Improving proportionality and building safety outcomes in building control: categorisation of higher-risk building work - government response
Background
This document summarises the responses provided to the consultation Improving proportionality and building safety outcomes in building control: categorisation of higher-risk building work, and, where appropriate, outlines the next steps the government will take.
The consultation ‘Improving proportionality and building safety outcomes in building control: categorisation of higher-risk building work’ was open for 9 weeks, from 26 March 2026 to 28 May 2026.
The consultation sought views on proposals to amend the categorisation of building work within the higher-risk building control regime, with a view to improving the proportionality of the building control process for Category A work and Category B work in existing higher-risk buildings (HRBs).
By ‘proportionate’, the government means a regime that strikes the right balance between ensuring robust oversight of safety-critical works, enabling building work to proceed efficiently and without undue delays, and avoiding excessive documentation burdens on applicants. A proportionate approach is not a compromise on safety, and these proposals do not change the functional requirements or standards that most building work must meet, nor the requirement for Building Safety Regulator (BSR) approval before work can commence. If building work is exempt, carried out under a Competent Person Scheme (CPS) (aka ‘scheme work’) or constitutes an emergency repair, prior approval from the BSR is not required before work can begin.
The legal definition of building work was not under review in this consultation.
The consultation invited views on two proposals to change the legal definition of Category A work, to ensure that documentation requirements at the application stage are proportionate and fit for purpose while maintaining BSR approval before work starts:
a) Option 1: exclude most building work within individual flats (residential units) from Category A
b) Option 2: exclude some small-scale building work in communal areas of HRBs from Category A
The two proposed options are not mutually exclusive.
The consultation also sought views on supporting guidance, types of building work that should be considered for future Competent Person Schemes (CPS), and potential further reforms to the HRB regime.
Respondents were able to provide their views through an online survey or by email. The consultation included a range of questions inviting both structured responses (for example, agreement or disagreement with proposals) and open-ended responses to gather detailed views and evidence.
The consultation was open to everyone and followed the government’s Consultation Principles.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government consulted with the Building Safety Regulator alongside this consultation.
The changes proposed in the consultation would be applicable to England only.
A statutory instrument would be required to bring any changes into effect.
Executive summary
This document sets out the government’s response to the consultation ‘Improving proportionality and building safety outcomes in building control: categorisation of higher-risk building work’.
The consultation focused on two proposals to change the legal definition of Category A work, to ensure that documentation requirements at the application stage are proportionate and fit for purpose:
-
Option 1: exclude most building work within individual flats (residential units) from Category A
-
Option 2: exclude some small-scale building work in communal areas of HRBs from Category A
The consultation also sought views on supporting guidance, types of building work that should be considered for future Competent Person Schemes (CPS), and potential further reforms to the HRB regime.
Overall, the consultation found strong support for improved proportionality and for the introduction of the two options outlined above. However, there is further detail to work through before reaching a final policy position to deliver proportionality aims.
The government is minded to proceed with Option 1 the exclusion of work inside flats from Category A (subject to exceptions). However, there are outstanding issues requiring further consideration before a final position is reached, including determining the types of building work inside flats that should remain as Category A work, establishing how to mitigate the risks of unintended consequences identified, including (but not limited to) the risk of multiple minor works having a cumulative impact on the overall safety of a building, the risk of works being detrimental to passive fire safety measures, particularly compartmentation, and the risk of re-categorising work compromising the integrity of the golden thread.
The government will continue to explore Option 2 (excluding small scale works in communal areas from Category A) and will work through issues raised through the consultation (including how best to define ‘small scale’ works) before confirming the final policy position.
We want to ensure requirements reflect the scale and complexity of the work, whilst maintaining appropriate safeguards for building safety and ensuring the BSR retains oversight and the ability to request additional information where necessary.
Government will continue to work with the BSR and stakeholders to explore these issues further before confirming the final policy approach. Consultation responses will inform this work. Any changes will be implemented via a statutory instrument .
The government will work with the BSR and stakeholders to shape and update guidance to support any changes to building control procedures, and to find the best routes to disseminate guidance to intended audiences.
Responses to all questions will be used to inform ongoing work.
The government remains committed to ensuring that the higher-risk building regime strikes the right balance between maintaining high safety standards and enabling building work to proceed efficiently and without unnecessary delay. Further work will now be undertaken to develop and confirm the final policy approach, informed by the consultation responses and continued engagement with the sector.
