Open consultation

Improving proportionality and safety outcomes in building control: telecommunications work

Published 27 January 2026

Targeted regulatory dispensations in the higher-risk building control regime and the wider building control system.

Summary

This consultation seeks views on proposals to streamline the building control procedural requirements for the following types of building work within the higher-risk building regime: fibre optic cabling and mobile masts.

In the case of building work to fibre optic infrastructure, the consultation also seeks views on building control approval routes for non-higher-risk buildings.

These proposals aim to ensure that regulatory processes remain proportionate, effective, and focused on maintaining building safety.

Specifically, the consultation considers proposals to dispense with procedural requirements of building regulations for the following types of building work to existing buildings: building work related to the drilling of holes through internal fire-resisting walls for fibre optic cabling and work related to the installation and repair of mobile communications masts.

For these activities, the current building control procedural requirements may be unreasonable and disproportionate and can direct regulatory resources away from the types of building work that carry higher risk, such as new builds and remediation projects.

The proposed changes would streamline procedural steps at building control approval, construction or completion certificate stage for these defined works, while retaining safeguards where they matter most. For all the proposed changes, dutyholders, defined as individuals or organisations that are assigned specific responsibilities at particular phases of the building life cycle, would still be required to ensure that building work complies with technical/functional requirements of the Building Regulations 2010.

The consultation invites evidence and views on these proposals, with detailed reasoning provided in the referenced sections.

Body responsible for the consultation

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

Duration

This consultation will last from 27 January to 24 March 2026. 

How to respond

Respond to the consultation by completing the online survey.

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

If replying by email or post, it would be useful if you could confirm whether you are replying as an individual or submitting an official response on behalf of an organisation and include:

• your name
• your position (if applicable)
• the name of organisation (if applicable)
• an address (including post-code)
• an email address 
• a contact telephone number

If you have any questions about completing the survey, please contact us at buildingregulationsconsultation@communities.gov.uk.

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 in October 2023 to significantly improve the regulatory oversight of higher-risk buildings - buildings containing at least 2 residential units, care homes and hospitals which meet the 18 metre or seven storey height threshold.

The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) was established at this time to become the sole building control authority for all higher-risk building work in England, responsible for overseeing compliance with building regulation requirements for higher-risk buildings.

For those wishing to undertake building work outside the scope of the higher-risk regime, applicants may choose between their local authority or a private sector registered building control approver for the provision of building control for their project. These routes are established in the Building Act 1984, the Building Regulations 2010, and the Building (Registered Building Control Approver etc.) (England) Regulations 2024. An applicant’s building control provider will be able to provide guidance on the process.

The introduction of the higher-risk building control regime, through the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (England) Regulations 2023, changed the level of procedural oversight in place for higher-risk buildings to assess whether building work complies with the functional and dutyholder requirements of the Building Regulations 2010.

It is important to note that the Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (England) Regulations 2023 did not change either the definition of building work, or the functional requirements that building work must comply with. For both higher-risk buildings and non-higher-risk buildings, the definition of building work follows the definition set out in regulation 3 of the Building Regulations 2010 and the functional requirements that building work must comply with are as described in Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 2010.

The new higher-risk regime fundamentally reformed the building control process for higher-risk buildings through the following changes:

• all building work on projects involving higher-risk buildings must receive approval from the BSR before the work can start unless the work is ‘exempt’, carried out under a Competent Person Scheme or an emergency repair as defined under regulation 10 of the Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (England) Regulations 2023.
• there are several stop/go decision points at key stages of design and construction to ensure compliance with the requirements of building regulations. The first of these is at gateway Two which 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. Dutyholders must also maintain a ‘golden thread’ of information during the construction phase, an accessible digital record that includes key building information and how building work complies with building regulation requirements.
• 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.
• applicants must provide information and required documents in these gateway applications to the BSR to robustly demonstrate how the proposed work will comply or has complied with all building regulation requirements.

These changes are supported by stronger enforcement and sanctions that have been introduced for all building work to deter and rectify non-compliance with building regulation requirements. This follows the recommendations made in Dame Judith Hackitt’s report Building a Safer Future Report, and aim to improve the focus on compliance and to ensure residents of higher-risk buildings are, and feel, safe in their homes.

When developing the Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (England) Regulations 2023, the previous government worked closely with industry and local regulators to ensure that the reforms significantly improved the oversight of higher-risk buildings in a manner that was viewed as being proportionate and would not impact on the viability of projects.

These changes are outlined in more detail online.

Implementation of the regime since October 2023

Since the introduction of the higher-risk regime and the establishment of the BSR, we have started moving towards a better culture of building safety and compliance.

