Consultation outcome

Single construction regulator prospectus: government response

Updated 9 July 2026

Ministerial foreword

The Grenfell Tower fire was a national tragedy which led to the deaths of 72 innocent people. The subsequent Inquiry exposed a failed system where regulation had become too complex and fragmented, and risks and issues identified in different areas of the system were left unconnected and unaddressed. In response, the Inquiry’s Phase 2 report provided a series of important recommendations. In February 2025, the government accepted all the Inquiry’s findings and committed to creating a regulatory system which everyone trusts to deliver safe, quality homes.

The Inquiry’s first recommendation was for government to establish a single construction regulator to tackle the regulatory fragmentation it had identified. Government accepted this recommendation and we remain committed to its delivery. In December 2025, we published our Single Construction Regulator Prospectus consultation document to gather views on this.

The prospectus set out government’s strategic case for reforming the regulatory system and the role for the new regulator within it. It sought views on key aspects, including outcomes for the building system and the roles and responsibilities for those operating within it, as well as how improvements could be made through digitising services and better protecting residents and building users. The prospectus consultation closed in March 2026, and this document provides the government’s response to its findings.

I welcome respondents’ broad support for government’s ambition for the regulator and vision for a reformed regulatory system. This response sets out government’s intended direction of travel, including our ambition for the regulator to create the conditions to increase safety by counteracting system and institutional regulatory fragmentation. Our response also sets out how we intend to get there through organisational transformation. This will help those operating within the construction sector to understand what is expected of them, protect residents and building users, and support the sector to thrive.

We have taken respondents’ views into careful consideration when developing our plans for the regulator. Our response highlights its creation will build on the progress made to the regulatory system since 2017, creating a more effective, proportionate and coherent regime. It also reflects that this reform is an important opportunity for everyone in the sector to work together to deliver transformational change.

This government is clear a tragedy like that at Grenfell Tower must never happen again. System reform is essential to make this a reality, and the establishment of a single construction regulator is a crucial part of that. We will continue working to establish the regulator and introduce the required legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. We look forward to working with residents, building users and the sector so the design is insight-led and benefits from a wide range of expertise and experience.

Samantha Dixon MBE MP

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Building Safety, Fire and Democracy

1. Introduction

Following the tragedy at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s Phase 2 report, published in September 2024, made specific recommendations for the government to reform the regulatory landscape. In the government response to the Inquiry’s report, the government accepted all the Inquiry’s findings, committed to bringing a generational shift in the safety and quality of housing for everyone and confirmed it would take action to reform the way the construction industry is regulated.

The Inquiry’s first recommendation was to create a single construction regulator (SCR) to reduce fragmentation in how the construction sector is regulated and drive cultural change within the industry. The recommendation was informed by evidence to the Inquiry which showed that, as no regulatory body had a big picture view of the building system, risks and issues were left unconnected and unaddressed. This fragmentation was exploited by firms able to play off different regulatory standards against each other, pass risk to residents and evade accountability.​ The Inquiry recommended a list of twelve functions for the regulator. These include a mix of functions currently owned by the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) and the National Construction Products Regulator (NCPR), and new areas of regulation.

The government will create the SCR in a way that meets the intent of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s recommendation and cultivates the right conditions for actors across the whole building ecosystem to play their role in achieving positive outcomes for residents and building users. This will give the market greater clarity and certainty, promote growth across the country and avoid the need for costly interventions to solve problems later down the line.

In December 2025 we published the single construction regulator prospectus and consultation, which set out the government’s plans for regulatory reform and for the development of a single construction regulator. It provided a strategic case for reforming the regulatory system for the built environment, set out the potential role for the SCR within it and proposed future areas of focus for a reformed regulatory system. The prospectus consultation sought views on the government’s proposals for regulatory reform and the development of the SCR.

This document summarises the findings of this consultation and sets out the government’s response to them. It also provides some information on where the government has made further decisions on the design and implementation of the SCR. In particular, it confirms our vision and ambition for the SCR and updates on the functions it is expected to perform. The document also outlines how we intend to deliver the SCR, including via primary legislation, using the BSR as its foundation and continuing to engage with all corners of the construction sector throughout the development process.

1.1 The consultation: content and approach​

The SCR prospectus consultation was open for 13 weeks and 1 day, from 17 December 2025 to 20 March 2026. Respondents could respond via our online survey, email or post. The consultation asked 17 questions, including closed and open ones, in addition to 4 demographic questions. All questions were optional except the first demographic question.

During the consultation period, government officials conducted a variety of engagement activities with a range of stakeholders to raise awareness of the consultation, encourage responses and address questions. This engagement included a range of webinars and conferences, both virtual and in person. In total, across 16 events officials spoke with almost 1000 stakeholders including industry, residents and regulatory bodies. The views expressed by stakeholders during this engagement have been considered alongside the formal responses to the consultation. This is explained further in the ‘overview of consultation responses’ section (section 1.2).

In addition to these engagements, promotional content about the consultation was shared in 2 newsletters issued by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG): the Building Safety Newsletter and the Local Government Bulletin. These reached thousands of stakeholders in the sector.

Our SCR Advisory Board of industry experts, regulators, academic and resident and consumer advocates also helped raise awareness of the consultation while it was live.

1.2 Overview of consultation responses​

Total number of responses​

We received a total of 184 responses to the consultation.

We received 124 online responses to the consultation survey through the citizen space platform. These were complemented by a total of 60 responses received by email.

We also considered the 138 comments we noted from our engagements with stakeholders during the consultation period. These were treated separately to the 184 consultation responses as they did not address consultation questions directly, however they were still factored into our thematic analysis process to complement our overarching findings.

Demographic data​

We asked 4 demographic questions to help ascertain who responded to the consultation, what type of respondent they are and where they operate:

1. Are you responding as an individual, on behalf of a company, or on behalf of a trade organisation?

There were 184 responses to this question.

Respondent	Number of responses
Individual	28
Company	49
Trade organisation	34
Other (please specify)	73

This data includes respondents from different categories across the construction sector. Note that:

• the ‘Individuals’ category includes residents and those with a professional interest in the sector responding in a personal capacity

• the ‘other’ category in the dataset includes a mix of other organisations such as local government, other public sector bodies and third sector organisations

2. What is the size of your organisation?

There were 112 responses to this question.

Size of organisation	Number of responses
Sole trader / consultant	6
Micro ( 2 to 10)	24
Small (11 to 49)	24
Medium (50 to 249)	21
Large (250+)	37
Not answered	12

The consultation received responses from a range of organisation sizes. The largest number of responses came from large organisations, with roughly equal representation of micro, small and medium enterprises.

3. Which nations do you or your organisation operate in?

There were 117 unique responses to this question.

Nation	Number of responses
England	108
Scotland	74
Wales	80
Northern Ireland	71
Other (please specify)	23
Not answered	7

4. Which regions do you or your organisation operate in?

There were 114 unique responses to this question.

Nation	Number of responses
Scotland	71
Wales	76
Northern Ireland	71
East of England	83
East Midlands	83
London	88
North East	83
North West	79
South East	84
South West	82
West Midlands	81
Yorkshire and the Humber	82
Other (please specify)	14
Not answered	10

Regional representation in the consultation responses to both geographical remit questions is seen to be strong, with representation from stakeholders across the country.

1.3 Methodology

All responses to this consultation have been considered as part of the analysis. Engagement data gathered from events which officials both ran and attended during the consultation period has also been processed alongside response data to increase the reliability and validity of the consultation research.

A thematic analysis was conducted on all responses to identify key themes. For the purposes of this analytical summary, the team used a Government Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted tool, Consult, developed by the Incubator for Artificial Intelligence (i.AI) in DSIT, to support the identification and assignment of themes.

Consult identifies key themes from the responses to each question and maps each response against those themes, with policy experts reviewing the outputs at every stage. Themes generated by Consult were reviewed and finalised by policy experts working on this consultation, who added, edited, and removed themes based on their subject matter expertise. These finalised themes were then used as the framework for mapping all responses in the dataset.

Policy experts reviewed the theme mappings produced by Consult and made adjustments where appropriate. Evaluations of Consult conducted across previous consultations have found that its theme mappings are at least as consistent as those produced by two independent human reviewers.

