(especially for n 4) Expanding on the same point – and directly relevant to the arrival of the Building Safety Regulator (E&W) and the Building and Plumbing Commission (Vic) – is this advice from Issue 15 (2026) of The Dart Digest from Melbourne’s Dart Legal & Consulting:

Regulators invariably operate with finite resources and cannot address every issue with the same level of attention. Capable regulators use risk, intelligence and evidence to focus their efforts on the areas of greatest potential harm and public benefit. This allows them to achieve better outcomes without necessarily increasing resources. Most importantly, capability enables regulators to move from a reactive approach to a proactive one. Rather than responding to non-compliance and harm after they occur, capable regulators are better able to identify emerging risks, influence behaviour, encourage compliance and prevent harm before it arises. This preventative focus is increasingly recognised as a hallmark of effective regulation and is central to achieving sustainable public protection and positive regulatory outcomes... 

The real measure of success is whether a regulator contributes to safer, fairer and more trustworthy outcomes for the community. Achieving this requires more than legislative powers. It requires capable people, sound systems, reliable intelligence, effective decision-making and a culture of continuous learning.

(especially for n 8) Litigation by the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea and its TMO continues against the manufacturer of the fridge-freezer which was the initial cause of the Grenfell Tower fire – and many other defendants, including cladding and insulation manufacturers. Preliminary procedural issues, notably about imposing or encouraging ADR, were considered in The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea v Beko Poland Manufacturing [2025] EWHC 3276 (KB). The same litigation has already produced three other judgments on preliminary issues; Cristina Lago in Construction News (18 December 2025) reports that the trial will not take place before October 2028.

(especially for n 28) A survey by the HomeOwners Alliance and the Federation of Master Builders (FMB) (May 2025) revealed that nearly half of UK adults (47%, and 39% of homeowners) believe wrongly that builders are legally licensed. Amongst UK homeowners surveyed (as summarised at https://hoa.org.uk/news/licensed-builders/):

• 81% support a proposal to introduce a mandatory licensing scheme for residential builders
• Two-thirds (65%) wrongly expect builders to have insurance to cover accidental damage (they don’t have to)
• Almost a third (32%) think builders must register with a government or regulatory body (no such requirement)
• Younger homeowners (18-34) are more likely to believe that builders must be registered with a government agency (66% vs 32% homeowners)
• Female homeowners are more likely to expect UK builders to have a licence to trade (46%) than male homeowners (32%).

(especially for the main text to n 93) Revisions to the Building Regulations 2010 were adopted for England in March 2026 to implement the Future Homes and Buildings Standards. These Standards aim to ensure that new homes and non-domestic buildings are built with low carbon heating and high levels of energy efficiency, so that buildings constructed to these standards will not require retrofitting to become zero carbon in use as the electricity grid decarbonises. The new regulations come into force on 24 March 2027, but some aspects come into force on 24 September 2027 for higher-risk building work and work to existing HRBs. The linked changes to Building Regulations and Approved Document L include requiring developers of new homes to supply the buyer at handover with a Home User Guide, whose content and form are laid down. This complements – or may in part duplicate – the New Home Demonstration required from developers subject to the New Homes Quality Code by its section [2.11], as well as the content of the possible new Digital Property Logbook: see Louisa Fletcher, ‘Alphabet Soup Spells Confusion’ Show House (July 2026). On the UK Government’s conveyancing reforms (E&W), see the update below to section [8.7].

(especially for the main text to n 97) In August 2025, the MHCLG announced membership of the Guidance Panel to review Approved Documents, as part of the Fundamental Review of Building Regulations led by the BSR. The panel comprises Danielle Michalska-Morris, director of research and technical innovation at Taylor Wimpey; Rachel Ferguson, senior development manager at Pocket Living; Dinah Bornat, architect and director & co-founder of ZCD; Dan Rossiter, built environment sector lead at the BSI; Professor Luke Bisby, chair of fire and structures and director of discipline at the University of Edinburgh; and Dr Hywel Davies, technical expert at CIBSE. The original aims – an interim report early in 2026 and a final report by the summer – have not been met.

(especially for the main text to n 102) For a similar reform in Wales, see the update below to section [11.5.2].

