Consultation outcome

Building charges reform: government response to the consultation

Updated 16 October 2026

Executive summary

The Grenfell Tower tragedy exposed serious and long standing weaknesses in the building control system. The Inquiry showed that building control functions were not always carried out with the scrutiny, competence or resources needed to keep people safe. Since then, the government has taken major steps to strengthen regulation through the Building Safety Act 2022, the creation of the Building Safety Regulator, and the introduction of a formal competence and registration regime for building inspectors.

Despite this progress, many Local Authority Building Control Bodies (LABCBs) continue to face significant pressures. Their responsibilities have increased, but the framework for funding these services has not kept pace. As a result, local building control teams often struggle to recruit and retain qualified inspectors, invest in training, or carry out the level of oversight expected of them. In many areas, local taxpayers end up covering the cost of work that should be funded by those commissioning or carrying out building work. This is neither fair nor sustainable. This was underlined by the recent report of the Building Control Independent Panel (BCIP), which found that “The public sector system of building control has been progressively neglected, with LABCAs unable to sustain the level of advice, oversight and enforcement expected of them for all building work on a consistent basis.”

To address these challenges, the government consulted on a package of reforms to the local authority building control charging framework. The aim is to update the building charges regulations by ensuring that LABCBs can recover as fully as possible the reasonable costs of the functions they are required to perform. These changes are intended to help strengthen capacity across the profession, support high quality inspection and enforcement, and ensure that the system is better equipped to identify and address safety risks early.

These reforms are an important step towards a fairer and more resilient building control system, one that applies the lessons of Grenfell, supports a competent and well-resourced workforce, and ensures that the costs of regulation fall appropriately on those undertaking building work, rather than on the wider public.

This government response outlines the reforms we intend to make to improve local authority charging arrangements in the light of the responses to the consultation.

The responses to the consultation are summarised below and have been taken into account by ministers when making decisions on policy changes to make. Overall, responses showed:

• broad support for clearer and wider charging powers and greater transparency
• mixed views on the scope of new chargeable functions, particularly enforcement and exemption-related changes
• difference between local authority bodies (LABC/LABCBs) and Registered Building Control Approvers (RBCAs) on the operation of the reformed system
• a strong view across local authorities that the taxpayer should not subsidise building control services
• strong support for a digital system to ensure transparency and fairness
• support for the removal of the current prohibitions to charging for aspects of services

Note on acronyms and terms used in this document

Throughout the consultation document, we used the acronym “LABCBs” to refer to local authority building control bodies.

This government response document makes reference in places to the Building Control Independent Panel’s (BCIP’s) report (published on 20 May 2026), which used the acronym “LABCAs” to refer to local authority building control authorities. These acronyms are referring to the same types of organisation. To maintain consistency with the original consultation document, we will continue to use the acronym LABCB.

The term “RBCAs” refers to private sector Registered Building Control Approvers that provide some building control functions that are set out in Part II of the Building Act 1984. Detailed legislation for RBCA activities, including the submission of documents to LABCBs, is set out in The Building (Registered Building Control Approvers etc.) (England) Regulations 2024 (SI 2024/110).

The term “Principal Regulations” refers to The Building Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/2214), as amended.

1. Introduction

This government response summarises views received from stakeholders, sets out the government’s position on each proposal, and outlines next steps.

We received responses from local authorities (including shared services), registered building control approvers (RBCAs), professional bodies, developers and individuals. We also considered evidence from representative organisations including Local Authority Building Control (LABC), the Association of Building Control Approvers (ABCA), the National House Building Council (NHBC), the Chartered Association of Building Engineers (CABE), the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

84 responses were submitted through Citizen Space and a further 16 by email.

The proposals aimed to improve the system, address long‑standing inconsistencies, enable proportionate cost recovery, and ensure that those responsible for creating regulatory workload bear the costs and not local taxpayers.

A full statistical breakdown is provided in Annex A.

2. Government response to the consultation proposals

2.1 Servicing of Registered Building Control Approver (RBCA) Notices and Certificates

What we proposed

The government proposed enabling Local Authority Building Control Bodies (LABCBs) to charge for servicing Registered Building Control Approver (RBCA) documents, including Initial Notices, Plans Certificates, Final Certificates, and cancellation/transfer notices, which are required under Part II of the Building Act 1984. The proposal also included allowing non‑payment of charges to be treated as a prescribed ground for rejecting RBCA submissions.

What consultees said

Local authorities and LABC strongly supported cost recovery to avoid an unfunded burden on council taxpayers and to support resourcing.

NHBC and CABE supported the principle of taxpayers not funding this work, but stressed fairness, proportionality, and risks of perceived conflict of interest; several proposed centralised processing or a national portal.

ABCA and other RBCAs opposed local charging discretion, arguing the functions are statutory, largely administrative, and risk distorting competition; they favoured a centralised or national flat fee and simplification of statutory documents with a national digital portal for all building control submissions.

Responses from LA practitioners commonly cited significant manual processing and inconsistent submission quality; several respondents supported upfront payment as a validity requirement.

Government response

The government recognises the strong case made by LABCBs that the current system places an unfunded burden on them and work funded by council taxpayers.

The government recognises the concerns raised by RBCAs regarding the proportionality of charges and the potential for inconsistent decision making across LABCBs. The government understands that RBCAs want assurance that the charging and rejection system will be fair, transparent and not open to misuse.

The government acknowledges private sector concerns that LABCBs might over-scrutinise notices or use rejection powers inappropriately.

LABCBs must act in accordance with Seven Principles of Public life including integrity, objectivity, accountability and openness. The government therefore expects LABCBs to operate charging and rejection processes fairly, transparently and without bias. Equally, RBCAs also operate within the regulatory framework overseen by the Building Safety Regulator and are subject to relevant professional and regulatory requirements. The government expects RBCAs to submit accurate, complete and high-quality notices and certificates.

The reforms set out in our broader programme of work aim to resolve longstanding sources of mistrust by improving digital consistency, clarifying roles, and ensuring that both sectors are held to the same high professional standards under the BSR.

