Open consultation

Improving proportionality and building safety outcomes in building control: emergency repairs under the higher-risk building regime

Published 9 July 2026

Applies to England

Summary

This consultation seeks views on proposals to make changes to the emergency repairs route under the Higher Risk Buildings (HRB) regime and in what circumstances the requirement to seek prior approval of the Building Safey Regulator to any changes will not apply. The existing processes relating to Higher-Risk Buildings (HRBs) are set out in The Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (England) Regulations 2023 (‘the 2023 Regulations’). This consultation also seeks views on how our guidance and communications can clarify what constitutes an emergency repair. 

The emergency repairs provision allows repairs in an HRB to be carried out where there is a risk to the health, safety, and welfare of persons in or about the building, and where applying for building control approvals via the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) would not be practicable, noting the risk posed. It is intended to enable swift action in response to high-risk situations, whilst appropriately maintaining regulatory oversight.

In practice, however, we recognise that there are some types of urgent works that need to progress more quickly through the HRB regime and gateway process to rectify an urgent need or mitigate a risk, but which do not fall within the current scope of the emergency repairs provision. In addition, the wording of the provision has created confusion for dutyholders and residents alike regarding which circumstances would allow use of the route, leading to reported misuse of the provision and hesitancy among some dutyholders to use the route over concerns of enforcement action. This hesitancy can create additional unintended delays to safety critical works taking place which can result in costly temporary measures being put in place. This is unacceptable – everyone deserves to feel safe in their home and the regime should not be a barrier to work in genuine emergencies.

We are committed to ensuring the emergency repairs provision for HRBs is working as intended, is proportionate, and protects the safety and welfare of residents and others in and around the HRB. We are therefore considering proposals to amend how the emergency repairs route is used. Specifically, this consultation considers two proposals: first, to amend the policy to apply to a wider range of ‘emergency works’, rather than only ‘emergency repairs’; second, introducing a new, separate route for a limited selection of critical works, that do not meet the current criteria of an emergency repair, to take place without prior BSR approval. We invite evidence and views on these proposals, with detailed reasoning outlined below.

These proposed changes are not a compromise on safety – the functional requirements (safety standards) as set-out under The Building Regulations 2010 will not change, nor will the majority of the procedural requirements of the HRB regime or dutyholder requirements. Rather, they are intended to enable urgent work to proceed efficiently and without undue delays, making sure risks to residents and building users are resolved as quickly as possible whilst upholding the HRB regime core principle of ensuring safety in buildings and providing robust oversight.

These proposals form part of a broader package of reforms which the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government (MHCLG) and the BSR are considering to improve proportionality, efficiency, and safety in the HRB regime. 

Once this consultation has closed, responses will be analysed and a response published in due course.

Scope of this consultation

This consultation seeks views on 2 proposals for reform of the emergency repairs provision, under regulation 10 of the Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (England) Regulations 2023.

Geographical scope 

This consultation is limited to England.  

Body responsible  

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

Duration  

The consultation will run for 8 weeks from 9 July 2026 to 3 September 2026.

How to respond 

This consultation is open to everyone. We wish to hear from a wide range of interested parties from across the public and private sectors, as well as from members of the public.

You can respond to this consultation through our online survey platform: 

We strongly encourage responses via the online platform, particularly from organisations with access to online facilities such as local authorities, representative bodies and businesses. Using the online survey will assist our analysis of the responses, enabling efficient and effective consideration of the issues raised. 

If you cannot respond via the online platform, you may send your response by email to: buildingregulationsconsultation@communities.gov.uk using the subject line ‘Emergency repairs consultation response’. If you are responding in writing, make it clear which question or paragraph number each comment relates to. Using subheadings in longer responses helps us to analyse your response.

Please ensure you flag any commercially sensitive material included in your response which cannot be published. For further information see the ‘Data Protection’ section. 

Enquiries 

For any enquiries about the consultation please contact buildingregulationsconsultation@communities.gov.uk using the subject line ‘Emergency repairs consultation enquiry’.

Introduction

Background

As part of the landmark Building Safety reforms that followed the Grenfell Tower fire, the government introduced the Higher-Risk Building control regime (‘the regime’) in England from October 2023 to significantly improve the regulatory oversight of HRBs – buildings that are at least 18 metres high or 7 storeys tall, containing at least 2 residential units or being used as a hospital or care home. 

For both HRBs and non-higher-risk buildings, ‘building work’ is defined in regulation 3 of the Building Regulations 2010. The Building Safety Act 2022, and subsequent regulations, including the 2023 Regulations sets out the information and documentation applicants must provide to demonstrate that work to an existing HRB complies with the functional and dutyholder requirements of the Building Regulations 2010.

The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) was established as the sole authority providing building control oversight for all higher-risk building work in England responsible for overseeing compliance with the building regulations for HRBs.  