Personal data collected as part of the consultation was processed in accordance with the privacy notice published in the consultation. Care was taken to avoid using AI to analyse personal data, however we cannot provide complete certainty that no personal data was reviewed by the AI tool.

2. Our vision for a future regulatory system

2.1 We asked

In the prospectus, we set out the government’s intention to create a new regulator which will not only meet the Inquiry’s recommendation but will also create the right conditions for actors across the whole building ecosystem to play their role in achieving positive outcomes.

We proposed that a well-functioning building system should achieve the following outcomes:

• buildings and built environments are safe, high-performing and deliver a healthy, accessible, secure and sustainable environment for occupants
• companies and individuals are enabled to thrive when they operate in the interests of current and future building users
• products for building are fit for their purpose and users are provided with accurate product information
• the building system is trusted; users have confidence the system will act to prioritise the safety and needs of occupants

We also proposed that the regulator’s primary objective should be the safety of people and the standard of buildings and built environments.

Question 1: Where do each of the proposed outcomes for the system sit on a scale from very useful to not useful at all?

Question 2: What role would you and/or your organisation play in achieving these outcomes?

Question 3: What will be the most important factors to achieving the proposed outcomes?

Question 4: What are the most important barriers that could prevent the proposed outcomes from being met?

Question 5: What data would be needed to demonstrate whether the outcomes are being achieved?

2.2 You said

Where do each of the proposed outcomes for the system sit on a scale from very useful to not useful at all?

There were 120 responses to this question. with 84% finding the objectives useful or very useful, 8% having a neutral opinion. 3% and 2% of respondents respectively found the outcomes not useful or not useful at all. 3% of respondents did not answer this question.

Response	Percentage
Very useful	48%
Useful	36%
Neutral	8%
Not useful	3%
Not at all useful	2%
Not answered	3%

Responses submitted by email did not answer the consultation questions directly and were thus not included in the dataset for this graphic.

Overarching views on the vision, outcomes and objectives

Respondents expressed support for the vision for reform set out in the prospectus. They highlighted the importance of adopting a whole-sector approach to regulation.

There was broad support for the outcomes and objectives proposed in the prospectus from respondents across the sector, including industry, trade organisations, residents, dutyholders, advisers, regulators and product specialists. Creating a safer, higher-performing and more trusted building system was seen as a primary aim. Approximately 5% of respondents thought the outcomes for the system were not useful or not at all useful.

The broad support was qualified by calls to get the delivery right: respondents wanted outcomes translated into practical requirements, measurable objectives and clearer accountability across the system. Respondents saw the vision as credible in principle, but confidence depended on whether it can guide real decisions, improve regulatory judgement and be implemented effectively.

How respondents saw their role in achieving the outcomes

Respondents mainly saw their role within the context of their specific part of the built environment system and building lifecycle, being part of the outcomes through design, construction, product supply, building management, inspection, assurance or resident-facing activity within their part of the system.

Many respondents described contributing through technical knowledge, compliance advice, training, quality assurance and helping others to meet statutory duties.

Respondents often positioned themselves as the link between policy intent and real-world implementation, including evidence gathering, coordination and demonstrating compliance. Several respondents referred to maintaining records, providing accurate product or safety information and improving accountability across the building lifecycle.

How respondents felt the outcomes could be achieved

Respondents highlighted several factors as critical to achieving the outcomes.

Clear, consistent and proportionate regulation was the strongest theme. Respondents wanted clear rules, stable expectations and consistent interpretation across projects, sectors and regulators. Fragmented information, poor coordination and weak data systems were viewed as obstacles to effective delivery. Respondents pointed to disconnected records, inconsistent or unreliable product information and limited information-sharing across the system.

Respondents often linked the success of the proposed reforms to effective implementation. They pointed to the need for adequate resourcing and a phased transition to avoid disruption, and the need to learn the lessons from reforms to the building safety system including the establishment of the BSR.

Many respondents stressed the need for strengthening competence and professional standards to deliver a culture shift towards safety, quality and accountability. Capacity and competence constraints across regulators and industry were repeatedly highlighted. Shortages in specialist skills, limited regulatory capability and uneven industry competence were seen as likely to slow progress.

Respondents strongly supported a tougher, clearer construction products regime with joined-up oversight, stronger testing and certification, and better real-world safety assurance. Safety-critical products were frequently seen as needing mandatory third-party testing/certification, stronger conformity assessment, factory production control, and proof that products placed on the market remain consistent with those originally tested. Respondents also stressed that regulation should assess products in the context of intended use, whole-system building performance and their full lifecycle.

Better coordination, communication and transparency were highlighted as key enablers. Respondents called for clearer guidance, stronger engagement with industry and stakeholders, and easier access to reliable information.

Respondents highlighted the need for a balanced evidence base combining safety outcomes, compliance and enforcement data, regulatory performance measures, product information and resident experience, in a way that integrates transparent, reusable and decision-useful data rather than narrow headline indicators alone.

2.3 Government response

The government welcomes respondents’ broad support for the SCR and its vision as set out in the prospectus. The SCR presents a significant opportunity to create a clearer, simpler and more coherent regulatory system that results in better outcomes for residents, building users and the wider sector.

Our ambition and vision for the SCR

Our ambition is that the SCR should create the conditions to increase safety by counteracting both system and institutional regulatory fragmentation, to facilitate a more coherent regulatory environment where those working within the sector understand what is expected of them, residents are protected from harm and the sector is supported to thrive.

Our vision for how this will be realised is through organisational transformation to bring the 3 different areas of regulation of buildings, products and professions into a coherent regulatory system, including through the design of the SCR’s precise functions and the powers and duties that will underpin them. It will also be realised by the SCR driving forward improvements to intelligence-sharing and ways of working, creating the conditions for a more effective wider system.

Reform to reduce systemic and institutional fragmentation will be essential in reducing the burden for residents and building users. Part of the SCR’s ambition to reduce system and institutional fragmentation will be to promote proper accountability for wrongdoing and ensure high standards for safety and quality are met, which in turn will have positive impacts for residents and building users who are disproportionately impacted by the system’s current fragmentation.

However, we know that effectively addressing the system and institutional fragmentation as outlined by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry cannot be achieved solely through the creation of a new regulator – everyone in the system needs to play their part. The SCR will be responsible for tackling parts of this institutional fragmentation, as it will capitalise on opportunities to make the regulatory framework more coherent across buildings, professions and products, but other improvements will need to be driven by other reforms and wider change across the sector. Crucially, the creation of the SCR is not intended to increase regulatory burden or to be solely responsible for delivering specific regulatory improvements.

The SCR is one among several areas of reform which are currently progressing both within and outside government (see Annex). For example, we have proposed changes to statutory fire safety guidance in Approved Document B, updating external wall guidance and recommending new provision of evacuation, and are currently consulting on these. These are just several examples of a wide range of regulatory reforms we are undertaking alongside the establishment of the SCR. We continue to take a system-wide view of our reforms across the built environment, to ensure they are collectively contributing to an improved, coherent and well-functioning regulatory system.

Our vision is that successful design and implementation of the SCR will create better systemic and institutional alignment. It should contribute to improved relationships between institutions, better intelligence and data informing the system and greater clarity of roles, responsibilities and accountabilities within the system. Its establishment should also create the foundations of a regulatory system that allows necessary changes to be made effectively and coherently in the future. Ultimately, the creation of the SCR should create the conditions in which future improvements can be made to allow regulation to work effectively across the sector, for the long-term.

Outcomes and objectives

Establishing outcomes for the system and robust measurable objectives for the regulator are critical to guiding this reform. We welcome the fact that most respondents found the proposed outcomes set out in the prospectus very useful or useful. In line with the majority of respondents’ views, the government confirms that these system-wide outcomes will be the basis for the regulatory framework for the building system and a shared point of focus for everyone working within it.

Specifically, we confirm that the following system-wide outcomes will remain unchanged and will be used as the basis for the regulatory framework:

• companies and individuals are enabled to thrive when they operate in the interests of current and future building users
• construction products are fit for their purpose and users are provided with accurate product information
• the building system is trusted; users have confidence the system will act to prioritise the safety and needs of occupants

Based on feedback from respondents and our Advisory Board, we will amend our first outcome proposed in the prospectus to specifically focus on end users’ safety and needs. In practical terms, this means that we will adjust our proposed outcome of ‘buildings and built environments are safe and high-performing and deliver a healthy, accessible, secure and sustainable environment for occupants’ to the following:

• buildings and built environments are safe and meet the needs of occupants and users

We are making this change to make this higher-level outcome focused on residents’ and building users’ safety and needs, recognising that different actors will achieve this in different ways, depending on their specific role within the system and at what point they are involved in a building’s lifecycle.

