Open consultation

Plan approval requirements for new builds and fire safety order buildings

Published 2 April 2026

Applies to England

Purpose of this consultation

We are seeking views on proposed amendments to the procedural requirements for the submission and approval of plans in building control applications for new dwellings and buildings to which the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies using both local authority and registered building control approver building control routes.

Scope of consultation

The proposals in this consultation are limited to England.

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. The BSR will be invited to respond formally as required under s120B(3) of the Building Act 1984.

You can respond to this consultation using the online survey.  

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 more efficient and effective consideration of the issues raised.

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

Or you can post your response to:

Plan Approval Consultation
Building Control Procedures Reform
MHCLG
3rd Floor Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
SW1P 4DF

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 postcode)
• an email address 
• a contact telephone number

If you have any questions about completing the survey, please contact us at buildingregulationsconsultation@communities.gov.uk with the subject ‘Plans consultation’.

Scope of proposed amendments

1. Amendments to the scope of requirements for mandated applications for building control approval with full plans for new dwellings and some material alterations (i.e. preventing the use of building notices for types of building work).
2. Amendments to the requirements for initial notices and amendments to the grounds for rejecting final certificates for new dwellings and buildings to which the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies.
3. Amendments to the requirements to consult with Fire and Rescue Authorities for buildings to which the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies.
4. Transitional arrangements.

Glossary

Abbreviation	Definition
LA	Local Authority
RBCA	Registered Building Control Approver
FRA	Fire and Rescue Authority
BSR	Building Safety Regulator
MHCLG	Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
IN	Initial Notice
BCIP	Building Control Independent Panel
FSO	Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005
BSL	Building Safety Levy
RBI	Registered Building Inspector

Introduction

This consultation has been brought forward as part of the government’s commitment to improving the safety of people’s homes. These changes do not seek to pre-judge the conclusions of the Building Control Independent Panel (BCIP), chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt and established in response the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report. As the steward of the building control system, MHCLG continuously seeks to understand where enhancements can be made to improve safety outcomes.

The purpose of this consultation is to seek views on proposals relating to the introduction of more stringent building control procedural requirements for new homes and in some instances work to existing dwellings where the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (Fire Safety Order or FSO) applies below 18 metres. We also intend for these changes to address some of the current differences between the public and private sector building control routes.

Through engagement with local authorities MHCLG has become aware that building notices (regulations 12 and 13 of the Building Regulations 2010) do not allow for a level of regulatory oversight that is proportionate to the risk posed by some types of building work for which they are used. It has been suggested that the complexity of new dwellings, extensions, loft conversions, and structural alterations could all pose a high enough risk to require an application for building control approval.

In addition, it will not be possible to charge the building safety levy on projects where a building notice was used. For building control applications to LAs, Section 105C of the Building Act 1984 only allows for charges to be placed on projects that use an initial notice or an application for building control approval with full plans. This could have the unintended consequence of pushing developers to utilise building notices, undermining both the intent of the BSL and the safety of these dwellings.

As a result, we are consulting on proposals to require that building control applications for new dwellings must be made using an application for building control approval with full plans (regulation 14, Building Regulations 2010). We are also seeking views on enhancements to the procedural requirements for such applications based upon the risk posed by significant material alterations to existing dwellings, such as extensions or loft conversions.

In parallel, we are seeking views on proposals to use existing legislation to create greater parity for plans submission and approval between the local authority application procedures and registered building control approver (RBCA) procedures. We are proposing, making plans certificates a mandatory requirement for all new dwellings and FSO buildings. We are consulting on the this, along with the processes and procedures which should apply. At present, plans certificates are optional and given by an RBCA at the request of the person carrying out the work.

We are concerned that making changes to requirements for building control applications with full plans in isolation would cause the LA and RBCA building control routes to become more dissimilar than they are at present. More stringent plan approval in LAs alone could have the unintended consequence of creating avoidant behaviour, undermining the building safety value of the changes.

We recognise that these changes, although partially consulted on in two previous consultations, represent a significant change for the operational procedures of building control bodies. It is for this reason that we are consulting on transitional arrangements.

We are also consulting on proposals to create further parity between the LA and RBCA building control procedures around consultation with fire and rescue authorities (FRAs). This part of the consultation seeks views on either enhancing the requirements placed on local authorities or reducing those placed on RBCAs in light of the additional plan requirements proposed.

We are conscious that building control bodies of all types are experiencing capacity issues. As a consequence, we have also included questions on the building control capacity implications of proposals where relevant.

