Building Control Independent Panel final report

[edit] Background

On 26 February 2025 as part of the Government's response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry it announced the establishment of the independent panel to review Building Control, something the inquiry had recommended, in relation to considering whether to remove commercial interests from building control and to move to a national authority decision model. On 24 April, 2025 the government announced the five members of the panel; chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt, and joined by Elaine Bailey, Ken Rivers, Rt Hon Nick Raynsford and Dr David Snowball.

The tasks of the panel were described as being to examine whether building control should remain influenced by commercial interests or be overseen by a national authority, with a particular focus on the conflicts of interest and capacity problems that contributed to failures before Grenfell. Whilst also looking more broadly at how building control should be structured, including the right level of oversight for different buildings, whether customer choice can be retained safely, and how any reform could support safer homebuilding, workforce competence, digital data use, and wider regulatory change.

On 20 May, 2026 the Building Control Independent Panel published their Independent report, a precis of which (with the use of AI precis tools) can be seen below, the full report can be found via Building Control Independent Panel report 20 May 2026. Also on 20 May the Government published its response policy paper; Building Control Independent Panel report: government response the full text can be found via the link.

[edit] Chair and summary

The Panel gathered evidence from the sector, government teams and stakeholders, and used that evidence to develop recommendations after considering the system’s structural problems, capacity pressures and the need for greater consistency.

In her over sight as Chair Dame Judith Hackitt summarised that the current building control system in England is too fragmented, inconsistent, and conflicted to provide the public assurance needed for health and safety. The report it argues that even though the profession has many skilled and committed people, the system itself places them under conflicting pressures, uneven oversight, and workload constraints that good practice alone cannot fix. The panel concluded that the existing arrangements cannot reliably deliver conflict-free oversight, consistency, or clear accountability, and that allowing dutyholders to choose their own regulator is fundamentally flawed. It recommends a transition toward fewer, more resilient building control bodies with statutory responsibilities, supported by near-term reforms to reduce conflicts, strengthen oversight, and stabilise the workforce while the wider system is reformed.

The panel concluded that England’s building control system is not consistently delivering the public safety assurance it should, because local authority capacity has been eroded, private provision has expanded without a matching public enforcement duty, and the system now relies too heavily on individual professionalism to compensate for structural weaknesses. It also highlights conflicts of interest, uneven enforcement, and the risks created when dutyholders can choose their regulator. The panel's preferred long-term direction is a single, more coherent regulatory system with fewer, larger, publicly accountable building control bodies operating at sufficient scale to provide consistent inspection, enforcement and expertise. In the meantime, it recommends practical steps to stabilise the current system, including levelling the playing field between public and private providers, improving guidance, supporting workforce capacity, and creating stronger digital oversight.

[edit] The Current Model

The report describes how the modern building control system in England, having began with the Building Act 1984, created a mixed public-private model: local authority building control remained the statutory backstop, while private approved inspectors were allowed to compete for most building control work. Over time, the system expanded through the registration of additional private providers, deregulatory changes that reduced some mandatory inspection points, and the growth of competent person schemes, which shifted more assurance onto self-certification and external mechanisms.

The result has been a layered system shaped by decades of incremental reform rather than a single design. For higher-risk buildings, the Building Safety Act 2022 introduced the Building Safety Regulator and a more stringent regime, but for most other work dutyholders can still choose between local authority and private providers. That choice, together with uneven local capacity and variable inspection practice, means the system still depends heavily on professional judgement, fragmented oversight, and a balance between public enforcement and market-led delivery.

The report describes the public protection function of Building control that checks whether building work in England meets the minimum standards in the Building Regulations, using plan assessment, risk-based inspections, compliance decisions, and enforcement where needed. It is not responsible for guaranteeing perfect workmanship, replacing the duties of clients, designers or contractors, or compensating for failures elsewhere in the construction process. It argues that building control has often been given unrealistic expectations, with too much blame placed on inspectors for problems created upstream. It says a modern system needs clearer boundaries, better understanding across the industry, and a stronger focus on each party taking responsibility for its own role in delivering safe buildings.