However, the operation of the regime has resulted in some unintended consequences, notably the legal requirements applicants must adhere to including obtaining BSR approval for routine yet essential types of building work in existing higher-risk buildings - specifically building work related to the drilling of holes through internal fire-resisting walls for fibre optic cabling and work related to the installation and repair of mobile communications masts. In the case of the installation of fibre optic cabling, following considerable industry feedback, we are also aware that the procedural requirements in buildings which fall outside of the higher risk regime may be unreasonable and disproportionate to the level of risk posed by the work. However we have received no evidence to suggest the building control procedures for mobile masts in buildings which fall outside of the higher risk regime are unreasonable or disproportionate for these types of work.

The challenges faced by applicants carrying out these types of work risk undermining the viability, and delaying the delivery, of these essential works. As a result, our initial view is that the application requirements currently set in law may be unreasonable and disproportionate for certain types of works.

Consequently, action is urgently needed to ensure that building control processes remain reasonable and proportionate for these routine types of work while continuing to uphold essential safety standards.

As announced on 30 June 2025, the government is committed to ensuring that we have:

a regulatory system that is not only robust, but also clear, consistent, and easy to navigate. Regulatory certainty and efficiency are essential to unlocking the investment needed to build the homes this country urgently needs.

Considering the challenges faced by applicants, we are proposing some regulatory dispensations, as referred to later in this document, to make the procedural requirements of building control reasonable and proportionate to the risk and nature of the work, in existing buildings only. Dispensations must not compromise on the safety and performance standards that the work must meet.

By doing so, we aim to:

• ensure routine and critical work is delivered in an efficient and proportionate manner that upholds compliance without unnecessary delay and cost
• free up regulatory capacity to concentrate on the type of work that require the most oversight, such as remediation projects and new builds

Reviewing the proportionality of the regulatory system

This consultation will focus on government’s view that the existing procedural requirements of the building control process set in law for the following types of routine building work to existing buildings are unreasonable and disproportionate for applicants and building control bodies, and do not achieve our aim for a safe, efficient and proportionate system:

• work related to the drilling of holes through internal fire-resisting walls for fibre optic cabling
• work related to the installation and repair of mobile communications masts

We are only considering proposals to dispense with the procedural requirements of building regulations, as we have only received evidence to suggest that it is these requirements that are potentially unreasonable and disproportionate for the types of work in question.

In terms of this consultation, procedural requirements refer to the building control procedures, and not the functional/technical requirements contained with Schedule 1 (Parts A to T) the Building Regulations 2010 that the work must comply with.

For higher-risk buildings, the procedural requirements of building control are set out in the Building Act 1984, the Building Safety Act 2022, the Buildings Regulations 2010 and the Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (England) Regulations 2023; while for non-higher-risk buildings, they are set out in the Building Act 1984, the Building Regulations 2010, and the Building (Registered Building Control Approver etc.) (England) Regulations 2024.

The government has identified that these 2 types of work require a change in the regulatory approach for the following reasons:

Nature of the work

These activities are standardised, and occur at significantly high volumes which makes the comprehensive procedural requirements of building control a potentially unreasonable and disproportionate burden for applicants and building control bodies.

Industry feedback and feasibility

Evidence from case studies and industry feedback shows that current procedural requirements make undertaking these works financially and operationally challenging, reducing the feasibility of timely delivery.

Capacity strain on regulators

High-volume applications combined with comprehensive procedural requirements place significant strain on building control resources. This diverts capacity away from the highest-risk activities, such as remediation projects, and may slow down essential work.

Impact on safety and well-being

Across all buildings, ensuring these types of works are carried out safely are critical for maintaining the safety of buildings. Delays may increase risks to safety and well-being of building users and residents.

Alignment with strategic objectives

These works are essential to achieving wider government aims, such as delivering digital infrastructure rollout. The current challenges undermine these priorities.

While there is a clear rationale to improve the proportionality of the current system, this cannot come at the cost of comprising on safety and performance standards of the works in question. This is why the proposals in this consultation only consider dispensing with building control procedural requirements in a way that is appropriate to the level of risk posed by each type of work.

For all proposals, work must still comply with the functional requirements and dutyholder requirements of the Building Regulations 2010 which are there to ensure the safety and performance of the completed work.

Moreover, in the case of work to existing higher-risk buildings, the proposals will still be subject to the requirements under Part 4 of the Building Safety Act 2022, which establishes ongoing duties on Accountable Persons to assess and manage building safety risks (structural failure and the spread of fire) in occupied higher-risk buildings. This acts as a further safeguard to ensure that when work is carried out in a higher-risk building, that it is done so in a safe and compliant manner.

