Closed consultation

Building control: charges, notices and certificates

Updated 16 January 2026

Applies to England

Scope of this consultation

This consultation is being carried out in accordance with the requirements set out in 120B(3) Building Act 1984 and section 7(4) of the Building Safety Act 2022.

Geographical scope

The consultation covers proposals which would have effect only in England.

Body responsible for the consultation

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).

Duration

This consultation will last for 10 weeks from 14 November 2025 to 25 January 2026.

How to respond

Respond to the consultation by completing the online survey. There are 126 questions as part of this consultation.

Alternatively, you can email your response to the questions in this consultation to buildingcontrolcharges@communities.gov.uk.

Anyone with an interest may respond. We are particularly interested to hear from:

• building safety regulator

• local authority and private sector building control teams and registered building inspectors

• local authority finance officers and treasurers

• local government representative organisations

• Local Authority Building Control (LABC) – which represents all local authority building control teams in England and Wales

• Association of Building Control Approvers (ABCA)

• registered building control approvers

• members of self-certification (competent persons) schemes and third-party certification schemes

• companies involved in the design and construction of buildings, such as developers, housebuilders, architects, trade bodies and ‘clients’ and ‘duty holders’

• fire and rescue authorities

• local authority departments carrying out regulatory and enforcement functions in relation to homes and buildings, such as trading standards and housing departments

• registered housing providers

• leaseholder representative organisations

• private sector landlord associations

• Citizens Advice 

• disability charities

• disabled people’s organisations

• representatives of disability bodies

• Equality and Human Rights Commission

• demolition trade bodies (NFDC, IDE, EDA, NDA)

• chartered and other professional bodies interested in building control functions

• fire risk assessor bodies

• members of the public

List of proposed reforms

In this consultation we are proposing reforms to the:

• Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 2010

• Building Safety (Regulator’s Charges) Regulations 2023

• Building (Registered Building Control Approvers etc.) (England) Regulations 2024

Topic of the consultation

This is a public consultation paper setting out proposals and questions relating to charges for building control services provided by local authorities. The proposals and related questions are aimed at enabling local authorities to recover chargeable functions, as fully as possible, the costs associated with providing certain building control functions in the Building Act 1984 (as amended) and The Building Regulations 2010 (Principal Regulations). 

The consultation contains one consequential proposal for amending the regulations for charges for the Building Safety Regulator, which provide some parity across those aspects of the charging regimes relating to charges when work is carried out that are required for disabled persons on existing buildings to which members of the public are admitted. 

The consultation proposes to amend The Building (Registered Building Control Approvers etc.) (England) Regulations 2024 by extending the number of prescribed working days for which local authorities have to respond to notices and certificates submitted by Registered Building Control Approvers before such notices and certificates are deemed to be approved.

Scope of the consultation

The following regulations, documents and areas are in scope for this consultation:

• Grenfell Tower Inquiry

• Building Act 1984

• Building Safety Act 2022

• The Building Regulations 2010 (Principal Regulations)

• The Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 2010

• The Building Safety (Regulator’s Charges) Regulations 2023

• The Building Safety Regulator’s Charging Scheme

• The Building (Registered Building Control Approvers etc.)(England) Regulations 2024

• building control policy

• local authority capacity and funding

• CIPFA Local Authority Building Control Accounting guidance

• His Majesty’s Treasury’s Managing Public Money

• local government reorganisation

• Equality Act 2010

Out of scope

The following areas are out of scope of this consultation:

• recovery of costs in relation to the prosecution of offences under the Building Act 1984

• work done by local authorities that they are requested or directed to do by the Building Safety Regulator

• revisions to the charging regulations for the Building Safety Regulator, except regarding charges concerning work solely require for disabled persons in relation to existing buildings to which members of the public are admitted

• functions regarding the Building Safety Levy

• the receipt and processing of public bodies’ notices

• whether specific requirements should be permitted to be relaxed or dispensed with

• any charges for the voluntary model arbitration and conciliation procedure that LABC runs on behalf of local authorities and applicants

Frequently used terms

Local authority (or LA) charging regulations 2010

The current regulations that local authorities use for charging for building control services, The Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 2010.

Local authority building control bodies (LABCBs)

This acronym helps distinguish the providers of local authority building control services from the organisation LABC which represents all local authority building control teams in England and Wales.

Registered Building Control Approvers (RBCAs)

RBCAs are private sector providers of building control services.

RBCA regulations

The Building (Registered Building Control Approvers etc.) (England) Regulations 2024.

Building Safety Regulator (BSR)

The BSR is part of the Health and Safety Executive, but will be moved to a new single construction regulator.

This provides different functions concerning building control for ‘higher-risk buildings’, which are 18 metres or more in height or 7 or more storeys and contain at least 2 residential units or are a hospital or care home.

The BSR also regulates the building control profession by:

• keeping a register of building inspectors Registered Building Inspectors (RBIs)

• inspecting LABCBs and RBCAs

• setting professional conduct rules for RBCAs, Operational Standards Rules for LAs and RBCAs, a code of conduct for RBIs

• investigating and sanctioning RBIs where necessary

BSR charging regulations

The current regulations that the BSR uses for charging for building control services, including its charging scheme. The Building Safety (Regulator’s Charges) Regulations 2023.

Principal Regulations

The Building Regulations 2010, which are the main regulations covering building control functions and activities and the functional requirements for several aspects of buildings’ performance, such as structure, fire safety and access to and use of buildings.

Introduction

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report was published on 4 September 2024.

The report highlighted many failings originating from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s (RBKC) building control department’s actions:

RBKC building control did not properly scrutinise the design or choice of materials and failed to satisfy itself that on completion of the work the building would comply with the requirements of the Building Regulations.

RBKC’s building control department failed to perform its statutory function of ensuring that the design of the refurbishment complied with the Building Regulations. It therefore bears considerable responsibility for the dangerous condition of the building immediately on completion of the work. The surveyor responsible for the refurbishment was overworked, inadequately trained and had a very limited understanding of the risks associated with the use of ACM panels.

The report, while highlighting that the department was poorly run and there were serious errors by individuals, also showed how RBKC’s cuts had reduced staffing levels drastically, and that the authority’s officials assigned to the Grenfell Tower cladding project did not have sufficient knowledge and competence for the type of work required; they were stretched and under-resourced.

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea was not alone in making significant budget cuts. Inside Housing’s research in 2021 showed that many LABCBs (local authority building control bodies) had cut their building control resources. A consequence of this was less scrutiny of plans and applications, and fewer inspection site visits.

The fact that so many properties require remediation from similar cladding material systems to those which had been fitted to the Grenfell Tower demonstrates that many LABCBs have not used their compliance and enforcement powers or have not always realised the risk that such materials pose.

It is difficult to see how they have been fulfilling their statutory duties under section 91 of the Building Act 1984, and this needs to change. This was implied by the former Secretary of State, Rt Hon the Lord (Michael) Gove, when he appeared before the LUHC Select Committee on 21 February 2022 when referring to the difficulty in establishing which properties were affected by dangerous cladding systems:

At the moment, part of the difficulty is recognising the scale of work that is required, building by building. We can make informed, and well-informed, estimates, but we cannot know precisely at this stage, because we have a legacy of poor building control.

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s final report recommendations

Having examined the role of building control in the Grenfell Tower renovations the final report made the following recommendations.

Recommendation 22

That the government appoint an independent panel to consider whether it is in the public interest for building control functions to be performed by those who have a commercial interest in the process. (113.37) 

Recommendation 23

That the same panel consider whether all building control functions should be performed by a national authority. (113.38)

The government has accepted these recommendations, and has established a Building Control Independent Panel to review the building control sector. This is chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt. It will recommend which bodies should carry out certain functions, as well as whether all building control functions should be performed by a national authority.

While the government cannot pre-empt the outcome of the Building Control Independent Panel’s deliberations, it considers there are short term measures that can be taken now to improve the existing model of delivery and capacity by LABCBs and the wider building control profession.

The government’s response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s report stated:

We will work with the independent panel, the Building Safety Regulator and the wider building control sector to establish a shared long-term and financially sustainable vision for building control services, so that they are able to provide assurance, inspection and enforcement activities that support housebuilding, cladding remediation, decent homes, net zero and social infrastructure ambitions.

There needs to be a significant increase in capacity in the building control profession to deliver those ambitions. The government is working with the sector to support the recruitment and training for significantly more building inspectors, building on the existing £16.5 million of government funding. We will deliver further improvement in standards and professionalism to improve competence across all building control functions.

One of the reforms that has followed the Grenfell Tower tragedy is placing the building control profession on a regulated basis in law. This requires some building control activities and functions to be carried out by suitably competent and registered inspectors, known as Registered Building Inspectors (RBIs). The Building Safety Act 2022 introduced measures to encourage development and recognise building control inspectors through registration and the formalisation of different classes of RBIs according to their competence and expertise. The BSR oversees this.

Section 46A of the Building Act, along with the associated Building (Restricted Activities and Functions) (England) Regulations 2023, sets out various restricted activities and functions that would apply to LABCBs, the BSR, and RBCAs. Consultees will see that some of the proposed new chargeable activities and functions applicable to LABCBs (and RBCAs) set out below are covered by these measures, which require LABCBs to either employ or use the services of RBIs from elsewhere, such as through employment agencies.

While these overarching reforms have been widely accepted as necessary for driving up standards, they have also been why some inspectors have left the profession, or not sought registration, which has reduced capacity in the sector. The government’s response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report seeks to address this, including through the measures in this consultation.

Considering the ageing demographic of the current cohort, to meet this demand, it is clear that the number of competent Registered Building Inspectors registered with the BSR needs to increase significantly. The local authority building control sector needs to be able to pay more attractive salaries to continue to compete with its private sector competitors and become a more attractive career of choice. This may require LABCBs to reassess their job evaluation schemes. Dr Lorna Stimpson, the Chief Executive of the trade body LABC, stated at the HCLG Select Committee on 18 March 2025:

There are lots of reasons for that, such as decades of austerity within local authorities and lack of training within local authorities for new building control. Over 50% of building control surveyors are in their 50s. That means that there is a very real risk—or an absolute inevitability— that those people will be lost, so we need to bring more people into the profession as soon as possible. We desperately need that to happen sooner rather than later, because we need to draw on those people’s experience before we lose them. You don’t learn how to be a building control surveyor out of a book; you learn it from surveying with those very experienced people.

Anneliese Day KC, co-author of the Morrell-Day Independent Review of the Construction Product Testing Regime, also spoke to the then LUHC Select Committee on 27 November 2023. Contrasting local authorities’ trading standards services with building control, she said:

There seems to be a general feeling that building control might be a more appropriate candidate to deal with enforcement in the construction industry, but that would have to be looked at because to be effective, it would have to be properly funded and resourced, have properly trained people and be independent.

The growth of building control capacity is also vital to supporting the Higher-Risk Buildings (HRBs) regulatory framework whereby the BSR requests necessary assistance from LAs to support Multi-Disciplinary Teams working on assessing documents and carrying out inspections relating to new HRBs and changes to existing HRBs.