The government also recognises calls for a nationally set flat fee for the handling of RBCA notices and certificates. If capacity across LABCBs was consistently much higher than the current situation, we would be sympathetic to this. However, in recent history, some local authority websites have indicated that capacity is very low, and vacancies have been hard to fill, and that they cannot take on much, if any, work. This means that, until such time that our programme of reforms on digital, charges and capacity building is more mature, LABCBs face different operating costs and resource pressures across England. As a result, the reasonable costs incurred in carrying out these functions may vary between authorities. Allowing authorities to set charges locally better supports the principle of cost recovery and enables charges to reflect local circumstances while remaining transparent through published charging schemes.

We will review this as part of our wider consideration of the BCIP’s recommendations, in light of the higher levels of transparency we expect from LABCBs in their charging schemes, and the Digital Building Control programme.

Way forward

The government will enable local authorities to set their own charges to reflect full cost recovery of processing all the notices and certificates submitted to them under Part II of the Building Act and the RBCA Regulations. We will monitor variation through the mandatory online publication of charging schemes to feed into any review of the charges that may be timed with further reforms to the building control system such as use of digital technologies set out below.

The government recognises the potential for better use of digital technologies to help streamline and improve building control services and processes. We are developing a new Digital Building Control programme to enable and develop digital systems to improve the consistency, transparency and flow of information across building control. This will help to reduce errors in key documents, such as initial notices, and support smarter ways of working that will help to reduce LA administrative burdens. The upcoming Digital Building Control Roadmap will outline our vision for working together to move towards a modern, digitally enabled building control system. This may result in further reforms to the charging framework in due course.

We will work with the BSR to ensure that the building control profession operates to a consistent standard, and poor practice is identified and addressed early.

Stakeholder quotations

It is unreasonable to expect local authorities (through general taxation) to cover the costs associated with administering documents from RBCAs.

NHBC BCS has previously suggested that the administrative function of registering and checking of notices from RBCAs should be undertaken by a central body, such as the BSR, to ensure consistency of approach and cost.

2.2 Timing of payments and deemed acceptance

What we proposed

The government proposed reforms to clarify when charges for Part II Building Act functions should be paid and how deemed acceptance should operate. This included requiring payment at the point of submission for certain notices and certificates, prescribing non‑payment as grounds for rejection, seeking views on extending statutory periods before deemed acceptance takes effect, and introducing refunds where local authorities fail to determine notices within prescribed timescales. The proposals aimed to improve transparency, reduce administrative inefficiency, and support sustainable resourcing of local authority building control.

What consultees said

Local authority respondents broadly supported the proposals, emphasising that processing notices and certificates submitted by RBCAs places a significant and growing administrative burden on LAs. Many authorities supported upfront payment and the ability to reject submissions for non-payment, arguing this would prevent debt recovery issues and ensure costs are not borne by council taxpayers. Views were mixed on extending deemed acceptance periods: some supported longer periods to reflect workload pressures, while others cautioned against normalising delay.

Private sector respondents expressed more varied views. Some supported clearer rules and formal notification of acceptance to provide certainty, but others raised concerns about additional costs, inconsistency between authorities, and the potential for delays if prescribed periods were extended. Several private sector consultees stressed the importance of proportionality, national consistency, and safeguards to ensure charging arrangements do not distort competition or incentivise unnecessary rejection of notices.

Government response

The government will enable LABCBs to charge for considering notices and certificates submitted by RBCAs. The government will also prescribe non-payment of the charge as a ground on which a LABCB may reject a notice or certificate. This will help ensure that the cost of carrying out these functions is recovered from those generating the work, rather than from local taxpayers.

The government believes that the case has not been made to extend the timeframes. Therefore, we will not extend the deemed acceptance prescribed periods for initial notices, amendment notices and plans certificates from 5 working days and will not extend the deemed acceptance prescribed period for final certificates from 10 working days.

The government will amend the regulations so that LABCBs can require supplementary charges, beyond the initial payment, where time needed to consider the notice etc is greater than is normal due to the complexity involved in assessing some notices and certificates from RBCAs. We do not anticipate that this flexibility will be required often. In such cases, LABCBs will need to notify RBCAs why a supplementary charge is required before the end of the deemed acceptance prescribed period.

The government will require LABCBs to refund RBCAs where the LABCB has not issued a notice of acceptance or rejection before deemed acceptance takes effect, or notified the RBCA where a supplementary charge is considered necessary. This reflects that a notice or certificate may have been considered internally, but no formal decision has been communicated within the relevant statutory timeframe.

The government will decide whether to require LABCBs to send confirmation of acceptance of notices and certificates to RBCAs as part of its wider considerations of the Building Control Independent Panel’s recommendations and digital reforms. This would require primary legislation. The requirement to refund RBCAs where no notification has been given, in effect, will require LABCBs to respond to RBCAs if they wish to retain the payment.

Stakeholder quotations

Local authority (LABCB):

Allowing LAs to charge ensures that the costs incurred in processing, reviewing, and servicing documents can be recovered and are not unfairly incurred by the LA or the taxpayer. Charging supports the financial sustainability of BC services, especially for those teams who have a greater proportion of building work in their areas covered by RBCAs and therefore less fee-earning income. It also means that we can reinvest in service resilience, namely our staff through training and development of technology.

Private sector (RBCA):

Managing charges and payments across over 250 local authorities - each with differing charging schemes and payment requirements - will create a significant administrative and financial burden. It is imperative that a standardised charging framework with a consistent payment facility is developed to enable seamless, efficient processing of notices.

2.3 Inspection of Building Works – Clarifying Regulation 5(1)

What we proposed

The consultation sought views on clarifying the wording in regulation 5(1) to ensure that it properly reflects inspection related activities for which charges may apply.

What consultees said

LAs broadly supported clarification to remove ambiguity and allow legitimate inspection activity to be charged consistently.

LABC supported clarification to reinstate the original intention of the 2010 Regulations and reduce uncertainty.

NHBC supported clarification to remove ambiguity and improve consistency.

Some RBCAs argued the wording is already sufficient, while others requested more explicit definitions.

Government response

The government agrees that clarifying the wording will provide certainty and align with the principle of cost recovery.

Way forward

We will proceed with amending the regulation to:

• clarify the scope of inspection related activities, which are chargeable

Stakeholder quotations

This would re-instate the original intention of The Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 2010.

