A week before Christmas, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government published its prospectus for a new single construction regulator. Expected to be operational by 2028, the body is one of the central recommendations of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, intended to address what it described as a fragmented and disjointed regulatory system.<\/p>\n
The prospectus, now out for consultation, sets out the government\u2019s strategic case for the regulator and its three core functions: overseeing buildings, products and professions. While the first two areas build on reforms already under way, it is the third \u2013 regulation of professional competence \u2013 that perhaps represents the most far-reaching shift.<\/p>\n
The document proposes replacing the current patchwork of largely voluntary arrangements with a centralised framework to enforce competence across the built environment. A long-term strategy for building professions, including trades and related occupations, is promised for 2027. This will set out a roadmap of regulatory and non-regulatory reforms, with responsibilities allocated across government, industry and individuals. The proposals draw heavily on the Grenfell Tower Inquiry\u2019s recommendations to strengthen accountability for safety-critical roles, including building control professionals, fire engineers, fire risk assessors, principal contractors and principal designers.<\/p>\n
The prospectus also called for a licensing system for principal contractors working on higher-risk buildings.\u00a0 However, the government says it wants to \u201cgo further\u201d, taking what it describes as a \u201cholistic view\u201d of regulation, competence and culture across the sector. It is considering whether mandatory registration and licensing should be extended to additional professions; what enforcement powers are required to impose meaningful sanctions while recognising good practice; and how regulatory structures can be designed to manage conflicts of interest and deliver consistent outcomes.<\/p>\n
Supporters argue this is a long-overdue reset that could rebuild trust in a system badly damaged by Grenfell. Critics counter that without careful design, the reforms risk adding bureaucracy without materially improving safety.<\/p>\n
At present, statutory registration applies only to architects and building control officers or approved inspectors. While the architect title is legally protected, the activity itself is not. Anyone can offer architectural services provided they do not use the title. Some engineering work affecting structural integrity is classed as controlled under legislation, but registration is not required for non-controlled engineering activity. Elsewhere, professions such as construction or project management can pursue chartered status, but this remains voluntary.<\/p>\n
As Jeremy Gray, head of external affairs at the Federation of Master Builders, points out, builders themselves face no minimum competence threshold. \u201cThis should be addressed by the new regulator,\u201d Gray says. \u201cA single regulator offers opportunities for enhanced protections in the industry, such as licensing of construction firms.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mandatory registration and licensing have also been welcomed by Jon Vanstone, chair of the Industry Competence Committee, but with clear caveats. Licensing alone, he warns, will not solve construction\u2019s deep-rooted competence problems. \u201cThe direction of travel is appropriate given not enough has been achieved to date,\u201d says Vanstone, who is also executive chairman of certification body Certass and chair of the National Home Improvement Council UK. \u201cBut we need to be clear-eyed about what licensing can and cannot do. On its own, a licence does not create competence; it simply creates a point of control. What matters is what sits behind it.\u201d<\/p>\n
That distinction matters, Vanstone argues, particularly given the industry\u2019s persistent skills shortages. Poorly designed requirements could push experienced people out of the system and further restrict capacity. Any expansion of licensing must therefore be proportionate, risk-based and aligned with the dutyholder framework in the Building Safety Act, he says.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have learned that badges and registers without credible assurance give a false sense of comfort,\u201d Vanstone adds. \u201cThe system must strengthen behaviour and accountability, not duplicate requirements or create confusion.\u201d<\/p>\n
Richard Harral, chief executive of the Chartered Association of Building Engineers, agrees that reform must be co-designed by industry, professional bodies and government. Like Vanstone, he sees competence regulation as part of a longer-term cultural shift rather than a quick fix.<\/p>\n
\u201cRestricting professional activity to those who can demonstrate competence is long overdue,\u201d Harral says. \u201cMost other countries already control key roles linked to building safety. Resetting the professional landscape is an important step in making sure failures like Grenfell are not repeated.\u201d<\/p>\n
Crucially, the new regulator will not be starting from scratch. Over the past year, the Industry Competence Committee has developed role-based expectations for competence and guidance on how it should be managed within organisations. Its approach is built around proportionate assurance and is designed to work consistently across the supply chain.<\/p>\n
