular development scenarios. It was noted that the location of a network termination point and internal wiring should not be unduly prescriptive.

Respondents noted that NHBC’s best practice guidance is old and may require review and noted that it does not cover compliance with other Building Regulation requirements. It was noted by others that it should be maintained but copper options should not be included with a focus on full fibre deployment. It was also suggested that a national digital installation guide should be developed. NHBC noted that they are happy to continue to provide support.

Government response

Best practice advice will be included within Volume 1 of Approved Document R. We do not consider it appropriate to extend further legal requirements to in-building infrastructure that would go further than proposed given the extra burdens this would create. Overly prescriptive requirements could remove the flexibility required for varied developments and rule out future means of ensuring the best connection for the resident in the dwelling. We do encourage developers and network operators to consider and work towards optimal placing of equipment within the dwelling for the benefit of resident service experience.

NHBC guidance and BSI PAS 2016:2010 guidance is to be referenced as best practice advice to note external resources that may assist developers with installations. Whilst this guidance includes references to copper connections, as a small number of next fastest connections may be facilitated under the new requirements, we consider that it is still appropriate.

Additional points raised

We heard

Respondents raised the cumulative impact of compliance with the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Building Regulations 2010 for developers, including SME developers and building control bodies.

Government response

In the context of SME developers and the cumulative impact of compliance with the Building Regulations 2010 and the Building Safety Act 2022, we have estimated the financial burden of the new requirements. We have done this by drawing on Home Builders Federation and NHBC estimates of the number of SME businesses and their contribution to the number of new dwellings built per year. Taking account of the broadband connections expected to be used without the new requirements and with a focus on smaller scale building developments (1-19 dwellings), we estimate that in the first year of these requirements coming into force, each SME will face on average an increase in costs for connecting dwellings of less than £500. It should also be noted that a proportion of this cost may be shared with network operators and that the £2,000 cost cap for the gigabit-capable connectivity requirement is designed to keep the costs of connectivity proportionate. Given the benefits for residents and potentially for developers in selling properties, we believe this shows SMEs will be impacted in a proportionate manner.

We acknowledge that these new requirements go further than the existing Part R requirements for dwellings and include infrastructure extending beyond the development. To reduce the burdens associated for all stakeholders, the policy framework and legislation has been designed to draw on existing processes and procedures and ensure that suitable information for the building control role may be provided in the first instance in a proportionate manner, through a connectivity plan. In advance of the regulations coming into force, we will work with local authorities and AIs, including through our information campaign, to provide advice to ensure that the additional requirements can be readily assessed against.

To mitigate the cumulative impact on developers, the Government has secured commitments from network operators that they will contribute to the costs of connections and introduced a cost cap.

Taking average network operator contributions into consideration, DCMS analysis estimates that:

• for 98% of new dwellings, developer costs would be below the £2000 cost cap;

• for developments of over 20 new dwelling there would normally be no costs at all for housing developers;

• for SME developers (those building less than 100 new dwellings per year) the average increase in costs is estimated to be less than £500 for each such developer as noted above;

• with regard to impacts on housing supply, this is expected to be negligible. Analysis suggests that developers will bear additional costs for less than 1% of all new dwelling developments, with these costs capped at £2,000.

We heard

A number of respondents noted that broadband service costs impact the take up of broadband services and expressed concerns about the application of the policy in all areas across England.

Government response

The new requirements are designed to ensure that new dwellings and their residents have the ability to access the best connectivity. They will apply across England, levelling up through application to developments in all residential and rural areas.

The requirements will prevent costs from being incurred by residents to remedy the connectivity position of a new dwelling after taking up residency. In most instances, the requirements will be fulfilled through gigabit connectivity largely provided through cabling. However, there will be some instances where remoteness from existing network infrastructure will require different technological solutions and slower connections. Whilst these may impact the pricing of services available for residents, as noted in the Scope section, the rollout of full-fibre - including Project Gigabit contracts to install gigabit-capable broadband networks to hard-to-reach areas and complementary initiatives such as the Gigabit Broadband Voucher Scheme - will reduce the instances of alternatives being required and ensure that potentially more expensive services are not required.

Whilst we consider that the Building Regulations 2010 are not an appropriate legal instrument to address service costs, and the new requirements do not extend to contracting with an internet service provider, there are other means for residents to minimise the costs of broadband. There are low-cost, social tariffs on the broadband market for households in receipt of Universal Credit and other certain means-tested benefits. Furthermore, in order to help consumers with the cost-of-living, the UK’s biggest broadband and mobile companies have agreed a set of new commitments with the government in June 2022. The commitments include measures such as allowing customers struggling with bills to move to cheaper packages without charge or penalty, or agreeing manageable payment plans, and options to improve existing low cost offers and increase the promotion of existing deals.

We heard

A number of respondents noted broader wholesale telecommunications network competition matters, issues such as arrangements where network operator service provision is tied into a single service provider, network sharing and access, and multiple network operators facilitating connectivity within the same infrastructure.

Government response

Whilst we consider that this policy and amending the Building Regulations 2010 are not the appropriate place to address these broader telecommunications matters, Ofcom is able to intervene in circumstances of the kind referred to by determining whether an operator has significant market power (SMP). Further, the ATI Regulations enable a network provider to seek access to infrastructure providers’ physical infrastructure if the requirements set out in those regulations are met. It is a commercial consideration for network providers as to which wholesale networks they choose to offer their service over. Developers are free to approach as many network operators as they wish and to secure multiple connections on a voluntary basis including through the use of the same infrastructure.

We heard

Local authorities noted that network operators who deploy to new build dwellings should give wider consideration to improving network coverage within the wider locality.

Government response

We agree that network operators should consider how network deployment to a development could also be used to address connectivity within the broader region.

We heard

Respondents noted that local authorities could take on an additional role to assist developers with the new requirements.

Government response

Whilst we would encourage stakeholders to work together, we do not propose to extend a formal role for local authorities to assist developers with the new requirements.

As noted above, many developers are already installing gigabit infrastructure and securing gigabit connections for new dwellings. Our information campaign will bring together information from all stakeholders to assist with understanding and compliance with the new requirements.

Annex A: List of non-confidential responses

● Local Authority Building Control

● Herefordshire Council

● Home Builders Federation

● South Tyneside Council

● Kent County Council

● Chelmsford City Council Building Control Service

● Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

● National Farmers Union

● National House Building Council

● Buckinghamshire Local Enterprise Partnership

● Royal Town Planning Institute

● Community Fibre

● Lanner Parish Council

● Gleeson

● ISPA

● West Yorkshire Combined Authority

● Waverley Borough Council

● BUUK

● Redbridge Council

● Federation of Master Builders

● North Northamptonshire Council