The Building Safety Levy Regulations come into effect on 01 October 2026. It is our intent that these changes, including any transitional arrangements where necessary, are also in effect by that date.

 Parity of plan approval requirements

MHCLG has a long-held intent, as demonstrated in section 3of the ‘Fire Safety Consultation’ (2020) and sections 8 and 11 ‘Consultation for changes to the building control profession and the building control process for approved inspectors (in future to be known as registered building control approvers)’ (2023), to create parity of plan approval requirements between LA and RBCA routes.

The proposals in this consultation seek to give effect to this intent, taking a systematic approach to reforming requirements within the existing regulations whilst creating equality between the LA and RBCA requirements.

Question 1

Do you agree or disagree that steps should be taken to create parity of plans approval requirements for LAs and RBCAs within the existing legislation, so far as is possible?

• agree
• disagree
• don’t know

Please provide your reasoning.

Existing practice in LAs and RBCAs

This section provides local authorities, registered building control approvers, and registered building inspectors the opportunity to answer questions on the existing approaches to plans approval, including best practice within the industry.

In the existing systems full plans approval is only mandatory for work to which the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (FSO) applies, buildings that front onto a private street, and work to which requirement H4 of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010 applies (erection, extension, or underpinning of a building over a sewer) that is regulated using the LA route. 2. Those carrying out any other form of building work and applying to an LA can choose to use a building notice or an application for building control approval with full plans. Where regulated by an RBCA there are no mandatory plan approval requirements but we recognise that best practice may include informally approving plans. Those carrying out building work can also choose to request a plans certificate, if regulated by an RBCA.

The questions in this section are intended to be answered by LAs, RBCAs, and RBIs, but we welcome responses from others too.

Questions (LA route)

Question 2

As a building inspector, do you find that new dwellings built using a building notice are more or less likely to require interventions to ensure compliance with the building regulations when compared to those built using applications for building control approval with full plans?

• more
• less
• the same

Please explain your reasoning.

Question 3

Please provide comment on your experiences of regulating new dwellings using either a building notice or application for building control with full plans.

Question 4

In your view, would an FSO building be more or less likely to be built using an LA as the regulator as a result of the plans checking requirements imposed by the Building Regulations 2010?

• more likely
• less likely
• the same

Please explain your reasoning.

Questions (RBCA Route)

Question 5

What level of plans checking (and/or informal approval) do RBCAs undertake prior to work starting or a stage of work starting on site?

Question 6

In your experience, approximately what proportion of clients request plans certificates?

[10% increments]

Question 7

As an RBI working for an RBCA, would you ever recommend a plans certificate to a client?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please explain your reasoning.

Question 8

Please provide comment on your experiences of regulating new dwellings using INs, including any further reflection you may have on the existing use of plans.

Requirements for Applications for Building Control Approval with Full Plans

Applicants may submit an application for building control approval with full plans for any project, but are required to do so for buildings to which the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (FSO) applies, buildings that front onto a private street, and work to which requirement H4 of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010 applies (erection, extension, or underpinning of a building over a sewer). Building work can begin on site as soon as two days after the application is given, but LAs have five weeks, or longer if agreed in writing with the applicant, to assess the application. Proceeding with works prior to approval carries the risk that elements of the building are constructed according to plans that do not comply with the building regulations.

Building notices (regulations 12 and 13 of the Building Regulations 2010) provide for the regulation of projects without the requirement for approval of plans by the LA. As a result, regulation of building notice projects occurs almost entirely by inspection of building work, or the ad hoc submission of plans such as structural calculations as requested by the LA. Based upon feedback from LAs,  it is our understanding that projects that apply using a building notice are more likely to breach the building regulations and tend to require enhanced inspection schedules to ensure compliance.

We are proposing that, at a minimum, all new build dwellings that use the LA route should be required to submit an application for building control approval with full plans. This proposal reflects the complexity of new dwellings and level of risk that is incumbent in that complexity. Approved plans make control of building work by registered building inspectors more efficient and more effective.

Approval of plans is a pivotal step in assuring that the proposed building is, from the very start of building work, more likely to comply with the requirements of the building regulations. This requirement means that developers would need to be able to demonstrate how a planned dwelling would comply, which will have a direct effect on improving the safety of the dwelling and the likelihood that finished article conforms to the regulations.