We also acknowledge that some respondents recommended specific references to important aspects of the system in the outcomes, including areas such as enforcement and skills. How individual institutions, bodies and actors deliver these outcomes will be different across the system and dependent on their specific role, so this amended outcome will provide the required flexibility for everyone to play their part to effectively reduce system fragmentation.

While these outcomes are designed for everyone in the system to work towards, the SCR will play a pivotal role. Our amended outcome will empower the new regulator to deliver against this goal in a proportionate way, whilst enabling it to innovate and adapt to change over many years to come.

It is also important that the SCR successfully enables and role models all the system outcomes through the delivery of its own objectives, strategic priorities and exercising of its functions. We confirm that the primary objective for the SCR will be focused on securing the safety of people in buildings and improving the standard and/or performance of buildings and built environments, as set out in the prospectus.

Additionally, the government acknowledges the barriers to achieving these outcomes that were raised by respondents and will seek to address these through the design of the SCR. While the SCR will play a vital role in steering the system towards the outcomes, they cannot be fully achieved without everyone with a stake in the built environment also working towards them. As such, we are pleased that so many respondents highlighted the important role they will play in delivering these outcomes. The creation of the SCR is an opportunity for everyone working across the system to lead a positive transformation in how safety and quality are embedded in the built environment. The government remains committed to working with representatives from across the sector to ensure the design of the SCR enables this.

We also recognise the importance of getting the implementation of the SCR right so that it meaningfully contributes to reduced system and institutional fragmentation, successfully functions as part of a wider regulatory system and genuinely benefits residents and building users. Urgent action has been taken since 2017 to reform the regulatory system, with many changes made in direct response to the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. The creation of the SCR will build on the progress made to date. To ensure implementation is a success, it will be phased to minimise disruption to existing regulatory activities and optimise integration. We will also ensure that the regulator is properly resourced to deliver its activities and develop an appropriate funding and cost-recovery model as part of the implementation phase.

Implementation – what we have learned

As set out in the prospectus, the government is committed to reforming the regulatory system so that it addresses institutional fragmentation and brings coherence across the regulation of buildings, products and professions.

The BSR was established in the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in 2022 following the Royal Assent of the Building Safety Act. In June 2025 we announced that the BSR would be moved from HSE to a new arm’s-length body (ALB) of MHCLG. The new body was established in January 2026. Over this period, we have learned key lessons on what is needed for a regulator to work effectively in this system, which we will be taking forward as we plan our transition to the SCR.

First of all, we have learned the importance of making sure there is clarity of organisational purpose, underpinned by strong and effective leadership to drive and embody this purpose. Establishing the BSR as a standalone ALB has helped to provide a singular focus for the organisation to align behind, with clearer accountability to MHCLG and to ministers. This has been supported by a new senior leadership team and a regulator that has access to the skills and capabilities it needs. With the establishment of the innovation unit within the BSR, it now has direct access to relevant technical expertise, alongside the broader operational and strategic capability required to operate in a complex regulatory environment.

Secondly, the transition has also reinforced the value of taking a more proportionate, risk-based approach to regulation. The new leadership team within the BSR have driven a shift in organisational culture as well as system and process improvements that enable BSR staff to deliver more consistently and effectively. They have also begun to work more collaboratively with industry to build their capacity and improve their understanding of regulatory requirements, providing clarity on standards and expectations, whilst balancing a firm commitment to regulatory independence in decision-making and enforcement.

Finally, we have seen the value of a regulator working closer with users. We have learned the importance of developing digital services that have a clear user focus. The BSR are now more transparent about operational performance, publishing monthly data releases. We are also more alive to industry’s capacity to absorb and adapt to significant regulatory change, remaining vigilant to balancing the pace of reform with the need to ensure readiness across the systems. All of these have begun to improve trust in the regulator, improve user experience and improve the functioning of the system as a whole.

Actions taken over the past year have looked to address many of these lessons, but there is further to go, and they will provide the foundations for thinking and considerations on the scope and implementation of the SCR.

We are also considering and applying these lessons in the context of the wider regulatory system, including construction products and professions.

The government will deliver reforms that drive safe construction products, safely used, by creating a robust regulatory regime, a testing and certification system we can be confident in, product information that is clear and can be trusted, and an approach to enforcement that allows those who comply to thrive. Proposals explained in our Construction Products White Paper, published in February 2026, will help to build renewed confidence and trust in the construction products sector for residents, building users and communities. Further information about the white paper and our proposed reforms can be found in the government response in section 5 below.

Finally, the government is clear that the current fragmented and inconsistent system of skills, behaviour, culture, accountability and regulation is not working for those in the sector or the wider public. We will work with the sector to set out the practical reforms that are needed at an individual, organisational and system-wide level to improve safety, quality and trust and enable individuals and businesses to thrive when they do the right thing. The government response to section 5 below sets out progress on the design of an overarching strategy for professions, trades and occupations in the built environment.

3. Digital, data and efficient regulatory delivery

3.1 We asked

In the prospectus we said that the government’s ambition for the new regulator is a digital-first approach to improve how regulation is delivered across buildings, products and professionals. We set out that we will focus on developing a more connected and coherent digital environment to support information sharing and enable more transparent oversight.

Question 6: Have you experienced any challenges with providing information via government digital services when complying with current regulatory requirements across products, professions and buildings?

Question 7: How should the new regulator promote consistent digital standards and interoperability across the lifecycle of a building (including products, professions and buildings)?

Question 8: What digital tools and platforms do you find most effective for ensuring you meet regulatory compliance and why?

Question 9: What are the opportunities and risks associated with automating regulatory compliance checking (e.g. AI-driven assessment), and how should oversight, accountability and human review be retained within automated systems?

3.2 You said

Have you experienced any challenges with providing information via government digital services when complying with current regulatory requirements across products, professions and buildings?

Of the 123 respondents who responded to this question, a significant proportion said they have experienced challenges in government digital services. 45% answered Yes and 42% said No with 13% of respondents not answering this question.

Response	Percentage
Yes	45%
No	42%
Not answered	13%

Responses submitted by email did not answer the consultation questions directly and were thus not included in the dataset for this graphic.

The proportion of those using government digital services who experience problems may be higher than these figures suggest, as respondents referenced a mix of motivations for answering ‘no’ to this question, including that they do not use government digital services.

The most common issue raised was a lack of integrated digital services across regulators, characterised by multiple portals and forms with low interoperability. This has resulted in fragmentation of information and increased burden on users who are required to submit information multiple times in different formats. Respondents also noted there is no consistent digital method for verifying competence while product information is not always referenced in a consistent, machine-readable way. This is because regulatory services have low interoperability with established project information models used by industry such as Common Data Environments (CDEs), Building Information Modelling (BIM) workflows and asset management systems. Current digital services were seen as causing particular challenges for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and smaller organisations.

How the regulator should promote digital standards and interoperability

Respondents emphasised the need for regulatory digital services to have a common information management framework for digitising information across buildings, products and professions. This framework should cover the whole building lifecycle, to enable traceability from product performance and design intent through to construction records and in-use outcomes. Multiple respondents agreed that data standards should be mandated by the regulator and that standards must be open, aligned with established digital construction frameworks such as BIM and international standards such as ISO-based information management. Interoperability of digital services should be embedded from the outset.

Respondents also recommended that regulatory reporting systems must be interoperable, and that digital systems should prioritise structured, performance-relevant data rather than static documents. Standards must remain proportionate and accessible, including for SMEs. The regulator should publish clear, proportionate data schemas and guidance for each regulatory stage and use consistent and universally understood terminology. Many respondents noted the role of digital competence in enabling standards, and the need to establish clear data and information governance principles on stewardship, ethics, quality, security, interoperability, longevity, openness and integrity of data and information.