NHBC BCS supports clarifying the language relating to charges for inspections in order to remove any ambiguity.

2.4 Charging for Relaxations and Dispensations

What we proposed

We proposed giving Local Authority Building Control Bodies (LABCBs) the power to charge for dealing with applications to relax or dispense with certain building regulation requirements. Although these applications are rare, they often require detailed technical assessment, consultation with specialists, and extra administrative work.

The aim was to make sure that the cost of this work is paid for fairly, rather than funded by general taxpayers or through other building control fees.

The consultation also highlighted a proposal in the consultation on the Future Homes and Buildings Standard to allow regulation 26 of the 2010 Principal Regulations to be relaxed or dispensed with. It also referred to a proposal to repeal regulations 25A and 25B of the Principal Regulations.

What consultees said

LAs, LABC and shared services supported charging, noting the work can be time-consuming and may require senior technical input and sometimes specialist advice, which is currently unfunded.

NHBC supported charging for relaxations and dispensations and recognised that these applications can require additional assessment.

Some consultees emphasised transparency and proportionality and suggested hourly rates because the time required varies. They felt that charging would make the process fairer and allow resources to be used more effectively.

Private sector building control providers (including RBCAs) views were mixed. Some accepted that cost recovery was reasonable. Others were concerned about extra administrative burden, the risk of inconsistent charges, or that this work should remain part of normal building control activity without an additional cost. Some agreed in principle and supported charging, provided it is done fairly, proportionately and in line with wider reforms. A small number of people opposed charging altogether. They argued that this type of work happens so rarely that it should remain free.

Government response

Government acknowledges strong support from LAs and LABC for cost recovery and recognises concerns from ABCA, CABE and other private providers about proportionality, fairness and making the process easy to understand and applied consistently across England.

We will proceed with enabling LABCBs to charge for relaxations and dispensations. This will support cost recovery for specialist work outside routine plan checking and inspection, while maintaining transparency and proportionality.

The government will take this opportunity to remove the prohibition on dispensing with or relaxing requirements for Regulation 26 of the 2010 Principal Regulations (CO2 emission rates for new buildings) to allow for specific circumstances where a building control body may deem it unreasonable to require compliance with the Future Homes and Buildings Standards. The government’s response to the Future Homes and Buildings Standards consultation sets out that regulations 25A and 25B will not be repealed. However, as Regulations 25A and 25B address closely related matters to Regulation 26, the government will also remove the prohibition on dispensing with or relaxing requirements for Regulations 25A and 25B, to ensure a consistent approach, having consulted the Building Safety Regulator on this point. Any dispensation or relaxation in relation to Regulations 25A, 25B and 26 should be granted only where the building control body considers that applying the relevant requirement would not be reasonable in the specific circumstances. These changes will take effect from 24 March 2027 for non-higher -risk building work and from 24 September 2027 for higher-risk building work, aligning with the Future Homes and Buildings Standards commencement dates for the different types of building work. To note that dispensation or relaxation of these requirements will not be applicable for educational buildings, buildings of statutory undertakers and buildings of the Crown, including work undertaken for or on behalf of the Crown. These changes will be facilitated through an amendment to Regulation 11(3) of the 2010 Principal Regulations.

Way forward

We will proceed with enabling LABCBs to charge for relaxation and dispensation applications, including for regulations 25A, 25B and 26 of the Principal Regulations on the dates that the Future Homes and Buildings Standards come into effect.

Stakeholder quotations

Dealing with these additional applications creates an additional workload and although these types of applications are rare, at present LABCBs must absorb the cost.

This activity sits outside the standard process for assessing applications for approval or rejection and requires a distinct, often complex, technical and legal assessment.

2.5 Short-lived Materials, Drainage, and Provision of Water Supply

What we proposed

To introduce charging powers for local authority actions relating to:

• short lived materials
• drainage of buildings in combination into existing sewers
• provision of water supply

What consultees said

LAs generally support enabling charges across these technical functions, especially where they require additional assessment or follow-up work. The private sector (RBCAs) was more mixed: some support cost recovery for additional LA work, while others oppose new charges where they consider the function routine, duplicative, or better handled by other bodies. Some RBCAs argued that responsibility rests primarily with water/sewerage undertakers or dutyholders (persons with responsibilities under Regulation 11J of the Principal Regulations). Several respondents questioned whether these areas represent the best use of LA resource, given pressures elsewhere. NHBC supported introducing charges for these functions where LABCBs undertake additional activity and where charges are proportionate.

LABC noted these matters are already considered in the application process and sought clarity to avoid duplication, while supporting parity and transparency.

Some responses suggested these functions are infrequent and asked that charging be limited to exceptional work beyond routine processes.

Government response

The government recognises that, although infrequent, these matters can require LA involvement and that involvement carries cost. Government accepts LA action is necessary to ensure compliance with Building Regulations and that costs should not fall to the taxpayer.

We will proceed with enabling charges for these functions where LABCBs undertake additional activity beyond routine plan checking or inspection. We recognise that some authorities treat these functions as part of the wider application process, but by stating explicitly that LABCBs can charge for these functions, we will remove any ambiguity.

Way forward

We will proceed with enabling LAs to charge for these functions, removing any ambiguity where these functions are part of wider considerations in applications.

Stakeholder quotations

We recognise that these activities involve technical assessment and administrative handling, and it is appropriate that local taxpayers are not required to subsidise work that directly relates to individual projects.

We are unclear as to why these sections have been separated… when they are already considered… as part of the application process.

2.6 Tests for Conformity with Building Regulations

What we proposed

We proposed enabling LABCBs to recover charges for actions taken under section 33 of the Building Act (tests for conformity), including requiring tests and taking samples where reasonably necessary to ascertain compliance.

What consultees said

LA responses (including LABC and several councils) supported cost recovery where testing is necessary, noting that specialist work and sampling should not be funded by taxpayers.

NHBC supported charging for tests when undertaken, but emphasised proportionality and the need to avoid unnecessary administrative expansion.

Some respondents questioned frequency and suggested reliance on third-party evidence in most cases, while supporting cost recovery where additional work is required.

Government response

Given the hitherto non-chargeable cost elements within section 33 of the Building Act of LABCBs’ actions, the government will proceed with enabling recovery of all of LABCBs’ costs associated with tests for conformity with building regulations.