We acknowledge that there are other types of building work that are facing similar challenges regarding the proportionality of the regime. Delays to other types of works, for example to fire doors, may risk compromising the safety and well-being of building users in higher-risk buildings. This is not acceptable. As a result, our initial view is that the current application requirements as set in law may be unreasonable and disproportionate for certain types of works. The government remains committed to keeping this aspect under review in the near future. Whilst this consultation is only seeking views on drilling holes through internal walls for cabling and building work to mobile communication masts, we are seeking views as to whether the proposals should be extended to equivalent building work.

These proposed changes for the listed types of work form part of a wider package of reforms that the department and BSR are considering to improve the implementation and proportionality of the higher-risk regime - to streamline the delivery of safety and performance outcomes in higher-risk buildings.

MHCLG and BSR accept that the current delays in the system are unintended and need to be addressed. MHCLG and BSR have therefore taken significant action to address the current challenges, which is having a positive impact on the system, and any changes resulting from these consultation proposals would further that impact.

These recent changes include:

• in June, MHCLG announced a new phase for the BSR, including strengthened leadership, steps to address operational challenges, and plans for a new body for the BSR. A new interim leadership team is now in place and are driving operational improvements including enhanced operating models.
• we expect the new Innovation Unit model to deliver significantly reduced processing times for all new build applications submitted after 4 August, with significant progress made unblocking majority of cases under the previous model expected to be unblocked by year end.
• a new ‘batching’ model is also operational for remediation cases, reducing delays by consolidating multi-disciplinary teams into a single organisation.
• BSR now publishes monthly performance data to support transparency and accountability.
• work is underway to establish a new body that will be sponsored by, and have reporting obligations to, MHCLG and to transfer the BSR’s functions from the Health and Safety Executive to that body. We will work closely with the BSR to ensure a smooth transition.

Pre-consultation engagement 

In considering the proportionality of the building control system, we have engaged with industry representatives and building safety experts, including within the BSR, with whom we worked collaboratively on these proposals.

We have also engaged with building and fire experts to better understand the current regulatory system and the likely impact of the proposed changes in this consultation. However, we still welcome further views from these stakeholders in this consultation.

Discussion with experts has indicated support to make the regulatory system more reasonable and proportionate for works covered by these proposals. These stakeholders felt that a clear scope should be set as to what types of work could be considered for more proportionate requirements, and also raised the need for clear conditions that should be imposed on the work, such as how quickly firestopping should be reinstated and around the competence of individuals undertaking the work.

This consultation will allow us to collect a broader range of views and evidence.

Proposals

Government is proposing to dispense with procedural requirements of building regulations in a way that reduces unnecessary burdens while maintaining core safety and quality standards. This could be done through section 11 of the Building Act 1984 which grants the Secretary of State the power to issue a type relaxation/dispensation direction dispensing with or relaxing a requirement of building regulations if they consider that the operation of that requirement would be unreasonable in relation to a particular type of building matter (with “building matter” meaning any building or other matter whatsoever to which building regulations are in any circumstances applicable).

Under the powers of Section 11 of the Building Act 1984, the type relaxation/dispensation direction that is given by the Secretary of State can be subject to conditions which are directly connected with the relaxation or dispensation. If directions are given, we are proposing that they should be subject to conditions relating to the safety and quality of the completed work, ensuring that the work has appropriate management arrangements in place, and that it is carried out by a competent individual. Any breach of conditions would be subject to prosecution and fines, as set out in section ‘3.4 Enforcement’ of this document.

Drilling of holes for fibre-optic cabling through fire-resisting internal walls in existing buildings

The provision of reliable fibre-optic broadband for building users and residents forms a key part of the UK’s infrastructure strategy (UK Infrastructure: A 10 Year Strategy), which will improve the digital connectivity of England, supporting individuals to participate in society as well as contributing to economic growth.

The drilling of small holes to install fibre-optic cabling through fire-resisting internal walls may constitute building work, however this needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Where this work does constitute building work, it is likely to do so on the basis that it is a material alteration to the building within the terms of regulation 3(1)(c) and regulation 3(2) of the Building Regulations 2010.

We are proposing limiting the scope of this proposal to the drilling of holes for the purpose of installing fibre-optic cabling only through internal fire-resisting walls in both existing higher-risk buildings and existing non-higher- risk buildings. We have considered that this scope of work is appropriate for a dispensation for several key reasons:

• this type of work is small-scale and carried out in high volumes across the sector, meaning that the existing procedural requirements of building control, for both higher-risk or non-higher-risk buildings, represent a potentially unreasonable and disproportionate and impractical burden for internet service provision providers, and risks undermining the viability and feasibility of delivering this work.

• through initial engagement with the Building Safety Regulator and technical experts from across industry, our initial view is that because this work is low-complexity and routine, it represents a lower risk to consider dispensing with the procedural requirements of the building control process.