(especially for the main text to n 103) The BSR now calls ‘Competent Person’ schemes in E&W ‘self-certification’ schemes, as do pt 5 and sch 3 of the Building Regulations 2010 (E&W). From the BSR there is now a new Mandatory Technical Competence Framework document (n.d.), including a minimum of £2m of public liability insurance for each business within such a scheme and criteria for each Scheme Operator, including consumer protection.

In June 2025, Government announced that the Building Safety Regulator, the overall statutory regulator for the building control system in England newly created following the Hackitt Report, was to be relocated. This follows widespread criticism of the BSR for its unhelpful lack of communication of the new procedures applying to Higher-Risk Buildings; its failure to meet the statutory time-limits for processing building control applications for HRBs (now typically down from a year to 34 weeks for remediation projects, as reported by Peter Apps); and unexpected top-level management departures. 

On 11 November 2025, Samantha Dixon, Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Democracy, laid draft regulations in the House of Commons enabling the BSR’s functions to be transferred from the Health and Safety Executive to a new Executive Non-Departmental Public Body sponsored by the MHCLG. Her written statement included:

This change will position the BSR for the coming years. It will strengthen lines of accountability and give a dedicated focus to BSR operations; it is an important first step towards establishing a single construction regulator [for England], the lead recommendation of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report. 

Under the Building Safety Regulator (Establishment of New Body and Transfer of Functions etc.) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/20), the transition took place on 27 January 2026, though the HSE will continue to support the BSR until December 2026. There appear no immediate plans to widen the former BSR’s remit; to change aspects of the BSA 2022, which speaks only of ‘the regulator’; or to modify the large collection of secondary legislation adopted under it. None of these organisational changes impacts directly on Wales, Scotland or NI. On a single construction regulator, see also the update below to section [3.5.3].

Directly relevant is also the Government’s eagerness to minimise obstacles to the building of new homes, so a new Fast Track Process for regulatory approval for new builds (increasing the regulator’s in-house staff and range of professional skills) is also announced. Less clear is how rectification work on existing HRBs with potential safety issues (on some calculations, 13,000 blocks) will be encouraged and facilitated. (especially for the main text to n 143) Following a review by the BSR of the definition of an HRB, in December 2025 the MHCLG accepted the review’s conclusion that there was not enough evidence suggesting a need to change the current definition.

In July 2025, the BSR published the first set of data on its activities: Building Control Management Information Data (October 2023 to March 2025). This recorded that 50% of ‘existing building’ applications and 45% of new-build applications were initially rejected. Of the ‘existing building’ applications rejected, 89% did not contain sufficient detail. 80% of applications did not meet the legal requirements for approval for work to an existing HRB, 50% of applications setting out work that would ‘contravene existing building regulations and longstanding functional requirements’. Only 45% of applications had a decision made within the statutory determination period, with a lower figure for new-build and remediation applications at 44% and 2% respectively to date. Equivalent reports are now issued quarterly; the latest covers the period May to July 2026. This shows the impact of additional staff recruitment to the BSR and the creation of its Innovation Unit, which has brought more multi-disciplinary teams in-house and reduced the processing time for applications for Gateway 2 approval for new higher-risk buildings down to a median of 22 weeks; external remediation applications for existing HRBs are now at a median of 34 weeks. Approval rates are also up to 91% for new build and 85% for external remediation. 

‘(At Gateway Three) an HRB must pass final BSR checks before occupancy’: on 20 August 2025, PBC Today reported that the HSE (in effect the BSR) was granted an interim injunction, based on alleged violations of Building Regulations, stopping a new block in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire being occupied; it would have housed around 230 students from the start of September. Adam Jogee, the local MP, commented: ‘It is utterly unacceptable that – in 2025 – a brand-new building can get to the point of opening with such serious safety concerns that the [BSR] has had to step in at the eleventh hour to protect lives.’ The judgment by Freedman J, establishing that the BSR’s statutory position gives it the power to request injunctions, will be reported as HSE v Integritas Property Group (IPG) Ltd [2025] EWHC 2613 (TCC); meanwhile, there is detailed analysis of the case from Joanna Lewis and Daniela Parfitt on the Beale & Co website. 