Analysis indicates that LAs charge slightly more to regulate complex projects, such as new dwellings, using the building notice route because of the increased inspection requirements and greater likelihood of non-compliance with the regulations associated with not having verified that plans adhere to the functional requirements of the Building Regulations 2010. This is despite the additional burden of plans approval in the full plans route. As a result, we believe that these changes won’t increase the cost of regulation for those building new dwellings when compared to using a building notice.

We understand that for some local authorities and building inspectors the complexity or safety risk posed by certain material alterations, such as extensions and structural alterations impacting Part A of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010 compliance, to existing dwellings is such that they believe full plans applications should be required. The questions posed below seek to assess whether we should consider further limiting they types of building work to which a building notice should apply.

Question 9

Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to at a minimum require building control approval applications with full plans for all new dwellings?

• agree
• disagree
• don’t know

Please explain your reasoning.

Question 10

Should the government go further and require building control applications with full plans for some material alterations to existing dwellings?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please explain your reasoning.

Question 11

If you believe the government should go further, which of the below types of building works relating to dwellings should require a building control approval application?

[Select all that apply]

• single storey extensions
• extensions of 2 or more storeys
• loft conversions
• structural alterations to a dwelling (e.g. creating an open plan space by replacing a load-bearing wall with structural steels)
• other [Please specify]

[Provide reasoning for your choices]

Question 12

Do you agree or disagree with the analysis that requiring full plans for new dwellings will reduce the direct cost of building control for applicants?

• agree
• disagree
• don’t know

Please explain your reasoning.

Question 13

How will local authorities operationalise these proposals using existing capacity (i.e. number of registered building control inspectors)?

Question 14

Do you believe these proposals might have any unintended consequences?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please explain your reasoning.

Requirements for the Giving of Initial Notices with Plans, requirements for the giving of a plans certificate, and approval of plans with conditions

Background

We are seeking views on proposals to mandate plans certificates for new dwellings and all building work to which the FSO applies, including the point at which the plans certificate should be given. We consider the best means of achieving compliance with the building regulations is for building work to be carried out according to plans from the start of works. We recognise that requiring plan approval before works can start could slow down the delivery of new dwellings, noting for applications for building control approval LAs have up to five weeks in which to approve the plans.

We recognise that RBCAs will already be undertaking plan assessments both prior to the initial notice being given and throughout the process of construction. In adding formal requirements, it may be that these proposals do not significantly change existing regulatory processes for RBCAs.

This proposal is similar to that consulted on in the ‘Consultation for changes to the building control profession and the building control process for approved inspectors (in future to be known as registered building control approvers)’ (2023). The consultation sought views on requirements for plans certificates for all buildings to which the FSO applies. It was intended to create a unified approach between the LA and RBCA routes. The government response indicated that MCHLG would seek to implement mandatory plans certificates by the final certificate stage. However, this was not proceeded with at the time as significant new registration requirements were imposed on RBIs and RBCAs, limiting capacity in the building control sector. It is our view that, after a bedding in period for the new regulatory regime, that it is now an appropriate time to consider these proposals again.

Proposals

We propose mandating plans certificates for all new dwellings and FSO Buildings and including a new ground for the rejection of a final certificate if a plans certificate has not been given.

We are also consulting on whether HMG should go further and consider requiring a plans certificate for other types of building work, to reflect the relative complexity and risk associated with other types of building work. This could include extensions, loft conversions, and other structural works to existing buildings.

If a plans certificate was mandated with an initial notice, it would create a hard stop on building work until the RBCA is able to give a plans certificate. This proposal ensures that dwellings are built according to approved plans whilst not slowing down the rate at which work can start when it is regulated by RBCAs.

Where plans certificates are given prior to the giving of a final certificate, we propose introducing new regulations that allow for the giving of plans certificates with requirements.

a) At present, once a plans certificate has been given and accepted any changes to the plans would require a new plans certificate for the protections offered by a plans certificate to apply, which may be seen as a relatively burdensome measure.

b) Under this approach, RBCAs could set conditions or requirements for the provision or modification of existing plans by agreed dates or stages of work when giving plans certificates. Building work would be unable to proceed beyond an agreed point until such a time as the RBCA received the required plans.