[edit] A future model

The fragmentation and commercialisation of the current building control system in England hampers building safety, the report proposes a new system focused on independent oversight, national consistency, stronger enforcement, and improved public accountability under a number of headings précised here:

• Principles for Reform – Governance in the New System: The current system suffers from inconsistent standards, lack of capacity, and conflicts of interest caused by commercial pressures. The proposed reform is based on five principles: independence, consistency, capability, transparency, and efficiency.
• National Authority Model: The panel suggests separating oversight and decision-making responsibilities to reduce conflicts within the Building Safety Regulator (BSR). A new national building control body could handle decisions on higher-risk buildings, while the future Single Construction Regulator (SCR) focuses on oversight and enforcement.
• Removal of Dutyholder Choice: Allowing developers to choose their regulator is seen as a conflict of interest that can weaken inspections and enforcement. The panel recommends moving toward an independently allocated system based on risk, competence, and capacity rather than client choice.
• Consolidated Building Control Bodies: The panel proposes replacing many smaller local authority bodies with fewer, larger regional Building Control Bodies (BCBs) to improve consistency, resilience, and expertise. These bodies would oversee statutory functions, enforce standards, and support better career development for inspectors.
  • Option 1 – BCBs Deliver Both Statutory and Client Services: Under this model, BCBs would manage both regulatory duties and customer-facing building control services. Strong safeguards would be needed to prevent unfair allocation of work between public and private providers.
  • Option 2 – BCBs Deliver Statutory Functions Only (Preferred Option): The preferred model separates statutory regulation from customer-facing services to improve independence and public trust. Private providers and local authorities could still offer services, but BCBs would independently allocate and oversee work.
• Pay Flexibility in Future Bodies: The report highlights that current local government pay structures make it difficult to recruit and retain experienced inspectors. Future BCBs should have flexible, competitive pay systems to attract skilled professionals and strengthen long-term capacity.
• Central Enforcement Function: The panel believes enforcement is currently too weak due to limited resources and inconsistent willingness to act. It recommends giving the SCR stronger legal and technical powers to support robust national enforcement and eventually transferring court enforcement powers to the new BCBs.

[edit] Levelling the Current System

The report goes on to argue that the current mixed building control system is inconsistent and unfair, with different rules and powers for public and private providers. It proposes short-term reforms to stabilise the system and prepare for the larger structural changes outlined above.

• Alignment of Applications, Notices and Processes: Different application and notice systems have created inconsistencies and opportunities for “route shopping” between providers. The panel recommends a single, unified statutory process and modernised regulations for all building control providers.
• Inspection Consistency and Minimum Requirements: Inspection standards currently vary widely, often due to commercial pressures rather than risk. The panel proposes mandatory minimum inspection stages for standard building work to ensure consistent oversight and public safety across England.
• Charges and Future Funding Arrangements: The existing funding model is seen as outdated and unable to properly support public safety functions. The report recommends reforming fee regulations to allow full cost recovery for inspections, enforcement, staffing, and training.
• Set Fees in a Future Model: The panel suggests introducing standardised national fees within the future building control system to improve consistency and efficiency. A digital system could automate many decisions and support a more risk-based approach to oversight and inspections.
• Ringfencing Income: Building control income in local authorities is often diverted into wider budgets, weakening services and enforcement capacity. The report recommends protecting and ringfencing building control funding so it is fully reinvested into regulatory functions and workforce development.
• Levelling Enforcement Procedures: Enforcement powers are currently uneven because private sector providers cannot issue formal compliance or stop notices. The panel recommends giving private RBCAs equivalent enforcement powers while keeping prosecution powers with public authorities and future BCBs.
• Digital Backbone: The report calls for a national digital system to manage applications, inspections, approvals, and oversight consistently across England. Shared data standards, interoperable systems, and transparent reporting would improve efficiency, accountability, and risk-based regulation.
• Data Standards and Transparency: Poor and inconsistent data currently limits effective oversight and public confidence in the system. The panel recommends mandatory national data standards and transparent reporting to support stronger monitoring, enforcement, and regulatory decision-making.

[edit] People, culture and performance

Finally the report covers a somewhat more social workforce perspective focussing on how a stable and competent public sector workforce, recruitment and development of Inspectors is essential to the functioning of the current system, each of the headings are summarsied here:

• Workforce and Capacity: The building control workforce is under severe pressure due to staff shortages, an ageing workforce, and increasing regulatory demands. The panel warns that without urgent investment in recruitment, retention, and training, the system will struggle to maintain safe and effective oversight.
• Revalidation and Registration Reforms: While mandatory registration for inspectors is supported, the current revalidation process is considered overly burdensome and exam-focused. The panel recommends a more proportionate system based on continuous professional development (CPD) to help retain experienced inspectors.
• Performance Monitoring and Oversight: The current Operational Standards Rules (OSRs) are seen as overly bureaucratic and ineffective at identifying risk or measuring performance consistently. The panel believes oversight needs to be simplified and better aligned with meaningful regulatory outcomes.
• Reform Approach to Measuring Performance: The panel recommends replacing the current performance framework with a smaller set of outcome-focused indicators linked to inspections, enforcement, competence, and data quality. Integrating this into a digital system would improve consistency, transparency, and real-time oversight.
• Building Control Relationships: The report highlights cultural and relationship issues within the sector, including commercial pressures, adversarial behaviours, and confusion about the role of building control. It argues that clearer expectations, stronger professional standards, and reduced commercial conflicts are needed to reinforce building control as a public interest function.
• Dutyholder Responsibilities: The panel stresses that many failures in building safety originate earlier in the construction process, not within building control itself. It recommends improving awareness of legal responsibilities among clients, designers, and contractors, alongside updated public guidance on building regulations.