We are not considering including within the scope of this dispensation building work related to the drilling of holes through external walls of an existing building, for example when the building is connected to the main fibre network. We have received no evidence to suggest that the existing building control procedural requirements are unreasonable and disproportionate in relation to this work. However, we would welcome views and evidence on the scope of work that we are proposing to include in any dispensation direction.

We acknowledge the risks that drilling through internal fire-resisting walls can create in breaching the integrity of fire compartmentalisation, which risks increased spread of fire and smoke inside a building. As this work is routine, standardised, and is carried by those with expertise, our view is that the current procedural requirements are unreasonable and disproportionate and can be dispensed with, but we would wish to ensure that there are appropriate safeguards in place, particularly regarding the competence of installers and the quality of the fire-stopping following installation. This could be addressed by imposing suitable conditions on any direction given by the Secretary of State to dispense with the procedural requirements. As such, we are considering the following proposals that would apply to higher-risk and non-higher-risk buildings respectively:

Proposal for existing buildings within scope of the higher-risk regime (fibre optic cables)

For the drilling of holes through internal fire-resisting walls for the purpose of providing fibre optic provision, e.g. to individual flats within higher-risk buildings, we propose dispensing with all the procedural requirements, in the Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (England) Regulations 2023 related to gateway two (building control approval), during construction (including site inspections and change control) and at gateway three (completion stage). This would mean that the work would be able to be carried out without needing to make any applications to or receive any approval from the BSR.

However, as a condition to be imposed alongside this proposed dispensation, we are considering requiring a written notification to be sent to the BSR once work is completed. This notification on completion of the work would be for record-keeping to enable future audit of work to ensure that industry and contractors are still complying with the technical/ functional requirements of the building regulations and any conditions imposed on the relevant type relaxation/dispensation direction. We are consulting on what information should be included in any such notifications, as well as how frequently and how any such notifications should be submitted to the BSR.

Additionally for work specifically in higher-risk buildings, we are also considering maintaining the existing procedural requirement that the person undertaking the work should hand over part of the golden thread of information to the accountable person of the occupied higher-risk building. As under the proposed dispensation there would be no completion certificate application in relation to the work, we are only considering maintaining the existing requirement for the client to hand over an accessible digital record setting out the key information relating to how the work complies with parts B (Fire Safety), F (Ventilation), L (Conservation of Fuel and Power) and O (Overheating) of Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 2010. While this would mean that the client would not need to include information relating to other parts of the Schedule 1 (for example Part A - Structure), the handover of this information would provide a crucial record that the accountable person and residents of a building can assure themselves that the completed work complies with relevant safety and performance requirements.

Proposals for existing buildings outside the scope of higher-risk regime (fibre optic cables)

For existing buildings outside the scope of the higher-risk regime, we propose dispensing with all the procedural requirements, in the Building Regulations 2010, related to giving a building control notice or an application for building control approval with full plans to the relevant building control body. This would mean that the work would be able to be carried out without needing to make an application or to submit any notices to the relevant building control authority.

We are considering introducing a condition to require a notification at completion of works to be sent to the relevant building control authority for the purpose of maintaining an audit trail of the work. As above, we are consulting on what information would be included in this notice, how frequently it should be provided and how it should be submitted to the relevant local authority.

As the requirements of handover of golden thread information to an accountable person do not apply to buildings outside the scope of the higher-risk regime, we are not considering imposing this as a requirement in relation to work to non-higher-risk buildings.

For both of the above proposals, we are also proposing to apply conditions as part of the dispensations that could include: the maximum diameter of the hole drilled, correct fire-stopping procedures, product safety standards being followed, a hole being drilled for one cable only, setting a time limit between the start and completion of the work, and a requirement for the person undertaking the work to hold a relevant qualification. Our initial view is that responsibility for ensuring conditions are met should sit with the Principal Contractor. Any breach of conditions would be subject to prosecution and fines, as set out in section ‘3.4 Enforcement’ of this document.

In this consultation we are seeking further evidence and assurance that fire protective measures would be maintained for this work. While work to make safe any holes drilled through walls is generally standardised, evidence received to date indicates some variation in quality and workmanship. To proceed with these proposals to dispense with procedural requirements of building control for this type of work, there must be assurance that compliance and protective measures will be maintained.

Building work to mobile communication masts

Building work related to mobile communication masts is critical to mobile connectivity, with particularly critical works needed to improve 999 coverage across England. The rollout of mobile service is a government objective which will improve telecommunications connectivity in England, supporting individuals to participate in society as well as contributing to economic growth.

Work related to the installation and repair of mobile masts may constitute building work typically due to their load-bearing impact on the building’s structure. If this does constitute building work, it is likely to do so on the basis that it is a material alteration to the building within the terms of regulation 3(1)(c) and regulation 3(2) of the Building Regulations 2010.