Digital tools and compliance

Respondents noted the importance of prioritising interoperability and scalability between tools and platforms, alongside open standards, to support the needs of both smaller and larger organisations. Respondents specifically mentioned governed CDEs, BIM, digital models and digital regulatory services that support structured information capture e.g. through Application Programming Interface (API) exchange. Additional priorities highlighted included developing digital product passport services that support product information management as well as integrated asset and compliance services, competence and professional verification services, audit and site inspection tools, case management and workflow tools. The need for shared learning networks and peer-support services was also noted.

The role of automation and AI

Responses noted that automation and AI-driven compliance checking as part of regulatory services can improve speed, consistency and efficiency, enable early identification of non-compliance or risk patterns, and support more effective risk-based regulation. At the same time, respondents emphasised that automation is best suited for routine, rules-based, or low-risk checks, while human expertise is essential for complex, novel, or context-dependent cases. Human review, oversight, and final accountability must be maintained for safety-critical or complex decisions. Respondents also highlighted the need for strong governance frameworks, regular independent audits, high-quality, standardised and secure data, safeguards against bias and manipulation, continued professional training, and recognition that physical inspections and on-site assessments cannot be fully replaced by automated or digital systems.

3.3 Government response

Digital services as an enabler of insight performance and risk-based regulation

The government’s vision for the regulatory system requires interoperable digital services which meet user needs, in line with the government’s Service Standard.

Digital services will be being designed to:

• put data-informed insight at the heart of the SCR and its operations
• support delivery of the system-wide outcomes
• enable proportionate, risk-based regulation across the sector
• help the regulator understand its own performance
• improve the experience for people using regulatory services

The government is committed to making the broader changes needed to enable digital integration of building, profession and construction product information across the whole building system. Without consistent information standards, digital services cannot support automated information exchange, resulting in lower trust and weaker, slower and more expensive safety assurance.

Digital services that also improve user experience and reduce friction

The detail respondents offers insight into how actors across the regulatory system are using digital tools and platforms within their own operations. This intelligence will support government to design regulatory services which can support interoperability with tools and platforms already widely used by the sector, helping to make the regulatory system more streamlined and accessible.

Information and interoperability needed to support system outcomes

Access to the right information, in the right form, is fundamental not only to enabling the SCR to operate effectively, but also to understanding whether it is delivering against its objectives and contributing to wider system outcomes. As we develop these reforms, we will prioritise digital services and information flows through the regulatory systems for buildings, products and professions that generate the evidence needed to track delivery against system outcomes, monitor the performance of the regulator and support continuous improvement across its operations. This includes understanding timeliness, consistency, quality and impact in the exercise of regulatory functions.

As respondents noted, the SCR will only be effective if it can rely on findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (FAIR) information across the whole building lifecycle. Interoperable digital services will therefore form a core part of the SCR’s operating model. They will enable information to be captured once and used in multiple ways: to support regulatory decisions, to reduce unnecessary duplication for users, to strengthen coordination across the system, and to provide a clearer evidence base for assessing whether regulation is working as intended.

The fragmentation respondents identified within current digital services mirrors the wider institutional fragmentation the SCR is intended to address. By bringing together information from different stages of the building lifecycle, the SCR will be better placed to identify patterns of risk, spot red flags and build a fuller picture of how risks emerge across products, professions and buildings. This should support earlier intervention where risks are greatest, help regulators act in a more proportionate and targeted way, and improve the system’s ability to learn from near misses, recurring issues and emerging trends.

This information will also help the SCR understand its own operational performance and where its approach needs to adapt. For example, better information should support the regulator to identify where processes are working well, where delays or inconsistency may be emerging, where particular interventions are having impact, and where changes are needed to improve regulatory effectiveness. In this way, digital services are not only a channel for interacting with users, but a means of strengthening regulatory capability, accountability and continuous improvement.

Some important information, on how well the system is functioning, such as residents’ insights into how their buildings perform in practice, will continue to be held by other regulatory actors. As set out further in the section 4, this includes qualitative insight from residents and building users, including lived experience, complaints, concerns and other narrative evidence about how the system is operating in practice. We will therefore ensure that the design and implementation of digital and data systems supports the structured capture, integration, sharing and use of qualitative insight alongside quantitative data, so that emerging risks, recurring issues and opportunities for improvement can be identified more effectively. We will also prioritise putting the foundations in place for automated data exchange between the SCR and other parts of the regulatory system, to support collaboration and develop a more complete understanding of progress against the outcomes of a well-functioning building system. Taken together, this will support a more joined-up, insight-driven and risk-based approach to regulation across the sector.

AI and automation in support of proportionate regulatory decision-making

The government will also incorporate insight on opportunities and risks of AI into design of the regulatory services. Our intent is to leverage AI to support prioritisation of applications and efficiencies, whilst doing so ethically and in line with guidance and best practice on the use of AI in government.

We note the point made by multiple respondents that the effectiveness of AI is dependent on the quality, structure and governance of its underlying data. As articulated in the AI Opportunities Action Plan, realising AI-driven public value depends on the availability of accessible, consistent, high- quality, and trustworthy datasets. As set out earlier in this document, improving the accessibility, consistency and interoperability of data across the built environment is a priority for this reform. We have begun laying the foundations for this more integrated, coherent system.

Government has also accepted the principles for reform set out in the Building Control Independent Panel’s report, published 20 May 2026, which included a strong digital backbone, underpinned by clear data standards, interoperability and visible accountability. Government will shortly publish a Digital Building Control Roadmap, which will set out how we will work with the building control sector to improve efficiency, consistency, transparency and data sharing in the wider context of built environment data. This work is supported by an initial £1 million for a local authority-led digital consortium.

We will establish consistent information standards as part of the next phase of regulatory reform, working closely with experts and the construction sector and across government, and will consult on and legislate for standards as soon as parliamentary time allows.

We will engage further with users across the sector as we develop the regulator’s digital services.

Role of industry

As these responses indicate, creating a regulatory system built on findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (FAIR) information relies on action from a whole range of actors. We recommend that all actors across the sector consider where they can actively embed the principles recommended in responses to this consultation, building on the ‘golden thread’ principles required by Building Safety Act.

In particular:

• adopting consistent, standards-based information practices
• upskilling teams in digital and data capabilities
• developing strong governance regarding trustworthy, secure and interoperable data

As we develop the SCR’s future digital and data capability, the government will continue to engage with representatives from across the sector, including our Advisory Board, to ensure that its digital-first design enables access to the right data and meaningfully reduces fragmentation across digital services.

4. Residents and building users

4.1 We asked

In the prospectus we said that we wanted to make the protection of residents and building users a priority for reform. We outlined that the best way to deliver for residents and building users is for the system to work first time, allowing trust to be rebuilt so they can recognise a system that works for them.

Question 10: Should the regulator play a role in setting behavioural standards and providing foundations for enforcement? If so, how should it do this e.g. via powers or duties?

Question 11: How can the regulator protect residents, enabling them to effectively exercise their rights to seek redress to make their homes safe, without fear or confusion?

Question 12: How can the regulator monitor the impact the regulatory system has on the safety of residents?

Question 13: What should the regulatory system do to better share information between regulatory bodies to inform and support the delivery of resident-based outcomes?

Question 14: How can the regulatory system better support and advise residents?

4.2 You said

Should the regulator play a role in setting behavioural standards and providing foundations for enforcement?

There were 108 responses to this question. 82% of respondents agreed that the regulator should play a role in setting behavioural standards and providing foundations for enforcement, with 5% disagreeing and 13% not answering the question.

Response	Percentage
Yes	82%
No	5%
Not answered	13%

Responses submitted by email did not answer the consultation questions directly and were thus not included in the dataset for this graphic.

In addition to responses to the consultation, we received direct feedback from residents through our engagement with them during the consultation period. Whilst this feedback did not answer the questions directly (and is thus not represented in the above graphic), we have incorporated it into our analysis which has given us significantly more insight into residents’ lived experience and what needs to change to improve outcomes for residents and building users as a whole. Where we refer to respondents and/or responses, this also includes these findings.

This engagement was facilitated by the BSR and driven using the principles of co-designed research. Residents were given prompts in the form of questions related to those asked in the consultation itself, but used these prompts to facilitate a wider discussion on the problems and challenges they face with regard to:

• support and advice given to residents and building users by government and the BSR
• how the SCR should look to monitor resident safety
• how residents and building users can raise concerns and seek redress
• how the regulator can help set behavioural standards across the sector
• how information can be better shared across the system

The insights garnered during this engagement have formed a crucial part of the evidence base for this section and its response.