Context
The higher-risk building (HRB) control regime was introduced as part of the programme of building safety reforms following the Grenfell Tower fire. The regime, which came into effect in October 2023, established the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) as the building control authority for higher-risk buildings in England, providing enhanced regulatory oversight of building work to these buildings.
Building work to existing HRBs varies significantly in scale and complexity. For this reason, the regime distinguishes between Category A work and Category B work, with different requirements at the application stage (also known as ‘Gateway two’) to reflect the scale and nature of the building work in question. Applicants are responsible for determining if work is building work, and if the work is Category A work or Category B work. The BSR review application types, and applicants frequently have to re-apply where they have wrongly treated work as Category B when it should have been Category A.
Category A work is intended to capture more complex, major building work that presents higher levels of risk and is therefore subject to more extensive documentation requirements. Category B work is intended to capture less complex and more minor work that will typically present lower levels of risk and is therefore subject to less prescriptive documentation requirements up front at the application stage, although the same functional requirements of The Building Regulations 2010 apply in both cases, and all work must receive BSR approval before commencing (unless exempt, scheme work or an emergency repair).
Since the introduction of the regime, it has become clear that some small-scale or lower complexity building work is classified as Category A work. This has placed a disproportionate burden on applicants and the BSR, contributing to delays and inefficiencies in the system, and leading to poorer outcomes for residents as a result.
This consultation forms part of a wider programme of reforms to improve clarity and efficiency within building control while maintaining robust safety standards.
Methodology
The consultation asked 23 questions in total, with 10 questions inviting multiple choice, structured responses (for example, agreement or disagreement with proposals) and 13 questions asking for free text responses to gather detailed views and evidence.
Responses have been coded and grouped into key themes to identify the main areas of agreement, concern, and suggested improvements.
Responses were received both through the online survey on Citizen Space and via email submission. Some responses received via email did not provide structured responses to the consultation questions, and some provided additional detailed executive summaries and references as part of their submission. Where appropriate, some unstructured question responses were analysed in relation to questions where these most appropriately fit for analysis.
Alongside manual identification of common themes, the MHCLG-approved AI tool Copilot was used to support the efficient identification of themes and key points by respondents. Outputs were subject to human quality assurance.
Personal data provided as part of responses are not summarised or presented in summaries. While writing this summary, care was taken to ensure no respondent might be individually identified in order to guarantee confidentiality.
Personal data provided in response to the consultation was handled and processed in accordance with data protection laws as per the data protection policy stated in the consultation.
A number of responses were from industry representatives, were made via email and did not include responses to the demographic questions. We have therefore not reported on demographic information in this government response, as the evidence base is incomplete.
This document presents the findings in the following way:
-
a question-by-question breakdown to reflect how responses addressed specific consultation questions
-
a narrative summary of responses for each proposal area, drawing out key themes across consultation questions.
Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number, meaning the total percentages may not always add up to 100%.
The following terms have been used in summarising additional points raised in the free-text responses:
-
‘Significant majority’ means more than 70% of those answering the relevant question
-
‘Many’ means between 50-70% of those answering the relevant question
-
‘Some’ means between 20-50% of those answering the relevant question
-
‘A few’ means between 10-20% of those answering the relevant question
-
‘A small number’ means less than 10% of those answering the relevant question
The government has carefully considered all responses. The positions set out in this document reflect the government’s current thinking on these proposals, and further work will be undertaken to develop and confirm the final policy position, including engagement with stakeholders and the BSR.
Breakdown of respondents
| Type of respondent | Total |
|---|---|
| Architect | 10 |
| Builder/Developer | 3 |
| Construction Industry Professional | 13 |
| Registered Building Control Approver | 2 |
| Registered Building Inspector | 7 |
| Local Authority Building Control | 6 |
| Designer/Engineer/Surveyor | 3 |
| Fire and Rescue Authority Representatives | 3 |
| Insurer | 1 |
| Landlord Representative | 2 |
| Local Authority | 6 |
| Property Manager/Housing Association/Landlord | 11 |
| Resident/Leaseholder/Tenant Representative | 9 |
| Resident | 15 |
| Industry | 8 |
| Other (please indicate below) | 22 |
| Not Answered | 2 |
Option 1: Excluding building work from within individual flats from Category A
The consultation sought views on a proposal to amend the legal definition of Category A work to exclude most building work within individual flats (residential units) from Category A, so that this work would instead be classed as Category B work.
The consultation set out that some common types of work carried out inside a flat are generally small in scale and low in complexity but are being classified as Category A work - for example because they may affect active or passive fire safety measures, or because they change the internal layout of a property within an HRB.