The vast majority of building work to existing HRBs must receive prior approval from the BSR before work can commence. There are several stop/go decision points (Gateways) at key stages of design and construction to ensure compliance with the requirements of building regulations.

• Gateway two requires the applicant to submit a building control approval application which must be approved by the BSR before work can start

• during construction, dutyholders must then adhere to the new requirements of the change control process, which includes seeking BSR approval before carrying out ‘major’ changes to the project

• when construction is complete, Gateway three requires the applicant to submit a completion certificate application to demonstrate that the work as built complies with building regulation requirements

Crucially, however, work which consists only of ‘emergency repairs’ does not require prior approval from the BSR before starting the work. ‘Emergency repairs’ as defined under regulation 10 of the 2023 regulations, are repairs that are necessary to be carried out as a matter of urgency due to a ‘risk to the health, safety, or welfare of persons in or about the building’ and where it is not practical to obtain prior approval from the BSR. 

Those undertaking qualifying emergency repairs must instead:

• give notice to the BSR as soon as reasonably practicable after the work has started, detailing the nature of the work, reasons for urgency, and describing any temporary measures put in place to mitigate the urgent risks until repair work is finished

• send a copy of that notice to the building’s Responsible Person, as defined in article 3 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005

• apply to the BSR for a regularisation certificate after the work has been completed, to confirm the work has been carried out in compliance with the building regulations requirements

• send a copy of the emergency repair notice to the principal accountable person (PAP) so that they can update the building’s safety case report. The PAP must also submit a mandatory occurrence notice to the BSR if the repair work was carried out to manage risks relating to structural failure or the spread of fire and likely prevented the risk of death or serious injury to a significant number of people

After emergency repair work is completed, a regularisation certificate must be applied for from the BSR as soon as reasonably possible. This is to obtain retrospective approval that the repair work has been carried out in compliance with the functional requirements of the building regulations. The regularisation application must cover a similar degree of information as required at Gateway three, including a detailed, holistic description of the work carried out and providing evidence of how the work complies with the building regulations functional requirements. 

Following submission, the BSR will assemble a Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) to assess the application and inspect the repair work. The MDT can request further information to secure evidence of compliance and, where necessary, can order further work to be undertaken to rectify non-compliant or poor-quality repairs, at additional cost to the client. Where further work is required, this must also be accompanied by a full building control Gateway two application, under regulation 47(6) of the 2023 Regulations.

Emergency repairs provision

Emergency Repairs Provision - Regulation 10 of The Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (England) Regulations 2023

10.-(1) where work to existing HRB consists only of emergency repairs and it is not practicable to comply with regulation 11(1) (building control approval for work to existing HRB) before starting work, the client must –

(a) give notice to that effect to the regulator, describing the work and the reasons for the urgency as soon as reasonably practicable after work has started,

(b) send a copy of that notice to the responsible person as soon as practicable after the work has started, and

(c) submit a regularisation certificate application to the regulator in relation to the work as soon as reasonably practicable after the work is carried out.

(2) In this regulation-

“emergency repairs” means repairs to a building which are necessary to be carried out as a matter of urgency due to the risk to health, safety or welfare of persons in or about the building;

“responsible person” has the meaning given in article 3 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

The emergency repairs provision is a critical tool intended to swiftly address a situation where there is a risk to the safety of residents in (or others in and around) existing HRBs that must be remedied urgently, whilst maintaining retrospective oversight and appropriate regulatory safeguards against unsafe, poor-quality work. Ensuring appropriate urgent safety repairs and remediation work are taking place promptly in existing HRBs is especially vital, given these buildings are already occupied with residents. 

In practice, however, the provision has a narrow scope and a high threshold for use. The provision only allows for ‘emergency repairs’, where repair has a common definition ‘to put something that is damaged, broken, or not working correctly, back into good condition or make it work again.’ The BSR assesses applications on a case-by-case basis and apart for certain limited circumstances, replacement of a building feature is not in scope and in all cases, improvement or enhancement of a building element are not in scope, nor is the introduction of a new element to a building. Any works of this nature require a full building control Gateway two application and BSR approval prior to work commencing.

It is important to note that, currently, when assessing a ‘risk to health, safety, and welfare of persons in or about the building’ the BSR focuses its attention on their physical health, safety, and welfare. This current interpretation is inadequate for many scenarios where urgent work is needed. Generally, emergency repairs are works where there is a sudden breakdown in equipment in the building, or where something breaks or is discovered to have broken during planned building work where it would not have been reasonable to detect it in advance. The emergency repairs provision should not be used to remedy problems which occur due to poor planning by the client or contractor, and notifications submitted to the BSR are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

If works do not meet the criteria of the emergency repairs provision a full building control Gateway two application is required. The current wording and resulting implementation of the provision means a substantial volume of time critical, urgent work needed to fix serious safety issues has had to achieve full building control Gateway two approval before commencing, such as replacing broken fire alarms, sprinkler systems, or fire doors. In the worst instances, this leads to a prolonged reliance on disruptive or costly interim measures such as waking watches and decants. This can incur significant financial burdens, disrupt lives, and leave residents living in unsafe buildings for longer as they await remediation work.