On improving skills across the industry in the UK, see the National Audit Office report Increasing Construction Skills (July 2026), examining the progress of the Government’s £625m construction skills package, which aims to support up to 60,000 more skilled construction workers by 2029. The NAO found the package a positive step, but its success will depend on employers having the confidence and capacity to offer placements, apprenticeships and jobs. Without this, skills shortages could drive up costs and put major delivery commitments at risk. A related initiative is the MHCLG’s Call for Evidence to help build a Strategy for the Built Environment Professions, Trades and Occupations (June 2026).

On dutyholders, competence etc, new regulations in December 2025 extended to Wales a version of the provisions already inserted via Regulations 11A to 11Q into the Building Regulations 2010: new Welsh-specific regulations 11R to Z8, adopted via the Building etc. (Amendment) (No 2) (Wales) Regulations 2025 (SI 2025/1320), coming into force on 1 July 2026. The regulations also modify procedure, enforcement, rights of appeal and charges in relation to local authorities and building control in Wales, some specifically in relation to HRBs. Alongside, the Building Act 1984 (Commencement No 1) (Wales) Order 2025 (SI 2025/1367) extends to Wales, also from 1 July 2026, BCAs’ increased inspection and testing powers under the current text of the Building Act 1984 s 33 (in force in England since 1 October 2023).

For other changes to the regulatory landscape for residential buildings and construction in Wales, notably under the Building Safety (Wales) Act 2026, see the updates below to section [11.5.2].

The implementation of the ‘Golden Thread’ idea, via Accountable Persons and Principal Accountable Persons, operates by HRBs needing a Building Assessment Certificate – a Safety Case for an existing occupied building, submitted to the BSR for review and approval under the BSA 2022 pt 4. Peter Apps reports on the challenges of this process – potentially applicable to 14,000 HRBs – in his Substack (February 2026): 

Pulling this together means a lot of money spent on surveys, and then further money spent getting the BSR to review it. Figures from cladding campaigners UKCAG show the average cost just for the BSR review is £23,804, with the most expensive reaching £69,094. So far, of 610 reviews there have been 446 rejections - which means leaseholders pay tens of thousands on surveys and tens of thousands on a BSR review to be told that they may need to spend potentially hundreds of thousands on repair work to their blocks.

On the ‘Golden Thread’, see also C Lockhart and P Hayes, Implementing the Golden Thread for Higher-risk Buildings under the Building Safety Act (IStructE, 2025).

In July 2026, the BSR published a revised approach (‘more proportionate and targeted’) to the processes for Building Assessment Certificates:

• ensure building safety legal duties remain in place for more than 6,000 legally responsible PAPs and accountable persons (APs) of HRBs across England while the plan is developed
• apply learning from the introduction of the BAC regime to improve assessment processes
• only call in new applications when necessary until improved processes are agreed and communicated to duty holders
• prioritise applications already undergoing an assessment
• explore options for proportionate, fast-track reassessments for previously refused certificates once standards are met
• provide greater, more targeted support to resident-led PAPs 
• help protect residents and leaseholders from unnecessary or unexpected costs
• continue to work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) to inform potential long-term legislative changes.

Future changes may include legislative or regulatory reform of the Building Assessment Certificate regime. On sanctions for failure to register, see the update below to section [5.7.2].

Explaining in the House of Commons the UK Government decision to continue accepting the CE mark on construction products indefinitely, Rushanara Ali MP, at the time Secretary of State for Building Safety and Homelessness, acknowledged the findings of the Morrell-Day Review (Written Statement, 2 September 2024). She agreed that the UK currently has insufficient testing and certification capacity: ‘[E]nding recognition of CE marking without reforming the domestic regime would create trade barriers and negatively affect the supply of products that meet recognised Standards’. 

The CE-mark extension is subject to the government’s system-wide reform of the construction products regime, started in the Construction Products Reform Green Paper 2025. Any subsequent changes to the recognition of CE marking would be subject to a minimum two-year transition period. In February 2026, the Green Paper was followed by a White Paper, open for public consultation until May 2026; and a consultation on The General Safety Requirement for Construction Products. The White Paper was immediately criticised by Peter Apps in his Substack as ‘not doing enough to tackle the dark heart of the cladding scandal’; and by Paul Morrell, co-author of the original 2023 review calling for reform. Proposals on construction products regulation are developed further in the MHCLG’s July 2026 response to the consultation on its prospectus for a Single Construction Regulator.