Way forward

We will enable LABCBs to charge for these tests.

Stakeholder quotations

If testing is necessary and undertaken then the costs should not be borne by the taxpayer.

NHBC BCS are supportive of the introduction of charges for actions undertaken by LABCBs in relation to tests for conformity.

2.7 Future-Proofing Inspection and Testing Powers

What we proposed

We proposed enabling LABCBs to recover charges for future regulations made using the general power where regulations would be made under section 1 and paragraph 1G of Schedule 1 of the Building Act, which covers inspections/testing and taking of samples. This would have aligned the regulations with those of the Building Safety Regulator for this purpose.

Government response

On further consideration, the BSR has this charging power in regard to its functions in Wales where amendments to s33 of the Building Act (tests for conformity with building regulations) made by the Building Safety Act have not been introduced. Therefore, the government has concluded the proposed change is not necessary and will not be added to the list of chargeable functions.

Way forward

The proposed change is unnecessary and will not be taken forward.

2.8 Breaches, Requiring Compliance and Powers to Enter

What we proposed

We proposed enabling LABCBs to charge for functions under section 95 of the Building Act, including securing entry (including warrants) where needed for compliance or enforcement, when a contravention is established.

What consultees said

LABC and NHBC supported enabling charges, with LABC emphasising that charges should apply only where contravention is established and that unfounded allegations should not lead to recoverable costs.

Some LAs (e.g., Greater Cambridge, BeFirst) supported cost recovery for warrants and associated legal/locksmith costs, reflecting the resource burden.

Other responses were mixed: some viewed this as rare and questioned whether administrative overheads would discourage the use of the charging proposal; others supported charging to deter obstruction and recover costs.

Government response

Given the support for the proposal, the government will proceed with enabling charging for section 95 functions. Given the fact that we are making it clear that chargeable functions may include a reasonable proportion of authorities’ overheads, such as administrative ones, this should not necessarily discourage LABCBs from taking such actions. Costs incurred in cases where no contravention is found will not be recoverable through these charging powers. This reflects the polluter-pays principle and supports timely regulatory action. LABCBs will need to have clear, fair processes for invoicing and debt recovery.

Stakeholder quotations

A charge under Section 95 of the Building Act should only be imposed when there is, or has been a contravention.

These activities involve technical assessment and administrative handling, and it is appropriate that local taxpayers are not required to subsidise enforcement work that directly relates to individual projects.

2.9 Notices in respect of contraventions

What we proposed

We proposed enabling LABCBs to charge for issuing compliance (section 35B) and stop (section 35C) notices and for section 36 notices regarding removal or alteration of offending work, recognising that enforcement activity can be resource intensive.

What consultees said

LABC supported charging in principle, but cautioned against perverse incentives and requested clear guidance distinguishing circumstances, especially for compliance notices where contravention may be “likely” rather than confirmed.

NHBC supported charges for enforcement tools but noted that charging alone will not address barriers to enforcement action (e.g. legal thresholds and recoverability risk). Some councils supported staged or scaled approaches, with informal engagement before charging for formal notices.

Other responses included concern about “fines by another name” and risks of driving work to private sector if perceived as revenue raising.

Government response

In light of the consultation responses supporting the need to improve compliance, the government will proceed with enabling charges for issuing compliance notices, stop notices under section 35C and notices requiring removal or alteration of offending work under section 36 of the Building Act 1984. Charges will facilitate recovery of reasonable costs of formal compliance and enforcement activity and will not replace the core public protection duty to enforce proportionately. LABCBs will need to consider the circumstances relating to section 36 notices and whether to charge where the owner has been a victim of poor workmanship.

Stakeholder quotations

The introduction of charges alone will not address the wider reluctance among some LABCBs to initiate enforcement action.

2.10 Defective Premises, Dangerous Buildings and Demolition

What we proposed

We proposed enabling charging for issuing notices under sections 76, 79 and 81 of the Building Act, and for costs of applying to court/tribunal under section 77 for dangerous buildings.

What consultees said

LABC supported charging for formal enforcement under these sections, with a distinction between non-chargeable informal engagement and chargeable formal action; suggested land charge recovery routes.

Some London authorities noted existing local powers for dangerous structures and set out operational cost drivers (out-of-hours callouts, inspections, and legal costs).

NHBC supported recovery of costs for dangerous building and demolition related actions, emphasising owner responsibility.

Other responses showed varied views, including concerns about fault attribution (e.g., third-party causes) and practicality of recovery.

Government response

We will proceed with enabling charging for these functions, recognising the substantial and often unpredictable resource demands involved. Charges will be recoverable where formal action is taken and will be designed to support public safety outcomes and fairness.

Stakeholder quotations

Applying to courts or tribunal are time consuming and costly.

It is the responsibility of building owners to ensure that their properties are safe and do not pose a danger.

2.11 Issuing Notices or Providing Consent

What we proposed

We proposed enabling LABCBs to recover costs for issuing certain notices or providing consent under specified provisions of the Building Act (sections 59, 60, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70, 72, 73, 74, 84 and 85). These functions, while sometimes infrequent, can require officer time, technical assessment and coordination. The intention is to support clearer and fairer cost recovery where these activities are triggered by specific projects or compliance issues.

What consultees said

Many LAs supported enabling cost recovery, stating that these functions can require significant officer time and should not be funded by council taxpayers.

LABC agreed that the costs of issuing notices or providing consent should be recoverable, though noted that some functions can lie outside the direct remit of building control teams.

Some LAs and other respondents noted that these powers are infrequently used, cautioning that administrative effort could outweigh income.

CABE emphasised fairness, transparency and the need to avoid unintended conflicts or new inconsistencies across local authority practice.

NHBC supported proportional cost recovery but stressed that charges should be transparent and clearly linked to statutory activities.

Some RBCAs (including ABCA and Socotec) indicated concerns about consistency and administrative burden if charging frameworks vary between local authorities.

Government response

The government recognises that issuing notices or providing consent under these Building Act provisions can involve meaningful officer time and administrative handling. We also recognise concerns about proportionality, frequency of use and the need to avoid unnecessary administrative burdens. We will proceed with enabling cost recovery for issuing notices or providing consent given the time and expertise involved in establishing the need to issue any notices.