We consider that the narrow application of the emergency repairs route may be disproportionate, and it may be appropriate to expand the scope of the provision to include some works which extend beyond the strict definition of a ‘repair’. For example, critical works which may remove protracted reliance on temporary measures which are no longer appropriate or where work must be accelerated to prevent risks escalating or becoming entrenched. 

Stakeholder feedback has made clear that not only is the current provision too narrow in scope, causing unintended delays to urgent work, but also that the wording is creating widespread confusion as to the type of work which can be classified as an emergency repair and which work must instead proceed via a full building control Gateway two application. Uncertainty for dutyholders and industry is contributing to incorrect use of the emergency repairs route, as well as potentially limiting its use by dutyholders who are concerned with facing enforcement action should works undertaken not meet the criteria of an emergency repair. 

This government is committed to ensuring that building safety regimes are not only robust, but also clear, consistent, and easy to navigate. The changes proposed in this consultation are designed to ensure we have the essential efficiency and regulatory certainty needed for building work to be carried out quickly and safely, while ensuring retrospective BSR oversight is in place and that any risks to residents have strong mitigations.

Enforcement

Evidence and data collected during our pre-consultation engagement has highlighted that misuses of the emergency repairs route have occurred, requiring formal enforcement action and further remedial work to rectify poor quality repairs. This is leading to additional costs for clients, absorbing BSR resource to retain oversight of regularisation activities, and leaves residents living in buildings with safety defects for longer. We are clear that changes to the provision must not encourage rushed or poor-quality work. 

The BSR assesses each emergency repair application on a case-by-case basis and can take several steps where enforcement action is required. Where the BSR receives notification of an emergency repair which should instead require a full Gateway two application and work has not started, they can notify the dutyholder to that effect. If the dutyholder proceeds with the emergency repair against the BSR’s advice, they may issue a stop notice under section 35C(1)(a) of the Building Act 1984 by virtue of regulation 61(c) of the 2023 Regulations.

If the BSR becomes aware of an emergency repair for which they have not received a regularisation application, they can issue a compliance notice to the dutyholder under section 35B of the Building Act 1984. Where the BSR becomes aware of an emergency repair which is not a legitimate use of the provision or is non-compliant building work, they will typically issue a contravention letter setting out the work counts as unauthorised work to an HRB. 

In the most serious breaches, the BSR can undertake prosecution against the offending dutyholder as a last resort.

Hospitals

We acknowledge that HRB hospitals face unique challenges and risks compared to residential HRBs, such as employing ‘horizontal’ evacuation methods, increased wear on passive safety measures due to heavier footfall and maintenance interventions, ageing medical equipment, and greater strain on the integrity of fire compartmentation due to a higher number of service penetrations. These challenges are coupled with the fact that hospitals house vulnerable people at all hours. 

This means that critical safety features in hospitals often require a higher volume of maintenance work and delays even to relatively routine, small scale, and low complexity work such as replacing air handling units in operating theatres, replacing medical equipment such as MRI machines, and replacing fire doors. This could potentially lead to major disruption to clinical operations and service continuity, with significant knock-on impacts on patient welfare. Maintaining the continued functioning of services in HRB hospitals is therefore of clear public interest. 

For this reason, under our proposal to introduce a new critical works route we are actively considering including building works with a clear public interest benefit and which must proceed quickly to ensure the continued functioning of key public services. This proposal is outlined in more detail below.

Pre-consultation engagement  

We have engaged extensively with a wide range of industry representatives and building safety experts, including fire engineers and Registered Building Inspectors, to understand issues with the current provision and the likely impact of our proposals. We have also engaged the BSR, with whom we have worked to develop these proposals. 

Discussion with experts has indicated strong support for greater flexibility for certain types of urgent work to be carried out as quickly as possible via a method similar to the emergency repairs route, such as the replacement of faulty fire alarms. Stakeholders also clearly expressed the need for more clarity on the scope and definition of emergency repairs, reiterating that any changes must avoid introducing further complexity into the regime.

Policy proposals

Government is considering whether a change to the emergency repairs provision would be beneficial for supporting residents and those in and around HRBs and industry. 

Our aim is to ensure that the provision is clear in its interpretation and minimises risk in the case of genuine emergencies which impact resident health, safety and welfare. Our aims are to ensure that the system minimises risks while giving both users and the regulator the clarity to expedite examples of genuine emergency work to protect residents. The intention is that this clarity will support users in applying the legislation effectively and accurately identifying work that falls under its scope. 