In July 2025 the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 (UK) gained Royal Assent. Its ss 1-2 empower the Secretary of State to regulate products (as defined) with a wide range of statutory aims, including setting requirements with which products must comply, applicable to those connected with products (including via online marketplaces) and including mandatory technical standards; s 3 provides for different forms of sanctions and enforcement. The Act repeals Parts II and IV (consumer safety regulations and their enforcement) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, leaving Part I unchanged, as discussed in section [5.10.5] of the book and the update below.

In August 2025, the Construction Industry Council (UK) published a Guide to Products Critical to Safe Construction, complementing the Code for Construction Product Information.

(especially for the main text to n 203ff) Criminal penalties for contravening the law of building control (E&W): the report of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts (the Leveson report, July 2025) does not recommend lifting the 12-month imprisonment maximum in Magistrates’ Courts. Aware of the backlog of jury trials in the Crown Court, it recommends the Ministry of Justice to consider removing the right to elect jury trial in the Crown Court for certain low-level offences: those with a maximum sentence length of less than or equal to two years; and creating a new intermediate court of a full-time judge sitting with two magistrates for middle-tier offences currently carrying the right to jury trial. For more on the Crown Court backlog and other possible remedies, see the National Audit Office report, Reducing the Backlog in the Crown Court (March 2025). 

These proposals would affect offences under the pre-2022 text of the Building Act 1984; for new offences created by the BSA 2022, see n 187ff in section [5.7.2] of the book. 

In November 2025 the Government confirmed its intention to implement at least some of the Leveson recommendations. However, the MoJ’s proposals differed significantly; opposition in the Lords reflected critical responses from the legal profession and rights groups. The Leveson proposal for intermediate courts would require significant recruitment to the magistracy, as would an increase upwards of the maximum sentence available to magistrates. Even if implemented as presented, the proposed reforms may take 10 years to reduce the Crown Court backlog to acceptable levels. In February 2026, Deputy PM David Lammy confirmed that in the Courts and Tribunals Bill ‘several key measures... will be taken forward from Part Two of Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of Criminal Courts’. But Mr Lammy’s departure from the MoJ on the arrival of the new PM led quickly to headlines like ‘Andy Burnham Signals He Will Scrap Plans to Curb Jury Trials’ The Guardian (31 July 2026). On enforcement by the new BSR of building control in relation to HRBs by way of injunctions in the civil courts, see the update above to sections [3.4.9]ff.

(especially for the main text to n 205ff) Staff shortages in public sector building control departments in England are being reported on LinkedIn (July 2025): some of their websites announce that no new projects can be taken on, and even ongoing projects may not be able to be inspected. This resources issue is also noted by the Building Control Independent Panel for England: see the update below to section [3.6.5]. Making matters worse, a major private sector building control body, Assent Building Control, ceased trading in November 2025, with winding-up orders made against it and two subsidiaries; similarly, in May 2026, Corporate Approved Inspectors Ltd entered insolvent liquidation (250 non-HRB ongoing projects and 2 HRBs). In Peter’s Substack, Peter Apps summarised the implications:

Assent had around 16,000 construction projects underway at the time of its collapse (it advises on 30,000 projects a year), and all of them now need a new inspector to sign them off. There was a seven day period where projects could have been handed over to another private firm (which has now expired). Even in this window, other private firms were only allowed to take this work on if they found no defects (if they attend site, assessed the work and found issues, they must pass it to the local authority). This means that very few private firms have stepped in to take on Assent’s workload and the projects will instead move to public sector building inspectors at the relevant local authority. The trouble is that these Town Hall teams are often understaffed and underfunded - with many of their most specialist and experienced staff having disappeared off to the private sector many years ago. But they will inherit Assent’s work and have to assess it, regardless of their existing workload or its complexity.