We are proposing limiting the scope of this proposal to building work related to the installation and repair of mobile communication masts in only existing higher-risk buildings. We have considered that this scope of work is appropriate for a dispensation for several key reasons:

This type of work is carried out in high volumes across higher-risk buildings yet it can be subject to the most stringent procedural requirements of the higher-risk building control process. Some of these requirements are potentially unreasonable and disproportionate to the risk posed by the work, and risks impacting the delivery of this essential work.

Through initial engagement with the BSR and technical experts from across industry, our initial view is that because this work is routine and relatively low-risk it is appropriate to consider dispensing with some of the more stringent procedural requirements of the higher-risk building control process, while maintaining oversight where it is most needed.

We are not considering in this proposal for buildings outside the scope of the higher-risk regime, as we have received no evidence to suggest that the existing building control procedural requirements are unreasonable and disproportionate in relation to this work. However, we would welcome views and evidence on the scope of the work that we are proposing to include in any dispensation direction.

While routine and lower risk, we are aware that work related to the installation and repair of mobile communications masts may affect fire compartmentation and the load bearing capacity of the structure of higher-risk buildings if installed incorrectly. Consequently, following engagement with industry technical experts and the BSR, our initial view is that some of the procedural requirements that apply when the work is complete should be retained to ensure that the work complies with the functional requirements of the building regulations. As such, we are considering the following proposal for higher-risk buildings only:

Proposal for existing buildings within scope of the higher-risk regime (building work to mobile communication masts)

For building work related to the installation and repair of mobile communication masts on existing higher-risk buildings, we propose dispensing with all the procedural requirements, in the Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (England) Regulations 2023 related to gateway two (building control approval) and during construction (site inspections and change control), and then dispensing with some requirements at gateway three (completion stage), while maintaining essential plans checks, inspection and BSR approval at this gateway to ensure that the work is compliant with building regulations. This would mean that work could start without the need for an application or receipt of prior approval from the BSR, but when completed a completion certificate must be applied for and obtained from the BSR for the work.

We are also considering maintaining the existing procedural requirement that the person undertaking the work should hand over the specified golden thread information to the accountable person of the occupied higher-risk building, though acknowledging that this would not include any of the gateway two or three documentation that may be removed as a result of the dispensation, so that the accountable person has a record of the work undertaken and is able to confirm with the relevant contractor that work is compliant. We are considering maintaining the requirement for the client to hand over an accessible digital record setting out the key information for how the work complies with parts B, F, L and O of Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 2010.

Alongside these dispensations, we are proposing that any type relaxation/dispensation direction for building work related to mobile communications masts would be subject to conditions related to the safety and quality of the work. We are considering imposing conditions to set a time limit between the start and completion of the work, the product safety standards to be followed and requirements for the person carrying out the work to hold a relevant qualification. Our initial view is that responsibility for ensuring conditions are met should sit with the Principal Contractor. Any breach of conditions would be subject to prosecution and fines, as set out in section ‘3.4 Enforcement’ of this document.

To proceed with these proposals there must be assurance from relevant industry sectors that compliance and protective measures will be maintained.

Enforcement

In the case of all the proposed dispensations listed above, the requirements of the building regulations that are not dispensed with or relaxed will still apply to each of these types of building work. Consequently, the works will still be subject to the usual enforcement routes that apply to enforce compliance with those remaining requirements.

Work will only be considered compliant if the functional and dutyholder requirements of the Building Regulations 2010 are met, as well as any conditions specified in a direction. A person who contravenes a condition specified in a direction, or permits such a condition to be contravened, is liable on summary conviction to a fine and to a further fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale (currently £200) for each day on which the offence continues after they are convicted.

In addition, the proposed dispensations will only apply to specific building work, as defined in the direction (i.e. the scope of the direction). Anyone seeking to rely on a dispensation or relaxation of requirements given in a direction would need to ensure that the proposed work falls entirely within the scope of the direction.

Competent Persons Scheme

In addition to the proposals already listed, we are also considering whether competent person schemes (CPS) could be established for the types of work considered in this consultation.

Established in 2002, the main function of government authorised competent person scheme operators is to ensure building regulations compliance. 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 low risk, 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.

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 issues a compliance certificate to the consumer.

Building control authorities are authorised to accept certificates of compliance issued by members of CPS operators as meeting the requirements of the regulations.

Because of the routine and relatively low-complexity of building work related to the drilling of holes for fibre optic cables and work to mobile communication masts we are considering whether they would each be appropriate for the introduction of a competent person scheme.

However, as there are long lead-in times associated with the creation of new CPS schemes, and extensive evidence would need to be gathered to ensure that any newly created schemes would have robust safeguards to ensure safety and compliance, we are only seeking views and evidence to inform a future approach at this stage.

Consultation questions

In the cases where the question asks for ‘comments,’ we would ask you to 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.