The Building Safety Levy. The guidance about the levy, which is due to come into force on 1 October 2026, will be administered by LABCBs. It is up to LABCBs to decide which teams will administer the levy, but building control teams will have a role to play. This may require increased capacity for the building control service overall to facilitate the administration of the levy, particularly where building control is poorly resourced. The government has allocated New Burdens funding to cover LABCBs’ set-up costs in preparation for implementation of the levy. LABCBs will be able to recover their levy administration costs by retaining a portion of their levy revenue, before returning the balance to central government. Due to these sources of funding, the government does not expect the reformed charges regulations to require changes to facilitate these specific new levy administration functions.

When preparing this consultation, it was clear that there is very little data or information that is readily available about the charges that LABCBs set, the costs associated with, or the frequency of, the use of the majority of functions and activities they carry out. The range of interdependent topics that the building regulations, and therefore LABCBs, cover include those that should reduce adverse environmental impacts and improve access to and use of and safety of buildings. Therefore, this consultation asks for responses in several places that will inform a final assessment of impacts the Public Sector Equality Duty analysis and Environmental Principles Policy Statement assessment.

This consultation’s reforms aim to support the delivery of the government’s housing and wider construction ambitions and to grow and sustain LABCBs’ building control capacity. The government’s intention is to increase the income received through amending the charging regulations for LABCBs to facilitate these improvements.

The current charges and fees regulatory framework

The current Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations came into effect on 1 April 2010. The Impact Assessment that was published at that time stated that there would be a review of LABCBs’ income and expenditure and the take-up and impact of the new charges’ regulations in 2013 (3 years after practical implementation). There was a review of Building Regulations in 2012 but, although mentioned, no significant changes were made to the Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations. As there have been significant reforms to the way in which building control operates since the Grenfell Tower tragedy, through the Building Safety Act, these charges regulations require updating.

These reforms, through the Building Safety Act 2022, include the creation of the Building Safety Regulator, a suite of new building regulations, and a new section 105B of the Building Act 1984, which extended the power to make regulations relating to fees and charges, so that they could be exercised in England in relation to all functions exercised under the Building Act 1984 and regulations made under it, as well as the building regulations. Fees and charges may be prescribed in regulations or fixed in schemes drawn up by LABCBs in accordance with principles set out in the regulations. The Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 2010 are as follows:

• regulation 1 sets out the citation and commencement of the regulations

• regulation 2 sets out the interpretation of different terms in the regulations

• regulation 3 authorises LABCBs to fix charges by means of a charging scheme within the limits of the building regulations and the remainder of the charging regulations

• regulation 4 sets out an exception for building work solely required by disabled persons

• regulations 5 to 10 set out the principles of charging schemes that LABCBs must currently follow

• regulations 11 to 14 set out associated rules – with Regulation 14 no longer in force

• regulation 15 revoked the 1998 charging regulations and sets out transitional and saving provision

Currently LABCBs are restricted by these ‘charging principles,’ whereas the private sector, which has no enforcement responsibilities, is not subject to any charging regulations. This means there is an uneven playing field, with LABCB teams often largely left under-resourced to deliver what is an essential service, ensuring the safety and standards of buildings, and unable to carry out compliance and enforcement activities, whereas the private sector does not have such responsibilities.

The government intends to use the power at s105B of the Building Act 1984, to change these principles and rules to support the building control services required of LABCBs better. This consultation proposes to include some Building Act functions as new chargeable functions.

The power at s105B (3) gives government the ability to use regulations to:

(a) provide that the amount of any charge is to be determined by the relevant authority in accordance with a scheme made and published by it and (b) make provision about such schemes, including the principles to be embodied in such schemes’.

Guidance on setting charges

His Majesty’s Treasury’s guidance Managing Public Money provides principles on different kinds of public services. While not explicitly for local authorities, it states that it:

sets out the main principles, specific requirements and good practice for dealing with public resources.

When it comes to services such as local building control, they should be financed by charges and fees, rather than general taxation. This was the aim of the 2010 iteration of the regulations, but this has not worked out for the most part.

Very few LABCBs publish their Building Regulations Chargeable and Non-chargeable accounts online. These were recommended in the (now unavailable) Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) guidance for local authority building control accounting (2010). Most of those that have been published show that LABCBs are currently making a sizeable and growing deficit, with non-chargeable activities and other services costing significantly more than income generated by the chargeable activities. This can mean that services run on very limited staffing capacity with applications or notices not receiving the scrutiny that is needed. In just a few recorded cases chargeable activities have not resulted in a deficit.

The standard approach under Managing Public Money principles is to set charges to recover full costs of the service, as far as possible. Details of the types of costs that can be included in measuring fees are set out in box A6.1A of that document, which are far more extensive than the stated limited scope set out on the face of the current regulations, including costs for legal services or training.

The CIPFA guidance also provided detailed information about setting charges, which encouraged full cost-recovery for chargeable functions of building control services, where permissible, but this guidance is no longer available.

We understand that a revised version is due to be published and that the intention is that publication would be at a similar time as the government proposes bringing any amendments to the regulations into force. Given that, for example, LABCBs may have to provide services outside of the remit of the charging regulations, such as responding to Freedom of Information requests, or providing democratic support for councillors or MPs, it will not be possible to fully recover costs for the whole range of services provided by building control departments.

The direct impact of having an increased range of charges for LABCBs is likely to fall on developers, RBCAs, and people who commission work on domestic, commercial, and public sector buildings.

Issue and main proposal

The government’s proposal is, therefore, to reform the charges regulations to enable LABCBs, and in one case, the BSR, to recover costs more fully than they can currently by allowing them to charge for more functions under the Building Act and Building Regulations. This will be a key factor in facilitating the shared long-term and financially sustainable vision for local building control services. The details and proposals on how to do that are explored further in the sections that follow, with a mixture of proposals and questions. The Building Control Independent Panel may have further proposals about the funding of building control services, so further reforms to these regulations may be needed in due course. 

The anticipated outcome will be a set of resilient and better resourced local building control services that are able to take the right safety-led decisions in the right timeframes.

Building control will no longer been seen as a secondary service, but one that is vital to the delivery of construction, safety, and sustainability outcomes. This includes building control pro-actively identifying the need for, and crucially, taking firmer compliance action where needed.

This consultation covers firm proposals, which, subject to this consultation, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government plans to consider and potentially take forward in regulations in 2026.

Key measures concern charges relating to:

• part II of the Building Act for servicing documents from RBCAs

• inspection of building works – amending the wording of some of the existing chargeable functions in regulation 5(1)

• relaxations and dispensations

• use of short-lived materials, drainage of buildings in combination, and provision of water supply

• tests for conformity with building regulations

• inspection and testing of work, buildings, services, fittings and equipment provided in connection with buildings and taking of samples

• appeal against a decision of a LABCB

• free first hour of advice

• building work solely required for disabled persons – existing buildings to which members of the public are admitted

• breaches and activities for securing compliance - this includes: 

a) duties of LABCBs regarding the Building Act and Building Regulations

b) powers of entry

c) buildings in various states of disrepair and

d) various compliance-related notices and consents

The remaining proposals concern:

• charging schemes

• refunds and supplementary charges

• publicity – Transparency and the level playing field with Registered Building Control Approvers

• charging schemes and data standards

a) principles of charging scheme: overriding objective in determining charges

b) Principles of charging scheme: calculating charges - As full cost-recovery as possible

c) Principles of charging scheme as to payment

d) Principles of charging scheme in respect of information necessary for determination of charges

e) Principles of charging scheme in respect of complaints about charges

The scope of the consultation does not include hourly rates that LABCBs determine for cost reimbursement for work requested or directed of them by the BSR.

This document also includes a call for evidence for further charges reform, which will be considered alongside any related proposals coming from the Building Control Independent Panel.

The call for evidence seeks views on:

• further options for servicing documents from RBCAs

• exceptions from charges – building work solely required for disabled persons – adaptation works for existing dwellings

• receipt and handling of certificates from self-certification and third-party certification schemes and contractors

• ringfencing of income from fees and charges for carrying out building control functions

Lastly the consultation seeks views on:

• shared services and local government reorganisation

• cumulative impact of these reforms

Amending the list of chargeable functions in regulation 5

The current regulation 5 prescribes the building control functions for which, or in connection with which, LABCBs can make charges when providing that service. These are the:

• the granting or rejection of building control approval applications with full plans

• inspection of building work for which applications for building control approval have been granted

• consideration of a building notice

• consideration of building work reverting to the authority from a Registered Building Control Approver

• consideration of an application for regularisation for unauthorised building work and the inspection of any building work to which the application relates

• providing advice in advance of exercising any of the above chargeable functions, where it exceeds one hour of a local authority officer’s time

The government is not proposing to change the ability of LABCBs to set charges for building work linked to (a) and (e) above, as these are and will remain core building control functions, although the consultation proposes to clarify wording under (b), (c) and (d) above. This consultation does seek views on the issue of no charge being permitted for the first hour of advice under (f) above. Additional functions and activities that are proposed to be incorporated into this regulation are set out in the next sections of the consultation. LABCBs will need to consider how these will work together with existing activities and functions, such as bundling them where appropriate. The impact of changes to wider charging principles explored in this consultation will be relevant to how fuller cost recovery against those functions and others can be secured in the future. 

Part II of the Building Act (supervision of building work etc. otherwise than by building control authorities) - processing notices and certificates by Registered Building Control Approvers (RBCAs) and public bodies.

Covered by the legislation set out in Part II of the Building Act 1984, RBCAs are private building control approvers that provide several building control services for individuals or developers. Their services often span several local authority areas, or even across the whole of England. Their compliance and enforcement activities are more limited than LABCBs, but they have to submit their documentation at key points for building projects to the LABCB for the area in which any given building project is located for various checks. Like LABCBs and their Registered Building Inspectors, RBCAs and their Registered Building Inspectors are subject to Building Act rules (under Part 2A of the Act) about registration in the wider building control profession and the types of work that can be carried out. The detailed legislation setting out prescribed grounds for the acceptance (or otherwise) of RBCA documentation that is submitted to LABCBs is The Building (Registered Building Control Approvers etc.) (England) Regulations 2024 (RBCA Regulations).

A similar framework to that which applies to RBCAs also applies to public bodies under section 54 and Schedule 4 of the Building Act 1984. Instead of an RBCA carrying out the building control services, the public body considers that the work can be supervised by its own servants or agents (or competent persons) who submit a public body’s notice and certificates on behalf of the public body. Currently there are no regulations covering public bodies’ notices and certificates in England, and this legislation has had little or no use by LABCBs.

Therefore, this consultation does not propose new charges for public bodies at this time, and is therefore out of scope of this consultation.

This would be reviewed if new regulations for public bodies’ notices and certificates were brought into effect. 

Currently, LABCBs are providing a free service to RBCAs, which means that there is not a level playing field for services provided under Part II of the Building Act. 

Local authority functions under Part II include the checking (against criteria set out in the RBCA Regulations) and acceptance or rejection of initial notices, plans certificates, final certificates, and different notices that cover changes, such as amendment notices. Some notices will include (where applicable and once introduced) the checking of inclusion of information relating to the Building Safety Levy. Section 56 of the Building Act requires LABCBs to keep a register containing information relating to the different notices and certificates given to them under Part II of the Building Act. The details of the registration of this documentation are set out in regulation 30 of the Building (Registered Building Control Approvers etc.) (England) Regulations 2024. 