An individual homeowner attempted to get Building Regulations sign-off for his almost completed extension from the local authority, after his private sector Approved Inspector became insolvent. After unhelpful and Kafka-esque responses from his London Borough, he appealed to the BSR (with no accurate or up-to-date online guidance), then successfully challenged the BSR’s determination of his appeal, see Thursfield v Building Safety Regulator (30 Burstock Road SW15), FTT Property Chamber (RP) Decision LON/00AG/BUM/2025/0001 (2 December 2025).

LABC, as a collective marketing tool for the Building Control functions of local authorities, also permits ‘repeat players’ in construction to join the Partner Authority Scheme, allowing a single point of contact with the same local authority surveyor for all pre-application and design work, wherever the project is located in England & Wales

(especially for the main text to nn 276-277) In May 2026, the Building Control Independent Panel, chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt, published its report to the MHCLG on the future of building control in England; for the background and its definition of the issues, see the update below to section [3.6.5]. The report discusses the structural issue identified by Phase 2 of the GTI: ‘whether it is in the public interest for building control functions to be carried out by organisations with commercial interests, and whether, in the interests of professionalism and consistency, those functions should instead be delivered by a national authority’. The report adopts the long-term goal of removing the present competition – fuelled by the choice enjoyed by parties on individual projects – between public (250 local authority departments) and private (about 80 RBCAs) providers of building control: 

The [present] competitive dynamic risks driving down fees to a level not reflective of the resource needed to carry out the building control function effectively and therefore may incentivise lighter touch inspections. It also increases the risk of late reversions to local authorities [where a private sector BCB abandons its role or goes into liquidation – see the Apps quotation in the update above to section [3.5.1]]. Although the BSA 2022 removed choice for HRBs, most work remains within a model that embeds the conflicts highlighted by the [Grenfell Tower] Inquiry.

The report advocates a gradual and carefully managed transition – requiring legislation and more – away from the current ‘uneven and fragile’ landscape of dual provision and removing choice from project parties. The goal is for fewer, larger, publicly accountable BCBs for the statutory aspects of all non-HRB work, with a Single Construction Regulator along the lines of the BSR, responsible for oversight and enforcement (an especially weak feature of the present system). These new BCBs must be adequately funded, with consideration given to setting fixed fees and their income ring-fenced for building control; and with a national digital recording system.

More immediately, the report suggests that the rules for applications and notices, differing between public and private sectors, should be harmonised; minimum inspection levels for standard build types and stages, such as typical house builds, extensions, and routine refurbishment work, should be (re)established by law; and local authority charging should permit full cost recovery. RBCAs should be empowered to issue compliance and stop notices – but prosecution would remain a public sector monopoly. The BSR-run registration, revalidation and monitoring systems also need reviewing to improve their effectiveness and to reduce unnecessary burdens on individual RBIs (encouraging many to leave the profession early).

In July 2026 the MHCLG published its response to a wider but connected consultation on a prospectus for a Single Construction Regulator – a key GTI Phase 2 recommendation. This includes a positive response to the proposals from the Independent Panel summarised above. It is not clear how far implementation of the SCR proposals – building on the BSR as current standalone regulator, also to take on responsibility for construction products – will be national or (more likely) limited to England; they seem unlikely to see implementation before 2028. No comparably radical reappraisal has taken place in Wales, but the Welsh approach to building safety issues, notably in high-rise residential buildings, includes new 2026 measures: see the update below to section [11.5.2].

The NSW Parliament’s passage on 4 August 2026 of the Building (Approvals and Practitioners) Act 2026 (NSW) (progressively to come into force by Proclamation) signals very significant changes to NSW's legislative scheme, including:

• repeal of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) and Building and Development Certifiers Act 2018 (NSW) and their associated regulations (s 202)
• moving the DBPA’s (s 37) statutory duty of care into pt 8 of the replacement Act, the Second Reading Speech indicating that the government has decided not to substantially amend the regime
• consolidated and expanded approval, registration, disciplinary and investigation powers (pts 3-6)
• a vast range of consequential amendments to other relevant Acts (including the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)), including that the 10-year limitation period for building defects actions is to be taken out of s 6.20 of the EPAA (which will just deal with defective subdivision work) into s 192 of the new Act.