This proposal was restricted to residential HRBs and mixed-use HRBs with residential units. This is because compartmentation operates differently in other HRB types, such as hospitals, where compartments are typically larger and communal areas more extensive.
The consultation proposed that building work within a flat would remain Category A work only where it may have implications for the safety of the wider building and residents. The consultation gave the following examples of work that would remain Category A work:
-
work that impacts active fire safety measures (for example fire alarm, carbon monoxide alarms, sprinkler systems)
-
work impacting load bearing walls within the flat
-
work impacting external walls, excluding windows
-
work to fire doors connecting to communal areas (noting this is linked to Option 2’s approach to “small-scale” work)
The consultation also noted that where works within flats are undertaken at scale (for example planned upgrades across multiple properties), the BSR would retain the ability to request additional documentation to ensure it has sufficient information to assess risk and to mitigate potential ‘gaming’ from applicants.
The consultation emphasised that these proposals are not a compromise on safety. They would not change the functional requirements or safety standards that building work must meet, nor remove the requirement for BSR approval before work can begin. The intent is to ensure documentation requirements are proportionate and that the BSR can focus on the largest and most complex cases.
Question 1
To what extent do you agree or disagree that building work within a flat should be excluded from Category A (and classed as Category B work)?
Respondents could choose from the following answers:
-
strongly agree
-
agree
-
neither agree nor disagree
-
disagree
-
strongly disagree
-
don’t know
Summary of responses
There were 115 responses to this part of the question.
| Option | Total | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 49 | 43% |
| Agree | 39 | 34% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 10 | 9% |
| Disagree | 9 | 8% |
| Strongly disagree | 8 | 7% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
Question 1(a) - please explain your answer (optional)
Respondents were invited to provide more information via a free text box. There were 92 responses to this free text question.
The most common points raised in response to this question were that support for the proposal was conditional on safety being maintained, with fire safety concerns in particular being raised. Other safety concerns (e.g. structural) and concerns about the competence of workers and the maintenance of the golden thread were also common themes.
Of the 92 free text responses to this question many were broadly supportive of the proposal that building work within a flat should be excluded from Category A and agreed that there is a need for better proportionality within the regime.
Some responses were cautiously supportive, with support being conditional on the wider safety of the building being maintained, with some comments referencing specific concerns about fire safety, including the risks where works interact with compartmentation and fire stopping. A few responses also referred to the importance of competence of those involved in conducting and reviewing building work, noting the links between competence and safety. A small number of responses also raised concerns that the proposals could negatively impact on oversight, assurance, accountability and the integrity of the golden thread.
Question 2
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following work within a flat should remain in Category A:
-
work that affects active fire safety measures
-
load bearing walls within the flat
-
work to fire doors connecting to communal areas
-
work to external walls (excluding windows)
Summary of responses
Work to remain in Category A - active fire safety measures
There were 111 responses to this part of the question.
| Option | Total | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 52 | 47% |
| Agree | 27 | 24% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 8 | 7% |
| Disagree | 8 | 7% |
| Strongly disagree | 15 | 14% |
| Don’t know | 1 | 1% |
Work to remain in Category A - load bearing walls
There were 109 responses to this part of the question.
| Option | Total | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 62 | 57% |
| Agree | 22 | 20% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 5 | 5% |
| Disagree | 9 | 8% |
| Strongly disagree | 11 | 10% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
Work to remain in Category A - work to fire doors
There were 110 responses to this part of the question.
| Option | Total | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 44 | 40% |
| Agree | 22 | 20% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 10 | 9% |
| Disagree | 12 | 11% |
| Strongly disagree | 21 | 19% |
| Don’t know | 1 | 1% |
Work to remain in Category A - work to external walls (excluding windows)
There were 108 responses to this part of the question.
| Option | Total | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 53 | 49% |
| Agree | 25 | 23% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 7 | 6% |
| Disagree | 10 | 9% |
| Strongly disagree | 13 | 12% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
Question 2(a) - please explain your answer (optional)
Respondents were invited to provide more information via a free text box. There were 82 responses to this part of the question
Concerns about fire and structural safety were the most common theme across the free text responses to this question. Many responses flagged fire safety concerns in their answers, particularly around any works that impact on a building’s fire safety strategy or compartmentation. Some responses also referenced safety concerns regarding the impact of works on a building’s structural integrity.
64% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that work to active fire safety measures should remain in Category A compared to 21% who disagreed or strongly disagreed. Responses on active fire safety measures that raised safety concerns noted that active fire safety systems such as fire alarms and sprinklers are not isolated systems but serve entire buildings, and that even small changes can risk occupants’ safety. A few responses called for a more nuanced approach to the exclusion of active fire safety measures, noting the distinction between minor modifications to existing systems and the installation of new active fire safety systems and the different levels of risk across these types of work.
68% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that work to load bearing walls should remain in Category A, compared to 18% who disagreed or strongly disagreed. Free text responses on load bearing walls referred to both fire safety concerns (including compartmentation) and structural integrity.
54% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that work to fire doors connecting flats to communal areas should remain in Category A, compared to 30% who disagreed or strongly disagreed. Free text responses referred to concerns about fire safety, noting the critical role fire doors play in fire safety strategies and protection against fire spread, and the importance of works to fire doors retaining oversight and appropriate controls and being conducted by workers with the right level of competence. A small number of responses indicated that work to fire doors would be appropriate for a CPS.
63% of respondents to question 2 agreed or strongly agreed that work to external walls (excluding windows) should remain within Category A, compared to 21% who disagreed or strongly disagreed. Free text responses on work to external walls (excluding windows) highlighted the risk associated with work to external walls and the need to retain high levels of oversight and assurance. A few responses queried the proposed exclusion of windows, noting the role that windows can play in preventing fire spread.
Question 3
Is there any other building work to an individual flat (other than the proposed exceptions) that should remain at Category A?
There were 109 responses to this question.
| Option | Total | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 42 | 39% |
| No | 45 | 41% |
| Don’t know | 22 | 20% |
Question 3(a) - if so, please explain your answer
Respondents were invited to provide more information via a free text box.
There were 56 free text responses to this part of the question.
Some responses raised fire safety concerns and some called for work affecting passive fire safety measures to also be included in the work that should remain in Category A, particularly any work impacting compartmentation.
The most common types of work recommended by respondents to remain in Category A were passive fire safety measures (some), ventilation/work affecting ventilation (some), work affecting service risers (a few), work affecting protected entrance halls (a small number), and work to lift shafts (a small number).
Question 4
Do you have any additional comments on Option 1 (including unintended consequences)?
Summary of responses
There were 79 responses to this free text question.
A few responses reiterated broad support for the objective of improving proportionality in the higher risk regime, citing the cost and time burdens on applicants.
Key concerns that came up across a few responses were:
-
concerns about fire safety and implications of works on compartmentation
-
concerns about the volume and capacity of competent Registered Building Inspectors (RBIs), and recommendations for improvements to the oversight and assurance of workers’ competence to mitigate risks
-
concerns that lower levels of documentation could compromise the golden thread and stating the importance of notifying accountable persons and other relevant dutyholders of relevant works
-
concerns that some applicants could misuse or ‘game’ the system, or carry out works without oversight
-
concerns about the cumulative impacts on wider building safety of multiple smaller works across individual flats, for example multiple minor breaches of compartmentation
-
concerns as to whether the BSR has the necessary resources to make effective decisions concerning when to request additional documentation
The strongest theme across responses to this question was the importance of guidance to ensure industry and applicants understand requirements, and to mitigate some of the risks and concerns outlined above.
Government response
The government has carefully considered the responses received in relation to Option 1.
There was overall support for Option 1 with 77% of respondents to question 1 (To what extent do you agree or disagree that building work within a flat (residential unit) should be excluded from Category A (and classed as Category B work)?) agreeing or strongly agreeing. In light of the views received, government is minded to proceed with the exclusion of work inside flats from Category A (subject to exceptions).
However, as outlined above, there are outstanding issues requiring further consideration before a final position is reached, including:
-
determining whether an adapted approach to the types of building work inside flats that should remain as Category A work would better deliver on proportionality aims
-
establishing how to best mitigate the risks of unintended consequences identified, including (but not limited to) the risk of multiple minor works having a cumulative impact on the overall safety of a building, the risk of works being detrimental to passive fire safety measures, particularly compartmentation, and the risk of re-categorising work compromising the integrity of the golden thread
Government will continue to work with the BSR and stakeholders to explore these issues further before confirming the final policy approach. Consultation responses will inform this work. Any changes will be implemented via a statutory instrument as and when parliamentary time allows.
Option 2: Excluding small-scale building work in communal areas from Category A
Option 2 sought views on amending Category A work to exclude small-scale building work in communal areas of HRBs from Category A.
This proposal builds on Option 1 and recognises that the current categorisation does not distinguish between large-scale and small-scale works. As a result, some relatively minor works in communal areas are currently subject to the same documentation requirements as more complex projects.
