“Broken” Building Control system “leaves consumers at risk”

Chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt, the independent panel also comprised four experts with extensive experience in the regulation and use of the Building Control sector, namely Elaine Bailey, Ken Rivers, Nick Raynsford and Dr David Snowball.

The extensive report – based on the results of monthly meetings conducted between April 2025 and March this year – finds that the Building Control system faces longstanding challenges, including fragmentation, conflicts of interest, uneven capacity and inconsistent oversight, despite the professionalism and commitment of those working within it.

Indeed, the report’s Executive Summary references “a broken system leaving consumers at risk from buildings which have not been effectively regulated and investors, insurers and Government at significant financial risk when problems are discovered”.

Vital role

The Building Control system in England should perform a vital public safety role in ensuring that building work is safe and carried out in compliance with the Building Regulations. As things stand, the independent panel believes the system cannot provide reassurance that this public safety role is being met consistently, with associated risks posed to Health and Safety and the potential for substantial future remediation costs.

According to the panel, the public sector system of Building Control has been “progressively neglected”. Local Authority Building Control Authorities (LA BCAs) have been “unable to sustain the level of advice, oversight and enforcement expected of them” for all building work on a consistent basis. The panel also asserts that the pressure exerted on LA BCAs in certain areas of England to operate a commercial, client-based function has “exacerbated a conflict of interest” with their wider legal obligations to the public.

The private market has expanded to fill public sector capacity gaps, but with no corresponding public duty to enforce against poor quality building work. This has created an “uneven and fragile” landscape, with LA BCAs not consistently able to meet their statutory obligations to provide compliance advice and follow that up with risk-based inspections as well as take early enforcement action where necessary.

Within LA BCAs, there’s an “inherent conflict of interest”, as found by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry in relation to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, with the local authority leading large-scale public sector building and renovation projects, while also acting as the Building Control and enforcement body. “As was seen with the Grenfell Tower tragedy, if the Building Control service within an authority is not resourced or experienced enough, opportunities to step in and challenge proposals can be missed or advice ignored by the wider local authority.”

Individual professionalism

The system depends increasingly on individual professionalism to counter pressures created by the structure itself. The Building Control Independent Panel suggests this reliance is neither sustainable nor fair on the workforce. The consequence is a model that delivers variable outcomes and exposes the public to risks that are not always visible or consistently managed, even though many of those risks originate upstream in design and construction practices rather than within Building Control itself.

The evidence points to “persistent” structural weaknesses, with fragmentation across approximately 300 LA BCAs and multiple private providers, alongside low capacity in the sector overall, particularly so in LA BCAs, in turn leading to “rare and uneven” enforcement. LA BCAs are not adequately resourced or incentivised to offer consistent advice, undertake enforcement and prosecute where necessary.

As there is no corresponding duty on the private sector to enforce, LA BCAs face further pressure from ‘reversions’, which is the statutory process by which Building Control responsibility returns to the local authority when a Registered Building Control Approver (RBCA) can no longer continue acting on a project.

There’s some evidence to suggest that this is driving poor behaviours in the private sector, with them taking on work that’s initially undervalued and underinspected, sometimes due to pressures from clients and duty holders. This has undermined financial resilience over time, leading to closures of RBCAs.

The panel’s view is that if it were tasked to design a system from first principles, it wouldn’t introduce a system where duty holders can choose their regulator. The independent panel’s recommendation for the long-term Building Control model is for choice to be removed.

Strengths and experience

Recognising the reforms made since 2017, the independent panel’s report recommends duty holders should continue (for now) to be able to express a preference of Building Control provider within a system where the legal obligations currently with LA BCAs are taken independently of the LA.

In this system, the mixed public–private nature of Building Control in England can (and should) remain. Both local authorities and private providers can continue to offer client-facing services, drawing on the strengths and experience that already exist.

In essence, the independent panel’s report sets out an end state model for Building Control. A single and coherent regulatory system that provides independent and consistent oversight for building work in England and prioritises the public interest.

Within this model, statutory Building Control functions are delivered by fewer, larger and publicly accountable ‘Building Control Bodies’ operating at a scale that sustains specialist expertise, offers attractive and stable career pathways and enforces and inspects work consistently.

Recognising that this end state will take time to deliver, the report sets out steps that should be taken earlier in order to strengthen the current system, while laying the groundwork for long-term reform. The panel consider these steps will help to reduce pressures in the system, make better use of existing capacity and create the conditions for further consolidation to proceed smoothly.

Way forward

The independent panel’s proposed steps forward include:

*levelling the regulatory environment between public and private providers

*improving guidance and public information such that duty holders understand their responsibilities

*supporting LA BCAs and RBCAs to stabilise workforce capacity

*establishing a strong digital system underpinning Building Control in England

*improving transparency, data quality and performance oversight

According to the independent panel, the transition will require careful sequencing and sustained political commitment over several years. It must also be managed in a way that doesn’t destabilise a system that’s already under pressure, particularly as the country faces the challenge of delivering the Government’s stated 1.5 million new homes, while maintaining public confidence in their safety.

The independent panel observes: “Lessons from the establishment of the Building Safety Regulator underline the importance of phasing change at a pace the system can absorb and ensuring that reforms strengthen, rather than stretch, the capacity of those delivering them.”

The panel is “mindful” that its recommendations introduce further layers of oversight into the system. The cost of implementing these reforms must be weighed against the significant benefits resulting from greater assurance and increased public confidence in the system.

Response from LABC

Lorna Stimpson, CEO of Local Authority Building Control (LABC), has responded to the Building Control Independent Panel’s findings.

“The long-anticipated report is a significant contribution to the conversation on the future of Building Control,” affirmed Stimpson. “I’m encouraged by the independent panel’s acknowledgement of the skilled, knowledgeable and deeply committed people who work in the Building Control profession and the acknowledgement that the profession has been let down by a system that’s fragmented, inconsistent and places its constituent professionals under conflicting pressures. I’m also grateful to see recognition of the significant reform that Building Control has already embraced since 2017.”  

Stimpson added: “The driver of these recommendations is, as it should be, public safety. The independent panel’s recommendations for levelling the current system, including aligning application types, improving inspection consistency and reforming fees, are all very welcome and long overdue.”  

Further, Stimpson continued: “We’ve spent many years working closely with Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) officials and the Building Safety Regulator to improve capacity and capability in public service Building Control, providing qualifications and competence-specific learning to over 2,500 surveyors and technicians working for local authorities across England and Wales. The panel’s report, alongside recent significant Government funding, reinforces the importance of our drive to upskill, reskill and increase the capacity in public service Building Control. It also recognises that the profession is already transforming its ways of working and its overall contribution to safety and quality.”  

Stimpson concluded: “We look forward to working with MHCLG officials and colleagues across both public and private sector Building Control in addressing the principles laid out in the report to help shape the future of our profession.”

*Read the Government’s response in full online