Government is committed to ensuring that the health, safety and welfare of residents remain at the forefront of a regulatory system that delivers high-quality homes. With stakeholder feedback indicating limitations within the current legislation and how it is applied to some urgent works, we are exploring how the scope of the provision can be extended to more urgent works and circumstances, to ensure that urgent work has a robust mechanism for timely action.

The proposals do not change the fundamental safety requirements of the building regulations, standards or oversight. The functional requirements of the building regulations will be retained, as will the procedural requirements under Regulation 10. The BSR will continue to monitor, action and enforce on instances of misuse of the route. 

Any changes would be made using the power under section 1(1) of the Building Act 1984 and would require secondary legislation to achieved. This consultation is made adhering to the duty to consult as set out under section 120B of the Building Act 1984.

1. Retain the existing emergency repairs provision

We would like to understand more about the public view of the current emergency repairs route, to determine whether the current provision is functioning as intended.

Currently, the provision includes works that are necessary to be carried out as a matter of urgency due to the risk to health, safety or welfare of persons in or around the building where it is not practicable to first obtain approval from the BSR for those repairs. As set out earlier in this document, the BSR has focused predominantly on physical risk and repairs work only.

Below is an illustrative example of work that would currently be in scope of the emergency repairs route: 

Emergency services action (police or fire and rescue service) means that a flat front door has been broken, leaving the flat unsecured and the fire door non-functional as a passive fire protection method. Work to return the fire door to a safe and functional state would be permitted to use the emergency repairs route.   

Anticipated benefits and risks 

Retaining the provision in its current form will provide some benefit in terms of continuity and clarity for those who have used the emergency repairs route prior to the consultation.

This includes:

• continuity for the sector of what constitutes an emergency repair under the current definition

There are some significant challenges with allowing the provision to remain as currently worded:

• the narrow scope of the provision means limited types of work or circumstances can utilise the route, increasing potential risk to safety and welfare of residents where urgent work is delayed

• the narrow scope also forces more urgent work via the Gateway two building control process, meaning work must wait for BSR approval (usually a minimum of 8 weeks) to commence, and is assessed to the same timeframe as routine, non-urgent works submitted for Gateway two approval

• the current definition lacks clarity and is open to misinterpretation by the sector and therefore possible misuse, creating confusion and unnecessary delays for the sector and resulting in possible enforcement action

• misuse and misunderstanding of the route can lead to increased financial burden to applicants and the regulator (organisational resource, regularisation and enforcement)

We are keen to understand your views and experiences in relation to using the current emergency repairs provision, whether it was clear and if it adequately allowed for genuine emergency work to take place.

Question 1

Do you think the current emergency repairs provision is proportionate?

Question 2

Do you think the current scope of the provision, as explained in the background section of the document, provides a proportionate route to address genuine emergencies without undermining standards?

Question 3

Are there any aspects of the provision that are difficult to interpret or apply? If so, which?

Question 4

Do you think that the current provision enables timely action to address risk in HRBs urgently?

Question 5

If the answer to the previous question is no, please can you provide examples of where the provision has not enabled timely action to resolve risk in HRBs urgently?

2. Amend the provision to include further emergency works

This proposal would expand the current provision to include emergency ‘works’, including replacement and upgrades, rather than being limited only to emergency ‘repairs’, to better reflect how urgent risks arise and are managed in practice.

This widened scope would mean that an element of a building could be replaced with an improved or enhanced element which carries out a similar function but is not an identical system, provided it is not fundamentally changing that element. Any widening of the scope under this proposal would not allow new elements to be introduced to a building, for example you could not remove a wall or create a new opening for a doorway. Determining whether the route can be used would still rely on a test of urgency, and risk to health, safety and welfare and reflect the fact that it was not practicable to first notify the BSR.

Below is an illustrative example of work that may be in scope of emergency works should the provision be widened: 

A fire alarm system which needs to be replaced as a repair is not possible. Replacing the fire alarm system would allow a functional fire alarm to be in place, mitigating risk to residents and building users.

 In some instances, upgrading (improving) the fire alarm may be as cost effective as replacing it. This would allow for an improved fire alarm system to be installed which may be a newer or updated system but still retains the same base function whilst enhancing resident safety.  

Anticipated benefits and risks

We anticipate that this option would likely bring some benefits in allowing more examples of urgent, emergency work to fall under the remit of the legislation.