The consultation proposed that Option 2 (unlike Option 1) would apply in any HRB, including residential blocks and mixed-use buildings, hospitals, and care homes.
The consultation proposed that “small-scale” work must meet all the following criteria:
-
typically undertaken by a team of 3 or fewer people
-
typically completed within five working days (40 hours)
-
does not impact active fire safety measures (such as fire alarms, Carbon Monoxide alarms or sprinklers), load-bearing walls, or external walls (excluding building work to windows)
The consultation set out that any work affecting structural integrity or active fire safety measures is intended to remain Category A. The BSR would also retain the ability to request additional documentation for any Category B application where appropriate, and no work could commence without BSR approval.
The consultation provided examples of the types of work that may be considered small-scale under this proposal, including:
-
electrical work to install emergency lighting in a communal hallway
-
work to repair or replace a single fire door set in a communal area
-
work to repair or replace a window frame in a communal area
The consultation also highlighted the interaction between Option 1 and Option 2 in relation to building work on fire doors that border communal areas, noting that further clarity would be required in how these proposals operate together in practice.
Question 5
To what extent do you agree or disagree that Category A work should be amended to exclude small-scale work in communal areas?
Respondents could choose from the following answers:
-
strongly agree
-
agree
-
neither agree nor disagree
-
disagree
-
strongly disagree
-
don’t know
Summary of responses
There were 112 responses to this question
| Option | Total | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 46 | 41% |
| Agree | 30 | 27% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 11 | 10% |
| Disagree | 9 | 8% |
| Strongly disagree | 16 | 14% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
Question 6
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed thresholds for small-scale building work (team size, duration, and that work must not affect active fire safety measures)?
Summary of responses
There were 108 responses to this question.
| Option | Total | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 17 | 16% |
| Agree | 19 | 18% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 22 | 20% |
| Disagree | 27 | 25% |
| Strongly disagree | 20 | 19% |
| Don’t know | 3 | 3% |
Question 6(a) – please explain your answer (optional)
Respondents were invited to provide more information via a free text box. There were 83 responses to this free text question.
Some respondents broadly supported the proposal as a practical or proportionate way to distinguish genuinely small-scale, lower risk work from more complex work. A small number of responses supported the proposal in principle, but only where safeguards remained in place and works did not weaken wider building or resident safety.
Some respondents raised fire safety concerns, particularly that even small, or short duration, works could affect compartmentation, fire doors, fire stopping, smoke control or other safety systems. A few respondents raised broader concerns beyond fire, including impacts on structural safety, communal areas, evacuation routes, resident access and the management of works in occupied buildings.
Some respondents thought that the proposed thresholds were not sufficiently risk-based, arguing that team size and duration are poor indicators of the actual safety implications of the work being undertaken. A few respondents said the proposal does not do enough to address competence – calling for qualified installers, Competent Persons Schemes, certification or clearer checks and oversight on those undertaking the work.
A few respondents were concerned about reduced oversight, including whether dutyholders, regulators, or building control would have sufficient visibility and oversight if works were to be treated as Category B. A few respondents questioned whether the proposal would work effectively in practice, with concerns about enforcement, monitoring, consistency and how the thresholds would operate on real sites. A few respondents explicitly warned that applicants or contractors might game the system, for example by splitting work into smaller packages or structuring delivery to fall below the thresholds.
The most common theme across respondents related to clarity and definition gaps, with respondents seeking further clarity particularly around what counts as a ‘team’, what ‘five working days’ means in practice, and exactly which types of work should, or should not, be captured.
Some respondents raised concerns that the proposed threshold and definition does not accurately reflect risk. Respondents noted that measures should accurately reflect the risk of the work being undertaken. Categorisation should be based on the nature, complexity, and impact of works – particularly where works affect compartmentation, structural integrity or safety critical systems, rather than duration or team size.
Respondents also noted that both active and passive fire safety should remain a primary consideration, and that the cumulative impacts of repeated small interventions needs to be considered.
Suggested improvements included strengthening competence frameworks, enhancing accountability for building managers and ensuring appropriate coordination and sign-off for works in HRBs. It was also suggested that clear definition (or a categorical list) of ‘small-scale’ works could improve consistency and reduce mis-categorisation of works.
Question 7
To what extent do you agree or disagree that work should meet all listed criteria to be considered small-scale?