Where a plans certificate has been given and subsequently ceases to be in force, section 47(4)(b) of the Building Act and regulation 12 of the Building (Registered Building Control Approvers etc.) (England) Regulations 2024 have the effect of disapplying enforcement powers given to LAs by s.35 and s.36(1) for building work described in the initial notice to which the plans certificate relates, so long as the work is carried out in accordance with the plans. By requiring the greater use of plans certificates, those carrying out building work have greater assurance that their plans are compliant with the regulations. In the event work reverts to the LA for regulation under regulations 22 and 22A of the Building (Registered Building Control Approvers etc.) (England) Regulations 2024, those carrying out work have greater assurance that they are protected for enforcement action if they have taken steps to comply with the approved plans.

We welcome views on the procedure that should be followed if the person carrying out works does not take necessary steps to provide satisfactory plans and, as a consequence, the RBCA cannot give a plans certificate. The inability to give a plans certificate necessarily inhibits the RBCA from giving a final certificate and an LA cannot accept a final certificate.

a) If the final certificate stage has been reached and building work is complete, regulation 19(5) of the Building (Registered Building Control Approvers etc.) (England) Regulations 2024 applies, meaning that the initial notice will cease to be in force eight weeks from the point of completion. Alternatively, RBCAs may take the view that failure to provide satisfactory plans represents a reason to cancel the initial notice under s.52(1)(a).

b) We welcome views on the operational viability of the approach to cancellation described above, and whether additional regulatory requirements are needed to account for plans certificate proposals.

Question 15

Given existing informal plans checking practices without the use of plans certificates, will requiring a plans certificate prior to giving a final certificate will have a measurable effect on delivery of new dwellings?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please explain your reasoning.

Question 16

Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to require the giving of plans certificates with or prior to the giving of the final certificate for new dwellings and buildings to which the FSO applies?

• agree
• disagree
• don’t know

Please explain your reasoning.

Question 17

If you disagreed with question 16, at what point should the plans certificate be required:

• with the initial notice
• fefore commencement of building work
• other stage as agreed between RBCA and client
• a plans certificate should not be mandated

Question 18

Should the government go further and require plans certificates for some material alterations to existing dwellings?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please explain your reasoning.

Question 19

If you believe the government should go further, which of the below types of building works relating to dwellings should require a plans certificate?

[Select all that apply]

• single storey extensions
• extensions of 2 or more storeys
• loft conversions
• structural alterations to a dwelling (e.g. creating an open plan space by replacing a load-bearing wall with structural steels)
• other [Please specify]

[Please provide reasoning for your choices]

Question 20

Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to allow for approval with requirements of plans certificates?

• agree
• disagree
• don’t know

Please provide reasoning.

Do you agree or disagree with the assertion that this proposal will help to prevent administrative burden associated with the giving of new plans certificates?

• agree
• disagree
• don’t know

Please provide reasoning.

Question 21

For initial notices containing multiple new dwellings, when giving a final certificate do you use part-final or final certificates for each dwelling, groups of dwellings, or all dwellings in the initial notice together ?

• part final certificate for each dwelling
• part final certificate for groups of dwellings
• final certificate for all dwellings on the initial notice
• other

Please provide your reasoning.

Question 22

Considering proposals for plans requirements, where the plans certificate is given at final certificate stage should a plans certificate be given for each final or part final certificate?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please explain your reasoning.

What other approaches to the giving of a plans certificate might we consider?

Question 23

Do you believe these proposals might have any unintended consequences?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please explain your reasoning.

Question 24

What are the grounds where you would be unable or unwilling to give a plans cert to a client at final certificate stage?

Question 25

Do existing grounds for cancelling an IN provide RBCAs with an appropriate route to revert work to LAs where plans certificate requirements cannot be complied with?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

If not, what procedure should be introduced?

Effect of the Building Safety Levy

Section 105C of the Building Act 1984 provides the regulation making powers that underpin the Building Safety Levy. Those powers were intended to enable levy charging in relation to building control applications for works to create one or more dwellings or other residential accommodation. Building notices were not considered within the scope of application types on which the levy can be charged.

As a result, there exists a risk that applicants use building notices to avoid levy liability and, in doing so, increase the likelihood that new dwellings are built without the control of plans. It is MHCLG’s view that the unintended incentivisation of the use of building notices increases systemic building safety risks. The proposals laid out in Section 4 have the added value of ensuring developers can’t seek to avoid paying the levy and thereby ensuring the safety of buildings.

Question 26

Do you agree or disagree that the inability to charge the levy on building notice applications will encourage greater use of building notices for new dwellings?

• agree
• disagree
• don’t know

Question 27

Please provide views on the likely effect of the inability to charge the levy on building notice applications if the government were to do nothing.