Discussions with representatives of heads of service in LABCBs have flagged that, due to resource constraints, in many cases initial notices simply pass by the prescribed period of 5, or in the case of final certificates, 10 working days (as specified in the RCBA Regulations) and are not considered and so are deemed as accepted. This can mean that some notices or certificates that possibly should be rejected on prescribed grounds, or with conditions, are missed, which could have various consequences depending on the work to be carried out. By allowing charging for handling notices and certificates, we would expect the extra income to help facilitate better scrutiny of Part II documents and reduce the likelihood of problems arising for these building works.

Following the principles of Managing Public Money, this consultation seeks to make the case that servicing notices and certificates incurs costs for LABCB services that should be chargeable.

Please note that recovery of costs in relation to the prosecution of offences committed by RBCAs under section 57 of the Building Act is outside the scope of this consultation.

Charges for RBCA notices and certificates

Questions

1. Should LABCBs be able to charge for covering their costs for servicing documents submitted by RBCAs under Part II of the Building Act? Y/N

2. Please set out your reasons.

3. Should LABCBs be able to charge for reviewing and notifying RBCAs that their notices or certificates are rejected on prescribed grounds, including non-payment of the charge? Y/N

4. Please set out your reasons.

5. Should we amend regulation 11 of the LA Charging regulations so that LABCBs can require supplementary charges where time to assess notices and certificates from RBCAs is greater than that which is estimated when payment has been made only of the charge under the charging scheme? Y/N

6. Please set out your reasons.

7. An assessment of the impacts of charging for the processing of initial notices has been made in the associated assessment of impacts document. Do the costs in the assessment of impacts document appear to be reasonable? Y/N

8. If no, please provide an alternative estimate.

Timing of payments for Part II functions

The consultation proposes that payment for the servicing of initial notices, amendment notices, plans certificates and final certificates should be made when the document is submitted to the LABCB. This will require LABCBs to have set out their charges for these in their charging schemes. 

This consultation proposes extending regulation 11 of the LA Charging regulations to allow for supplementary charges in instances where the time required by the LABCB in assessing such notices or certificates is more than that which is estimated when payment has been made only of the charge under the charging scheme. 

It proposes that a lack of payment when an RBCA submits documents should be a new prescribed ground for rejecting initial notices, amendment notices, plans certificates, and final certificates. Where a document is rejected, the charge would not be returned.

It further proposes that, where a LABCB rejects an initial notice, amendment notice, plans certificate or final certificate on the grounds of non-payment, an additional charge should be payable for a subsequent notice or certificate.

Questions

9. Should non-payment of a charge when submitting a document to be considered by LABCBs under Part II of the Building Act be prescribed grounds for rejection of initial notices, plans certificates, amendment notices and final certificates?  Y/N

10. Please set out your reasons.

Extension of time to consider initial notices, amendment notices, plans certificates and final certificates

Currently the law requires that, where a LABCB rejects a notice or certificate, it must do so within five working days beginning on the day the documents are given to the LABCB for initial notices, amendment notices, and plans certificates; and ten working days beginning on the day on which the certificate is given for final certificates. If that period passes without a notification being sent by the LABCB accepting or rejecting the documents (or acceptance with imposed requirements as a condition in some cases), then the notice or certificate is deemed as accepted by the LABCB. 

To encourage LABCBs to meet their statutory duties under sections 47, 50, 51 and 51A of the Building Act to consider notices and certificates for acceptance or rejection, this consultation is proposing that the prescribed period for considering and processing them should be extended by a short period. This would be done by amending the Building (Registered Building Control Approvers etc.) (England) Regulations 2024. 

Additionally, to encourage better scrutiny of these notices and certificates, this consultation proposes that LABCBs should refund RBCAs in the event that the notice or certificate is accepted by the operation of deemed acceptance provisions. There will be no requirement to refund the charge if a decision is issued by the LABCB before the notice or certificate is deemed to have been accepted.

There may be occasions where RBCAs send LABCBs other kinds of change-related notices, certificates and reports, which are set out in Part II of the Building Act or RBCA regulations. There is also provision in some circumstances for LABCBs to extend the period for an initial notice. These are likely to require differing degrees of scrutiny and LABCBs’ officers’ time where the change is complex. These include different circumstances set out for: 

• extending the time for an initial notice (regulation 19 of the RBCA regulations)

• where initial notices are cancelled either by the LABCB, or the RBCA, or the person carrying out or intending to carry out the work to which the notice relates (section 52)

• where the work becomes higher-risk building work (sections 52A and 52B)

• where an initial notice ceases to be in force (section 53) or lapses (section 53A)

• where there is a change of RBCA (sections 53B, 53C and 53D)

Payment for considering such notices, certificates and reports and requesting and considering further information that may be required will depend on the circumstances, the time taken and degree of scrutiny involved. 

As with the government’s proposals regarding initial notices, amendment notices, plans certificates and final certificates, non-payment for these change-related functions could be a prescribed grounds for refusal. However, there may be complex reasons why this may not always be appropriate, or where supplementary charges could apply.

This consultation is interested in hearing views regarding the payment for LABCBs’ change-related functions. 

For initial notices, LABCBs can send notification of acceptance to RBCAs when they wish to accept an initial notice and there are no statutory grounds for rejecting it, as set out in section 47(4)(a) of the Building Act. There is no obligation for them to do this in light of the deemed acceptance provisions. However, given the proposals in this consultation requiring RBCAs to pay processing charges, it would be good practice for LABCBs to do this. Any requirement for LABCBs to send such a notification would require a change to the Building Act and, therefore, is not a firm proposal for this consultation, but will be considered as part of the call for evidence to inform any longer-term change. This could also apply to other notices or certificates.

Questions

11. Should we extend the number of  prescribed working days before deemed acceptance takes effect for LABCBs to consider initial notices, amendment notices and plans certificates from five working days? Y/N

12. If you do agree with the proposal, please state the number of prescribed working days you would like this to be.

13. If you do not agree with the proposal to extend the number of prescribed working days for LABCBs to consider initial notices, amendment notices and plans certificates, please state your reasons.

14. Should we extend the number of prescribed working days for LABCBs to consider final certificates from ten working days? Y/N

15. If you do agree with the proposal, please state the number of prescribed working days you would like this to be.

16. If you do not agree with the proposal to extend the number of prescribed working days for LABCBs to consider final certificates, please state your reasons.

17. Should LABCBs refund RBCAs if they do not consider initial notices, amendment notices and plans certificates within prescribed periods? Y/N

18. Please set out your reasons.

19. Please set out any other comments you have on this proposal.

20. Please set out your views on payment of charges for consideration of change-related notices under sections 47, 52, 52A, 52B, 53, 53A, 53B, 53C and 53D of the Building Act and the RBCA regulations. Please include any views you have about when a charge would be incurred, when the payment would be due, who should pay and how the payment could be enforced.

21. As part of the call for evidence (which means measures that would take longer than the firmer proposals to come into effect, if carried forward) the Government is interested in views about whether LABCBs should be required to send a formal notification to RBCAs that they have accepted RBCAs’ notices and certificates. Should LABCBs be required to send RBCAs formal notices of acceptance for the notices and certificates they receive from RBCAs? Y/N

22.       Please set out your reasons for your answer.

23.       Should LABCBs refund RBCAs if they do not consider final certificates within prescribed periods? Y/N

24.       Please set out your reasons.

Inspection of building works – amending the wording of some of the existing chargeable functions in regulation 5(1) of The Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 2010

LABCBs have raised concerns or perceived inconsistencies about the framing of some of the charging provisions in current regulation 5(1), particularly where: 

Under regulation 5(1)(ba)(ii), charges can be made for or in connection with the inspection of building work for which an application for building control approval has been granted in accordance with the Principal Regulations.

In this case it is not clear that LABCBs can charge for inspections which take place before approval has been granted or where building control approval is rejected or granted subject to requirements.

This consultation proposes to amend regulation 5(1)(ba)(ii) to make clear that LABCBs may impose charges for and in connection with the inspection of building work for which an application for building control approval has been made. 

Under regulation 5(1)(c), charges can be made for or in connection with the consideration of a building notice which has been given to the LABCB in accordance with the Principal Regulations. In this case there is no reference to inspections relating to consideration of the notice, which is in contrast to the approach taken in regulation 5(1)(e).

Under regulation 5(1)(e), charges can be made for or in connection with the consideration of an application for regularisation of building works not previously approved and the inspection of any building works to which such an application relates.

This consultation proposes to expressly include a reference to inspections in regulation 5(1)(c) as well to make it clear that, when a building notice has been given, the LABCB can charge for the consideration of the building notice and any related inspections. This will make the phrasing of these processes more consistent with regulation 5(1)(e) which enables charging for both consideration of a regularisation application and for any related inspections. 

Questions

25. Should we clarify that charges can apply to these inspection-related activities? Y/N

26. Please set out your reasons.

Charging for relaxations and dispensations

Sections 8 to 10 of the Building Act and regulation 11 of the Principal Regulations provide the frameworks for applicants to request a direction from a LABCB to dispense with or relax certain requirements in the building regulations. This situation could arise where the applicant considers that the operation of a particular requirement in the building regulations would be unreasonable in relation to the case of their application. 

The functions under section 8 require the advice of a suitably competent Registered Building Inspector whose registration has effect in relation to work of that description, as set out in section 46A of the Building Act and are covered by The Building (Restricted Activities and Functions) (England) Regulations 2023. Such RBIs may be employees of the LABCB, but where capacity is low, LABCBs may have to seek advice from an RBI employed elsewhere. Currently LABCBs cannot charge for work connected with this (whether using in-house or external RBIs), except recovering costs for publishing information about the application in a local newspaper. 

The Building Safety (Regulator’s Charges) Regulations 2023 permit the Regulator to charge for similar applications where it is the building control authority.

The Future Homes and Buildings Standards consultation, which closed in March 2024, included a proposal to allow for regulation 26 in the Principal Regulations (the requirement not to exceed the target CO2 emission rate) to be relaxed or dispensed with if, following an application, the LABCB or BSR concludes those standards are unreasonable in the circumstances. 

In the responses to the Future Homes and Buildings Standards consultation, there were some concerns around resourcing within LABCBs to handle these applications, if these were to be allowed in the future. A decision has not yet been taken on whether to bring forward regulations to enable applications to dispense with the requirement imposed by regulation 26.

The Future Homes and Buildings Standards consultation also sought views on whether Regulations 25A and 25B of the Principal Regulations should be repealed. As these two regulations also cannot currently be relaxed or dispensed with, should a decision be made to retain them, it may instead be appropriate to allow applications for relaxation or dispensation. The proposal below would apply to considering applications to relax or dispense with any parts of the building regulations. This would provide better resourcing for the consideration of such applications and would also provide a mechanism to support LABCBs should a decision be made to allow applications for relaxation of/dispensation from any requirements which are not currently permitted. 