Way forward

We will proceed with enabling charging powers for issuing notices or giving consent under the specified provisions.

Stakeholder quotations

LABC:

It is unreasonable to expect local authorities (through general taxation) to cover the costs associated with administering documents…

NHBC:

Local taxpayers should not bear the cost of a statutory service which local authorities are required to provide…

2.12 Appeals

What we proposed

We consulted on whether LABCBs should be able to charge for responding to appeals against their decisions under the Building Act or building regulations.

In the consultation document, we referred to the LABC organisation’s voluntary model of arbitration and conciliation procedure. This has been withdrawn since the consultation was launched.

What consultees said

LABC opposed charging, arguing that appeals routes already exist and that charging could deter legitimate challenge; it indicated its voluntary arbitration procedure is rarely used.

NHBC supported cost recovery where LABCB successfully defends an appeal, provided there is balance so appellants can recover costs when appeals are upheld.

Some LA respondents supported charging (with comparisons to planning), while other responses were mixed and highlighted access-to-justice concerns.

Government response

In light of the mixed responses and the Managing Public Money principle that such services should operate on a cost-recovery basis, we will introduce a general power for LABCBs to charge for responding to appeals. If an appeal is determined in favour of the appellant, the local authority would be required to refund any charges and not recover any further charges relating to the appeal.

Stakeholder quotations

It is important for customers to have a route by which to raise complaints about potentially unfair or excessive charges.

In principle, LABCBs should be able to recover reasonable costs where they successfully defend an appeal, to avoid local taxpayers subsidising challenges.

2.13 Free first hour of advice

What we proposed

We asked whether the current requirement for LABCBs to provide a free first hour of chargeable advice should remain, be abolished, or be changed.

What consultees said

Views were mixed: Several LABCBs favoured abolishing the free hour to align with planning and full cost recovery, while others valued it for early engagement and compliance.

LABC supported making this discretionary for LABCBs to determine locally.

NHBC supported retaining a free first hour to encourage early engagement, especially for householders.

Other responses included both “why should there be a free hour” and support for some initial help for domestic clients.

Government response

In light of the mixed response to this part of the consultation, we will amend the framework so that LABCBs may choose whether to offer a free first hour of advice as part of their published charging scheme.

Way forward

We will remove the prohibition thus enabling LAs to charge for advice at all times, in line with Managing Public Money principles. Given the mixed responses from LABCBs, it will be up to them whether to use local discretion on this.

Stakeholder quotations

To support and encourage early engagement, LABCBs should still be required to offer a free first hour of chargeable advice.

This should be discretionary on the part of the LABCB to determine as it helps to level the playing field with RBCA’s.

2.14 Disability-related adaptations

What was proposed

The consultation proposed reviewing the current exceptions from building control charges for services regarding works solely required for disabled persons both in:

• existing dwellings (for longer term consideration beyond the timeframe for this set of reforms – this is considered separately below in Section 3.2 (Disability adaptations for existing dwellings), given the distinct policy timing considerations)
• and in existing buildings to which members of the public are admitted (for this iteration of reforms)

The government sought views on whether these exceptions should continue, be removed, or be replaced with alternative funding mechanisms. The consultation also proposed that the Building Safety Regulator’s exception be removed for where it provides building control services related to disability adaptations in existing higher-risk buildings to which members of the public are admitted.

What consultees said regarding disability adaptations in existing buildings to which the public are admitted

Local authority respondents largely supported removing the exception, noting that public buildings have an established legal duty to make reasonable adjustments and that local authority building control services should be able to recover costs for those services, including where the authority itself may own the building. Private sector respondents expressed more mixed views: some supported the principle of cost recovery, while others raised concerns about proportionality and the potential impact on smaller organisations.

The Building Safety Regulator’s response to the consultation is to retain the exception, which means that the Regulator will not charge dutyholders in the rare circumstances when this function will be used for existing higher-risk buildings to which the public are admitted.

Government response regarding disability adaptations in existing buildings to which members of the public are admitted

The government recognises the need to balance financial sustainability for LABCBs with the need to avoid creating barriers for disabled people.

The government will proceed with removing the exception for charges for services provided by LABCBs for adaptations to existing buildings to which the public are admitted. This is because owners and operators of such properties also have their own responsibilities under the Equality Act and should not rely on LABCBs and taxpayers to subsidise these.

In light of the BSR’s response, the government will retain the exception for the Regulator.

Stakeholder quotations

Local authority (LABC):

LABC believes it is now appropriate for LABCBs to recover charges where the whole of the building work in question is solely for the purpose of providing means of access for disabled persons by way of entrance or exit to or from the building or any part of it; or for the provision of facilities designed to secure the greater health, safety, welfare or convenience of disabled persons in an existing building to which members of the public are admitted. There is a duty to provide reasonable adjustments to these buildings under the Equality Act 2010. There is no longer a need to incentivise building owners to carry out this work for the benefit of disabled people as the legal duty exists. The public body / service provider should fund the building control charge.

2.15 Charging Scheme Publication

What was proposed

The government proposed to strengthen and clarify requirements for Local Authority Building Control Bodies (LABCBs) to publish their charging schemes for building control services. This included requiring LABCBs to publish their charging schemes online each financial year, implementing data standards and publication requirements to improve transparency and comparability, clarifying that charging schemes should factor in both direct and indirect costs, in line with the Building Safety Regulator’s approach, introducing mechanisms for the Secretary of State to require publication according to a directed data standard, supporting future digital transformation and benchmarking.

What consultees said

LABC strongly supported the requirement for LABCBs to publish their charging schemes online each year. They noted that while some LABCBs already publish their schemes, many are reluctant due to concerns about private sector competitors undercutting fees. They called for a level playing field, recommending that RBCAs should also be required to publish their charging schemes. They emphasised the need for checks to ensure RBCAs adhere to their published schemes. They supported the introduction of national data standards and regular review of CIPFA guidance to ensure clarity and consistency in charging practices.