The regulator’s role in setting behavioural standards and foundations for enforcement

There was strong backing (82% of respondents) for the SCR to support behavioural standards, shaping conduct across developers, dutyholders, contractors and other actors so residents and building users are treated fairly, listened to earlier and more effectively protected. Respondents highlighted that the regulator should create a culture of responsibility that prevents neglect, supports enforcement and helps rebuild trust in the wider system. This builds on the foundational view, as outlined in the prospectus, that residents and building users should not carry the burden of system failure and need stronger accountability when things go wrong.

Respondents suggested the following mechanisms for creating and maintaining behavioural expectations:

• clearer standards and duties for industry actors
• stronger sanctions and enforcement that prioritises residents and building users through credible consequences for bad actors across the system and less tolerance of avoidable harm or inaction
• more visible enforcement when organisations fail residents and building users
• consistently holding providers and professionals to account

What the regulatory system can do to protect and support residents and building users, and enable residents to exercise their rights to seek redress

Respondents emphasised that the regulator could protect residents and building users by:

• providing clearer, more accessible guidance, delivered in plain language and designed around the circumstances in which residents and building users typically engage (often during periods of uncertainty or distress)
• providing support which focuses on practical steps: what information residents and building users should expect to receive about their building, how to interpret that information, how to raise concerns and what escalation routes exist when responses are inadequate
• clarifying who is responsible for what across landlords, dutyholders, accountable persons, managing agents and regulators
• signposting pathways that are consistent and easy to understand

Respondents frequently called for residents and building users to have access to relevant safety information about their building and for clear communication about what actions are being taken, by whom and by when. They also highlighted that residents and building users should receive timely, meaningful responses to concerns and that guidance should reflect common ‘pain points’ where residents, building users and dutyholders frequently seek clarification.

A number of respondents highlighted the need for proportionate mechanisms that can triage issues by severity, so that serious risks are prioritised and residents and building users are not deterred by delays or procedural complexity.    

Feedback from residents and building users on the current system of building management notes that a credible system must also recognise the practical realities of building management as well as resident / building user behaviour. In this context, several comments emphasised the importance of clear expectations, engagement, and appropriate interventions where unsafe behaviours (e.g. obstructing fire safety measures) increase risk for others.

Here, leaseholder directors, who are often building residents, take on significant legal, financial and practical duties without a clear understanding of the role and face particular risk where they must interpret complex regulation, oversee remediation or assure technical work without accessible support. This is an issue with which government is actively engaging. In June 2026, MHCLG produced an evidence base on the needs, behaviours and strengths of accountable persons in leaseholder-managed buildings. The report brings together quantitative evidence, qualitative insight and research observations to show that resident-led models can deliver responsive management, stronger resident oversight and better cost control. However, it also found that these benefits often depend on a small number of volunteers operating within a regulatory framework under the Building Safety Act primarily designed for professionals. The evidence points to a widening gap between the responsibilities placed on leaseholder managers under the Building Safety Act and the capacity, expertise and financial resilience available to meet them.

Respondents also highlighted the need for the regulatory system to provide accessible and consistent routes to raise concerns or complaints and seek redress, without being required to navigate a complex landscape of overlapping responsibilities. They recognised a need to strengthen independent support and escalation routes - such as ombudsmen - particularly for cases where routine channels have been exhausted. Additionally, some respondents pointed to the distinctions between regulation and redress, and the importance of effective collaboration between regulators and ombudsmen to support residents in a holistic way.

Respondents said that financial and consumer protection should be strengthened in the regulatory system as a whole through clearer accountability, improved transparency and more robust mechanisms to identify and remedy harm. Several respondents highlighted the financial risk to residents and building users arising from defects, poor workmanship and unclear liability across complex delivery chains, emphasising the need for clear allocation of responsibility and the ability to trace decisions and actions across the building lifecycle. There is also support for stronger protections where existing mechanisms fall short, such as warranties with restricted eligibility.

Monitoring and data sharing

A key weakness respondents identified with the current system is its inability to collect, account for and use qualitative data. In particular, respondents felt that too many residents and building users have been let down and no longer have trust in the regulatory system to deliver these expectations; continuing to ignore the impact of qualitative data impacts the system’s ability to factor in resident and building users’ lived experiences, real stories and personal accounts.

Key messages included:

• a mixed method approach should be used that combines quantitative intelligence with qualitative insight. Many described monitoring as a cycle of evidence: tracking trends in incidents and near‑misses, analysing compliance and enforcement activity, and using operational intelligence to identify emerging risks
• supporting resident- and building user‑centred feedback mechanisms. Suggestions included periodic surveys, structured questionnaires following interventions, and channels to report concerns in ways that inform system‑level learning
• monitoring should be transparent and meaningful. It should look beyond severe events to include leading indicators, such as the prevalence of recurring defects, timeliness of remediation and patterns in complaints. It should also better integrate lived experience data into the system to spot issues earlier and resolve them more effectively
• publishing summary data on inspection findings, compliance rates and enforcement outcomes was seen as a way to build trust and demonstrate that the system is actively improving safety rather than relying on assurances

The link between effective collection, monitoring and use of qualitative data was seen by respondents as missing, especially between monitoring, resident and building user safety and the evolving digital landscape across the sector.

Finally, respondents identified a need to more effectively share data across the regulatory landscape. Information-sharing, including qualitative data, should become routine across the system, enabling stronger cross-regulator coordination so risks, complaints and enforcement issues are not lost between organisations. Regulatory cooperation should be visible and effective enough that residents and building users do not need to navigate institutional complexity themselves.

4.3 Government response

Government understands the importance of making the system work for residents and building users and reiterates its position, as set out in the prospectus, that the current regulatory system places too great a burden on residents and building users to navigate complexity and take on the responsibility to fix things.

The Grenfell Tower tragedy is the starkest example that the processes and professionals tasked with ensuring safety have systemically failed, and as a result, resident trust in our building system has fundamentally eroded. We believe the SCR has an important role to play in making the system work for residents and building users and preventing the issues they are currently facing from happening in the first place. We welcome the suggestions raised by respondents to help achieve this and we reiterate our commitment to engaging with the principles of co-design, bringing residents and building users closer to the design of the SCR. This could include further engagement with existing resident forums or future roundtables.

Behaviour standards and enforcement

The SCR will play a key role in setting behaviour standards by setting clear expectations for industry and role modelling good practice, including through transparent data reporting on its activities. Enforcement of standards and safe practice will be an essential cornerstone of the regulator. Residents, building users and the wider sector must see the SCR holding bad actors to account, so they can have confidence that the building system is working fairly and prioritising safety. Industry also has a role to play to work in good faith with the regulator to meet expected standards, for example by staying up to date on the latest regulatory developments and guidance. All of this is vital for achieving our trust outcome for the building system. The government response to section 5 says more about how we are considering the SCR’s role in enforcement.

Protecting and supporting residents

We will ensure the protection of and support for residents and building users is a clear priority for the regulator. The government will create a system that works for residents and building users first time, allowing trust to be rebuilt with residents and building users who recognise a system that works for them. The regulator and wider system should also support residents and building users to navigate the regulatory system so they can get the support they need. The SCR will help to make the system more accessible by tackling institutional fragmentation, streamlining regulatory activities together and unifying oversight.

Redress is also a critical part of making the system work for residents. Routes to redress must be clear, accessible and easy to navigate. In particular, the work of regulators and ombudsmen are complementary and must work together. With this in mind, we will ensure effective join up between the SCR and ombudsmen across the sector so residents can engage with the system without unnecessary burden and complexity.

We are also working on improving the redress and consumer protection landscape more broadly. Homeowners should be able to trust in the safety and good value of work done on their homes but, as many of the responses to this consultation demonstrate, many simply aren’t getting what they are paying for. Further, seeking redress is often overly complex, time consuming and costly in practice. Therefore, we will launch a consultation on steps we can take to strengthen protections for consumers to drive up standards in the built environment. We are also carefully considering the commencement of a power, created by the Building Safety Act, to strengthen warranties. This power would mandate for the first time the requirement for all new build homes to be sold with a new build warranty and introduce consistency in protections.