Requirements for consultation with Fire and Rescue Authority

Where a Building is a FSO building, RBCAs are currently required to consult with the FRA at the initial notice, amendment notice, plans certificate, and final certificate stages, whereas LAs are only required to consult when reviewing an application for building control approval with full plans. As a result, we are seeking views on the requirements for consultation in light of the proposed changes to plans certificate requirements detailed elsewhere in this consultation.

For RBCAs, we propose that where plans certificates are required, consultation with the fire and rescue authority is limited to the initial notice and final certificate stages (where the final certificate is given accompanied by the plans certificate), and also at the plans certificate stage where the plans certificate is given earlier than the final certificate.

For LAs, we propose introducing a second FRA consultation prior to the giving of completion certificate. Our intent is to increase the likelihood that an as-built building complies with the requirements of Part B, and to provide FRAs with an opportunity to give additional comments about compliance with the FSO during occupation. This may help to prevent new building works from being required after a building is occupied and the completion certificate given.

We recognise that FRA capacity may be limiting factor on the ability of government to implement the reforms proposed. As a consequence, in line with our ambition to ensure building control requirements are proportionate to risk and equivalent between routes, we are also consulting on bringing the RBCA requirements in line with the existing LA requirements. This would mean there is only one consultation, undertaken before or as soon as is reasonably practicable after the initial notice is given.

It is our view that proposals for plans certificates mean no new building safety risk is introduced by the proposals to reduce the number of FRA consultations for RBCAs. In the event that we take this approach, it would remain our ambition to introduce a second FRA consultation at the final or completion certificate stage at a later date.

In the event that no changes are made to the requirements for initial notices or plans certificates we do not propose to change the requirements for RBCAs to consult with FRAs.

Question 28

Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to require 2 consultation points with FRAs for all building work regulated by LAs to which the Fire Safety Order applies?

• agree
• disagree
• don’t know

Please explain your reasoning.

Question 29

Do FRAs have the necessary capacity to accommodate these changes?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please explain your reasoning.

Question 30

Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to reduce the number of consultations carried out by RBCAs?

• agree
• disagree
• don’t know

Please explain your reasoning.

Transitional arrangements

It is recognised that the changes proposed for the building control process represent a deviation from existing practice. This may have implications for the amount of time inspectors are required to spend on plans checking, relevant back-office systems used to process applications, and the approach to producing plans taken by developers.

The potential building safety risk presented by the levy coming into force on 01 October 2026 and inadvertently incentivising the use of building notices mean changes to require building control approval applications with full plans for new dwellings under the LA route needs to be brought into force on that date. Proposals relating to other types of building work, such as extensions and loft conversions, are not associated with this risk and as such may be subject to a longer transitional period.

Additionally, we note that the 1 October 2026 coming into force date for the Building Safety Levy may burden RBCAs in September as persons carrying out building work seek to bring forward applications. A transitional period for plans certificate proposals will assist in moving the administrative burden of the changes away from an already busy time and give RBCAs time to prepare.

$CTA

Question 31

Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to bring into force proposed requirements for all new dwellings to use applications for building control approval with full plans on or before 1 October 2026?

• agree
• disagree
• don’t know

Please explain your reasoning.

Question 32

Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to introduce a transitional period for proposals relating to other types of building work using the LA route, such as loft conversions, if requirements to use applications for building control approval with full plans were extended to them?

• agree
• disagree
• don’t know

(How long should the transitional period last?)

Question 33

Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to introduce at transitional period for the proposals for changes to the RBCA building control process?

• agree
• disagree
• don’t know

(How long should the transitional period last?)

Question 34

Within the existing legislative framework, are there any areas where government could make changes to create parity within the building control system that have not been considered by this consultation?

About this consultation

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

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

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

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

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

Individual responses will not be acknowledged unless specifically requested.

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

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

Personal data

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

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

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

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

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

2. Why we are collecting your personal data

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

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

Sensitive types of personal data

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

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

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

3. Our legal basis for processing your personal data

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

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

4. With whom we will be sharing your personal data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. to see what data we have about you.
2. to ask us to stop using your data but keep it on record.
3. to ask to have your data corrected if it is incorrect or incomplete.
4. to object to our use of your personal data in certain circumstances
5. to lodge a complaint with the independent Information Commissioner (ICO) if you think we are not handling your data fairly or in accordance with the law. You can contact the ICO at https://ico.org.uk/, or telephone 0303 123 1113.

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

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

7. Your personal data will not be sent overseas

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

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

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