Summary of responses
There were 109 responses to this question.
| Option | Total | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 25 | 23% |
| Agree | 20 | 18% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 24 | 22% |
| Disagree | 20 | 18% |
| Strongly disagree | 17 | 16% |
| Don’t know | 3 | 3% |
Question 7(a) - Please explain your response (optional)
Respondents were invited to provide more information via a free text box. There were 65 responses to this free text question.
Some respondents referred back to the points they had made in response to Question 6. Respondents were on the whole supportive of the need for small-scale work to meet all of a set of criteria to be eligible but expressed doubts about the criteria selected (reflecting the views expressed in response to earlier questions).
Question 8
Do you have any additional comments on Option 2 as proposed (including any potential unintended consequences)?
Summary of responses
There were 71 responses to this free text question. Respondents used this question to give their additional views on a wide range of related topics, including:
-
system level impacts and regulatory capacity
-
telecoms and digital infrastructure
-
golden thread, record keeping and lifecycle management
-
collective/cumulative and building-level risk
-
emergency and time critical works
-
wider unintended consequences
There were common themes across respondents to this question:
-
the importance of clear definitions, guidance, and examples to support consistent applications
-
the need to maintain appropriate levels of competence, oversight, and fire safety considerations (including compartmentation)
-
broad agreement that proposals should support proportionate regulation whilst maintaining audit standards and safety outcomes
Overall, respondents to this question most often raised assurance/oversight concerns (a few), followed by broad support for the option (a few) and risk of system gaming/manipulation (a few)
Government response
The government has carefully considered the views expressed by respondents in response to Option 2.
There was overall support for Option 2 with 68% of respondents to question 5 (To what extent do you agree or disagree that Category A work should be amended to exclude small-scale work in communal areas?) agreeing or strongly agreeing.
However, as outlined above, there are outstanding issues requiring further consideration before a final position is reached, including determining how best to define ‘small-scale’ works to ensure this option delivers on proportionality aims whilst being sufficiently risk based.
The government will continue to explore how small-scale works in communal areas that would be appropriate for Category B work can be best defined. We want to ensure requirements reflect the scale and complexity of the work whilst maintaining appropriate safeguards for building safety and ensuring the BSR retains oversight and the ability to request additional information where necessary.
Government will continue to work with the BSR and stakeholders to develop this approach. This work will address the considerations raised by respondents, with particular reference to refining the threshold and criteria for small scale works (including considering alternative criteria), improving clarity through guidance, and ensuring oversight and risk considerations are appropriately addressed before finalising the policy position. Any changes will be implemented via a statutory instrument as and when parliamentary time allows.
Supporting guidance
The consultation acknowledged that a factor contributing to delays in commencing building work in existing HRBs is the quality of applications and issues with mis-categorisation of building work.
The consultation noted that applicants may provide insufficient documentation, misunderstand requirements, or miscategorise work, resulting in applications being invalidated or requiring further engagement between the BSR and applicants. Conversely, some applicants may submit the more extensive Category A documentation where it is not required.
The consultation therefore sought views on how supporting guidance could be improved to help applicants better understand how to categorise building work and what documentation is required to support applications.
Summary of responses
Question 9
Do you have comments on existing guidance or suggestions for improvement?
There were 113 responses to question 9.
| Option | Total | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 87 | 77% |
| No | 17 | 15% |
| Don’t know | 9 | 8% |
Question 9(a) - If so, please provide details below (free text)
There were 93 responses to this free text question. Responses included suggestions on how existing guidance could be improved. The most common suggestion from some respondents was to provide better definitions and better clarity on requirements, followed by the suggestion from some respondents to include of examples and case studies as part of the guidance. Some also suggested that the format of the application could be improved, for example through the use of decision trees and diagrams. A few responses mentioned current cost burdens on applicants due to the unclear process and guidance.
Question 10
Are there particular stakeholders that should be engaged in developing further guidance?
Summary of responses
There were 104 responses to question 10.
| Option | Total | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 75 | 72% |
| No | 10 | 10% |
| Don’t know | 19 | 18% |
Question 10(a) - Please provide details (free text)
There were 71 responses to this free text question. Responses included suggestions on which stakeholders should be engaged in developing further guidance. The most common suggestions from some respondents were for:
-
designers/architects/surveyors/engineers
-
resident/leaseholders and their representative groups
-
professionals who carry out the work such as contractors/builders/tradespeople
-
building control bodies
-
Fire and Rescue Services and fire safety specialists
-
professional trade bodies
Question 11
To what extent do you agree or disagree that existing guidance is reaching the intended audience, and if not what steps could be taken?