In August 2025, the Treasury of the Federal government published for consultation an Issues Paper containing proposals to apply the revitalised National Competition Framework to create a national licensing regime for electrical occupations. This would replace the different regulatory requirements in each state and territory and their licence categories, short-circuiting the complications and costs of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth):

A harmonised national approach to electrical licensing could provide a balance that maintains or improves safety and quality standards without imposing excessive compliance costs ... good for workers and businesses and [making] our economy more productive and competitive ... an ongoing boost to economic output of up to A$62m per year.

In the course of his judgment primarily on entitlements to staged milestone payments for a (commercial) warehouse project, Donaghue JA (Beach and Richards JJA agreeing) gave an outline of the Victorian regime for inspection by private building surveyors (ASD Corporation Australia Pty Ltd v Babicka [2026] VSCA 27 [35]-[38]), including observing that ‘[t]here is no requirement under the Building Act for an affirmative “approval” of building work’ – the requirement is just that it be ‘inspected in person’ ([36]). 

For the results of research on municipal building surveyors in rural Victoria, showing significant overwork affecting an ageing workforce, with recommendations for reform, see Weir and Hall, Building Surveying Resources in Rural Victoria (2025).

(especially for the main text to n 340) Building surveyors accredited by the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors are committed to the AIBS’s own Professional Practice Standards (2021). These have statutory approval in all states and territories (eg under the Professional Standards Act 1994 (NSW) and Professional Standards Act 2003 (Vic)), allowing for the limitation of liability of those belonging to an approved professional scheme. AIBS Standard 1 looks to the public interest:

Public interest underpins all other practice standards. Building Surveyors must prioritise the safety, welfare, and rights of the community in the built environment above any related private interests. Building Surveyors engaged in a statutory role act as public officials. Whereas Building Surveyors engaged as consultants do not have a statutory role. Regardless of the role, Building Surveyors must carry out their duties impartially and honestly. They are expected to serve in the best interest of the public, always act with integrity, adhering to legislative requirements of the jurisdictions that they operate and exercise their role with the highest of professional standards.

The same standard also requires AIBS members to have systems meeting basic principles on the handling of complaints; others include specific principles on engagements by clients (Standard 3); inspections (Standard 4) and compliance enforcement (Standard 6).

The Building Control Independent Panel for England (chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt and serviced by the MHCLG) was set up to consider concerns from Phase 2 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry about the impact of the ‘mixed economy’ private/public model of building control in England. Before moving on to gather evidence and make recommendations, it published a ‘problem statement’ (July 2025). This includes:

24. One of the outcomes of the commercial interest model, certainly in the period up to 2017 and beyond to the introduction of the Building Safety Act 2022, was that behaviours led to an inadequate inspection and oversight service of building work.

25. Developers and clients who wanted to move forward quickly and seamlessly would often choose the lowest quote that gave them the quickest route to sign off for their buildings to be sold. We will test whether this is still happening and the drivers for clients choosing a building control body. We will look at whether inspections and supervision of work is taking place regularly based on an assessment of key building safety risks. We are keen to hear evidence of good practice where this exists so that lessons can be learned and shared 

26. We are concerned that there is no certainty on inspection and supervision arrangements across the building control sector and that there is an incentive for a minimalist service to be offered to win work. This raises serious concerns about the extent of such inspections as well as the efficiency and effectiveness of them. 

For the resulting report and next stages in this debate, see the update above to section [3.5.3].

(especially for the main text to n 362) On the activities of Victoria’s first Building Monitor – ‘an independent advocate for consumers to improve their experience of the building system’ – see the Strategic Plan 2024-25; the first Annual Issues Report (July 2025) lists 11 recommended reforms to further improve outcomes for consumers.

For the Victorian developer bond regime foreshadowed in the book’s p 134, see the update for section [10.2] below.

In June 2025, the NZ Government introduced private sector building control, appointing Selwyn-based Building Consent Approvals Ltd as a Building Consent Authority nationwide for residential construction. The company claims to offer ‘a trusted alternative to council consent processes’, focussing specifically on low-risk residential housing such as single-storey homes and offering building consents issued in 10 working days or less for eligible projects; a two-day turnaround for replicated, pre-approved designs; remote inspections for up to 30% of assessments; and Code Compliance Certificates issued within 2 working days. The insurance and solvency requirements are not yet clear, though the potential liability of this BCA for its statutory functions appears identical to the public sector equivalents. 