CABE supported full and transparent cost recovery, fairness, and consistency across the building control system. They welcomed proposals to strengthen charging principles, including publication of charging schemes and the development of common data standards. They cautioned that new data requirements should be proportionate and aligned with existing systems to avoid unnecessary administrative burden. They highlighted the need for further evidence and guidance before introducing firm requirements for ringfencing income from building control fees.

NHBC supported transparency in charging, particularly for domestic projects, to help members of the public understand costs. They suggested that for larger or complex projects, bespoke pricing may be appropriate, and not all detailed rates need to be published, provided the overall approach is clear and compliant. They recommended a national flat-fee model for routine administrative reviews to ensure consistency and fairness.

Government response

The government will proceed with reforms to enable fuller cost recovery, including indirect costs, and will require LABCBs to publish charging schemes and annual financial statements online. Our response to the Building Control Independent Panel’s recommendation on digitisation and data said that we will shortly publish a Digital Building Control Roadmap, which will set out how we will work with the sector to improve efficiency, consistency, transparency and data sharing in the wider context of built environment data. We will work with CIPFA on updating its bulletin for LABCBs. These reforms will also support the wider Digital Building Control programme. Greater consistency in published charging information and financial reporting will help improve data quality, transparency and future digital integration across the building control system.

The new regulations implementing these changes will provide for who is liable to pay for any charges and when they are to pay. They outline changes to refunds and supplementary charges. The approach taken is simpler than the 2010 regulations but retains the requirement that publication of charging schemes to happen not less than 7 days before they come into effect.

Stakeholder quotations

Local Authority Building Control (LABC):

LABCB’s should publish their charging scheme online and make them available upon request. There should be a level playing field where RBCAs are also required to set and publish their charging schemes. Checks should be put in place to ensure that RBCAs adhere to their scheme once published.

As part of this the CIPFA guidance would require a full review to bring it up to date with any of the proposed changes to the building regulation charges that are actioned after the review of this consultation has been completed.

National House Building Council (NHBC):

Transparency in this area supports informed decision making and helps build confidence and consistency of the system. For larger developments such as new build schemes above 10 dwellings or substantial commercial projects there is a reasonable argument for recognising a need for bespoke pricing rather than standardised fees.

CABE:

CABE welcomes proposals that seek to improve cost recovery, transparency, and operational resilience. However, we consider it is essential that any reforms are implemented in a way that is fair and equitable and avoids creating new systemic imbalances, unintended competitive distortions, or perceptions of conflict of interest between public and private sector building control bodies.

3. Call for evidence: summary and government position

3.1 LABCB formal confirmations of acceptance or rejection of RBCA notices and certificates

What was proposed

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, was not a firm proposal for this consultation. This could also apply to other notices or certificates.

What consultees said

Local authority respondents broadly supported the proposal, noting that formal confirmation would reduce ambiguity, improve record keeping and help manage risk. Many LABCBs highlighted that deemed acceptance can create uncertainty for enforcement and accountability, particularly where documentation is incomplete or unclear.

Private sector views were more mixed. Some respondents welcomed clearer confirmation and greater certainty, particularly where this avoids disputes about whether notices had been validly accepted. Others raised concerns that mandatory confirmation could introduce delays if not supported by clear statutory timescales and consistent processes across authorities.

Government response

In light of the Building Control Independent Panel’s report and possible digital solutions, we will consider whether to take this measure forward in any suitable primary legislation opportunity.

Stakeholder quotations

Local authority stakeholder:

Formal confirmation of acceptance gives clarity for everyone involved and avoids disputes about whether notices have been properly received or considered.

Private sector stakeholder:

Clear confirmation of acceptance is helpful, but it is important that the process is supported by clear timescales so that applications are not delayed unnecessarily.

3.2 Disability adaptations for existing dwellings

What was proposed

The consultation asked whether the current exemption from building control charges for disability-related adaptations in existing dwellings should continue or be removed in whole or in part in the longer term and asked for views on alternative funding.

What consultees said

Local authorities:

Most LABCBs support retaining the exemption for existing dwellings, recognising the risk of creating barriers for disabled people if charges are introduced.

Some suggest that if the exemption is removed, funding should be provided through grants (one example that was cited by respondents was the Disabled Facilities Grant) to avoid disadvantaging those on low incomes.

Private sector:

There was support for a level playing field (there are no such restrictions on charges for applications to RBCAs), but some stakeholders warned that removing the exemption could increase costs for vulnerable groups and create administrative complexity.

Professional Bodies: CABE and others highlighted the risk that removing the exemption could reduce the funds available for adaptations, especially where works are grant-funded, and may conflict with public sector equality duties.

Government response

The Building Control Independent Panel’s report recommended that the government should enable full cost recovery for all statutory building control functions. The government will consider carefully how this could be achieved in this area without causing adverse impacts to disabled people and will set out further detail in due course once it has undertaken this assessment.

Stakeholder quotations

Local authority (LABC):

LABC is of the opinion that disabled people should not have to fund a building control charge in an existing dwelling where appropriate. The funds for the charge should be recovered by means of a grant where appropriate. Arrangements should include for building control charges to be paid on behalf of disabled people who are granted funding for adaptations, this then would not disadvantage the applicant as this charge will have been met through the approved grant funding.

Private sector (NHBC):

Support for disabled occupants should be addressed through targeted funding or grants, rather than through unfunded regulatory exemptions placed on local authority building control services.

3.3 Publication of RBCA Charges

What we proposed

We sought views for longer-term consideration on whether RBCAs should be required to publish their charges to improve transparency and support a level playing field.

What consultees said

LABC and many LAs supported requiring RBCAs to publish charging schemes for transparency and parity.

Some consultees supported publishing domestic-facing fees but argued that bespoke commercial pricing for complex projects should retain flexibility.

Some RBCAs opposed mandatory publication, citing commercial sensitivity and the risk of price-following behaviour.

Government response

We will take forward work on transparency and the level playing field. We recognise the need to balance consumer transparency (especially for domestic clients) with legitimate commercial flexibility for complex projects.

Way forward

The government will consider the case for requiring RBCAs to publish their charges as part of its wider programme of Digital Building Control and the BCIP’s report. We will use a suitable primary legislation vehicle if this is required.

Stakeholder quotations

It is not a level playing field if LAs are expected to publish their fees and RBCA’s are not.