Summary of responses
There were 105 responses to question 11.
| Option | Total | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agree | 4 | 4% |
| Agree | 9 | 9% |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 21 | 20% |
| Disagree | 40 | 38% |
| Strongly disagree | 23 | 22% |
| Don’t know | 8 | 8% |
Question 11(a) - Please explain your answer
There were 70 responses to this free text question. Responses included suggestions on how to reach the intended audience. Some responses suggested that guidance should be tailored and targeted to specific audiences and some recommended improved dissemination and communication of the guidance. A few responses suggested guidance should be accessible through a single, central source. A few responses recommended training on guidance, including audience-specific webinars, workshops and presentations could support dissemination.
Government response
The government has carefully considered the responses received in relation to supporting guidance. Government recognises the critical role that clear and accessible guidance plays in supporting applicants and industry and in improving the overall efficiency of the building control process. Responses to the consultation overwhelmingly support this need.
The government will work with the BSR and stakeholders to shape and update guidance to support any changes to building control procedures, and to find the best routes to disseminate guidance to intended audiences. Consultation responses will inform this work.
Competent Person Schemes
The consultation sought views on whether Competent Person Schemes (CPS) could be established for some types of building work that would fall under Category B.
CPS allow certain types of building work to be self-certified by registered installers as compliant with the Building Regulations, removing the need for a building control application in some circumstances.
The consultation noted that creating new CPS involves long lead-in times and requires robust evidence to ensure that safety and compliance are maintained. The consultation did not propose changes to how existing schemes operate in HRBs but instead sought views on whether there are types of work that may be suitable for CPS in the future.
Question 12
Do you believe there are any types of building work that should be considered for a CPS scheme in the future?
Respondents could choose from the following answers:
-
yes
-
no
-
don’t know
Summary of response
There were 112 responses to this question.
| Option | Total | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 66 | 59% |
| No | 20 | 18% |
| Don’t know | 26 | 23% |
Question 12(a)
Respondents were invited to provide further detail via a free text box. There were 81 free text responses to this question.
Responses indicated cautious support for the potential use of CPS for building work, alongside a clear emphasis on the need for appropriate safeguards. The most common themes across responses were support for the potential use of CPS for some types of building work, alongside concerns about governance, oversight and assurance.
A significant majority expressed broad support for the potential use of CPS for some types of building work. However, many respondents raised criticisms or concerns about CPS, particularly in relation to how schemes would be governed and monitored. These responses highlighted concerns about ensuring consistent standards, maintaining accountability, and the risk of insufficient scrutiny if schemes are not robustly designed.
Many respondents suggested that CPS may be appropriate for certain or specific types of building work. This distinction reflects that some responses referred broadly to categories of work (i.e. ‘certain works’), while others identified particular, named types of work (i.e. ‘specific types’) that may be suitable for CPS. Responses typically emphasised that any application of CPS should be limited in scope and supported by clear criteria and strong oversight arrangements.
The types of work most frequently recommended by some respondents for consideration for a future CPS was work to fire doors. A few responses also recommended work to active fire safety systems (such as sprinklers and fire alarms), work to passive fire safety measures other than fire doors (such as fire stopping), unspecified ‘small’ or ‘minor’ works, and a small number of responses recommended like-for-like replacements.
Government response
The government has carefully considered responses on the potential role of CPS. Government recognises that CPS may support a more proportionate approach for certain types of building work, while also recognising the need to ensure that any such schemes operate with robust safeguards, including clear accountability and effective monitoring arrangements. The government will continue to explore whether there are types of building work that could be suitable for CPS in the future. Any future development of CPS would require further evidence and engagement with the BSR and stakeholders to ensure that safety and compliance are maintained.
The government notes that the BSR has recently undertaken a call for evidence in relation to CPS conditions of authorisation the use of CPS, including in relation to fire doors. We will work with the BSR to explore and inform any future approach in this area, taking into account the Regulator’s call for evidence and responses to this consultation, regarding the use of CPS, including in relation to fire doors. We will work with the BSR to explore and inform any future approach in this area, taking into account the Regulator’s call for evidence and responses to this consultation.
Future work
In addition to the proposals set out in Options 1 and 2, the consultation also considered the case for removing certain types of building work from the higher-risk building control regime entirely.
This included building work within individual flats and small-scale building work, with such work potentially overseen by building control bodies outside of the BSR.
The consultation did not propose making immediate changes in this area but instead sought views on the benefits and risks of moving such work outside of the higher-risk regime.