Some of these may include:

• an easy to communicate purpose and definition of the type of works that can utilise the route, reducing ambiguity around the language of the provision 

• more urgent work can be undertaken quickly, reducing risk for residents and building users, particularly vulnerable or disabled residents and building users, who would benefit from a mechanism to quickly restore building elements on which they rely 

• reducing reliance on temporary management measures while waiting for Gateway two building control approval or permanent works to be undertaken by allowing replacement and improvement works to proceed quickly, reducing costs to building managers and residents

We know that a change to legislation may also bring some risk:

• there could be increased burden on BSR resource to retrospectively review more notifications generated by a wider scope of emergency works – it would take time to monitor and evaluate these possible impacts 

• the industry would likely need an adjustment period to adapt to the types of works allowed through the route and amend best practice – this could be aided by the provision of guidance alongside legislative change

Question 6

Do you think the current emergency repairs provision should be expanded to include replacements, enhancements or improvements of an individual building element?

Question 7

Can you share any examples of emergency works that are not simply repairs, but would instead be classed as replacements or enhancements/improvements?

Question 8

Are there any risks to expanding the scope of the provision to include replacements, enhancements or improvements that we have not considered here?

Question 9

Do you think expanding the scope of the provision would encourage misuse of the route?

3. Introduce a critical works provision

This proposal would be an alternative to the above proposal, and would establish a new route for critical works, similar to the current emergency works route which would allow urgent, critical work that does not fall under the scope of the current emergency repairs provision to take place quickly. This route would still retain retrospective BSR oversight of the work, using the same process through which the emergency repairs provision is currently implemented.

As set out earlier in this document, currently ‘emergency repairs’ only includes repairs to an existing building element, where urgent action is needed to resolve a risk to health, safety or welfare. Our ‘emergency works’ proposal goes one step further than emergency repairs, expanding scope to allow replacements and improvements or enhancements to an existing building element. 

This ‘critical works’ proposal would go further still, including repair, replacement and improvement works, where risk to health, safety or welfare is assessed by a wider range of factors. It would not focus solely on an assessment of the likely physical expression of the health, safety or welfare risk to residents and those in and around HRBs before determining that it is appropriate to seek dispensation from the process of seeking prior BSR approval for the works via the standard regulatory process that is at least 8 weeks. Examples of circumstances that may constitute critical works can be found below.

Crucially, this proposal would still require works to be urgent in nature to mitigate a genuine risk to resident or a person in or about the building’s health, safety or welfare – however this could explicitly consider factors such as financial and emotional welfare, enabling a holistic view of the impact of the urgent work to be considered.

Stakeholder feedback has suggested that some expansion of the current route is needed, with some stakeholders suggesting that the current emergency repairs provision should be maintained and an alternative route created, particularly one that can address a wider range of remediation of legacy building issues. Other feedback suggests that an expansion of this nature would add further complexity to the regime.

There are several examples of work or circumstance that may be appropriate to capture in a new critical works route:

1. A critical works provision may include work that could have been planned or foreseen but has now escalated to become urgent due to no fault of the resident. For example, this could include inaction by a building manager or a change in circumstances which has resulted in an inability to sustain temporary management or risk mitigation measures (for example a sudden reduction in funds available, where extreme weather has increased the deterioration of a failing building element, or where the profile of vulnerable residents in a building has changed). Currently, this work would be out of scope of the emergency repairs provision.

2. A critical works provision may also include urgent work that has a public interest benefit and ensures that critical public service can continue to function and where the urgent remedy of a failure of equipment is in the public interest. For example, the replacement of essential medical or fire safety elements in a hospital. This is often work that could have been planned or foreseen and therefore does not typically meet the current criteria for an emergency repair but can severely disrupt service continuity when building or equipment failures occur, for example in intensive care units, operating theatres, and other essential patient services if works are not undertaken quickly. This is particularly important where a facility may provide specialist care or be the sole care facility in a geographical region, thus significantly reducing service provision.

3. A critical works provision may also include works where funding and/or access has suddenly become available to building managers to undertake work and where that funding is only available for a limited time period. Where navigating the minimum 8-week Gateway two building control approval period may mean that urgent work cannot be undertaken while funding or access is available, we are conscious of not wanting to delay work unnecessarily.

4. A critical works provision may also enable urgent works that particularly affect vulnerable or disabled residents and building users. 

These examples of critical works are not definitive but are illustrative examples that have a clear risk to the health, safety or welfare of residents and building users and where Gateway two building control approval may not be practical and the works would not be in scope of the existing emergency repairs provision.

Anticipated benefits and risks

Our aim with this option is to allow for a mechanism which will enable urgent, critical work to move through the legislation quickly, with its expanded scope.

