Remove Red Tape

Building Regulations and Related Legislation

Building Regulations set minimum performance standards that building work must meet in terms of health, safety, energy efficiency, accessibility, and environmental standards. Towards the end of last year, the Government published its Housing Strategy which set out its commitment to quality, sustainability and design in housing. You can find out more at Chapter 7, here.

We have recently published a consultation on a number of proposals for changes to the Building Regulations. We are currently consulting on these proposals (for further information see here). The feedback from both the Red Tape Challenge and this consultation exercise will be used to develop future changes to the Building Regulations, including those which we currently aim to implement in 2012/2013.

You can find the regulations that relate to Building Regulations and Related Legislation to the left below. Visit the Housing & Construction theme landing page here.

Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:

• Should we scrap them altogether?
• Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
• Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
• Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
• Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
• Should they be left as they are?

130 comments on “Building Regulations and Related Legislation”

1. Diane Marshall on February 16, 2012 at 6:56 pm said:

   Should we scrap them altogether?

   Building Regulations are a recognised means in helping the construction industry to achieve minimum standards in key areas of health and safety. There importance cannot be underestimated and must be maintained. Most of the legislation that makes up today’s regulatory framework exists for good reason, however it should be acknowledged that some sections where created as a reaction to specific industry issues and has subsequently become outdated or duplication. Consideration should be given to the withdrawal of the following documents as they are (or could easily be) covered elsewhere within the building regulations.

   • SUDS (in part H)
   • Code for sustainable homes (in part L)
   • EPC’s (in part L, should be included as part of the DER TER)
   • Lifetime homes (relevant sections in part M)

   The testing elements of specific approved documents should also be replaced with specialist guidance, and administered via a revised competent persons scheme

   • Part F (testing)
   • Part J (testing
   • Part P (testing)

   It is also considered that Local enactments should be withdrawn as these are no longer seen as fit for purpose. When introduced these regional restrictions played an important part in the review of a building regulations application. If the minimum requirements have been achieved this should be satisfactory.

   • Withdraw all local Enactment

   Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?)

   A voluntary code may be seen as a barrier to business and may be overlooked to save costs, therefore “optional” regulations would not be a positive step.

   Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?

   The idea that planning could evolve to become a technical standards setting body would not be supported, the two parts of the approval process should be kept separate due to the very different processes (one health and safety) and one (economic / political / aesthetic)

   The Building Regulations 2010 and the Building (Approved Inspector) Regulations 2010 should be consolidated and merged allowing for one common document. The concepts remain equivalent but the cross referencing required and duplication can currently lead to confusion.

   The regulations should be simplified and the core aims identified. Specific pattern books solutions should continue to be developed for specific building components. We would support the merging of suitable approved documents to remove duplication

   Support documentation and software platforms should be reviewed as often it is impossible to assess against the requirements of new regulations at the time they come into effect, instead having to rely on older versions and interpolation.

   Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?

   The impact of new regulations should be better considered with adequate time allowed for up-skilling key personnel.

   Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?

   The enforcement of building control and complaints procedure should be centralised to allow full impartiality, with a review body providing feedback and any necessary action. This body would review complaints from all building control bodies’, (AI’s and LABC’s) allowing a common approach with lessons learned to benefit the industry as a whole

   Should they be left as they are?

   The main function and core values are essential to the protection of health and safety and the major components should remain. Recent surveys have helped demonstrate the benefit of the building regulations system to both industry and end users, providing both a minimum standards and a mechanism for control.

   However changes are needed to keep pace with an evolving industry, regular review is seen as essential.
2. Kenton May on February 16, 2012 at 6:11 pm said:

   I believe the Building Regulatory & Control system administered by independent (from the project) professionals works to protect consumers from unsuitable construction work. I believe it is irrelevant whether this service is public or private sector.

   Further this fact was recognised by a majority of informed clients who regularly employ designers and construction companies.

   Notwithstanding this it is clear there are opportunities to improve the guidance to the regulations. Duplication and conflict should be removed from such guidance.

   With closer future ties to Europe there are clear benefits from standardising other forms of guidance such as British Standards, for example regarding structural design.

   Additionally it should be possible to remove local county and metropolitan Acts that duplicate technical requirements over and above the building regulation standards without impacting consumer protection and safety of persons in and about buildings. Essentially I believe people should be equally protected wherever they are geographically in England (and Wales.)

   Equally there should be help given to smaller construction companies who have difficulty accessing good design information or several Approved documents for one small building. An example of this would be reintroduction of the “rules of thumb” tables from the rear of past editions of the Approved Document A rather than having to procure structural consultants for minor standard kitchen extensions and roof work.

   The “Future of Building Control” report a few years ago, contained some good advice on the direction & use of the Building Control industry for both health and safety issues as well as environmental progress.

   I have reservations regarding the effectiveness of self certification schemes for delivery of consumer protection.

   Equally I am concerned regarding extent of inspection of the only building that is really relevant – the 3 dimension “as built” or altered asset rather the 2 d theoretical plan, hence I feel (limited?) resources should be aimed at site inspection rather than plan checking which may be considered luxury for the benefit of builders and designers rather than clients paying for competant service in the early stages of a project.

   I am unclear of the effectiveness of Approved Document P.