Drilling holes for fibre optic cabling

Question 1

Do you think that the current procedural requirements of building control are reasonable for the drilling of holes through fire-resisting internal walls for fibre-optic cabling? In particular, we would welcome views on whether current procedures ensure that work complies with building regulation requirements while allowing the work to be carried out in reasonable timeframe and for a reasonable cost.

a) For buildings within scope of the higher-risk regime:

Reasonable, Unreasonable, don’t know

Comments:

b) For buildings outside the scope of the higher-risk regime:

Reasonable, Unreasonable, don’t know

Comments:

Question 2

Do you think that this work is currently carried out in compliance with the safety requirements of building regulations by installers?

a) For buildings within scope of the higher-risk regime:

Yes, No, Don’t know

Comments:

b) For buildings outside the scope of the higher-risk regime:

Yes, No, Don’t Know

Comments:

Question 3

What are the risks for residents/ building users if this work is not carried out in compliance with the requirements of building regulations?

Comments:

Question 4

What are the risks for residents/building users if this work is not carried out in reasonable timeframes or for a reasonable cost?

Comments:

Question 5

If you are an industry member undertaking this work, how do you record and ensure your compliance with building regulations requirements?

Comments:

Question 6

If you are an industry member, how do you regularly assess the competence and capability of those undertaking this type of work on behalf of your organisation?

Comments:

Question 7

If you are an industry member, how do you regularly quality assure the work undertaken by your organisation?

Comments:

Question 8

Do you think that industry has the appropriate competence and organisational capability to undertake this work with the reduced building control oversight proposed in the dispensation? Could you please provide views and evidence in the comments to support your answer.

Yes, No, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 9

Do you foresee any risk to the safety and performance of buildings, and by extension the safety of residents, that could arise from our proposal to dispense with the procedural requirements of building regulations for the drilling of holes for fibre-optic cabling?

a) For buildings within scope of the higher-risk regime:

b) For building outside the scope of the higher-risk regime:

Question 10

Do you think that it is reasonable to dispense with some of the building control procedural requirements for the drilling of holes for fibre-optic cabling? If you do not agree, please provide views and evidence in the comments section as to why the proposal is not reasonable.

a) For buildings within scope of the higher-risk regime:

Agree, Disagree, Don’t know

Comments:

b) For buildings outside the scope of the higher-risk regime:

Agree, Disagree, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 11

Do you agree with our suggested proposal to dispense with all building control procedural requirements for the drilling of holes for fibre-optic cabling for higher-risk and non-higher-risk buildings? If you do not agree, please could you provide views and evidence in the comments section as to why the proposal is not reasonable.

We would also welcome alternative suggestions for what a reasonable and proportionate approach could look like, in terms of dispensing with building control procedural oversight for the work, while maintaining safety and performance standards.

a) For buildings within scope of the higher-risk regime:

Agree, Disagree, Don’t know

Comments:

b) For buildings outside the scope of the higher-risk regime:

Agree, Disagree, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 12

Do you agree with our suggested scope of building work that would be covered by the dispensation? If you do not agree, please could you provide views and evidence in the comments section as to why the scope is not reasonable.

a) For buildings within scope of the higher-risk regime:

Agree, Disagree, Don’t know

Comments:

b) For building outside the scope of the higher-risk regime:

Agree, Disagree, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 13

In terms of conditions set for this proposal, should the dispensation be restricted to a certain size of hole drilled for installation of fibre optic cabling? What should this be?

Yes, No, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 14

In terms of conditions set for this proposal, should the dispensation be restricted to certain number of holes that can be drilled in a fire-resisting internal wall? What should this be?

Yes, No, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 15

In terms of conditions set for this proposal, should the dispensation be restricted to certain number of cables that can be fed through one drilled hole? Please indicate in the comments how many this should this be.

Yes, No, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 16

Should the scope of the dispensation be applied to other forms of building work, where work requires the drilling of holes for other types of cabling? We would welcome views on: other types of work that would be reasonable to include in the dispensation, how they differ or compare to the installation of fibre optic cabling, and why the current procedural requirements of building regulations are unreasonable and disproportionate for these types of work.

Yes, No, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 17

Do you agree with our proposal to impose a condition requiring the work to be notified to the building control body on completion? If you agree, what level of detail do you think is appropriate to provide? If you disagree, please could provide evidence as to why this would not be reasonable. We would also welcome any views and evidence on the associated time and costs of requiring this notification when work is completed.

a) For buildings within scope of the higher-risk regime:

Agree, Disagree, Don’t know

Comments:

b) For buildings outside the scope of the higher-risk regime:

Agree, Disagree, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 18

How should any notifications be submitted to the relevant building control authority?