[edit] Full list of recommendations

1. Establish a single, independent statutory building control system. Legislate for a unified statutory system for all non HRB work, built on independence, national consistency, clear duties and transparent public accountability.
2. Remove dutyholder choice from statutory building control. End client selection of regulator and move to independent allocation model based on risk, competence and capacity. In transition to this, enable preference of BCB to be established.
3. Create consolidated Building Control Bodies (BCBs). Establish fewer, larger building control bodies to take on statutory functions from LA BCAs, to deliver consistent decisions, risk-based inspections and enforcement.
4. Define the role and powers of the Single Construction Regulator (SCR). Set out the SCR’s remit across oversight, registration, performance monitoring, HRB decisions and enforcement.
5. Strengthen national enforcement capability. Provide the SCR with specialist legal, investigatory and technical capacity to support robust and consistent enforcement across England.
6. Create one statutory process for applications, notices and approvals. Align requirements across all providers so the statutory function operates to the same clear and modernised rules.
7. Consolidate and modernise statutory instruments. Remove contradictions, update outdated provisions and consolidate building regulations to create a coherent framework for all providers.
8. Consider introducing mandated minimum inspections for standard build types.Set nationally agreed inspection points at key stages in construction of a building, so that work receives consistent, risk appropriate oversight.
9. Complete reform of the 2010 Fees and Charges Regulations. Enable full cost recovery for all statutory activities and remove outdated constraints on how services fund essential functions.
10. Protect building control income. In designing the new model of delivery, ensure income is guaranteed for the long term by ringfencing it to ensure BCBs can deliver their functions effectively.
11. Extend compliance and stop notice powers to private sector RBCAs. Give all providers equivalent duties to act in the public interest, while retaining prosecution powers with new BCBs and the SCR.
12. Deliver a single national digital building control portal. Create one route for all submissions, workflows and records, enabling consistent processes and real time regulatory visibility.
13. Establish national data standards and mandatory reporting. Ensure consistent, high‑quality data on inspections, compliance, enforcement and outcomes across all providers. This includes automating data capture, improving consistency and strengthening real-time risk-based oversight
14. Improve transparency and secure information sharing. Enable structured sharing of regulatory data between providers, the SCR, Government and the public to support accountability and risk based oversight.
15. Reform registration and revalidation to support competence without excessive burden. Shift towards CPD based, predictable and harmonised assessment processes that retain experienced inspectors.
16. Reform the approach to measuring performance. Replace the current burdensome framework with a streamlined, outcome focused approach aligned to statutory purpose.
17. Reduce OSR indicators to a concise set of no more than 20. Focus on inspection sufficiency, compliance, enforcement, competence and data quality to enable meaningful oversight.
18. Establish a single professional code of conduct for all BCAs, setting expectations for independence, behaviour and public interest standards across the sector.
19. improve dutyholder understanding of the building regulations and building control by updating the Manual to the Building Regulations and supporting that with a communication drive.
20. Progress planned work to improve and regulate the warranty market. As part of that consider the issues raised with the panel about the approach to inspections and the impact on BC fees.
21. Bring together Departmental interests to issue a statement on the future of the CPS scheme. As part of that prioritise and support the BSR’s plans to review ‘conditions of authorisation’.

[edit] Related articles on Designing buildings

• Approved documents.
• Approved inspector.
• Building control body.
• Five members of the independent Building Control review panel appointed.
• Fundamental Review of Building Regulations Guidance.
• House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee Inquiry into building safety regulation.
• Independent review of the building regulations and fire safety.
• Building control body.
• Building Control Independent Panel BCIP
• Building control performance standards.
• Building Regulations Advisory Committee (BRAC).
• Building Safety Act 2022.
• Building Safety Committee discussion with Dame Judith Hackitt.
• Building Safety Wiki.
• Competent person schemes.
• Failure to comply with the building regulations.
• Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022.
• Fundamental Review of Building Regulations Guidance.
• Golden thread
• Grenfell Tower tragedy
• Hackitt review of the building regulations and fire safety, final report.
• Higher risk buildings
• Independent Grenfell Tower Inquiry
• Independent review of the building regulations and fire safety.
• Statutory authorities.
• The Building Act.
• The history of building regulations and control.