We expect the benefits to potentially include:

• reducing reliance on interim measures by allowing the work to move quickly, preventing risk, including financial, to residents

• this would allow a wider range of building works or circumstances to be addressed urgently without prior BSR approval

• protect residents from change of circumstances outside their control which has meant foreseeable works have become critical and now pose an urgent risk to their health, safety or welfare

As this proposal would be a significant expansion from the original emergency repairs provision, we recognise that this option does carry some risk:

• expanding the umbrella of work that could fall under this route could increase the resource burden on the BSR to undertake a higher volume of retrospective assessments of works undertaken – this would need to be fully assessed

• as this would mean a higher volume of work could be undertaken without prior BSR approval we could see an increase in the volumes of poor-quality work that would otherwise have been assessed and rejected by the BSR. This could result in increased instances of works to rectify poor quality work being required following retrospective BSR oversight once the works are complete, at increased cost to building managers and/or residents to put the work right

• this may add complexity to the regime. It will take some time for applicants and regulators to adapt to a new route and how it applies to their work, which could result in misuse or enforcement issues. Providing guidance alongside any changes would help to mitigate this risk

• this may discourage building managers from taking a proactive approach to maintenance and repair works, if they perceive that they can delay works until they present an urgent risk to residents, rather than planning work in advance and submitting a GW2 application

Question 10

Do you think an additional route for critical works is needed alongside the emergency repairs route?

Question 11

What types of work would you consider to be critical works?

Question 12

Are there any risks to creating a route for critical works that we have not considered here?

Question 13

Do you think creating a new critical works route would encourage misuse of the route?

Other considerations

Limitations to the application and scope of the proposals

Our intention is that any of the proposals in this document should be used to undertake short-term, urgent, targeted works to provide essential mitigation or risk reduction to improve building and resident safety. These should be works that can be de-coupled from major, large-scale works to a building.

Our intention is that any proposal should not be used for large-scale, major projects or longer-term works. These works are likely complex project work, may be particularly disruptive or high-risk works which are essential to plan in advance and should remain subject to BSR approval at Gateway two before works begin. Large-scale works are also more difficult to evidence as compliant at completion, so require prior oversight.

For example, major external cladding remediation projects are large scale disruptive projects, that cannot be completed in a short period of time. While these works are urgent work and essential to resident safety, they present risks and complexities that require BSR oversight before work is undertaken and therefore would not be appropriate to consider for any of the proposals set out here.

Question 14

Do you think that major, complex, large-scale or long-term works should be excluded from the proposals in this document?

Question 15

If the answer to question 14 is yes, please describe the types of works that you think should not be within scope of our proposals.

Question 16

If the answer to question 14 is no, why should these works be included in the scope of our proposals?

Question 17

If major, complex, large-scale or long-term works were to be included in the scope of the proposals, what would the risks be? Please include evidence where possible.

Question 18

Would there be a benefit to residents or building users of including these works in the scope of the proposals?

Question 19

If the answer to the previous question is yes, what are the benefits? Please include evidence where possible.

Vulnerability and disability

We expect that our proposals should not increase the risk to vulnerable or disabled residents and building users and would likely have a beneficial impact as:

• allowing more urgent and critical work to progress more quickly would protect vulnerable and disabled people against risks they are specifically more vulnerable to

• the BSR would still retain oversight and enforcement of the work

Question 20

What types of urgent works should be in scope of the proposals to ensure the safety of vulnerable or disabled residents and building users?

Question 21

Are there any risks to vulnerable or disabled residents and building users of expanding the scope as set out in our proposals that we should consider that have not already been considered in this document?

Public interest 

Public interest is a guiding principle that brings good to wider society and benefits welfare and wellbeing. Taken together, the changes we are proposing would support a more preventative and proportionate approach to managing urgent building safety risks, strengthening outcomes for residents and improving overall public confidence in the regime.

There may be additional factors or circumstances that drive whether certain urgent works are within the public interest, and whether these works should be able to use an expanded version of the emergency repairs route. For example, a hospital may need to undertake urgent work to keep medical services operational in response to unforeseen events. Similarly, we are aware that budgetary pressures may mean hospitals have to undertake building work unexpectedly.

Question 22

Are there certain types of urgent building work, which do not meet the current definition of emergency repairs, that would be in the interest of the public to be included in our proposals?

Question 23

What factors should we consider when determining what urgent works are in the public interest?

A clear example of urgent works with a definite public interest, as noted above, are the replacement of some essential medical elements and equipment in hospitals where unintended delays or waiting for full Gateway two approval would result in severe disruption to clinical care and services, directly compromising patient safety and welfare. Ensuring these urgent works can be undertaken quickly keeps vital public services functioning as required, in line with the safety intent of the regime.

Question 24

Are there any unique factors or risks to urgent building work in hospitals within scope of the HRB regime which we have not considered here? 

Question 25

Do you think that urgent or essential works in hospitals within scope of the HRB regime should be included in a new critical works route? 

Question 26

If your answer to the previous question is yes, what types of works should be in scope? Please provide evidence where possible.