The ICC was established under the Building Safety Act in September 2023 to address competence failings identified by the Hackitt review and the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, which found those failings contributed to the fire that killed 72 people, including 18 children, on 14 June 2017. Vanstone says its role is to advise government and the Building Safety Regulator on \u201cwhat good looks like in practice\u201d, particularly for safety-critical roles.<\/p>\n
Last September, the ICC sought industry feedback on its competence management guidance, which sets out how organisations should meet requirements under the buildings and higher-risk buildings regulations. Vanstone says this work should form the backbone of any future registration or licensing framework.<\/p>\n
\u201cGovernment is not starting from a blank sheet,\u201d he says. \u201cThe challenge now is integration rather than invention. Any expansion of registration needs to be anchored in existing frameworks and strengthen the system as a whole.\u201d<\/p>\n
Vanstone is clear, however, that the ICC should remain independent and not become involved in designing or operating licensing schemes. \u201cThe test will be whether this drives better behaviour across the supply chain,\u201d he says. \u201cDone well, it raises standards. Done badly, it risks hollowing out the capability the system depends on.\u201d<\/p>\n
Professional bodies have yet to submit formal responses to the consultation, which closes on 20 March. Early reactions have been cautious but broadly positive, although the future role of existing institutions remains uncertain. A senior executive at a major contractor, speaking anonymously, describes regulation of the professions as \u201cthe most radical bit\u201d of the prospectus and expects resistance from vested interests.<\/p>\n
Dame Judith Hackitt views the proposals as a missed opportunity narrowly avoided. \u201cProfessional bodies should not be surprised,\u201d she says. \u201cI have been warning them for some time that this was likely.\u201d<\/p>\n
Hackitt has repeatedly criticised the industry\u2019s slow response to competence failures and the \u201crace to the bottom\u201d culture identified in her 2018 Building a Safer Future report. Speaking at the launch of an Engineering Council competence standard last year, she said she had hoped the sector would act with greater urgency.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is a pity it has taken government action to prompt this,\u201d she says. \u201cSome bodies, such as CABE, have already stepped up. Others should seize this opportunity to demonstrate professionalism and rebuild public confidence.\u201d<\/p>\n
CABE launched an industry-wide consultation in November to update professional standards for building engineers. Harral says chartered bodies remain best placed to lead professional communities, and while their independence should not be compromised, closer alignment with government is necessary.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is a positive inflexion point,\u201d he says. \u201cEnsuring the built environment is consistently safe will not happen by continuing as we have done.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase two report was particularly critical of building control, highlighting conflicts of interest and inconsistent professionalism within the system. Local Authority Building Control, the body which represents local authority building control professionals in England and Wales, was criticised in the inquiry\u2019s final report for a lack of independence and competence.<\/p>\n
LABC has acknowledged \u201cjustified criticisms\u201d of its past actions and says it has since undergone \u201cradical change\u201d. Chief executive Lorna Stimpson says the consultation is right to focus on competence across all roles, noting that building control has been at \u201cthe sharp edge\u201d of reform since 2018.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have to move away from the idea that one regulated role can catch everything,\u201d says Stimpson, who sits on the ICC. \u201cCompetence has to be demonstrated across the system, supported by standards, education, training and ongoing checks.\u201d<\/p>\n
She points to the Building Safety Competence Foundation, a community interest company established by LABC to validate competence under the ISO 17024 standard. It has assessed more than 2,500 individuals in building control and related roles and is now open to other professions.<\/p>\n
The government will issue a call for evidence in the spring, followed by publication of a comprehensive built environment strategy in the second quarter of 2027. Stimpson urges organisations not to wait.<\/p>\n
\u201cStart building credible competence systems now,\u201d she says. \u201cIf we are serious about learning the lessons of Grenfell, this is where that work begins.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A week before Christmas, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government published its prospectus for a new single construction regulator. Expected to be operational by 2028, the body is one of the central recommendations of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, intended to address what it described as a fragmented and disjointed regulatory system. The prospectus, …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":158858,"featured_media":536205,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ep_exclude_from_search":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[79552,565,559],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-536198","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-building-safety","category-government","category-long-reads"],"yoast_head":"\n