This consultation proposes that LABCBs should be able to charge for work they carry out under these provisions. This question does not seek further views on whether specific requirements should be permitted to be relaxed or dispensed with.

Questions

27. Should LABCBs be able to charge for their consideration of applications to relax or dispense with building regulations under sections 8 and 9 of the Building Act? Y/N

28. Please set out your reasons.

29. Currently, applications for relaxations are rare; this consultation seeks your views on the likely costs of work connected with this proposed change. Please provide any views you have about when a charge would be incurred, when the payment would be due, who should pay and how the payment could be enforced.

Use of short-lived materials, drainage of buildings in combination, and provision of water supply

LABCBs have duties and powers under section 19 of the Building Act regarding applications for building work that involve short-lived materials, which, in the absence of special care, are liable to rapid deterioration or are otherwise unsuitable for use in the construction of permanent buildings. 

They also have powers under section 22 of the Building Act concerning requirements about the drainage of two or more buildings in combination into an existing sewer; and concerning houses having sufficient water supply under section 25 of the Building Act. 

The functions under these sections require the advice of a suitably competent Registered Building Inspector whose registration has effect in relation to work of that description, as set out in section 46A of the Building Act and are covered by The Building (Restricted Activities and Functions) (England) Regulations 2023. Such RBIs may be employees of the LABCB, but where capacity is low, LABCBs may have to seek advice from an RBI employed elsewhere. 

The BSR can already recover certain charges regarding functions exercisable under these sections, and this consultation proposes that LABCBs should also be able to do so (in addition to any recovery of other expenses already allowed by those provisions).

Questions

30. Should we enable LABCBs to recover charges for actions taken by them in relation to short-lived materials? Y/N

31. Please set out your reasons.

32. Please provide any estimates of costs and/or time taken for work carried out by LABCBs regarding short-lived materials.

33. Please provide any views you have about when a charge would be incurred, when the payment would be due, who should pay and how the payment could be enforced.

34. Should we enable LABCBs to recover charges for actions taken by them regarding drainage of buildings in combination into existing sewers? Y/N

35. Please set out your reasons.

36. Please provide any estimates of costs and/or time taken for work carried out by LABCBs regarding drainage of buildings in combination into existing sewers.

37. Please provide any views you have about when a charge would be incurred, when the payment would be due, who should pay and how the payment could be enforced.

38. Should we enable LABCBs to recover charges for actions taken by them regarding the provision of water supply? Y/N

39. Please set out your reasons.

40. Please provide any estimates of costs and/or time taken for work carried out by LABCBs regarding the provision of water supply. Y/N

41. Please provide any views you have about when a charge would be incurred, when the payment would be due, who should pay and how the payment could be enforced.

Tests for conformity with building regulations

LABCBs have powers under section 33 of the Building Act to ascertain whether any provision of building regulations is or would be contravened by or in connection with the work, or in relation to the building on which the work has been, is being or will be carried out. 

These powers include requiring certain tests to be carried out regarding the work or the building, or for LABCBs to carry out the same kinds of tests and take any samples to enable them to carry out such a test.

The functions under section 33 require the advice of a suitably competent Registered Building Inspector whose registration has effect in relation to work of that description, as set out in section 46A of the Building Act and are covered by The Building (Restricted Activities and Functions) (England) Regulations 2023. Such RBIs may be employees of the LABCB, but where capacity is low, may have to seek advice from an RBI not employed by themselves. 

The BSR can already recover charges regarding functions under section 33(1), (2) and (4) and this consultation proposes that LABCBs should also be able to do so.

Questions

42. Should we enable LABCBs to recover charges for actions taken by them regarding tests for conformity with building regulations? Y/N

43. Please set out your reasons.

Inspection and testing of work, buildings, services, fittings and equipment provided in connection with buildings and taking of samples

Paragraph 1G of Schedule 1 of the Building Act sets out that building regulations may make provision regarding inspections and testing of work, buildings, services, fittings and equipment provided in connection with buildings, and the taking of samples. The BSR may recover charges in regard to the exercise of powers under such regulations and this consultation proposes that LABCBs should also be able to do so.

Schedule 1 Paragraph 1G supplements the general power to make building regulations in section 1 of the Building Act. Its inclusion in the proposed revised local authority Charging Regulations would ensure that LABCBs could impose charges for any regulations that might be made in the future using that general power which make provision for or are in connection with the matters listed in paragraph 1G.

Questions

44. Paragraph 1G of Schedule 1 of the Building Act sets out that building regulations may make provision regarding inspections and testing of work, buildings, services, fittings and equipment provided in connection with buildings, and the taking of samples. The BSR may recover charges in regard to the exercise of powers under such regulations and this consultation proposes that LABCBs should also be able to do so. Schedule 1 Paragraph 1G supplements the general power to make building regulations in section 1 of the Building Act. Its inclusion in the proposed revised local authority Charging Regulations would ensure that LABCBs could impose charges for any regulations that might be made in the future using that general power which make provision for or are in connection with the matters listed in paragraph 1G. Should we enable LABCBs to recover charges for actions taken regarding inspections and testing of work, buildings, services, fittings and equipment provided in connection with buildings and taking of samples set out in this paragraph? Y/N

45. Please set out your reasons.

Charges relating to breaches and requiring compliance

Section 91 of the Building Act makes it clear that it is the duty of LABCBs to execute the Building Act, and their function to enforce building regulations in their areas, subject to a few exceptions, such as in relation to functions where the BSR is responsible for ensuring building regulation compliance for higher-risk buildings in their area. 

Despite that requirement, we are concerned about apparent low levels of early and effective local building control compliance-related activity.

The evidence outlined in the final report of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry about the failures of building control demonstrates the necessity of having building inspectors who can spot issues early, step in and escalate concerns. Ensuring compliance at an early stage can also avoid expensive work to correct the position at a later stage. An effective mechanism is needed to ensure compliance against the functional requirements of the building regulations, singly and in combination; for example, checking compliance of the energy performance of new homes while checking that they are also protected from the risks of fire and structural failure. The government considers that issues could be spotted and addressed far earlier in development with an effective approach to compliance in place, reducing the need for costly remediation later.

The government has been told by LABC and individual LABCBs that the core issue is that, by its nature, such activity is difficult to predict, with many costs being incurred through having to react to situations. Quite substantial amounts of time can be taken up by liaising with clients, designers, and developers but, initially, these costs have to be absorbed by the LABCB. Where a LABCB pursues a prosecution through to conviction, the court may make an award towards the LABCB’s costs. Any award of costs will be limited to the expenses reasonably incurred by the LABCB in carrying out the prosecution, and the award will be at the discretion of the court. The LABCB will therefore have no assurance as to how much of their costs will be awarded and recoverable, even if a prosecution is successful.

To establish whether breaches have occurred or whether buildings or sites present risks requires LABCBs to carry out inspections, which may lead to further actions – all of which come at a cost, which they cannot recover currently. 

The BSR is able to charge for different activities related to compliance activity including securing compliance with building enactments or requirements imposed by virtue of such enactments. This consultation proposes giving LABCBs similar charging powers.

The functions under several of these measures require the advice of a suitably competent RBI whose registration has effect in relation to work of that description, as set out in section 46A of the Building Act and are covered by The Building (Restricted Activities and Functions) (England) Regulations 2023. Such RBIs may be employees of the LABCB, but where capacity is low, the LABCB may have to seek advice from an RBI employed elsewhere. 

There are a number of grouped or thematically similar sections of the Building Act where these proposals would take effect.

Duties and functions of local authorities

Section 91 of the Building Act sets the overall duty for LABCBs to carry the Act into execution and the function to enforce the building regulations in their areas, subject to certain exceptions. 

This consultation highlights the need to amend the regulation 3(1)(a) of the current charging regulations so that LABCBs would be authorised by means of a scheme made under the Regulations:

to fix such charges as they may determine, from time to time and in accordance with these Regulations, for or in connection with the performance of their functions relating to building regulations and the Building Act.

This means that such functions being carried out under section 91 would be included in the text of a revised regulation 3(1)(a), so there is no need for separate chargeable functions under section 91.

Functions, such as sending notices requiring compliance with the building regulations or Building Act, will require RBIs to travel to and carry out investigations on a site or property and write reports of their findings. For example, under section 72 of the Building Act, a LABCB, following consultation with the fire and rescue authority, can send notices to owners of certain buildings that have inadequate means of escape requiring them to rectify this situation. The costs of carrying out the consultation and the investigative work would fit under the description of being:

done for or in connection with the performance of their functions (i.e. sending a notice) relating to building regulations and the Building Act.

Power to enter premises

Section 95 of the Building Act sets out the grounds whereby an authorised officer from a LABCB has the right to enter premises. 

Such entry to premises would be in support of other compliance or enforcement functions or activities in the Building Act or building regulations and the securing of entry will require written information or notices. Some of these measures are set out in this consultation paper, or may already be chargeable functions or activities, and it is possible that charges regarding power to enter premises may be bundled with these other functions or activities. 

Grounds for entry to premises are:

• ascertaining whether any contraventions in scope are being, or have been, carried out in connection with the premises

• ascertaining whether the LABCB may be required to take any actions or execute any work

• to take any such action or execute such works

• generally, for the purpose of the performance of the LABCB of their functions under the Building Act or building regulations

Section 95 also sets out procedures under subsections (3) and (4) whereby the approval of a magistrate is required for entry to a premises, which could be a dwelling, or where force may be required to secure entry. Such procedures are likely to involve further costs to the LABCB.

This consultation proposes that LABCBs should have power to charge the occupier for compliance functions or activities, including interactions with a magistrate, when it is established that there is or has been a contravention within scope; that action (including the execution of work) is required; or where the purposes of the performance by the LABCB of their functions under the Building Act or building regulations cannot be otherwise carried out.

Questions

46. Should we enable LABCBs to charge for their functions under section 95 of the Building Act? Y/N

47. Please set out your reasons.

48. Please provide any estimates of costs you have for work carried out under these provisions.

49. Please provide any views you have about when a charge would be incurred, when the payment would be due, who should pay and how the payment could be enforced.

Notices in respect of contraventions

Notices in respect of contraventions:

• 35B Compliance notices 

• 35C Stop notices 

• 36 Removal or alteration of offending work 

Compliance and stop notices can be issued where there have been, are or could be contraventions of the building regulations. Regulations 47A to 47H of the Principal Regulations also contain provisions about Compliance and Stop notices. Where such notices are not complied with, the person to whom the notice has been sent could be prosecuted and, if convicted, face imprisonment for up to 2 years, a fine, or both.

Questions

50. Should we enable LABCBs to charge for the issuing of compliance and stop notices?  Y/N

51. Please set out your reasons.

52. Please provide any estimates of costs you have for work carried out under these provisions.

53. Please provide any views you have about when a charge would be incurred, when the payment would be due, who should pay and how the payment could be enforced.

For removal or alteration of offending work, under section 36 of the Building Act, LABCBs may issue notices to owners of buildings (which could be dwellings or other kinds of buildings in scope of the building regulations) where work carried out contravenes applicable building regulations. These notices could require the owner to pull down or remove the work, or if they so elect to make alterations to make it comply with the building regulations. 