Question 27

If essential works to hospitals within scope of the HRB regime were to be included in our proposals, are there any risks we have not considered here?

Guidance and other products

Stakeholder feedback has highlighted that more clarity is needed on the scope of the emergency repairs provision, as this will aid building managers and industry in determining where work requires BSR approval prior to commencement or whether use of the emergency route and regularisation is appropriate. 

Existing guidance on the application of the emergency repairs provision can be found at: Building control approval for higher-risk buildings

Stakeholder feedback has also requested more clarity on the definition of building work, as this will aid building managers and industry in determining where work requires BSR approval and oversight and where work does not constitute building work and therefore does not require BSR approval and oversight. The legal definition of building work is set out in regulation 3 of the Building Regulations 2010.

Existing guidance on what may constitute building work can be found at: Building work, replacements and repairs to your home. 

Question 28

Would further guidance on the interpretation and use of the emergency repairs provision be beneficial?

Question 29

If yes, what further information would you like to see that is not captured in existing guidance?

Question 30

Would further guidance on the interpretation and definition of building work be beneficial?

Question 31

If yes, what further information would you like to see that is not captured in existing guidance?

Competent Person Schemes

Use of the emergency repairs route could be reduced by the introduction of a new Competent Person Schemes for works that are commonly undertaken urgently or commonly use the emergency repairs route and not covered under existing schemes, although this would require an assessment of risks involved in the work and their suitability to be part of a CPS.

The main function of government authorised competent person scheme operators is to ensure building regulations and building control compliance. Building control authorities are authorised to accept certificates of compliance issued by members of CPS operators as meeting the requirements of the regulations. 

The relevant building control authority is authorised to accept the work of registered persons as evidence that the requirements of regulations 4 and 7 of the Building Regulations 2010 (requirements relating to building work, materials and workmanship) have been satisfied. The objective of a CPS is to make the building control process for building work that is self-certifiable, whilst ensuring that the work fully complies with the relevant functional requirements of building regulations. These schemes largely cover the replacement of controlled fittings (e.g. a door or window) or controlled services (e.g. a boiler) in dwellings and non-dwellings.  

There may be some types of work appropriate for self-certification, that are commonly urgent works used to mitigate risks in an emergency, that may be appropriate to be considered for a competent person scheme. Introduction of a CPS for these works would remove the need for either an emergency work notification, regularisation certificate or Gateway two application to be submitted to the BSR.

The competent person self-certifies that the building work they have done complies with the Building Regulations. They report the work, when completed, to the CPS operator who in turn notifies the local authority that work has taken place and the installer also issues a compliance certificate to the consumer. 

Question 32

What types of self-certifiable emergency or critical works would be better facilitated by the introduction of a Competent Person Scheme for that work?

Question 33

Why would a Competent Person Scheme be more appropriate for the types of works noted in your previous answer?

Question 34

Are there any risks to introducing a Competent Person Scheme for these works?

Full list of questions

In the cases where the question asks for ‘comments’, we would ask you please to provide any additional views on the subject of the question, further explanations to your answers and if possible, any examples and evidence to support your answers.

Retaining the existing provision

Question 1

Do you think the current emergency repairs provision is proportionate

• strongly agree
• agree
• neither agree nor disagree
• disagree
• strongly disagree
• don’t know

Please explain your answer (optional).

Question 2

Do you think the current scope of the provision, as explained in the background section of the document, provides a proportionate route to address genuine emergencies without undermining standards?

• strongly agree
• agree
• neither agree nor disagree
• disagree
• strongly disagree
• don’t know

Please explain your answer (optional).

Question 3

Are there any aspects of the provision that are difficult to interpret or apply? If so, which?

Question 4

Do you think that the current provision enables timely action to address risk in HRBs urgently?

• strongly agree
• agree
• neither agree nor disagree
• disagree
• strongly disagree
• don’t know

Please explain your answer (optional).

Question 5

If the answer to the previous question is no, please can you provide examples of where the provision has not enabled timely action to resolve risk in HRBs urgently?

Amending the provision to include emergency works

Question 6

Do you think the current emergency repairs provision should be expanded to include replacements, enhancements or improvements of an individual building element?

• strongly agree
• agree
• neither agree nor disagree
• disagree
• strongly disagree
• don’t know

Please explain your answer (optional).

Question 7

Can you share any examples of emergency works that are not simply repairs, but would instead be classed as replacements or enhancements/improvements?

Question 8

Are there any risks to expanding the scope of the provision to include replacements, enhancements or improvements that we have not considered here?

Question 9

Do you think expanding the scope of the provision would encourage misuse of the route?

• strongly agree
• agree
• neither agree nor disagree
• disagree
• strongly disagree
• don’t know

Please explain your answer (optional).