This would ensure that all warranties must be backed by insurers or underwriters authorised to carry on the relevant class of insurance business in the United Kingdom and be subject to prudential supervision meeting prescribed requirements, with protections against developer insolvency in the early years. It would also introduce clearer and enforceable claims and redress timelines, require policies to be written in plain English so homeowners understand what is covered, and ensure warranties transfer to future buyers, improving confidence and consistency across the market. In addition to this activity, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is exploring options to strengthen financial protections for consumers undertaking home upgrades.

Monitoring and data sharing

Evidence on issues in the system and the impact of regulation will be critical to optimise how the SCR works. This includes valuable evidence on residents and building users’ first-hand experiences. We will consider how a range of data can be gathered and used to achieve this, including qualitative data on the lived experience of residents and building users. We will ensure that the SCR has the risk and horizon scanning capabilities to make use of data effectively to target its regulatory activities. The SCR will also work across regulators to share information across the system to ensure a holistic approach to protecting and supporting residents and building users.

5. Roles and responsibilities in an integrated regulatory system

5.1 We asked

Our prospectus set out our view that there must be clear roles and responsibilities for everyone working in the building ecosystem. We proposed defined principles for how government, the regulator and industry should operate in the future regulatory system.

Question 15: Do you agree with the principles set out in this chapter, and the proposed roles and responsibilities for government, regulatory bodies and industry?

Question 16: What are your views on how the new regulator can work with industry to support culture change, towards a quality and safety-led culture? What sort of incentives or sanctions do you feel would be effective in supporting this change?

Question 17: What are your views on how industry can best drive the culture change and respond effectively to the changes proposed in this prospectus? In your view, how prepared are individuals and businesses for these changes? What would support industry to be more prepared?

5.2 You said

Whether respondents agree with the proposed principles and roles for government, regulators and industry

There were 118 responses to this question. 80% of respondents agreed with the proposed principles and roles for government, regulators and industry, with 15% disagreeing and 5% of respondents not answering this question.

Response	Percentage
Yes	80%
No	15%
Not answered	5%

Responses submitted by email did not answer the consultation questions directly and were thus not included in the dataset for this graphic.

Respondents felt that government should be clearly responsible for setting the strategic direction, legal and policy framework and overall stewardship of the system, ensuring roles are coherent, the regime is properly supported and reform is coordinated across the sector. Respondents also supported government as the system steward, provided it gives clear, stable and coherent leadership, properly supports the regime and preserves the regulator’s operational independence.

Respondents said the regulator should be clearly responsible for turning that framework into practice, setting clear expectations, coordinating oversight, monitoring performance, and enforcing compliance consistently and independently across the system. Respondents supported the regulator as the operational leader provided it is independent, clearly mandated, properly resourced and able to enforce expectations consistently and credibly. Numerous responses explicitly supported the model of government as a steward of the built environment industries, and the regulator as an independent body with responsibilities over enforcement and accountability.

Respondents said that industry should be clearly responsible for delivering safe, compliant outcomes in practice, through competent design, manufacture, specification, construction, maintenance and assurance, while taking clear accountability across the supply chain for meeting regulatory requirements and embedding safety and quality in day-to-day decisions. Respondents supported industry as the delivery lead provided responsibilities are clear, regulatory expectations are stable and reliable, and industry is properly equipped to meet them.

Respondents were clear in acknowledging the need for culture change across the sector and were supportive of the regulator’s role in this. They said that the SCR should take a proportionate approach to conducting its regulatory activities, and they highlight risk management and enforcement as key parts of this. On regulation, respondents highlighted the need for risk-based regulation which prioritised safety, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach to a complex system with varying risk profiles. On enforcement, penalties should be directly linked to the risk posed by the action, focusing on behaviours that directly undermine safety and avoiding disproportionate sanctions for low-risk or procedural breaches.

More broadly, strong enforcement and clear accountability were repeatedly emphasised by respondents. They made clear they want defined responsibilities, meaningful sanctions and visible action against poor practice. Weak, inconsistent or delayed enforcement was seen as a serious barrier: many responses argued that if poor practice is not identified and sanctioned promptly, bad actors will continue to undercut responsible ones.

The regulator should seek to create a culture which strikes a balance between clear enforcement sanctions and incentives for industry to increase compliance. Respondents favoured regulatory incentives, but mainly as “earned recognition” through professional standards or practical advantages for demonstrably competent organisations in procurement processes that do not incentivise a race to the bottom. Respondents did not see incentives as a substitute for enforcement; they saw them as something that should sit alongside visible sanctions, procurement reform and clearer regulatory expectations.

Respondents highlighted the need for accessible standards and guidance, and stressed that digital processes should reduce duplication rather than introduce further administrative burden.

Respondents were clear in what they expect the role of the regulator to be, but also clarified that the regulator is one part of the system and should work coherently with other regulatory actors. Respondents highlighted that activities that relate to each other should be joined up across regulatory actors, but at the same time, there should be a clear separation of roles and responsibilities to avoid duplicating effort.

Some respondents also said that the regulator should avoid becoming overly ‘cosy’ with major dutyholders. They favoured transparent decision-making, published regulatory action and safeguards against regulatory capture.

How industry can drive culture change, preparedness for reform, and what support is needed

Respondents suggested that industry could drive culture change by embedding safety and quality into procurement, governance and everyday decision-making, treating compliance evidence as a critical part of delivering a safe building rather than just as an administrative task. Investment in skills, clear role definition and effective quality assurance were frequently cited as essential for industry to achieve culture change. Several responses called for competence registers, clearer professional accountability and supply-chain behaviours that discourage last-minute substitution, uncontrolled design change and “value engineering” that erodes safety margins. There is a strong message that culture change will only work if it is inclusive of smaller firms, not driven only through large organisations or repeat players.

Respondents also said that preparedness for regulatory and cultural change is uneven across the sector, and this unevenness often falls hardest on smaller firms with fewer specialist staff, less regulatory capacity and less ability to absorb change costs. They said support is needed to help with this including stable regulatory requirements, clear transitional arrangements, accessible training and guidance, and a realistic implementation timeline that allows businesses to adapt systems and commercial models.

Some respondents stressed that confidence would grow as early adopters’ lessons become shared practice, but cautioned that if the system is perceived as punitive without being clear, it may drive disengagement rather than improvement. There is, however, an underlying concern that if the regulator is not careful, SMEs could be disadvantaged by burdensome systems, inconsistent interpretation, or compliance models designed around the resources of larger businesses. At the same time, the responses suggest many smaller firms can actively contribute to culture change if the system is clear, proportionate, and does not reward bad-faith actors who undercut responsible businesses.

Respondents said procurement in the built environment often drives the wrong behaviours. A recurring view was that parts of the industry still prioritise lowest upfront cost, aggressive value engineering, fragmented design responsibility and risk transfer, which undermines safety, quality and long-term performance. The preferred direction is earlier, competence-led and more collaborative procurement. Many called for stronger client education, better tender requirements, fairer allocation of risk, and public-sector procurement to lead by requiring quality, compliance and lifecycle performance rather than cheapest price. Some respondents also pointed to the influential role of the public sector in procurement. If government clients require competent people, compliant products and better information management, respondents think this would quickly raise standards across the wider construction supply chain.

5.3 Government response

Government welcomes the significant support for the proposed principles, roles and responsibilities set out in the prospectus. As steward of the built environment, the government will oversee the future integrated regulatory system, including the SCR.

Through the SCR reform programme we will bring building, product and professional regulation into one coherent system that addresses institutional fragmentation. This presents a significant opportunity to make regulation of these areas more effective and holistic, based on intelligence from across the whole life cycle of construction: from oversight of products being tested and placed on the market, to the competence of those carrying out work and how safely a building functions in real life.

Alongside designing the future regulatory system, we are taking decisive action to make the existing regulation of buildings, products and professions more effective and proportionate. This will pave the way for the establishment of the SCR, creating the right conditions on which it can build.

Improving BSR performance

As explained in section 2.3, the BSR has undergone a significant period of improvement over the past year. The BSR is looking to continue with this initial progress and has developed a transformation plan focused on bolstering capability across several key areas including data & insight and service delivery, to ensure it becomes a strategy-led, data-driven regulator.