Alongside this power, where non-compliance is identified within 12 months of work being carried out, the person doing the work can be issued with a compliance notice under section 35B of the Building Act; such a notice can require the work to be redone so that it complies with the building regulations; non-compliance is a criminal offence.

By implication this will have required a Registered Building Inspector to have inspected the work and assessed that it contravenes the building regulations. It would be up to LABCBs whether to group any charges together with such compliance related measures. 

In some circumstances, where the owner has not complied with the notice, LABCBs can already recover expenses where they themselves have rectified the issues identified in the notice, for example if there is a safety issue that needs urgent attention.

The government recognises that in some cases, owners, particularly householders, have not been responsible for the offending work and that owners may be seeking redress to get compliance or compensation to pay for such rectification. 

The government has been consulting recently on reforms to the Decent Homes Standard for social and privately rented homes. There may be instances where these reforms will interact with the building regulations, and the consultation proposed housing providers should be given flexibility, regarding the Decent Homes Standard, where there are physical or planning factors preventing compliance. 

More generally, LABCBs will have both housing and building control service responsibilities within them, and should decide where any necessary compliance activities sit best in any given circumstance. 

While the government is proposing to give power to LABCBs to charge for issuing notices under section 36, there is discretion for LABCBs to recognise each circumstance under which the contraventions have been carried out and the wider policy context and reforms concerning consumer protections and housing policy.

Questions

54. Should we enable LABCBs to charge for the issuing of notices under section 36 of the Building Act to owners of buildings where there have been contraventions of building regulations? Y/N

55. Please set out your reasons.

56. Please provide any estimates of costs you have for work carried out under these provisions.

57. Please provide any views you have about when a charge would be incurred, when the payment would be due, who should pay and how the payment could be enforced.

Defective premises, dangerous buildings, ruinous, dilapidated buildings and neglected sites, and demolition 

Part III of the Building Act includes measures that deal with buildings or sites in different states of disrepair, neglect or danger, for which this consultation proposes new charging functions and activities. These are found in:

• section 76 (Defective premises)

• section 77 (Dangerous buildings)

• section 79 (Ruinous, dilapidated buildings and neglected sites)

• 81 (Local authority’s power to serve notice about demolition) 

Section 76 already enables LABCBs to recover expenses from the person on whom the notice is served where LABCBs may execute such works as may be necessary to remedy the defective premises in specified circumstances. 

When dealing with emergency measures for dangerous buildings LABCBs already have the power to recover expenses for any immediate actions they take to remove the danger under section 78 of the Building Act.

The proposals would enable LABCBs to charge for the issuing of notices under these sections (76, 79 and 81), or in the case of dangerous buildings (section 77), its costs for applying to the appropriate court or tribunal for an order for the owner to deal with the danger. 

LABCBs in London, already have the ability to charge for their services regarding dangerous structures and demolitions under section 10 of the London Local Authorities Act 2004. This consultation is interested in understanding whether other Local Acts in England have similar charging provisions regarding dangerous structures and demolitions.

This consultation proposes to give LABCBs the power to charge for issuing notices under sections 76, 79 and 81 of the Building Act.

Questions

58. Should we enable LABCBs to charge for the issuing of notices under sections 76, 79 and 81 of the Building Act Y/N

59. Please set out your reasons.

60. Please provide any estimates of costs you have for work carried out under these provisions.

61. Should we enable LABCBs to charge for, in the case of dangerous buildings (section 77), their costs for applying to the appropriate court or tribunal for an order for the owners to deal with the danger. Y/N

62. Please set out your reasons.

63. Please provide any estimates of costs you have for work carried out under these provisions.

64. Please provide any views you have about when a charge would be incurred, when the payment would be due, who should pay and how the payment could be enforced.

65. Please advise of any Local Acts in England, which have provisions permitting LABCBs to set charges for their functions relating to dangerous buildings or demolitions.

Issuing of notices or giving consent – other provisions under the Building Act

LABCBs similarly have powers to issue notices for remedying works or giving consent under the following sections. By implication these activities will have required an inspection of the work or building in question, which will have assessed it for compliance. In the other cases they will have established any conditions where consent is required. 

This consultation is proposing that LABCBs should be able to charge for issuing such notices or consent under the following sections of the Building Act: 

• 59 Drainage of buildings – issuing notice concerning the satisfactory provision of drainage-related works or appliances.

• 60 Use and ventilation of soil pipes – issuing notice for requiring remediation of contraventions relating to soil pipes.

• 64 Provision of (water or earth) closets in buildings – issuing notice regarding insufficient closet accommodation.

• 65 Provision of sanitary conveniences in workplace – issuing notice regarding provision of sufficient and satisfactory sanitary conveniences in workplaces.

• 66 Replacement of earth-closets etc – issuing notice regarding the replacement of earth-closets with water-closets.

• 68 Erection of public conveniences – giving consent, possibly with terms about the erection of public conveniences. Or issuing notice regarding the erection of public conveniences which are in place without the consent of the LABCB.

• 70 Provision of food storage accommodation in house – issuing notice regarding insufficient and unsuitable food storage accommodation.

• 72 Means of escape from fire – issuing notice regarding the provision of the means of escape from fire.

• 73 Raising of chimneys – issuing notice regarding the raising of chimneys in certain circumstances.

• 74 Cellars and rooms below subsoil water level – issuing notice regarding contraventions relating to cellars and rooms below subsoil water level.

• 84 Paving and drainage of yards and passages – issuing notice regarding defective paving and drainage of yards and passages.

• 85 Consent regarding the maintenance of entrances to courtyards – giving consent, possibly with conditions, regarding the maintenance of entrances to courtyards.

Although discussions with representatives of heads of service in some LABCBs have raised different functions as areas where there should be charges, there is little data available about the costs to LABCBs for carrying out compliance activity or the frequency that these provisions are used. 

Recovery of costs in relation to the prosecution of offences under the Building Act is outside the scope of this consultation.

Questions

66. Should we enable LABCBs to recover costs for issuing notices and giving of consent for these sections? Y/N

67. Please set out which functions to which your answer applies and your reasons.

68. This consultation recognises that these measures could be used with significant differences in frequency and location. To assist with the final assessment of impacts please supply any data on costs and frequency of the actions listed above.

69. Please provide any views you have about when a charge would be incurred, when the payment would be due, who should pay and how the payment could be enforced.

Appeal to a local authority against a decision of a local authority

The Building Act and Principal Regulations contain some measures whereby appeals can be made against decisions made by LABCBs. Currently LABCBs cannot charge for functions relating to appeals, but the BSR can. This consultation proposes giving LABCBs similar charging powers. 

When a person asks the BSR to review any prescribed decision of the BSR (within scope of section 25 of the Building Safety Act 2022), they must pay charges set out in the BSR’s Charging Regulations for the performance of that function. Should the review find in favour of the applicant, any costs charged by BSR for the review would be exempted or refunded.

While the BSR’s appeals process has a statutory review process for appeals made regarding prescribed decisions of the regulator itself, there is no statutory review process prior to appeals to LABCBs against decisions made by LABCBs. The organisation LABC has created a voluntary model arbitration and conciliation procedure, which has the aim of providing a quick response to disputes and avoiding legal actions under full plans or building notice applications, by enabling a review of the case by independent Building Control professionals. This consultation does not propose any charges for this voluntary model arbitration and conciliation procedure.

It is, of course, still possible for appeals against decisions made by LABCBs to be made. Therefore, this consultation proposes to give LABCBs the ability to charge for any actions taken to respond to any appeals made to a LABCB against decisions they have taken under the Building Act or building regulations.

Questions

70. Should LABCBs have the ability to charge for any actions taken to respond to any appeals made to that LABCB against decisions they have taken under the Building Act or building regulations? Y/N

71. Please set out your reasons.

72. To assist with the final assessment of impacts please supply any data on costs and frequency of the appeals. Please provide any cost data as the cost in £ per hour and state the usual time period and frequency in the answer.

73. Please provide any views you have about when a charge would be incurred, when the payment would be due, who should pay and how the payment could be enforced.

Free first hour of chargeable service

The current charging regulations authorise LABCBs, by means of their charging schemes, to make a charge in relation to a request for advice as regards any particular case called ‘chargeable advice’ where such a charge is made in anticipation of the future exercise of their chargeable functions in relation to that case. 

Currently LABCBs are not permitted to charge for providing the first hour of time spent by an officer of the LABCB in providing chargeable advice. 

Following the principles of Managing Public Money to enable services like those provided by LABCBs to be able to recover their costs as fully as possible, this consultation proposes to remove this prohibition so that LABCBs can charge for all their time in providing chargeable advice. The BSR’s charging regulations do not contain such a prohibition, therefore removing it, would bring further consistency across the charging measures.

Questions

74. This consultation seeks views on whether the requirement to provide a free first hour of chargeable advice should (a) remain as it is, (b) be abolished and (c)other. Which option do you prefer? A/B/C

75. Please set out your reasons.

76. To assist with the final assessment of impacts please supply any data on current costs of ‘chargeable advice’ per hour and an estimate of how many hours per year that are subject to this exemption where charges are not permitted to apply.

Other functions and activities

This consultation proposes new charging measures, many of which have been discussed with representatives of heads of service in some LABCBs. These are consistent with the principles of HMT’s Managing Public Money that provides guidance on costs to be fully recovered from those who use services, such as those provided by LABCB departments. 

The Building Act and building regulations are extensive, and it is possible that there are other functions and activities where charges or fees may be appropriate. 

We are interested in your views on where you believe that other measures from the Building Act and building regulations should be included in this proposed or a subsequent iteration of the LA charging regulations.

Questions

77. The Building Act and building regulations are extensive, and it is possible that there are other functions and activities where charges or fees may be appropriate. We are interested in your views on where you believe that other measures from the Building Act and building regulations should be included in this proposed or a subsequent iteration of the LA charging regulations. Which measures would you want to be considered and why?

78. Please set out your estimates of the costs, who to charge and at what point, frequency, registered building inspector class, and time taken to carry out these measures.

Exceptions from charges – building work solely required for disabled persons

Since 1983, charging regulations have included exceptions where LABCBs have to provide building control services regarding building works that are required for disabled persons.

The current regulation 4 has exceptions for: 

• an existing dwelling, which is, or is to be occupied by a disabled person as a permanent residence

• an existing building to which members of the public are admitted

The exceptions apply where the whole of the building work in question is solely: 

(a) for the purpose of providing means of access for the disabled person (in the case of a dwelling) or disabled persons (in the case of an existing building to which members of the public are admitted) by way of entrance or exit to or from the dwelling/building or any part of it, or 

(b) in the case of a dwelling - for the purpose of providing accommodation or facilities designed to secure the greater health, safety, welfare or convenience of the disabled person or in the case of an existing building to which members of the public are admitted – for the purpose of providing facilities designed to secure the greater health, safety, welfare or convenience of disabled persons.

A range of building control topics could be relevant to such building works – such as structural, fire and electrical safety, access and egress, water and sewerage, energy use and building services such as lifts.