To level the playing field, should the government require RBCAs to publish their charges? Yes.

3.4 Competent Person Scheme notifications

What we proposed

The government sought views on whether LABCBs should be able to recover costs for receiving, storing and producing on demand certificates from Competent Person Schemes and third-party schemes, reflecting the volume and administrative burden. We set out that the notification system for scheme operators was being replaced and that wider CPS policy reforms were being considered including in the light of some scheme members installing insulation poorly. Therefore, any new charges for handling certificates would come into effect at a later date.

What consultees said

LABC supported charges recoverable from scheme operators, suggesting fixed charges, time limits for rejection, and resubmission rules to reduce repeated burdens.

Several LAs supported cost recovery for storage and retrieval and highlighted IT and staffing costs.

Some consultees cautioned that the administrative cost of charging could outweigh benefits if fees are too small or overly complex to administer.

Government response

The government closed a call for evidence on the Conditions of Authorisation for Competent Person Schemes in June 2026 and is analysing those responses. We will factor in those responses and other reforms around CPSs, taking advantage of the opportunities that may arise through the Digital Building Control Roadmap.

Way forward

We will develop proposals in light of the wider building control programme of reforms.

Stakeholder quotations

LABCBs should be able to recover their costs for their functions regarding competent person schemes… as a nationally set fixed charge.

In our view, complaints about charging are likely to be reduced if customers understand the costs that have contributed to the charges they are required to pay.

3.5 Ringfencing

What we proposed

We proposed seeking views on whether income from building control fees and charges should be ringfenced for the delivery of building control functions. This included exploring whether ringfencing could support improved service resilience, transparency and investment in competence, IT systems and staff capacity.

What consultees said

Several councils, including Lambeth and Greater Cambridge (3C Shared Services), supported ringfencing to ensure income is reinvested into building control capability, training and IT modernisation. Wyre Forest District Council and Chichester District Council opposed ringfencing, arguing councils should retain flexibility in how income is allocated across wider public services.

LABC supported ringfencing in principle, noting that reinvestment is essential for meeting competence and resource requirements under the modernised building control system. CABE emphasised the importance of fairness, sustainability and resourcing but warned that ringfencing must be implemented transparently. NHBC supported ringfencing in principle as a way to strengthen LA service capability and consistency, provided governance arrangements are clear. ABCA and some RBCAs (e.g., Socotec, Approved Building Control Ltd) cautioned that ringfencing could distort competition if not accompanied by wider system reforms to reduce conflicts of interest between public and private building control. Some respondents expressed mixed views: some supported ringfencing to ensure robust building control services, while others were concerned about transparency, governance and variability between councils.

The BCIP found that building control income within local authorities is not consistently retained for regulatory functions, with fees often absorbed into wider corporate budgets. This has contributed to staffing shortages, reduced enforcement capability and a reliance on goodwill from overstretched teams. The Panel concluded that without a protected service, any uplift in fees generated by changes in regulations is less likely to translate into improved statutory capacity.

Government response

The government recognises there are strong arguments for ensuring income from building control fees is invested directly in building control services. We also recognise the concerns raised by some LAs and private sector respondents regarding transparency and governance.

These new regulations – which are law – require each local authority in taking one financial year with another, to ensure that under their charging scheme their charges should, as far as possible, equate to their costs incurred in performing their chargeable functions and chargeable advice. This means that any surpluses or deficits should be factored into setting the next charging scheme, including in investing in legitimate building control service overheads and not for plugging any other local authority use where a surplus is generated. We will monitor implementation vigorously as part of our evaluation of published charging schemes and annual financial statements. This will help us understand how authorities are applying the cost recovery framework in practice.

Way forward

We will work with our building control partners to communicate and monitor expectations on income use, workforce development and IT investment.

In light of the Building Control Independent Panel’s report, we will consider whether to take ringfencing forward which would require amending primary legislation.

Stakeholder quotations

Local authority (Lambeth)

Building Control charges income should be ringfenced and re-invested into the Building Control service.

NHBC

Local taxpayers should not bear the cost of a statutory service which local authorities are required to provide; income should be transparently and consistently reinvested.

4. Shared services and local government reorganisation

Information we sought

We sought views on concerns or learning from shared services arrangements and from local government reorganisation, including impacts on charging schemes, workforce, IT and resilience.

What consultees said

Shared service respondents highlighted resilience benefits and the ability to pool resources and expertise once established.

Some councils highlighted risks relating to differing IT systems, processes and uncertainty during reorganisation, and the need for early engagement.

Some consultees advocated greater consolidation but highlighted governance and transition challenges.

Government response

We will reflect shared service and reorganisation considerations in the monitoring and evaluation of this and wider reforms to building control services.

Way forward

We will engage with LABCBs that are subject to local government reorganisation as we develop our wider programme of reforms, including the development of common data standards and digital processes.

Stakeholder quotations

As a Shared Service Building Control Body there are benefits in that it provides resilience.

This consultation focuses heavily on the impact for LABCB’s without much consideration for RBCAs and the impact on the industry.

5. Cumulative impacts of the reforms

Information we sought

We asked consultees to describe potential economic, social and environmental outcomes arising from increased income and expanded chargeable activity, and to set out risks and mitigations.

What consultees said

LABC strongly argued that the reforms would have a positive cumulative impact by placing building control services on a more sustainable financial footing. LABC emphasised that the reforms support a clear polluter pays approach, reduce reliance on general taxation, and enable reinvestment in staffing, competence and service resilience. LABC also highlighted that cumulative impacts should be viewed alongside wider reforms such as the Building Safety Act and BSR oversight, which increase workload and regulatory expectations for local authorities.

CABE broadly supported the direction of travel but cautioned that the cumulative impact of multiple reforms could be challenging if not carefully sequenced and implemented. CABE stressed that charging reforms must not be considered in isolation, and warned of risks relating to workforce capacity, regulatory fatigue and perceived conflicts of interest if changes are layered too quickly.

NHBC accepted that, in aggregate, the reforms could improve service sustainability and transparency, but emphasised that cumulative cost and administrative impacts on industry must be carefully monitored. NHBC highlighted risks that overlapping charges, inconsistent charging schemes and manual processes could cumulatively increase costs for developers and RBCAs without commensurate service improvements.