The consultation noted that implementing any such changes would require primary legislation and would need to be supported by sufficient evidence that building work would continue to be carried out safely, to the required standards, and with an appropriate level of oversight.
Question 13
What would be the benefits of moving work internal to flats and small-scale work from the BSR’s oversight in the higher-risk regime to other building control bodies?
Respondents were invited to provide further detail via a free text box. There were 100 free text responses to this question.
Responses indicated strong support for the potential benefits of moving certain types of work outside of direct BSR oversight. The most common themes raised related to efficiency, cost and reducing administrative burden.
A significant majority noted potential improvements to efficiency, including faster processes and reduced administrative burden.
Many respondents also referred to potential cost savings for applicants, reflecting reduced documentation requirements and quicker approvals.
Some responses indicated that there would be no significant benefits.
Question 14
What would be the risks of moving work internal to flats and small-scale work from the BSR’s oversight in the higher-risk regime to other building control bodies?
Respondents were invited to provide further detail via a free text box. There were 97 free text responses to this question.
Responses indicated significant concerns about the risks of moving such work outside of direct BSR oversight. The most common themes raised related to concerns about oversight, safety and competence.
A significant majority of responses raised concerns about risks to assurance and oversight, including the potential for reduced scrutiny and inconsistency in decision making. A significant majority of responses highlighted other safety concerns, including the potential impact on overall building safety outcomes.
Concerns about competence were also frequently raised, with many respondents questioning whether those undertaking or approving work would have sufficient expertise. Many responses also expressed doubts about whether alternative arrangements would be as effective as the current regime. Some responses specifically referenced fire safety concerns, particularly where works could impact compartmentation or a building’s wider fire safety strategy.
A few responses indicated that there would be no significant risks.
Government response
The government has carefully considered the views expressed by respondents on the potential benefits and risks of moving certain types of building work outside of the higher-risk building control regime.
The government recognises that respondents identified a range of potential benefits, including improvements to efficiency and cost, alongside significant concerns relating to safety, oversight and competence. These responses highlight the importance of ensuring that any future changes continue to maintain high standards of building safety and effective regulatory oversight.
The government recognises that this represents a more fundamental change to the operation of the higher-risk building regime, beyond the proposals set out in Options 1 and 2.
The government is currently undertaking an independent review of the higher-risk building regime established under the Building Safety Act 2022, to ensure it remains effective, proportionate and delivers the intended safety outcomes whilst supporting housing delivery. This review is being undertaken earlier than originally planned and will consider the overall structure of the regime, including how building work is categorised.
The government will continue to consider these issues as part of its wider programme of work to review and improve the higher-risk building regime. Consultation responses will inform this work. Any future changes in this area would require further policy development, robust supporting evidence, and, where appropriate, legislative change.
The government will continue to engage with the Building Safety Regulator and stakeholders as it considers these issues further.
Impact
The consultation set out indicative estimates of the potential impacts of the proposed changes, including the expected benefits of improving proportionality in the higher-risk building control regime.
For Option 1, the consultation estimated a net present social value (NPSV) of approximately £2.4 million to £3.1 million over a ten-year appraisal period (2026/27 to 2035/36), depending on the number of refurbishment applications. This includes an estimated annual net saving to businesses of between £280,000 and £360,000. The consultation also indicated that applicants could save approximately 7 hours in preparing application materials, with a similar saving in processing time for the Building Safety Regulator (BSR).
For Option 2, the consultation estimated a net present social value of approximately £3.8 million to £5.0 million over the same period, with annual net savings to businesses of between £440,000 and £580,000. The consultation also estimated potential time savings of approximately 8 hours for both applicants and the regulator per application.
These estimates reflect the anticipated reduction in documentation requirements and processing time for certain types of building work, while maintaining the requirement for BSR approval and compliance with the Building Regulations.
The government will consider the impact of potential changes further in light of the consultation responses and any additional evidence provided. This will include consideration of how changes may affect applicants, the BSR, and the overall functioning of the higher-risk building control regime.
A final stage impact assessment will be published alongside the statutory instrument that will be laid to bring any changes into effect.
Next steps
The government is grateful to all those who responded to this consultation.
The government will now:
-
develop the final policy positions for Options 1 and 2, informed by the consultation findings, engagement with the BSR and the sector, and any other relevant evidence
-
explore improvements to supporting guidance and work with the sector to ensure that guidance is clear, accessible, and effectively supports applicants and industry in understanding the requirements of the higher-risk building regime
The government remains committed to ensuring that the higher-risk building control regime is proportionate, effective, and focused on maintaining building safety