   Many of these issues are part of the current consultation for changes to the building regulations and guidance which makes for an interesting read.

   Finally, I draw attention to countries that have fundamentally changed their building regulation and building control systems in the past to the detriment of consumers, consider New Zealand and Norwegian examples.Comment Tags: building control, Building Regulation
3. Arnold Gilpin on February 16, 2012 at 12:26 pm said:

   The Building Regulations were reformed in 1984. It was like a breath of fresh air, we started working with building regulations rather than through them. What brought about the change? A test of reasonableness.

   Since then red tape has been piled on red tape and restrictive practice on restrictive practice. Part L is now a nightmare that gets worse every two years. All the work we put in developing solutions gets trashed every two years as does piles of undersized insulation. Sustainable building is a holistic process not the fragmented mess it has become. One bit of nonesence is having to put draught strips on windows to prevent air leakage then cutting a hole in the frame to provide trickle ventilation. Two bits of extra cost to achieve what was there in the first place. Another example is sealing up a building to pass an air pressure test then putting in a vent to prevent death by carbon monoxide poisoning when a biomass heating system is installed . A load of expense and worry to achieve what was there at the start.

   Building Regulations are necessary and are only made to work at the moment by a very talented and reasonable bunch of building inspectors.
4. Graham Jones on February 15, 2012 at 11:57 pm said:

   There seems to be a lot of support for stop notices which i believe is the wrong approach for the following reasons:-

   1) They will be anti competitive as only LAs will be given the power. Would you sign up with an LA for your Building Control knowing that they can stop the job at any time? I think this would be a huge tip in favour of AIs.

   2) Planning Authorities have had the power to issue Stop notices for a long time and it is rarely used. My LA , a very large one has issue less than half a dozen in the last 10 years. The reason being that you can be sued over the validity of the Notice and if you lose then the costs of the delay can be awarded against the Council. No Council will allow their Building Control to put its financial head in the noose.

   So, something to frighten the customers but nobody would have the nerve to use it. This is a poor idea and a paper tiger.

   2
5. P Knight on February 15, 2012 at 9:32 pm said:

   Building control should be here to keep the cowboys out of the industry and protect building owners and users. I work in the industry and have experience of LAs and AIs. Most LAs I have found to be professional and helpful and always willing to check plans and undertake site visits for the fee agreed at the start of a project. Many AIs are just there to make a profit and will try to reduce site visits and plan checks to save costs. This is bad for the industry as there must be a load of work going unchecked. The cowboys can just chose the easy route now. If you want good regulation it’s best to only let LAs do building control. The gov can then make sure that LAs only break even to stop them hiking the fees. LAs could then really stamp down on the cowboys.Comment Tags: building control
6. peter card on February 15, 2012 at 8:03 pm said:

   building regulations are the only way to make buildings safe and fit for purpose, a voluntary system will not work , there is agreat deal on non compliance through work not being notified.
   I belive the competition between local authorities and private inspectors is driving standards down not up. work is being “bought” in by some AI’s ( not all though) and we know it is not possible for adequate supervision to be carried out for the price agreed.

   Many of these Acts in particular section 20 of London Building Act contain provisions to tackle fire in certain large and over height buildings and if the additional requirements are considered to be necessary then additional requirements should be added to Part B of the Building Regulations. In particular the London Building Act contains a section 30 dealing with temporary and special structures that enables Councils to check and give consents for temporary structures which otherwise would have no route for compliance. These structures usually involve public use and if remove may put the public at risk.
   • Items covered by section 20 include
   • fire extinguishing appliances and installations
   • effective means of removing smoke in case of fire;
   • adequate means of access to the site of the building for fire brigade personnel and appliances.

   These additional requirements ensure a safe building not only for the occupiers but for the fire-fighters.
7. Iain Houston on February 15, 2012 at 6:22 pm said:

   The Building Regulations should certainly not be scrapped. They play a vital role in ensuring the health and safety of people in and around buildings, and in improving sustainability and improving access to buildings. Virtually all parts of the construction industry recognise the importance of these Regulations. A similar impact can not be made by voluntary means as many architects and builders would be tempted, not least on cost grounds, to ignore anything with which they were not legally required to comply.

   Any regulatory system needs to be kept up to date and the DCLG are currently undertaking this work for the Building Regulations.

   I believe that the competition between service providers has helped to improve the customer focus of the service from both LA’s and AI’s. However, the benefit of ‘competition’ has been used to the full extent and I think that consideration should be given to introducing a system which allows accurate and efficient enforcement of the regulations particularly the thermal insulation and energy saving requirements. I work for a LA service and I am sure that the Building Regulations are effectively enforced by my team and other LA service providers but we can only enforce the Regulations to a set standard and so the Approved Documents become the default standard for the industry.

   It is planned to achieve zero carbon by 2016 (whatever that target will mean in the end). Governement will need to be far more aggressive in their requirements of the industry and there will need to be an enforcement body or system which is fully capable of achieving this aim. It is my opinion that a system which maintains competition between service providers will not provide this facility and that what is really needed is an LA run ‘carbon police’ service which is funded by central government and so is a truly remote service. I do not think that the Governments Green Deal and the associated competent person scheme will be effective as a system to reduce carbon generation .Comment Tags: Building Regulations