ABCA expressed strong concern that there would be a negative cumulative impact of the reforms, arguing that taken together they risk increasing bureaucracy, delaying construction, and undermining confidence in the system. ABCA contended that the reforms focus too heavily on charging mechanisms rather than addressing underlying process inefficiencies and digital shortcomings.

Stonebond highlighted risks of disproportionate impacts on SMEs and domestic clients, suggesting tiered charging, caps and phased implementation. Several consultees stressed that digital reform is critical to reduce administrative overheads and support consistency. Some responses cautioned that charging changes alone will not address broader systemic issues such as governance, accountability and product assurance.

The Building Control Independent Panel’s report stated “Government should complete and implement the review of the 2010 regulations to enable full cost recovery for all statutory building control functions, including enforcement and compliance activity, modernise the charging framework to align with the requirements of the Building Safety Act 2022. In doing so a review should seek to remove outdated restrictions that prevent services investing in the staff, technology and skills they need. This should stabilise LA BCA services over the next 2 to 3 years and enable a smoother transition to the future model.”

Government response

We will proceed with reforms to improve cost recovery. We will continue carrying out our wider programme including evaluation of impacts on the building control sectors and stakeholders, to ensure that these reforms produce commensurate improvements in service levels.

Way forward

We will monitor impacts on different types and sizes of projects as part of our considerations and evaluations of the building control reform programme. This will involve continued engagement with the BSR and building control representative organisations and wider construction sectors. It also includes use of improved data standards to measure service performance and outcomes and continuing to work with the sectors to implement digital improvements to building control services that will improve efficiencies. This will enable government to identify and act where improvements to building control services are not being delivered.

Stakeholder quotations

LABC:

The reforms, taken together, would provide for a ‘polluter pays’ approach… helping to ensure compliance can be effectively achieved by timely and proportionate interventions.

CABE:

Reforms must be implemented with care, proportionality and a focus on system wide fairness to avoid unintended consequences.

NHBC:

A fair, transparent and sustainable charging regime is essential, but cumulative impacts on delivery and industry must be carefully managed.

ABCA:

There is a real risk that these reforms will increase administrative burden and delay construction without improving safety outcomes.

6. Building Control Independent Panel’s recommendations

The government’s proposals to reform building control charges are part of a wider programme of work to strengthen the building control system in England. We have recently published the final report of the Building Control Independent Panel, alongside our initial response. The BCIP, established following the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, has set out its vision for the building control system.

The BCIP report sets out principles for reform, alongside recommendations for action in the near term and options for longer-term reform. These include the need for structural reform, reduced fragmentation, improved transparency, financial sustainability through charges reform, and a stronger digital system.

Government response to the Panel and next steps for Charges reforms

The government welcomes the Panel’s support to put these reforms to charges in place and accepts the direction of travel it has set out. Our response makes clear that building control must be properly supported, including these reforms to LABCB charges, as part of a well-functioning wider building safety system, building on reforms already delivered since the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

We will now take forward detailed work on the Panel’s recommendations at pace, including how reform can be taken forward in a way that strengthens public safety, supports the profession and maintains confidence across the sector. We will set out further detail as this work develops.

Immediate action: The charging reforms will enable local authorities to recover more fully the cost of statutory functions, improve transparency, and support new digital systems. Longer-term: The Government will review options from the consultation’s longer-term call for evidence and other reforms in our programme to improve financial sustainability of LABCBs, facilitating more reinvestment and better capacity in building control services.

7. Final impact assessment

We have refined the policy analysis for the final impact assessment based on feedback received during the consultation. The consultation version of the assessment of impacts drew some criticism due to the limited evidence that informed it and high uncertainty in the costs to local authorities for carrying out similar functions.

The surveys that occurred as part of the consultation process provided data from many more local authorities and RBCAs. This still provided wide variances of costs, which are reflected in the new IA, and low data on costs for the new, wider set of chargeable functions that the revised regulations feature. The IA sets out that the increased transparency with online charging schemes and annual financial statements being required, should provide better monitoring and evaluation capability to understand the impact of the reformed charges. It will allow comparison of charges for different functions across different LABCBs and will highlight where surpluses or deficits may need addressing. This will inform the Government’s wider building control programme, including use of better digital and data, and consideration of the Building Control Independent Panel’s recommendations.

Annex A: Summary of respondents

The consultation received:

84 responses submitted through Citizen Space (individuals, LAs and private building organisations).

We received 16 additional responses via email from the following: LAs including Chichester District Council, London Borough of Camden, London Borough of Lambeth, Greater Cambridge (3C Shared Services), Wyre Forest DC, BeFirst and representative bodies including CABE, ABCA, NHBC, LABC, NFCC and Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), plus additional (Approved Building Control Ltd, Stonebond, Wilkinson Construction Consultants, Association of Registered Building Inspectors).

Total responses – 100

Number of responses by category:

• local authorities / shared services
• professional bodies
• private sector (RBCAs)
• other organisations
• individuals (Citizen Space)

List of named organisational respondents

Annex B: Summary of consultation responses

Executive summary

This summary captures all responses from LAs, professional bodies, private sector Registered Building Control Approvers (RBCAs) and evidence gathered through MHCLG–LABC engagement webinars.

There was strong support from LAs and LABC for reforming the charging framework to enable fuller cost recovery. Respondents highlighted that many regulatory, inspection, administrative and enforcement activities are currently subsidised by council taxpayers which is not sustainable.

Private sector respondents broadly supported the objective of a sustainable and well‑resourced building control system, but raised concerns about proportionality, administrative burden and the risk of perceived conflicts of interest. Across stakeholder groups there was strong emphasis on the need for clearer guidance, transparency and improved digital systems to ensure reforms are implemented consistently and fairly.

Annex C: Acronyms

LABCB – Local Authority Building Control Body
LA – Local Authority
RBCA – Registered Building Control Approver
RBI – Registered Building Inspector
BCIP – Building Control Independent Panel
BSR – Building Safety Regulator
CABE – Chartered Association of Building Engineers
NHBC – National House Building Council
ABCA – Association of Building Control Approvers
NFCC – National Fire Chiefs Council
LGSCO – Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
CPS – Competent Person Scheme(s)