Discussions with representatives of heads of service within some LABCBs have raised questions about whether these current exceptions should continue. 

Such adaptations or facilities may prevent accidents, permit someone to be discharged from hospital earlier, live more independently, reduce care costs, or have greater freedom to visit public places which may benefit financially from the extra visits. 

As well as costs and benefits to individuals, organisations and wider society, the policy framework around this discussion requires consideration of and compliance with the Equality Act 2010. This includes the requirement for public authorities to have regard to the need to: 

• eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the 2010 Act

• advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it

• foster good relations between those who share a protected characteristic and those who do not

Requirements under the Equality Act not only apply in relation to policy development – they may also apply to organisations that could meet the costs of building control functions currently covered by regulation 4 e.g. because of a duty to make reasonable adjustments or requirement not to discriminate.

Adaption works to existing dwellings

The same tiers of local government (district and unitary councils) are responsible for both building control and housing services. The Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) is administered by such local authorities, though the number of works carried out using the grant is significantly smaller than works funded by individuals from their own resources who do not qualify for DFG, due to the grant being limited and means tested. This consultation is interested in hearing of where LABCBs have joined up these functions for adaptation works carried out on dwellings for people with disabilities. 

The organisation Foundations holds some data and research reports about home adaptations generally, DFG and its allocation. This has shown a steady increase in the proportion of works paid for by the DFG which cost between £5,000 and £15,000 each year since 2018/19, although some of this may be due to the Covid 19 pandemic. This is an increase from 35% to 50% of grants allocated. The average number of works, per authority, receiving the maximum grant allocation of £30,000 has risen in 2023/24 to 6, from the minimum of 3.2 in 2020/21. 

The English Housing Survey (EHS) reported on adaptations for people with disabilities and poor health conditions in 2019-20. At that time 8% of all households in England (1.9 million) had at least one person with a long-standing physical or mental health condition that required adaptations to their home, which had not changed since the previous report in 2014-15. 

The EHS reported that there was increasing demand for adaptations, with 53% (or 1 million) of affected households not having all the adaptations they needed in their homes. 19% of those who required adaptations said that their home was unsuitable for their needs. While many of these adaptations are straightforward and may not require any building control involvement, a significant number could, particularly those relating to bathrooms, some handrails, or access ramps. These figures help demonstrate the scale of the works that could require LABCBs to provide a free service. 

A small sample survey of nine LABCBs showed that the average cost to LABCBs was £531 per application, which, if typical of the national picture, amounts to a low percentage of the overall cost to the installation, but represents a high cost to building control services. This consultation wishes to understand from LABCBs better the numbers and types of adaptation and costs to their services and how they currently fund those costs. 

Research conducted by the Building Research Establishment and the Centre for Better Ageing, among others, concludes that preventative adaptations provide a set of longer-term better quality of life outcomes due to reduced injuries from trips and falls, for example, with rapid returns on investment, particularly reducing costs for the NHS and social care.

If the exception for charges regarding domestic adaptation works were to be simply abolished, this would have an immediate impact on disabled people. Self-funders who are not eligible for a DFG but are on relatively low incomes would face an additional barrier to getting the adaptations they need. For works funded by the DFG, the charges could reduce the amount available for the works, particularly if this takes the total cost over the individual grant maximum, which is currently £30,000.

Therefore, the government is not proposing to amend this element of the charging regulations for dwellings but, as part of the call for evidence, wishes to hear from all consultees on this issue about how to maintain the benefits of adaptations (whether funded through DFG or not), while finding a fair and financially sustainable way forward for building control services. The intention is not to disincentivise adaptations for existing dwellings, rather to understand options for future consideration.

Adaptation works for existing buildings to which members of the public are admitted

Adaptations to existing non-domestic buildings solely for disabled people should arise because of a desire to provide more inclusion for everyone, and are often likely to be required as reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. In many cases, these may also benefit the owner or operator of those buildings financially by granting greater access to them by people with disabilities, their families and friends. 

Where these buildings are in the public sector, this consultation is interested in understanding views on whether LABCBs should continue, at their own expense, to subsidise the services of others, which are also subject to Equality Act provisions. 

Where these buildings are owned or operated by other sectors (e.g. charities and private businesses), which, in some cases, may gain financially from increased visits from people with disabilities, their families and friends, this consultation is also interested in understanding views on whether LABCBs should continue, at their own expense, to subsidise the services of building owners and operators, which are also subject to Equality Act provisions.

The government is proposing to remove the exception from charges for building control services for adaptations regarding existing buildings to which members of the public are admitted, subject to responses to this consultation. 

It should be noted that these exceptions are also currently set out almost identically in the BSR’s charging regulations for works carried out in Higher-Risk Buildings. Any changes arising for LABCB charges relating to buildings to which the public are admitted are also proposed through an amendment to the regulations for the BSR’s charges at the same time, subject to responses to this consultation. 

This consultation is interested in hearing views from all sectors on: 

• the accompanying Public Sector Equality Duty analysis, which refers to this section of the consultation. Please let us know if you have any comments on the PSED analysis in general, including any evidence you have on the impact of these proposed reforms. For example, publicly available data on the frequency of and costs of providing services for the purposes of improving access and facilities in homes and other buildings for disabled persons is currently weak for the call for evidence regarding existing dwellings. We do not currently intend to remove the exception for LABCBs and the BSR in relation to existing dwellings. However, we are interested to hear respondents’ views on this

• our proposal to remove the exceptions for building control charges imposed by LABCBs and by the BSR in relation to work on existing buildings to which members of the public are admitted

Questions

79. For LABCBs and the BSR – how much does providing services covered by these exceptions cost per year (over the most recent 3 financial years) for (a) existing dwellings and (b) existing public buildings?

80. How have you funded the costs of providing building control services associated with the exceptions?

81. For LABCBs and the BSR – please set out the numbers of buildings where you have provided services covered by these exceptions over the past 3 financial years for (a) existing dwellings and (b) existing public buildings?

82. For LABCBs and the BSR, what kinds of public buildings have been subject to such services?

83. While the government is not proposing to amend this element of the charging regulations for existing dwellings, as part of our longer-term call for evidence, for all respondents, should the current exceptions continue for existing dwellings? Y/N

84. Please set out your reasons for your answer, including your views on where funding for this aspect of building control services should be sourced.

85. Please set out views or data on the costs or benefits of the provision of this service for existing dwellings.

86. Should the charge exception for disability-related adaptations in existing buildings to which the public is admitted be removed, both in relation to LABCB charges Y/N and BSR charges? Y/N

87. Please set out your reasons for your answer, including (if you think the exception should remain) your views on where funding for this aspect of building control services should be sourced.

88. Please set out views or data on the costs or benefits of the provision of this service for existing buildings to which the public are admitted.

89. Please let us know if you have any comments on the PSED analysis in general, including any evidence you have on the impact of these proposed reforms.

Other exceptions to charges in the Building Act and Building Regulations

Our discussions with representatives of heads of service in some LABCBs have not highlighted any further measures where they believe there should be exceptions.

This consultation is interested in hearing from all consultees whether there are any other measures, which should be excepted from the next or a subsequent iterations of the local authority and/or the BSR’s charges regulations.

Questions

90. This consultation is interested in hearing from all consultees whether there are any other measures, which should be excepted from the next or a subsequent iterations of the local authority and/or the BSR’s charges regulations. Please suggest measures where exceptions should apply and the rationale behind each.

91. Please set out your estimates of the costs, frequency, registered building inspector class, and time taken to carry out these measures.

Local Acts and recovery of charges

This consultation has already identified that in London, LABCBs can charge for their building control services regarding dangerous structures and demolitions. 

The government is interested in understanding where other Local Acts may permit charges for LABCB services.

Questions

92. This consultation would be interested to know whether you are aware of any other local legislation in England that makes provision for the charging of building control services.

Charging schemes

The current local authority charging regulations (particularly Regulations 6-8) contain a high degree of prescription regarding charging schemes. Discussions with representatives of heads of service within some LABCBs have focused on chargeable functions and activities, therefore, these have not yielded any views on charging schemes.

By comparison, the charging regulations for the BSR have a much simpler formulation concerning its charging schemes. The BSR published its most recent charging scheme62 to take effect on 1 April 2025. 

The Building Safety (Regulator’s Charges) Regulations 2023 make provision for the BSR to recover its costs for and in connection with performing its relevant (“chargeable”) functions. These chargeable functions are set out at regulation 3(2)(a) to (w). Under regulation 4, the BSR must publish a charging scheme setting out its charges for these and may amend this from time to time. The regulations set out who must pay which charge, and specifics regarding payments, refunds and invoices etc, and the existing building control exception for charging for building work solely required for disabled persons was extended to the BSR (regulation 12). 

The BSR’s charging scheme then consists of an overview of the legislation and intent, Schedules and Annexes. The charging scheme Schedules explain:

• the activities for which BSR may make or recover a charge

• the trigger for that activity

• the legislation it falls under

• what the amount payable will be made up of

• from whom the BSR will seek costs.

The annexes explain how charges are calculated; how payments and repayments are processed; and the queries and disputes process.

This consultation is interested in views on whether the local authority charging regulations should follow this approach. 

Some of the proposals in other sections in this consultation regarding charging schemes, charges paid, and payments may be subject to or incorporated into this approach if there is strong support for it.

Questions

93. Should regulations for LABCB charging schemes follow a similar approach set out in The Building Safety (Regulator’s Charges) Regulations 2023? Y/N

Charging Statements, Schemes and Data Standards 

LABCBs are required currently under regulation 6 (4) to (6) of the local authority charging regulations to prepare and publish a statement setting out a breakdown into chargeable costs and income, and surpluses and deficits related to their chargeable building control functions each financial year. However, the format by which LABCBs publish this information is not currently uniform. Some LABCBs are also not publishing this data at all, despite the legal requirement to do so. This information is important to understanding capacity in the sector and monitoring how LA fees and charges regulations are enabling LABCBs to carry out their functions effectively.

Similarly, few publish their charging schemes online, although regulation 12 makes provision requiring their availability for free inspection.

We are proposing that the annual financial statements should be published online and also provide the ability for the Secretary of State to direct that particular data standards should be used to meet these publication requirements. This would improve the consistency of publication by LABCBs and allow tools to be developed to easily collate this data without the need for a formal submission process. These data standards would be co-developed with those in the sector. 

We are also keen to understand where other data standards for local building control data processing could help bring local building control more into the digital age and improve consistency across LABCBs. Notably, we are keen to understand where there are requirements for information to be shared in other built environment processes (such as the planning system) where aligned data standards could potentially reduce the need for duplication.

Questions

94. Should data standards and publication requirements be implemented to reform the existing requirements for LABCBs to publish online their statement of financial information (under current regulation 6 (4) to (6))?  Y/N

95. Please set out your reasons.

96. Should LABCBs publish online their charging scheme for building control (under regulation 12) each financial year? Y/N 

97. Please set out your reasons.

98. Should we make a change to the regulations to allow the Secretary of State to require publication according to a directed data standard before completing the co-development of the data standard and directing its use once it is completed later in 2026. Y/N

99. If you agree, please outline what changes you think should be made.

100. If you disagree, please set out your reasons.

101. If any, what other information processed by LABCBs do you think would most benefit at this time from data standardisation, and/or being openly published?