This transformation plan will be developed with a view of the long-term establishment of the SCR. There is a clear link here with some of the digital discovery work, with the BSR looking to invest in digital capability and ensure that there is agency to expand the scope and scale of its digital capabilities.

As the BSR will be the foundation of the SCR, these continued efforts to improve BSR’s performance provide an increasingly strong basis for the new regulator.

Reviewing the proportionality of the higher-risk building control regime

Alongside the development of the SCR, we are working to streamline the building control regime. As it has bedded in, opportunities to update and simplify processes have been identified, which is why we are undertaking a programme of work to review the proportionality of the regime, with a view to making targeted changes while upholding safety aims. Our aim is to maintain the safety principles that are the core intention of the higher-risk building control regime, so that all residents and building users can feel safe. Additionally, this review and proposed changes are aimed at freeing up the BSR’s capacity to assess the highest-risk and most critical safety work.

This programme of work launched in January 2026 with a consultation focused on proposals to dispense with procedural requirements of the higher-risk building control regime for high-volume, routine building work undertaken by the telecommunications industry. The consultation for this closed on 24 March 2026. We also ran a consultation which closed on 28th May on further proposals to refine the application of the regime for high volume, low complexity work and to ensure that the system operates in a proportionate manner. We are currently analysing the responses to both consultations. We have analysed responses to both consultations and aim to publish the government’s response soon.

We are also considering how the building control regime fits within the wider regulatory system, including how it interacts with the SCR. The report of the Building Control Independent Panel was published on 20 May 2026 and sets out a wide range of recommendations to reform the building control system, including fundamental institutional reform which would impact the role and responsibilities of the new regulator. Our initial government response sets out that we agree with the Panel’s principles for reform, including the need to create a single regulatory system for building control supported by fewer, stronger statutory bodies. We will now undertake further policy development, engagement and analysis to determine the most effective and proportionate way forward, including the implications for the design and responsibilities of the SCR.

Developing the construction product regime and oversight

We are also continuing to develop ambitious, system-wide reform of the construction products sector. In February 2026, we published the Construction Products Reform White Paper and a consultation on the General Safety Requirement. Following the 2025 Green Paper, the white paper addresses the regulatory gaps and critical issues in the construction products sector, which has been largely unreformed since the Grenfell tragedy. To drive the pace of reform, we consulted in parallel on a general safety requirement to bring unregulated products into the regulatory regime.

Currently, the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) regulates construction products. Since beginning this work in 2021, it has significantly increased market surveillance and enforcement activity at a national level, addressing risks and non-compliance for products placed on the market and driving lasting changes in business behaviour. Our reforms mean we will be widening and strengthening oversight of the regime, including through a number of new regulatory functions, as set out in the white paper. The prospectus signalled our intent that, in future, the SCR will be accountable for the delivery of construction product regulation. Building on the work of the OPSS, the SCR will drive regulatory oversight along the whole lifecycle of products, addressing fragmentation between construction products and other regulatory regimes. We continue to work closely with OPSS on the operational detail of these reforms, how it will impact the functions currently undertaken by OPSS in addition to the new regulatory functions set out in the White Paper. We will provide further information and detail in due course.

The White Paper proposed principles that will underpin implementation of reforms. Where possible, we will introduce reforms using existing legislative powers, or through non-legislative means. This includes using secondary legislation to bring all products into the regulatory regime through the general safety requirement, and measures to ensure consistency with the reformed EU regime. Some of the reforms will require primary legislation. These will be implemented in a future legislative session, when parliamentary time allows.

Creating a strategy for the built environment professions, trades and occupations

We will publish an overarching strategy for the built environment professions, trades and occupations in spring 2027. This will build on the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry to take a holistic view of regulation, skills and culture across all those working in the built environment sector to deliver system-wide reform. This will include a range of regulatory and non-regulatory changes to incentivise, enable and enforce effective standards of skills, knowledge and experience, positive behaviours, conduct and culture and high levels of accountability and responsibility.

In May 2026 we published a call for evidence to inform our future policy on those working in the built environment professions, trade and occupations. The findings of this call for evidence will help us make critical choices about the shape and scope of the full strategy for the built environment professions, trades and occupations, based on a solid understanding of how the system works now and the kinds of actions that will lead to demonstrable change.

To inform the strategy, the Department has commissioned an expert working group to analyse the links between professional activity and risks to the public in the built environment, and use this framework to recommend measures for regulatory reform for ministers’ consideration. This could include whether more professions should be brought into the scope of statutory regulation and whether further building functions should be reserved.

As part of our wider programme of reform, we are also taking action in professions where there is a clear case for change, as identified in the Grenfell Inquiry, to strengthen the regulation and accountability of specific roles including building control, fire engineer, fire risk assessors, principal contractors and principal designers. In December 2025, we delivered on Recommendation 17 of the Inquiry with the publication of the Fire Engineers Advisory Panel’s Authoritative Statement on the knowledge and skills expected of a competent fire engineer. Alongside this, the Department published a document outlining the next steps on fire engineering profession reform, including establishing a Transitional Board to guide the early stages of reform. This year, we established and have begun working with the Transitional Board to further develop the approach to implementing the fire engineering professional reforms.

In March 2026, we launched a consultation on proposals to strengthen and professionalise the Fire Risk Assessor sector, including measures to improve competence and consistency. This forms part of our response to recommendation 26 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s Phase 2 report, which is to introduce mandatory certification for Fire Risk Assessors. The consultation concluded in June 2026, and we are currently analysing responses ahead of a formal response in the autumn.

This work will also help us to determine what role the SCR will have in the regulation and oversight of the built environment professions, trades and occupations and how the regulatory system will function as a whole to ensure that this oversight works effectively.

Risk-based regulation and enforcement

It is critical that the SCR is designed to fulfil its roles and responsibilities effectively and proportionately. To enable this, we can confirm that a risk-based approach to regulation and the enforcement of safe and proper practice will be essential cornerstones of the SCR. Comprehensive and responsive horizon-scanning functions will inform the SCR’s approach to targeting its operations and conducting proportionate enforcement. We will ensure that it has the powers it needs to take decisive action and effective enforcement against those who do not meet the expected regulatory standards.

We acknowledge that the regulatory system needs to create incentives for all actors to behave responsibly and contribute to positive outcomes. This should be done through setting clear expectations of what is required, enabling people and businesses who can be trusted to benefit, and enforcing consequences for those who consistently or deliberately put people at risk by failing to do the right thing.

The current work of the BSR and OPSS will be a particularly important foundation for our approach to risk-based regulation.

The Building Safety Act introduced a duty for the BSR to keep under review the safety and standards of all buildings. Horizon-scanning and risk monitoring is crucial to allow appropriate action to be taken to ensure building safety and ensure regulations and regulatory activity adapt and are prioritised as new risks emerge.

The BSR currently takes a risk-based approach to target their resources towards the biggest risks. The BSR continues to incorporate learning to strengthen its risk-handling processes, maturing its organisation intelligence capability and improving its information-sharing with other regulatory partners. It is continuing to develop these capabilities and integrate them as it grows as a new independent regulator. The BSR is also driving new public communications, including a new rapid alert system and regular safety communications to Principal Accountable Persons, who are responsible for safety in their buildings. This work is important as clear and prompt communication of emerging risks, which is essential to maintain safety. As the BSR’s functions will form a key foundation of the SCR, sustaining work on risk management is essential.

OPSS currently takes a risk-based approach to ensure effective targeting of resources at the biggest risks, and this approach will continue under the SCR. The general safety requirement will take a proportionate, risk-based approach, supporting safety without placing unnecessary burdens on business.

The role of industry

Just as government and regulators are transforming the regulation of the built environment, industry must equally play its role for this change to be truly meaningful and long-lasting. An enhanced regulatory landscape cannot resolve the problems as highlighted by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry alone. We therefore welcome the fact that respondents acknowledge this balance of responsibility. We encourage actors from all corners of the sector to lead a positive cultural transformation in how safety and quality are embedded throughout the lifecycle of buildings, including by taking onboard the perspectives of respondents from this consultation. This may include efforts to: strengthen professional standards and quality assurance processes; embrace data and digital solutions that help with regulatory compliance; and address longstanding structural issues such as outdated procurement models. To help achieve such changes, government encourages collaborative working across the sector to share knowledge, learn from best practice and foster feedback loops that enhance performance.