Introducing a critical works provision

Question 10

Do you think an additional route for critical works is needed alongside the emergency repairs route?

• strongly agree
• agree
• neither agree nor disagree
• disagree
• strongly disagree
• don’t know

Please explain your answer (optional).

Question 11

What types of work would you consider to be critical works?

Question 12

Are there any risks to creating a route for critical works that we have not considered here?

Question 13

Do you think creating a new critical works route would encourage misuse of the route?

• strongly agree
• agree
• neither agree nor disagree
• disagree
• strongly disagree
• don’t know

Please explain your answer (optional).

Question 14

Do you think that major, complex, large-scale or long-term works should be excluded from the proposals in this document?

Question 15

If the answer to question 14 is yes, please describe the types of works that you think should not be within scope of our proposals.

Question 16

If the answer to question 14 is no, why should these works be included in the scope of our proposals?

Question 17

If major, complex, large-scale or long-term works were to be included in the scope of the proposals, what would the risks be? Please include evidence where possible.

Question 18

Would there be a benefit to residents or building users of including these works in the scope of the proposals?

• strongly agree
• agree
• neither agree nor disagree
• disagree
• strongly disagree
• don’t know

Please explain your answer (optional).

Vulnerability and disability

Question 19

If the answer to the previous question is yes, what are the benefits? Please include evidence where possible.

Question 20

What types of urgent works should be in scope of the proposals to ensure the safety of vulnerable or disabled residents and building users?

Question 21

Are there any risks to vulnerable or disabled residents and building users of expanding the scope as set out in our proposals that we should consider that have not already been considered in this document?

Public interest

Question 22

Are there certain types of urgent building work, which do not meet the current definition of emergency repairs, that would be in the interest of the public to be included in our proposals?

Question 23

What factors should we consider when determining what urgent works are in the public interest?

Question 24

Are there any unique factors or risks to urgent building work in hospitals within scope of the HRB regime which we have not considered here? 

Question 25

Do you think that urgent or essential works in hospitals within scope of the HRB regime should be included in a new critical works route? 

Question 26

If your answer to the previous question is yes, what types of works should be in scope? Please provide evidence where possible.

Question 27

If essential works to hospitals within scope of the HRB regime were to be included in our proposals, are there any risks we have not considered here?

Guidance and other products

Question 28

Would further guidance on the interpretation and use of the emergency repairs provision be beneficial?

Question 29

If yes, what further information would you like to see that is not captured in existing guidance?

Question 30

Would further guidance on the interpretation and definition of building work be beneficial?

Question 31

If yes, what further information would you like to see that is not captured in existing guidance?

Competent Person Scheme

Question 32

What types of self-certifiable emergency or critical works would be better facilitated by the introduction of a Competent Person Scheme for that work?

Question 33

Why would a Competent Person Scheme be more appropriate for the types of works noted in your previous answer?

Question 34

Are there any risks to introducing a Competent Person Scheme for these works?

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 the Data Protection Act 2018 and other Data Protection Legislation. 

Note that this section only refers to your personal data (your name address and anything that could be used to identify you personally) not the content of your response to engagement on this white paper. 

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

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (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 (if needed) 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 via Citizen Space. We may use this to ensure that each person only completes a survey once. We will not use this data for any other purpose. 

The personal information we are requesting as part of this consultation includes: 

• your name 

• your email 

• your regional location 

• your position (if applicable) 

• the name of organisation (if applicable) 

• the size of your organisation, for example, a Small or Medium Enterprise (SME) or larger business (if applicable) 

• what your organisation is, for example, a manufacturer, trading body, local authority (if applicable) 

3. Sensitive types of personal data 

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

• 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. 

4. 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 engagement on a consultation. 

5. 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. 

MHCLG will take reasonable and proportionate steps to remove personal data from the consultation responses before using an Artificial Intelligence (AI) tool. The AI tool processes data securely and does not copy or share data. The data will only be accessed and used by those authorised to do so. 

The AI tool identifies themes present in the responses. The draft themes are reviewed and agreed by a policy team before the tool then maps responses to the themes to be used by policy teams to analyse the consultation. MHCLG will take steps to check for accuracy and identify and reduce bias. 

We may also share your full anonymised responses with other government departments to support the delivery of inter-government business. See below the list of government departments we may share your full responses with: 

• Number 10 

• Cabinet Office 

• BSR 

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

Your personal data will be held for two years from the end of engagement on this consultation, unless we identify that its continued retention is unnecessary before that point. 

7. Your rights, e.g. access, rectification, erasure 

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’s Office (ICO) if you think we are not handling your data fairly or in accordance with the law. You can contact 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: dataprotection@communities.gov.uk 

Or by writing to the following address: 

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

8. Your personal data will not be sent overseas 

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

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

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