102. If any, what other information processed by LABCBs do you think would most benefit in the longer term from data standardisation, and/or being openly published?

Principles of charging scheme: overriding objective in determining charges

Regulation 6 covers this aspect of the charging scheme. 

This consultation is not proposing to change regulation 6 (1) and (2), which require LABCBs to have regard to the overriding objective in determining charges and to review the level of charges in their charging scheme each year. The overriding objective is that each LABCB has to ensure that taking one financial year with another, the income derived by them from performing chargeable functions and providing chargeable advice as nearly as possible equates to the costs incurred by the LABCB in performing chargeable functions and providing chargeable advice.

However, this consultation proposes to clarify that chargeable costs incurred by LABCBs that are used for the purposes of determining their charges should factor in direct and indirect costs, and therefore do not undercharge inadvertently. For services like local authority building control, as a basic Managing Public Money principle:

the standard approach is to set charges to recover full costs. Cost shall be calculated on an accruals basis, including overheads, depreciation (e.g. for start-up or improvement costs) and the cost of capital. (See paragraph 6.2.1).

This does not mean that one statutory function should cross-subsidise another, but that other running costs, including recruitment and training of Registered Building Inspectors are part of these costs that should be recovered fully. 

The government recognises that there are some general or public functions that apply to LABCB services for which charging may not be appropriate, such as work to support local democratic services, dealing with MPs’ correspondence, and requests under Freedom of Information or Environmental Information Regulations. Therefore, it is unrealistic for the building control service to recover all costs incurred. However, most of the funding for building control activity should be raised from charging users of building control services. 

The previously published CIPFA guidance set out that it would normally be good practice for LABCBs to achieve ‘break-even’ over a rolling period of three years, although five years may be more appropriate where unusually large surpluses or deficits have occurred. As the government will work with CIPFA on the proposed revised guidance, we envisage that this flexibility will be retained; therefore, the consultation proposes no change. 

Regulation 6 also requires currently for each LABCB to prepare and publish a statement which sets out, as regards the financial year to which it relates:

• chargeable costs

• the chargeable income

• the amount of any surplus or deficit

As noted previously these functions set in law are not routinely met, at least online and proposals for reforms to data and publication are set out above under the section ‘Charging Schemes and Data Standards’ with questions for response. 

This consultation proposes to clarify that chargeable costs incurred by LABCBs that are used for the purposes of determining their charges should factor in direct and indirect costs.

Questions

103. Should we clarify that chargeable costs incurred by LABCBs that are used for the purposes of determining their charges should factor in direct and indirect costs? Y/N

104. Please provide your reasons.

Principles of charging scheme: calculating charges

Regulation 7 covers how LABCBs should determine the charges referred to in their charging schemes by reference to the costs of providing services. It sets out that costs of services should be calculated using the hourly rate at which the time of their officers will be charged, and this rate needs to be stated in charging schemes; and a lengthy list of factors set out in regulation 7 (5) which need to be taken into account in estimating the time required by their officers for performing chargeable functions or providing chargeable advice.  

Regulation 7 (3) recognises the possibility of specialist advice of a consultant or services being needed, which should be included in determining charges. 

Section 58C of the Building Act provides for the BSR’s functions around the registration of building inspectors, their classes, and the types of work for which a Registered Building Inspector can provide services. 

This consultation has already explained that, under Section 46A of the Building Act, certain activities and functions that building control authorities, including LABCBs, carry out are restricted, so that they may carried out through a Registered Building Inspector depending on their registration.

This consultation recognises that the current provision in regulation 7 (2) (a) concerning the “hourly rate” may need amending to reflect the new registration system and revised set of chargeable functions and activities, including those that may be restricted and those that may be much simpler. The government is interested in views on whether the Regulation needs to take this into account. 

The list of factors to be taken into account when calculating charges in regulation 7 (5) is currently quite prescriptive, but provides a high degree of transparency when preparing for the publication of schemes under regulation 7 (6). With the extra proposed chargeable functions and activities, the list of factors could be extended, or simply left to the discretion of each LABCB, as is the case with the BSR’s charging schemes.

This consultation is interested in views on the level of prescription in terms of factors, whether fewer or more, to be taken into account for charging schemes, while acknowledging that users of LABCB services will continue to need to have access to information concerning charges and fees for services for their building works. 

This consultation seeks views on calculating charges and the extra chargeable functions.

Questions

105. Please set out any views you have regarding the hourly rate, or rates, or the grade or class their officers or RBIs, which will be chargeable by LABCBs.

106. Please set out any views you have on factors to be taken into account for LA charging schemes.

Principles of charging scheme as to payment

Regulation 8 covers this aspect of the charging scheme.

Regulation 8 sets out the information to be included in charging schemes that LABCBs publish, regarding payment of charges for building control services. Chargeable functions are listed in regulation 5. Regulation 8 then sets out what charging schemes must include with regard to when payment in respect of those functions should be made payable. 

If new functions are added to regulation 5, provision will need to be made in regulation 8 regarding who should be liable for the charge and when payment should be required for those functions under a LABCB’s charging scheme. This may be complex in implementing some of the proposals to extend chargeable activities and functions and may require minor changes to other regulations in the scope of this consultation.

There will be various options when payment may be required for different new chargeable functions and activities. The likely reality is that some of these payments may be charged together as part of a package for work being done on any given site. Others may be more ad-hoc, as and when issues become apparent, which may require payment such as when a compliance-related notice is to be issued. 

As set out above, for processing notices and certificates from RBCAs under Part II of the Building Act, this consultation proposes that payment for processing initial notices, amendment notices, plans certificates and final certificates should be made on submission to LABCBs, and that a failure to pay the charge will be a prescribed ground for rejection. 

Where these require more consideration or where more complex change-rated notices requiring more officer time are submitted under Part II, then we propose it will be for the LABCB to determine the charge according to the circumstances.

Questions

107. Please set out any views about who should be liable for charges, when payments for the proposed extra chargeable functions and activities should be made, and enforcement of charges.

Principles of charging scheme in respect of information necessary for determination of charges

Regulation 9 authorises LABCBs to make provision in their charging scheme for information to be supplied where it is required for the purpose of determining a charge. 

Subject to the outcome of the questions above about simplifying the regulations regarding charging schemes, this consultation does not propose to change this regulation.

Questions

108. Should this regulation remain unchanged? Y/N

109. Please set out your reasons.

Principles of charging scheme in respect of complaints about charges

Regulation 10 covers handling and consideration of complaints by a LABCB relating to the determination of any charge in their charging scheme.

Subject to the outcome of the questions above about simplifying the regulations regarding charging schemes to follow a similar approach to the BSR’s charging scheme, this consultation does not propose to change this regulation.

Questions

110. Should this regulation remain unchanged? Y/N

111. Please set out your reasons.

Refunds and supplementary charges

Regulation 11 covers refunds and supplementary charges.

The framing of a revised regulation will depend on the outcome of the consultation, particularly regarding the first free hour of advice and proposals about refunds and supplementary charges relating to notices and certificates from RBCAs. It could also apply where insufficient information is supplied to the LABCB by other deadlines within legislation and where the proposed functions and activities could be added to the list of chargeable functions. It will require updating to reflect the wording in the regulations regarding full plans applications and building notices as set out above. 

The current regulation focuses refunds and supplementary charges on officer time. This consultation is interested in whether there should be any other factors to consider.

Questions

112. The current regulation focuses refunds and supplementary charges on officer time. This consultation is interested in whether there should be any other factors to consider. Please set out any other views you have on refunds and supplementary charges.

Publicity – Transparency and the level playing field with Registered Building Control Approvers

Regulation 12 sets the framework for publicising charging schemes, including replacement schemes or amendments.

As noted above, comparatively few LABCBs are publishing online their Building Regulations Chargeable and Non-chargeable accounts as recommended previously by CIPFA or their statements under regulation 6. Similarly, few publish online their charging schemes, although regulation 12 makes provision requiring their availability for free inspection. 

Discussions with representatives of heads of service within some LABCBs have revealed a reluctance for greater transparency around charges due to the belief that RBCAs use such information to undercut LABCBs in the areas where they operate. 

This consultation recognises the dilemma that such transparency could present, and that RBCAs currently have no requirements to publish their charges, which may differ across the local authority areas in which they operate. Paragraph 6.1.1 of Managing Public Money states that charging “can also make comparisons with private sector services easier, promote competition, develop markets and generally promote financially sound behaviour in the public sector.”

The government believes that those wishing to carry out building works need to be able to access the information that is in charging schemes, so this consultation does not propose that the requirements imposed on LABCBs should be less than they currently are, but it is interested in views on whether LABCBs’ charging schemes should be published online. 

The consultation is interested in hearing views for longer term consideration on how to maintain transparency while levelling the playing field with RBCAs. A requirement for RBCAs to publish their charges will be considered as part of the call for evidence and responses will be used to inform the Building Control Independent Panel set up in response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s final report.

Questions

113. For future consideration, to level the playing field, should the Government require RBCAs to publish their charges? Y/N

114. If you answered Yes, please set out your reasons and which charges should be published.

115. If you answered No, please set out your reasons.

Remaining measures – Regulations 13 and 15 – “Contravention of building regulations not to be an offence” and “Revocation, transitional and saving provision”

We will consider whether regulation 13 needs to be retained.

This consultation does not propose that the thrust of regulation 15 (revocations, transitional and saving provisions) changes, but will reflect any changes that are pertinent from amendments taken forward because of this consultation. 

Call for evidence – policies for longer-term consideration

This consultation has already set out above the call for evidence concerning: 

• the possible proposal whether LABCBs should be required to send a formal notification to RBCAs that they have accepted RBCAs’ notices and certificates

• payment for LABCB services for building work solely for disabled persons and existing dwellings 

• whether RBCAs should be required to publish their charges 

The government is seeking views on a few other matters.

Receipt and handling of certificates from self-certification and third-party certification schemes and contractors

Currently LABCBs cannot require payment for receiving and storing in a retrievable form the approximately 3.5 million certificates received annually under self-certification (also known as Competent Persons Scheme) or for third-party certification schemes, which is similar, but without the formal requirement regarding storage of certificates in a retrievable form. Competent Person Scheme operators are currently required under their Conditions of Authorisation to send certificates to consumers and to LABCBs. These certificates are important because they are needed for conveyancing purposes when a property is sold, so need to be stored by LABCBs in a retrievable form. Discussions with representatives of heads of service in some LABCBs have shown, that while this handling of certificates by LABCBs does not normally require technical or detailed advice input, there are still checking, processing, and data storage costs. As with other measures in this consultation, the government would propose for LABCBs to be able to recover their costs for their functions regarding Competent Persons Schemes and for third-party certification schemes, following the principles in Managing Public Money.

However, at the time of this consultation, work is ongoing regarding poorly installed insulation, some of which may have overlaps with the Competent Persons scheme system.