This was a step towards a wider opt-in self-certification scheme, announced by Building and Construction Minister Hon Chris Penk MP in April 2025. Under the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Act 2026 (NZ), this will apply to ‘approved’ plumbers and drainlayers; all fully qualified electricians and gasfitters can already self-certify. https://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/consol_act/ba200491/https://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/consol_act/pgada2006364/. In a dress rehearsal for this new scheme, in June 2025 Auckland Council started trialling a system under which two homebuilders are permitted to sign off their own work via a mobile app, but construction is still supervised by the Council, which remains the BCA.

In July 2025, the MBIE published the first edition of Building Product Specifications, concerning manufacture, fabrication, testing, quality control, physical properties, performance, installation, and/or maintenance. They can be used with an acceptable solution or verification method to show compliance with the Building Code, and cross-refer to international standards. It is ‘intended to be a living document and will be updated over time’. Two other pathways to enable greater use of overseas building products are being developed under the 2025 Act (the main text to n 409 in the book): endorsement of overseas standards by the MBIE, and recognition of products certified overseas as complying with New Zealand’s Building Code.

(especially for the main text to n 410) The Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Act 2025 (NZ) simplified the consenting and building control system for ‘a small stand-alone dwelling that an owner builds, or intends to build’ – the sch 1A definition limits the scope of this ‘light touch' regime to completely new single-storey dwellings with a floor area of not more than 70m2.

(especially for the main text to n 412) For a consolidated version of the Building Control Act 2007 (Ire), see the update below to section [3.8.2].

The new Construction Industry Register Ireland (CIRI) will start to accept applications for registration in 2027. The different classes (Divisions) of registrable activities will have separate start dates for registration, with providers of residential dwellings in the first Division; those in each category will then have 12 months to register. 

Under s 20 of the 2022 Act, CIRI has adopted a Code of Practice for Providers of Building Works which all those on the register will be required to follow. Failure to comply with the Code can be the ground for a complaint to CIRI; as the Code requires compliance with all legislative and regulatory requirements (but obligations at common law are not expressly mentioned), scope for complaining to CIRI seems relatively wide, though the available sanctions are limited.

The Law Reform Commission (Ireland) has published consolidated versions of the current text of the Building Control Acts 1990 and 2007 (Ire); of the Building Regulations 1997 (Ire); and of the Building Control Regulations 1997 (Ire).

(especially for n 450) The Scottish Building Standards Procedural Handbook (3rd ed) was relevant in court in an action related to a local authority’s duty in relation to dangerous buildings under the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 s 29: see Petition of Aldi Stores Ltd for Judicial Review of a decision to refuse or delay performing its statutory duty under section 29 of the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 [2025] CSOH 110 (Lord Braid). On the post-Grenfell review of aspects of Scotland’s building standards and their operation, see the update below to section [11.5.3]. 

(especially for n 455) The fees chargeable were last modified by the Building (Fees) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2026 (SSI 2026/7).

Whatever the substance of the ‘new law’ in our field in England, Wales and Scotland and its impact, a striking feature overall is simply the amount of it and its relative disorganisation – making access and understanding significantly more difficult than necessary. A crude but telling measure of the scale of new legislative and regulatory material since Grenfell Tower is to search the Legislation UK website, using the keyword ‘building’. 

Taking just 2022 and after, and omitting obviously unrelated material, Welsh language versions of an item also in English and all items relating only to NI, this today produces more than 55 items. Of these, almost 50 are pieces of secondary legislation; almost half of these derive from the Building Safety Act 2022. 

Mere counting does not do justice to the incremental character of many of the sets of regulations: they add to, modify or repeal earlier individual regulations without offering a consolidation in one place. By contrast, a fairly self-contained new statute like the BSA 2022 or the Building Safety (Wales) Act 2026 is far more manageable, whatever their length. And later amendments of primary legislation (as for the Building Act 1984) show up eventually as changes to the parent statute online. But this does not help assessing the significance of each new item as it appears, as the book and these updates attempt to do.