Comments:

Question 19

Would the submission of a bulk notification for all work undertaken by a contractor once in each 6-month period be proportionate? What potential risks could this create? We would also welcome views as to whether an alternative period other than 6-months would be more appropriate, and why that would be the case.

Proportionate, Disproportionate, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 20

In the case of higher-risk buildings, do you agree with our proposal that on completion of works, the person undertaking the work should continue to handover some ‘golden thread’ information, specifically BFLO information, to the accountable person for the occupied higher-risk building? If you disagree, please could provide evidence as to why this would not be proportionate? We would also welcome any views and evidence on the associated time and costs of producing/collating this information when work is completed.

Agree, Disagree, Don’t Know

Comments:

Question 21

Do you think that it is proportionate to apply additional conditions (e.g. ensuring that the work meets relevant product safety standards, the work is time-limited and the person carrying out the work has appropriate skills or qualifications) to this proposal?

Proportionate, Disproportionate, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 22

Is it reasonable to impose conditions related to the competence or qualifications of the person(s) undertaking the work? We would welcome suggestions of what level of competence, accreditation or qualifications the person carrying out the work should possess. If you disagree, please specify why you think this is unreasonable.

Yes, No, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 23

Is it reasonable to impose conditions related to product safety standards (e.g. the product used for firestopping holes)? We would welcome suggestions in the comments on what product safety standards should be required. If you disagree, please specify why you think this is unreasonable.

Yes, No, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 24

Is it reasonable to impose as a condition a time limit between the work being started and completed, in the interests of managing building safety risk? If you agree, could you please suggest in the comments what a reasonable time limit would be. If you disagree, please could you provide views and evidence to why it would be unreasonable.

Yes, No, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 25

Do you have any views on additional or alternative conditions that should be considered for this proposal? Any conditions imposed need to be directly connected to the proposed dispensation.

Comments:

Question 26

In terms of conditions set for this proposal, where should responsibility sit for ensuring these are met? Our initial view is that responsibility for ensuring conditions are met should sit with the Principal Contractor

Comments:

Building work to mobile masts

Question 27

Do you think that the current procedural requirements of building control are reasonable for building work related to the installation and repair of mobile communication masts? In particular, we would welcome views on whether current procedures ensure that work complies with buildings regulation requirements while allowing the work to be carried out in reasonable timeframe and for a reasonable cost.

a) For buildings within scope of the higher-risk regime:

Reasonable, Unreasonable, don’t know

Comments:

b) For building outside the scope of the higher-risk regime:

Reasonable, Unreasonable, don’t know

Comments:

Question 28

Do you think that this work is currently carried out in compliance with the safety requirements of building regulations by installers?

a) For buildings within scope of the higher-risk regime:

Yes, No, Don’t Know

Comments:

b) For building outside the scope of the higher-risk regime:

Yes, No, Don’t Know

Comments:

Question 29

What are the risks for residents/ building users if this work is not carried out in compliance with the requirements of building regulations?

Comments:

Question 30

What are the risks for residents/building users if this work is not carried out in reasonable timeframes or for a reasonable cost?

Comments:

Question 31

If you are an industry member undertaking this work, how do you record and ensure your compliance with building regulations?

Comments:

Question 32

If you are an industry member, how do you regularly assess the competence and capability of those undertaking this type of work on behalf of your organisation?

Comments:

Question 33

If you are an industry member, how do you regularly quality assure the work undertaken by your organisation?

Comments:

Question 34

Do you think that industry has the appropriate competence and organisational capability to undertake this work with the reduced building control oversight proposed in the dispensation? Could you please provide views and evidence in the comments to support your answer.

Yes, No, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 35

Do you foresee any risk to the safety and performance of buildings, and by extension the safety of residents, that could arise from our proposal to dispense with the procedural requirements of building regulations for the installation and repair of mobile masts?

Question 36

Do you think that it is reasonable to dispense with some of the building control procedural requirements for work related to mobile masts?

Yes, No, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 37

Do you agree with our suggested proposal to dispense with the procedural requirements related to gateway two and to reduce the requirements of gateway three for work to mobile masts in higher-risk buildings? If you do not agree, please could you provide views and evidence in the comments section as to why the proposal is not reasonable. We would also welcome alternative suggestions for what a reasonable and proportionate approach could look like, in terms of dispensing with building control procedural oversight for the work, while maintaining safety and performance standards.

Agree, Disagree, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 38

Do you agree with the scope of our suggested proposal? i.e. work related to the installation and repair of mobile communication masts only in higher-risk buildings)? If you do not agree, please could you provide views and evidence as to why the scope is not reasonable. We would also welcome views on whether the scope should be expanded or limited, and why?

Agree, Disagree, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 39

Should the scope of the dispensation be extended to other forms of work similar to the installation and repair of mobile masts? We would welcome views on other types of work that would be reasonable to include in the dispensation, how they differ or compare to the work to mobile masts, and why the current procedural requirements of building regulations are unreasonable for these other types of work.

