Remove Red Tape

Construction Related Regulations

These regulations cover construction related regulations, such as those related to Construction Contracts or Construction Products. These have not been considered as part of other Red Tape Challenge themes (for example, the Health and Safety theme covered the Construction, Design and Management Regulations and other legislation related to safety during the construction process). You can find the regulations that relate to Construction Related Regulations 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?

15 comments on “Construction Related Regulations”

1. Kevin Minton on February 16, 2012 at 5:22 pm said:

   Planning regulations must not be used as a “back door” method for LAs to introduce requirements that do not relate directly to the management and sustainable development of land. It is especially important that this is prohibited where other legislation is already in place to control the issue or to bring about the desired effect, and the LA is motivated to add more stringent requirements in a localised and unsustainable manner, without proper scrutiny and without proper process.Comment Tags: planning
2. John Tebbit on February 15, 2012 at 3:26 pm said:

   My response is on behalf of the Construction Products Association which represents around 85% by value of the £50 billion product manufacturing and distribution industry. The main legal instrument for our industry is the Construction Products Directive and its successor the Construction Products Regulation. These are European law and as such the UK is not in a position to repeal them so far as we understand. In any case we would not want them repealed as they together with the European standards for products and test methods are now fundamentally embedded within our industry. To change them would result in huge costs for no perceivable benefits.Comment Tags: CPD, CPR, European legislation
3. Val Taylor on February 15, 2012 at 1:10 pm said:

   From Shelagh Grant, Chief Executive, The Housing Forum.

   The Housing Forum has studied the impact of regulation on housing construction and concluded that investment in briefing, design, procurement and construction will also be needed if a reduction in regulation is to achieve cost reductions. The Housing forum has recommended that
   • Government’s role should be as an enabler, removing all but essential regulation
   • Mandatory housing standards will remain necessary in the affordable sector
   • A standard labelling system for all homes should be developed and adopted to give consumers better information on space and energy performance
   • Further research is needed into the comparative cost of affordable housing
   • The emphasis on innovation should be moved towards component design and manufacture, with incentives for locally based supply chains
   • Better integration throughout the whole life housing process through adoption of BIM
   • Improved and simplified procurement processes will help bring down costs

   Our comments are drawn from the practical and commercial experience of members of The Housing Forum including clients,consultants,contractors and manufacturers from the public and private sectors in housing. The full report “”Innovation and Regulation in Housing Construction “can be seen on the web site www.housingforum.org.uk”Comment Tags: Housing Forum
4. Shelagh Grant on February 15, 2012 at 10:26 am said:

   From The Housing Forum Working Group on Innovation and Regulation in Housing Construction.

   Our Findings & Recommendations.

   • Government’s role should be as an enabler, removing
   all but essential regulation
   • Mandatory housing standards will remain necessary in
   the affordable sector
   • A standard labelling system for all homes should be
   developed and adopted to give consumers better
   information on space and energy performance
   • Further research is needed into the comparative cost
   of affordable housing
   • The emphasis on innovation should be moved towards
   component design and manufacture, with incentives
   for locally based supply chains
   • Better integration throughout the whole life housing
   process through adoption of BIM
   • Improved and simplified procurement processes will
   help bring down costsComment Tags: The Housing Forum
5. James Stevens on February 8, 2012 at 1:13 pm said:

   I am a planner for the HBF (although I am commenting in my own capacity here) so my understanding of the regulations pertaining to construction is fairly limited. However, speaking to our members informally about the question of regulation, it would appear that one of the chief problems isn’t always the volume of regulation but how it is applied by local authorities. As an example, I am told that some local authority EHOs often insist that a site Remediation Strategy is completed for each phase of a large scheme, and sometimes even on a plot-by-plot basis (so I am told, I may be wrong), rather than a single Remediation Strategy being considered sufficient for the whole site. Perhaps with regulation much firmer guidelines are needed but sometimes I wonder whether even this will work as many of these problems appear to stem from a public sector that is deeply antagonisitc to what they percieve as ‘big business’.
6. John Tebbit on January 26, 2012 at 4:06 pm said:

   The general point is that the interface between Building Regulations and Planning needs to be clearly defined. Planning officers should be limited to setting general requirements and not get into details of how applicants meet them. As an example some planners are asking for a level of renewable energy and then saying which technologies should be used. That is not their role.
   The other problem we have with planners is their desire to reinvent the wheel particularly when it comes to sustainability. The Code for Sustainable Homes was meant to standardise this to some extent and in a way so does BREEAM for non-domestic buildings. If we could get a more coherent application of existing codes it would go a long way.Comment Tags: BREEAM, Building Regulations, Code, planning
7. Kevin Hilton on January 20, 2012 at 11:39 am said:

   I am an architectural technician and agent on behalf of our clients. It has become a challenge to even validate an application let alone get it approved. I am all for tougher legislation but these requirements are crippling economic growth in my opinion. Producing Design & Access Statements, flood risk assessments, transport assessments etc are all necessary but in my opinion overused and almost used as a tick box item to cover the planning department in the future should a problem arise. These have an overbearing effect on our fees which are being squeezed from every direction including the client which have never been so low in a time where have to produce so much work the drawing of the project equates to half of the fee where it used to be 80-90%. As an example we are currently building an industrial unit approximately 300k in value. 3 weeks before planning was due we were told the planning department admitted they forgot to ask for a BREEAM pre-assessment at a cost of £500 which meant they wanted the Building to comply with BREEAM and have a rating of `very good’. Not only did we need to provide this assessment to say we think we can achieve it we now had to produce the document itself at a cost of £4500 more than our fee for designing the project. We are now close to spending at least one week answering meaningless questions such as how far is your bicycle store form the front door to obtain a single credit, and then the contractor has to confirm the bicycle store has been installed in that position to get the credit. This is so time consuming for us therefore our fees have to go up, the client is put off by the whole process and new clients when adding up the figures wont take the risk. This exactly the red tape that needs to be looked at, there is no argument that some of these documents need to be in place but alot could be approved on the condition that these have been satisfied. You can not even speak to most Local Authorities now with being charged. No wonder economic growth has slowed and wont pick up.Comment Tags: Planning legislation and validation
   • Paul S Clothier on January 22, 2012 at 7:33 pm said:

     Some excellent points!
     if there is a site specific need, then do the assessments, but access; leave it to Building Regulation, just make sure the level on the plan allow it to be achieved, we have had plans that have planning access statements, but the floor level is 1m higher than the road that is 1m away so your comments of ticking a list appear true in some cases.
     BREEAM used as a blanket requirement is a waste of time and money, again be site specific for e.g. in areas with low rain fall, reduce water consumption and grey water systems installed, if the want increase insulation level use SAP and SBEM and ask for a % increase, these are already part of the design team undertakings so costed for. But, I would say if the government think AD L is a good enough standard what do the planners know that we don’t?Comment Tags: planning improvements
8. Caroline Morris on January 19, 2012 at 9:48 am said:

   As a small business we need to reduce the following regulations:
   1. Health & Safety – many sites we arrive on now present us with new red tape eg., having used chopsaws for 20 years, we are suddenly asked to produce a long list of items such as fire extinguisher, gloves, masks, glasses – all to a certain H&S standard, at our own cost. These items are not costed into the job as it would make us uncompetitive and yet we are not allowed to do our normal work without these items;
   2. Some of our work can now demand a qualified supervisor to sign the work off. This mean further qualification, cost and time just to endorse what we have been doing successfully for years!
   3. Yesterday we learn that the law on retentions has changed to allow main contractors to withhold 5% of the job value indefinitely and is not obliged to release the money. How can a small company manage without the last 5% of the contract value indefinitely?
   4. Much greater protection is needed for small businesses when they do not get paid on time by main contractors. If you threaten legal action to get paid, they just tie you up in knots and a small business cannot afford solicitors. How can this imbalance be redressed. It is known as subbie bashing and it is rife.Comment Tags: Construction regulations
9. MichelleAnn on January 18, 2012 at 10:13 am said:

   Building Regulations – put all stair requirements in Part K, and all toilet requirements in Part G, neither in Part M. Splitting them causes a lot of problems for designers and builders – these regulations are mainly used by them not access officers !Comment Tags: Building Regulations
   • Paul S Clothier on January 22, 2012 at 7:12 pm said:

     That seem a common sense solution but could you go one step further and include number of appliances required from BS6465 and the work place regulation, also lobby requirement for cafes etc, all the information for most projects in one document!Comment Tags: building regs
   • John Tebbit on January 26, 2012 at 4:08 pm said:

     Look out for the consultation from DCLG as this could address some of these issues, which are also of concern to the product industry. In the past we ended up with conflicting guidance between Part B and Part M, now resolved.Comment Tags: Part M
10. Melvin Pugh on January 17, 2012 at 7:13 pm said:

    Not sure if this is the right topic under which to raise this, but my issue is with the Local Planning Authority (LPA) implementation of 106 agreements. have been trying to obtain planning permission to build a new house, but the LPA insist that I enter into a 106 agreement prior to giving a planning decision. This would cost around £1000 but gives no guarantee of obtaining the planning permission. It is bad enough that the LPA want in excess of £24k contributions (infratrucure, affordable housing etc), but to insist on individuals entering into the agreement prior to giving decision is an unnecessary financial burden on an already highly regulated and costly process. The soution would seem to be straightforward: either the 106 agreement should be standardised and simplified to a basic form to be filled in and signed, or (ideally and even simpler)planning permission should be granted subject to a 106 agreement being entered into. In any case, the whole issue of 106 contributions needs to be reviewed, standardised and simplified, as at present different LPA’s have different approaches; for example, the New Forest District Council (NFDC) require significant 106 contributions, whilst an adjacent LPA, Southampton City Council take a much more pragmatic view of small develeopments and the contribution is negotiable. The approach by the NFDC is preventing the building of much needed housing for the private rental sector and as such appears to be acting contrary to the best interests of the community.Comment Tags: Planning 106 agreements
11. Tony Taylor on January 13, 2012 at 4:30 pm said:

    Get the local planning departments sorted out before any further action being taken for construction work. These people have not only crucified our town centres but are increasing regulations for residential accommodation. The government stated that it would make planning easier. They must have said it with tongue in cheek.

    Planning departments are now the dictators of this country.Comment Tags: Planning hell.
    • Paul S Clothier on January 22, 2012 at 7:19 pm said:

      Building Control was like this until the competition was involved, it made LA respond quicker and treat applicant as customer, closer working between B Control and Planning would mean technical bits could be dealt with by B Control. Also scrap the requirement to do BREEAM, CoSH etc, unless client requires this, and use SAP and SBEM as these are required for Building Regulation so already costed for. Let the B Regs drive the minimum energy requirements. And get the planners working smarter and quicker, clearer rulesComment Tags: planning improvements