The Government published its formal consultation document, 'The Future of Building Control' in March 2008 and further research and consultations are still ongoing.

Copies of all the relevant documents published by CLG and others are available to ACAI members within the Members' Area of this website.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7 key points in response to ‘The Future of Building Control’ consultation, June 2008

The ACAI's vision for building control is:

• A service that delivers safe, healthy, accessible and sustainable buildings for current and future generations.
• A service that works with the construction industry to ensure compliance.
• A service based upon the principles of risk assessment and independent third-party checking.
• A service overseen by a single regulatory and licensing body which also has the power to investigate complaints and, if necessary, to discipline or withdraw licences to operate.
• A service that is delivered by licensed Building Control Bodies (BCBs) who are all trading bodies subject to the same requirements in terms of competence, conduct, training and CPD, insurance, performance monitoring etc.
• A service where standards are rigorously monitored, the results published and new standards developed to ensure highest standards of consumer protection.
• A service with no unregulated sub-sector, where no building control contract can be won (direct or sub-contracted to another BCB) without a licence to operate.
• A service backed up by a completely independent, publicly-funded and fully resourced policing body within the local authority with significant powers to enforce compliance, stop illegal building work and take any necessary action against rogue builders

In particular, the ACAI would like to draw attention to the following proposals, many of which are not yet covered by the consultation process:

1. A level playing field: commercial freedom for local authority building control teams – but also appropriate controls

The ACAI agrees that the current regime for local authority building control is often inflexible and restrictive. Building control is the only part of a local authority’s work that is subject to private sector competition, and it sits uneasily alongside the public service role of these organisations. The Approved Inspector model of working has proved to be both effective and very popular within the development community.

The ACAI agrees that local authority building control teams should be given the right to ring-fence their fees, encouraged to reinvest in their people and generally be allowed the same commercial freedoms and opportunities to innovate as the private sector. But they must then also be subject to the same controls as apply to privately trading companies. This will ensure a genuinely ‘level playing field’, and a better building control system for the future.

2. A risk-based approach to inspection regimes

Part of the benefits of using Approved Inspectors comes from our freedom to devise an inspection regime that better matches the risk profile of the site and the needs of our client. Approved Inspectors can tailor their inspection regimes to match the individual circumstances of each site, each builder and prior experience of likely weak points. This approach to building control inspection has been pioneered by Approved Inspectors for many years, and its success is shown in the high degree of compliance achieved and the very positive feedback from customers.

Local authorities should now be required to inspect on site, but allowed the choice of deciding when that should be in line with their risk assessment of each project. If the Government decides that all building work must be subject to at least one inspection (and that must be the minimum, not an accepted norm), then it should be at completion stage.

When considering how to develop the best inspection regime, there is certainly some value in setting out (and making visible to customers and public alike) the generic guidance on risk factors to be taken into account for broad categories of projects.

The ACAI believes that all BCBs should comply with that generic guidance, but also develop their own additional tools and specific risk assessment criteria based on experience, local knowledge etc.

3. Consistent standards of competence required for all building control professionals

The ACAI disagrees with the comment in the consultation document that “BCBs tend to focus on issues that are critical to safety (ie. structure and fire) at the expense of the newer regulations (eg. those relating to sound insulation, air tightness and energy efficiency) …”.

This is not the case for Approved Inspectors. We do not ‘prioritise’ certain Regulations over others.

Approved Inspectors’ competence is assessed upon (and their licence to operate is dependent upon) full understanding of all parts of the Regulations, and most AIs employ additional specialist expertise (such as mechanical and heating engineers etc.) to ensure that issues such as thermal efficiency, air tightness and sound insulation are given appropriate attention in all cases.

There should be consistency in the competence framework, skills and knowledge of all building control professionals.

4. Mandatory regulation, licensing and performance monitoring of all building control bodies

Approved Inspectors are required to submit annual returns against key performance indicators set out by the Construction Industry Council (CIC), the regulatory and licensing body for all AIs. There is no such monitoring for local authority building control departments.

Despite encouragement from their peers and industry groups like BCPSAG, early indications suggest that only about a third of local authorities will agree to submit similar information voluntarily this year. This is woefully inadequate, and undermines industry and public confidence in building control generally.

The ACAI believes that there must be mandatory performance indicators for all BCBs. These performance indicators should be meaningful to the customer experience – qualitative and output-focused, not just counting how many applications a BCB has received and processed.

The ACAI’s view is that there should be a single regulatory body, such as the CIC, that ‘owns’ these performance indicators. This body should set minimum standards (based on benchmarks from existing data) and report on the performance of all BCBs on an annual basis.

The ACAI is particularly worried about the plethora of unregulated consultancies providing outsourced building control support to local authorities – these are neither licensed Approved Inspectors nor public sector bodies.

If there was a single regulatory and licensing body for all BCBs, this same body could (and should) also become the single point of contact for any customer or member of public with a complaint. It should have the same powers as currently exercised over Approved Inspectors – ie. a proven complaint could lead to the removal of the licence to operate.

5. A separate, independent and publicly-funded enforcement team – with teeth

As publicly-funded organisations with related responsibilities for ensuring public health and protection, it is absolutely clear that local authorities are the best enforcement bodies for taking action against builders who refuse to meet the required Building Regulations standards.

The ACAI believes that local authorities should be given all the necessary enforcement tools and powers that are available under law – including stop notices, the right to issue fixed penalty fines etc.

However, enforcement has been very poorly resourced over many years and action is rarely taken where it needs to be. Illegal building work still continues right under our noses, and local authority building control teams do not have the resources to police this adequately.

The ACAI believes that the enforcement role of a local authority should be significantly strengthened, and separated from any commercial operations. In this way, the local authority building control team will be effectively ‘privatised’ and able to work in a similar way to Approved Inspectors, and the separate, publically-funded enforcement team will not be in any way constrained by commercial considerations. This will lead to more and better enforcement action, and greater public protection.

6. At least 9 months’ notice of new Building Regulations

The current proposal in the consultation document supports the introduction of a six month standstill period. Although this is helpful, the ACAI believes that there needs to be a minimum nine month standstill period between the publication of the new legislation and its implementation.

Nine months is the minimum period in which any organisation or industry can successfully achieve an effective communications and training programme.

7. No integration of planning and building control services in local authorities

The ACAI is firmly against any proposal at this time to consider more formal integration of these two very different disciplines. There is already a confusing overlap taking place between planning and building control which creates misunderstanding and problems for many parts of the development community and building control customers. Planners are increasingly demanding technical standards that complicate compliance with Building Regulations. This needs resolving first.

There are also huge variations in the quality of service provided by planning authorities, and until that function is properly resourced and organised, and its performance is monitored and made more consistent, there can be no benefit in formally linking it with a building control service, even for the domestic market.

However, the ACAI is very much in favour of more integration between building control and Health and Safety.