Yes, No

Comments:

Question 40

Do you agree with our proposal that on completion of works, the person undertaking the work should have to handover some ‘golden thread’ information, specifically BFLO information, to the accountable person for the occupied higher-risk building? If you disagree, please could you provide evidence as to why this would not be proportionate? We would also welcome any views and evidence on the associated time and costs of producing/collating this information when work is completed.

Agree, Disagree, Don’t Know

Comments:

Question 41

Do you agree that it is proportionate to apply additional conditions (i.e., ensuring that the work meets relevant product safety standards, the work is time-limited and the person carrying out the work has appropriate qualifications) to any dispensation?

Proportionate, Disproportionate, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 42

Is it reasonable to impose conditions related to the competence or qualifications of the person(s) undertaking the work? We would welcome suggestions in the comments on what levels of competence, accreditation or qualifications the person carrying out the work should possess. If you disagree, please specify why you think this is unreasonable.

Yes, No, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 43

Is it reasonable to impose conditions related to the product safety standards of work? We would welcome suggestions in the comments on what product safety standards should be required. If you disagree, please specify why you think this is unreasonable.

Yes, No, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 44

Is it reasonable to impose as a condition a time limit between the work being started and completed, in the interests of managing building safety risk? If you agree, could you please suggest in the comments what a reasonable time limit would be. If you disagree, please could you provide views and evidence to why it would be unreasonable.

Yes, No, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 45

Do you have any specific views on any additional or alternative conditions that should be considered? Any conditions that are imposed need to be directly connected to the proposed dispensation/relaxation.

Comments:

Question 46

In terms of conditions set for this proposal, where should responsibility sit for ensuring these are met? Our initial view is that responsibility for ensuring conditions are met should sit with the Principal Contractor

Comments:

Scope

Question 47

We would also welcome views on whether the scope of our proposals should be expanded or limited, and why

Comments:

Competent Persons Schemes

Question 48

Do you think that introducing a competent persons certification scheme would be proportionate for the installation of fibre optic cables? In particular, we’d like your view on what safeguards and processes would need to be in place in a new CPS in order to ensure compliance with building regulations. We would welcome any reflections or evidence to accompany your answer

Reasonable, Unreasonable, Don’t know

Comments:

Question 49

Do you think that introducing a competent persons certification scheme would be proportionate for work relating to mobile masts? In particular, we’d like your view on what safeguards and processes would need to be in place in a new CPS in order to ensure compliance with building regulations. We would welcome any reflections or evidence to accompany your answer.

Reasonable, Unreasonable, Don’t know

Comments:

Additional Information

Question 50

Please provide any additional evidence on costs, risks and benefits which should be considered in an assessment of impacts of this consultation.

Comments:

Question 51

Are you aware of any particular equalities impacts for these proposals?

Comments:

Question 52

How could any adverse impact be reduced and are there any ways we could better advance equality of opportunity or foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not? Please provide evidence.

Comments:

Question 53

Please provide any additional evidence on costs, risks and benefits which should be considered in an assessment of impacts of this consultation. Specifically, we would welcome information on:

• the estimated cost of current compliance per case and details of these costs.

• the estimated cost of compliance of the proposed reforms per case and details of these costs.

• how long you estimate it would take to comply with the proposed reforms.

• which professions would be performing the work to comply with the proposed reforms.

About this consultation

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

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

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

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

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

Individual responses will not be acknowledged unless specifically requested.

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

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

Personal Data

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

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

1.The identity of the data controller and contact details of the 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 and for statistical purposes. We may also use it to contact you about related matters.

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

Respondents should refrain from sharing personal or special category data outside of the administrative questions at the front of the Citizen Space questionnaire.

Sensitive types of personal data

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

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

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

3.Our legal basis for processing your personal data

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

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

4. With whom we will be sharing your personal data

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

Your responses may be processed by Artificial Intelligence to analyse the responses to the consultation more efficiently. These tools assist in identifying and mapping themes in consultation responses, but do not make decisions and all outputs are reviewed by staff for accuracy and reliability. Where data is processed by Artificial intelligence, MHCLG will take reasonable and proportionate steps to remove personal data from the consultation responses before using an Artificial Intelligence, tool but this cannot be guaranteed. Respondents should refrain from sharing personal or special category data outside of the administrative questions at the front of the Citizen Space questionnaire. The AI tool processes data securely and does not copy or share 8 data. The data will only be accessed and used by those authorised to do so. Data used in AI tools is not used for training the AI model.

MHCLG will take steps to check AI outputs for accuracy and identify and reduce bias.

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

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

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

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

a) to see what data we have about you

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Your personal data will not be sent overseas.

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

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

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