Other work is taking place about a replacement system for scheme operators to notify LABCBs about works that have been self-certified. An interim system has now been launched and is running effectively as the previous LABC Link system closed in early September 2025, and proposals for a longer-term replacement are being considered. 

These separate reforms may conclude at different times, and we do not wish to interfere with these through any changes to the local authority charging regulations at this time. Any charge or commencement is therefore entirely subject to progress on those reforms. However, we are using this opportunity to seek views under the call for evidence for longer-term consideration about this aspect of building control services and any possible charges in the event that either or both sets of reforms are put in place quickly. 

We could, for example:

• look to include a charge or fee-setting provision in the proposed regulations now, although with a later commencement date than the other measures

• only seek to amend the proposed regulations at a later date (if needed)

This call for evidence seeks views on the options above, and on whether, if introduced: 

• LABCBs should be able to recover their costs for their functions regarding Competent Persons Schemes and for third-party certification schemes

• any charge should apply to the receipt and retrievable storage of certificates received by LABCBs under Regulations 20 (and 20A) of the Principal Regulations 2010, as a fixed fee

• any such charge or fee should be set locally, regionally or nationally (England) 

• individual competent persons should be required to submit the charge with the submission of a certificate or notification to the LABCB

Questions

116. Please set out your views on this topic with your reasons.

117. If introduced, any fixed fee would need to consider and include the allowable direct and indirect costs associated with this function, for example IT costs. If this is minimal then the costs of administering the fee could outweigh the benefit. For LABCBs please set out you estimated current costs of carrying out your duties for receiving, storing and producing the information on demand for Competent Person Scheme (and Third-Party) certificates and, where appropriate, storing them in a retrievable form – per certificate, and for all certificates per financial year.

118. This question previously duplicated part of Q117 and therefore has been removed. Please move on to Q119.

Ringfencing of income from fees and charges for carrying out building control functions

Discussions with representatives of heads of service in some LABCBs have highlighted that deficit-making services are subsidised often from other local authority funds, or surplus-making ones lose that income to fund other local authority services rather than improve the building control service. 

The overriding objective in regulation 6(3) is concerned with LABCBs breaking even when taking one financial year with another. This regulation establishes the idea of balancing the income and expenditure over a reasonable period of time. CIPFA’s previous guidance suggested it would normally be good practice for LABCBs to achieve ‘break even’ over a rolling period of three, or five years, a principle which the government intends to continue. 

With the reforms that this consultation proposes, it is anticipated that income received should balance the costs of running the service better than has been the case since the 2010 LA charging regulations came into force. Discussions with representatives of heads of service in LABCBs have included the suggestion that ringfencing of income may be a useful tool to ensure that any surpluses from any given year are not used for other purposes. The counter view to this is that, as these are already covered in the statutory regulatory framework, the surpluses may be necessary for future years and good service planning would reinforce this. 

The power under section 105B of the Building Act is not currently broad enough to require ringfencing of receipts from charges and fees. If a compelling case regarding ringfencing is made, we would look to make the necessary changes to primary legislation as soon as Parliamentary time allows. We are interested in views on this matter as part of the longer-term call for evidence.

A ringfencing proposal could operate in a similar way to that envisaged for some Planning Application functions In Part 2, Chapter 1 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. 

Such a legislative provision would have the effect that LABCBs would have to ensure that their income from fees or charges paid in for building control services is spent on the carrying out of building control services, functions and activities. 

Questions

119. Please set out any views you have about ringfencing of building control service charges income.

Shared services and local government reorganisation

The government welcomes current models of shared services, where there may be economies of scale and innovation in running building control services and would like to hear from shared services users and providers about whether the consultation’s proposals need to treat such services differently.

Similarly, there is likely to be valuable learning from building control services that have been subject to recent local government reorganisation for the next round of local government reorganisation, further to the proposals made in the English Devolution White Paper.

Questions

120. Please set out concerns or learning from the use of or provision of shared services or where building control has been subject to recent local government reorganisation.

Cumulative impact of these reforms

As set out previously, part of the government’s intention is to establish a shared long-term and financially sustainable vision for building control services with the sector. As benefits of the increased income and investment that may arise from the widened range of chargeable functions and activities the government wants buildings to be safer, deliver better environmental outcomes, and make homes and other buildings more accessible and suitable to those who use them. 

In particular, data or information concerning environmental impacts will be used to support an Environmental Principles Policy Statement assessment, which will be published alongside the response to this consultation. The building regulations cover a broad range of environmental issues such as building materials and construction products, energy and water efficiency, passage of sound, sanitation, drainage and waste disposal.  Currently the data or information the government has on compliance or otherwise is weak and this consultation is asking LABCBs to provide more about this.

The reforms set out in this consultation are intended to be a key contribution to putting LABCBs onto a financially sustainable course. (Along with investment for improving capacity in the sector and developing Digital Building Control), the government is interested in your views on whether these reforms will succeed in achieving this vision. These will also be used to inform the Building Control Independent Panel in its deliberations.

Questions

121. What economic, social and environmental outcomes may be improved in your area because of the increased income from chargeable activities and functions?

122. In particular, please set out how these reforms may influence how your services may change to secure better environmental outcomes.

123. Please provide any data or information that you have currently that regarding building control activities that relate to environmental outcomes, whether positive, like securing better compliance, or negative such as numbers of buildings not checked due to lack of resources?

124. Taken together, to what extend do you believe that these reforms will succeed in making LABCB services financially sustainable?

Consultation stage assessment of impacts and evidence base for policy proposals

The introduction of new chargeable functions and activities will represent a cost to business, with the direct impact mostly falling to RBCAs, developers and clients involved in designing, constructing and renovating buildings. Following the consultation, we will carry out a fuller assessment of the impacts investigating the costs and benefits. This will utilise any information gathered from the consultation and call for evidence. This will inform the consultation response.

Questions

125. Do the benefits referred to in the assessment of impacts appear to be appropriate? Y/N

126. If not, please set out your views on where this could be improved?

Next steps

Following publication of this consultation paper, MHCLG intends to continue engaging with key stakeholders during the consultation period on the proposals, and to consider such engagement alongside any written responses to the consultation.  

Where there is support for proposals, the intention is to regulate to give LABCBs, and in one instance, the BSR, the power to make charges for services that reflect the cost of delivering building control functions.  

The current aim is to lay any regulations in 2026.

About this consultation

This consultation document and consultation process have been planned to adhere to the Consultation Principles issued by the Cabinet Office.  

Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent, and where relevant who else they have consulted in reaching their conclusions when they respond. 

Information provided in response to this consultation may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and UK data protection legislation.  In certain circumstances this may therefore include personal data when required by law. 

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, as a public authority, the Department is bound by the information access regimes and may therefore be obliged to disclose all or some of the information you provide. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department. 

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will at all times process your personal data in accordance with UK data protection legislation and in the majority of circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties. A full privacy notice is included below. 

Individual responses will not be acknowledged unless specifically requested. 

Your opinions are valuable to us. Thank you for taking the time to read this document and respond. 

Are you satisfied that this consultation has followed the Consultation Principles?  If not or you have any other observations about how we can improve the process please contact us via the complaints procedure.

Personal data

The following is to explain your rights and give you the information you are entitled to under UK data protection legislation.  

Note that this section only refers to personal data (your name, contact details and any other information that relates to you or another identified or identifiable individual personally) not the content otherwise of your response to the consultation.  

1. The identity of the data controller and contact details of our Data Protection Officer     

MHCLG is the data controller. The Data Protection Officer can be contacted at dataprotection@communities.gov.uk or by writing to the following address:

Data Protection Officer,
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government,
Fry Building,
2 Marsham Street,
London,
SW1P 4DF

2. Why we are collecting your personal data    

Your personal data is being collected as an essential part of the consultation process, so that we can contact you regarding your response and for statistical purposes. We may also use it to contact you about related matters. 

We will collect your IP address if you complete a consultation online. We may use this to ensure that each person only completes a survey once. We will not use this data for any other purpose. 

Sensitive types of personal data 

Please do not share special category personal data or criminal offence data  if we have not asked for this unless absolutely necessary for the purposes of your consultation response. By ‘special category personal data’, we mean information about a living individual’s: 

• race 
• ethnic origin 
• political opinions 
• religious or philosophical beliefs 
• trade union membership 
• genetics 
• biometrics  
• health (including disability-related information) 
• sex life
• sexual orientation 

By ‘criminal offence data’, we mean information relating to a living individual’s criminal convictions or offences or related security measures.

3. Our legal basis for processing your personal data

The collection of your personal data is lawful under article 6(1)(e) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation as it is necessary for the performance by MHCLG of a task in the public interest/in the exercise of official authority vested in the data controller.  Section 8(d) of the Data Protection Act 2018 states that this will include processing of personal data that is necessary for the exercise of a function of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a government department i.e. in this case a consultation. 

Where necessary for the purposes of this consultation, our lawful basis for the processing of any special category personal data or ‘criminal offence’ data (terms explained under ‘Sensitive Types of Data’) which you submit in response to this consultation is as follows. The relevant lawful basis for the processing of special category personal data is Article 9(2)(g) UK GDPR (‘substantial public interest’), and Schedule 1 paragraph 6 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (‘statutory etc and government purposes’). The relevant lawful basis in relation to personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences data is likewise provided by Schedule 1 paragraph 6 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

4. With whom we will be sharing your personal data

MHCLG may appoint a ‘data processor’, acting on behalf of the Department and under our instruction, to help analyse the responses to this consultation.  Where we do we will ensure that the processing of your personal data remains in strict accordance with the requirements of the data protection legislation.

We may use artificial intelligence (AI) tools to analyse the responses to consultations more efficiently. These tools assist in identifying and mapping themes in consultation responses, but do not make decisions and all outputs are reviewed by staff for accuracy and reliability. 

Data used in AI tools is not used for training the AI models.

5. For how long we will keep your personal data, or criteria used to determine the retention period

Your personal data will be held for 2 years from the closure of the consultation, unless we identify that its continued retention is unnecessary before that point.

6. Your rights, e.g. access, rectification, restriction, objection 

The data we are collecting is your personal data, and you have considerable say over what happens to it. You have the right: 

a. to see what data we have about you 

b. to ask us to stop using your data, but keep it on record 

c. to ask to have your data corrected if it is incorrect or incomplete 

d. to object to our use of your personal data in certain circumstances 

e. to lodge a complaint with the independent Information Commissioner (ICO) if you think we are not handling your data fairly or in accordance with the law.  You can contact the ICO at https://ico.org.uk/, or telephone 0303 123 1113.  

Please contact us at the following address if you wish to exercise the rights listed above, except the right to lodge a complaint with the ICO. Email dataprotection@communities.gov.uk or write to:

Knowledge and Information Access Team,
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government,
Fry Building,
2 Marsham Street,
London,
SW1P 4DF

7. Your personal data will not be sent overseas

8. Your personal data will not be used for any automated decision making 

9. Your personal data will be stored in a secure government IT system

We use a third-party system, Citizen Space, to collect consultation responses. In the first instance your personal data will be stored on their secure UK-based server. Your personal data will be transferred to our secure government IT system as soon as possible, and it will be stored there for 2 years before it is deleted.