Our intention is that the creation of the SCR will provide the necessary stability and guidance to support the sector in adapting to the new regulatory landscape, especially as it will be delivered via a phased transition to minimise disruption to existing regulatory activity. Our approach will create the right environment for industry and actors across the sector to make purposeful changes to the culture, ways of working and practices they role model across the sector. We also intend to work directly with industry to ensure they are able to contribute to the final design of the future regulator, as detailed in the ‘next steps’ section.

6. Next steps

We intend to legislate for the SCR as soon as parliamentary time allows.​ Depending on parliamentary time and Bill progress, we expect implementation for the regulator to start from 2028. We will continue extensive work to develop the shape of the SCR and prepare for its future implementation, including finalising the specific functions of the SCR, how they work together and how they should be embedded across a wider regulatory system. All preparatory work will continue to factor in the feedback received from respondents to the consultation.

We will continue to engage with residents, building users and representatives from across the construction sector as we develop and implement the SCR. Throughout the policy planning and consultation design, execution and analysis processes, the government has engaged with co-design principles. Industry stakeholders have been regularly consulted to garner individual personal and corporate insights, using their expertise to build the narrative framing and assist with the policy design of the SCR. We intend for this engagement to continue as we further develop our plans for the SCR.

Additionally, we have consulted regularly with our Advisory Board, who have brought a diverse and wide range of expert perspectives to our policy development. We intend to continue extensive engagement with our Board members who provide important viewpoints from academia, industry, consumer and resident groups and regulatory practitioners, and are pivotal to the development of the new regulator.

In tandem to our industry and Advisory Board engagement, we have also engaged directly with residents, using their insights to provide lived experience insights into the regulatory design process. Going forward, we look forward to continuing these engagement pathways and expanding our engagement with all corners of the sector as we develop this once in a generation opportunity to transform the built environment.

We have also engaged with partners across the 4 nations and will continue to do so as reforms progress. The government’s ambition is for an effective four nations approach to regulatory reform. While the reforms contained in this government response do not propose changes to territorial extent, we recognise the importance of close collaboration with the Devolved Administrations alongside the development of regulatory reforms by the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations. We will continue to work together to share learning, support alignment where appropriate and promote a coherent approach to reform across the four nations.

7. Annex: Consultations and other engagement

A range of work connected to the SCR and wider Inquiry reforms are underway. Here is a list of recent consultations:

• Improving proportionality and safety outcomes in building control: telecommunications work (closed)
• Improving proportionality and building safety outcomes in building control: categorisation of higher-risk building work (closed)
• Construction Products White Paper and the related consultation on the General Safety Requirement for Construction Products (both closed)
• Our proposals for the development of the fire risk assessor profession (closed)
• Building Safety Regulator consultation on proposed updates to Approved Document B, the statutory fire safety guidance accompanying the Building Regulations (closed)
• Consultation on the college of fire and rescue which is accepting responses until 15th July 2026
• We have published a call for evidence on the new strategy for the built environment professions, trades and occupations which is accepting responses until 12th August 2026
• DESNZ consultation on consumer protection reforms for home upgrades under the Warm Homes Plan, which is accepting responses until 10 September 2026

Common terms used in this response

Term	Definition
Accountable Person / Principal Accountable Person	Roles created under the Building Safety Act with legal responsibility for managing building safety in occupied higher-risk buildings.
AI	Artificial Intelligence
API	Application Programming Interface – a way for different digital systems to exchange data automatically.
Approved Document B	The statutory fire safety guidance that accompanies the Building Regulations.
Arm’s-length body	Arm’s-length bodies (ALB) are a specific category of central government public bodies that are administratively classified by the Cabinet Office. There are three types of ALB: Executive Agencies, Non-Departmental Public Bodies and Non-Ministerial Departments.
BIM	Building Information Modelling – a digital approach to creating and managing structured information about buildings across their lifecycle.
BSR	Building Safety Regulator. Established under the Building Safety Act 2022 to regulate higher-risk buildings, raise safety standards of all buildings and help professionals in design, construction and building control, to improve their competence.
Building system / building ecosystem	These terms are used interchangeably in this document to refer to the range of people, public and private and bodies involved in residential, commercial and civic buildings at every stage of their lifecycle. This includes construction products used in buildings, infrastructure and wider built environment; the range of professionals and tradespeople who design, build, fund and maintain our buildings; and residents and users of every type and tenure of building. Each of these actors has a different level and type of impact on our buildings.
Built environment	The human-made surroundings we live and work in, such as homes, buildings, streets and infrastructure.
CDE	Common Data Environment(s) – shared digital spaces used to manage and store project information so teams can work from consistent, up-to-date information.
Citizen Space	The online consultation platform used to collect survey responses.
Consult	The government AI-assisted tool used to help identify and assign themes across consultation responses.
Conformity assessment	The process of checking whether a product, process or system meets required standards or regulations.
Digital backbone	The core digital systems, standards and data infrastructure needed to support a wider service or regulatory model.
Dutyholder(s)	Individuals or organisations with defined legal responsibilities for safety and compliance in the building process.
Factory production control	Ongoing checks and systems used by manufacturers to ensure products are made consistently to the required standard.
FAIR	Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable – a set of principles for managing information so it can be easily located, shared and used across systems.
Gateway 2	A formal approval stage in the higher-risk building control regime where key design and safety information must be approved before construction proceeds.
General Safety Requirement	A proposed rule to bring currently unregulated construction products into the regulatory regime by requiring them to be safe.
Higher Risk Buildings (HRBs)	Buildings deemed to be higher risk, subject to the requirements of the higher-risk regime directly overseen by the Building Safety Regulator.
Horizon scanning	Monitoring for emerging risks, trends or issues that may affect building safety or regulatory priorities in future.
HSE	Health and Safety Executive. The UK’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. It prevents work-related death, injury and ill health. HSE is a non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions.
Institutional fragmentation	A situation where regulatory and governance responsibilities are split across several bodies in a way that causes gaps, overlap or weak coordination.
Interoperability	The ability of different systems, software and devices to communicate, share, exchange, and use data with each other.
ISO-based information management	Refers to information management standards aligned with International Organization for Standardization (ISO) frameworks, used to support consistency and interoperability.
Lifecycle / whole lifecycle	All stages of a building or product’s existence from design and manufacture through to construction, use, maintenance and eventual replacement.
Machine-readable	Information structured so that computer systems can process it automatically.
MHCLG	Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
NCPR	National Construction Products Regulator. Sits within the Office for Product Safety and Standards and Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) leads and co-ordinates market surveillance and enforcement.
OPSS	Office for Product Safety and Standards. The national regulator for all consumer products, except for vehicles, medicines and food. The National Construction Products Regulator sits within the OPSS (since April 2021).
Primary legislation	An Act of Parliament – the main form of law needed for major legal reforms.
Procurement reform	Changes to how organisations buy goods and services, intended here to encourage quality, competence and safety rather than lowest upfront cost.
Redress	A route for residents or building users to seek remedy when something has gone wrong, for example through complaints, compensation or corrective action.
Regulatory capture	The risk that a regulator becomes too close to the industry it regulates and stops acting in the public interest.
Resident-centred / building user-centred	Designed around the needs, experience and safety of residents or building users.
Risk-based regulation	A regulatory approach that focuses effort on the areas of greatest safety risk rather than treating every case the same.
SCR	Single Construction Regulator. The first recommendation of the Grenfell Inquiry Phase 2 Single Construction Regulator was to ’draw together under a single regulator’ a number of regulatory functions relating to the construction industry referred to in the Phase 2 report.
Secondary legislation	Law created by ministers (or other bodies) under powers given to them by an Act of Parliament. It is used to fill in the details of Acts (primary legislation).
SME	Small and medium enterprise. A business with fewer than 250 employees.
Statutory duties / statutory bodies / statutory guidance	Requirements, organisations or guidance that have a basis in law.
System fragmentation	A broader lack of coherence across the whole regulatory system, making it harder to see risks clearly and respond effectively.
Thematic analysis	A method for identifying patterns and recurring themes across qualitative responses or comments.
Third-party testing / certification	Independent testing or approval by an external organisation rather than the manufacturer or supplier.
Value engineering	A practice of changing building design, materials or methods to reduce cost.