Building standards enforcement and sanctions: consultation analysis

4. Section 27 - Stopping work

Section 27 also gives local authorities powers to suspend work (stop work). Q3 of the consultation asked respondents for their views on a new provision for a standalone “Stop notice” that would enable the local authority to have work “stopped” until the owner/developer gained consent to continue. This step is intended to be a more effective deterrent by sending a stronger message to those involved that there are consequences to their actions and would provide helpful evidence should the local authority be required to take formal action, including prosecution.

High levels of total agreement with this proposal were recorded among all respondents (86%), individuals (89%) and organisations (84%), with over half of each audience strongly agreeing and one third agreeing. The level of agreement varied by type of organisation, with 60% of local authorities strongly agreeing compared to 43% of professional associations and 33% of commercial organisations.

Two thirds of respondents left a comment in Q3; all but three agreed with the proposal in the closed question. These comments explained the basis of their support for the proposal, noting it was a clear deterrent. While there was widespread agreement, several respondents, including individuals and all types of organisations, argued that appropriate measures are needed to ensure a stop notice is enforced.

Only one organisation - a local authority – expressed disagreement with the proposal in the closed question. They commented that the consultation paper did not explain why a standalone stop notice would be a more useful deterrent, and felt it was more effective to serve one combined notice that required works to stop and to apply for a building warrant. They also queried whether a separate stop notice would take effect immediately, suggesting this would be more helpful than it taking effect after 28 days as currently under section 27(2).

A stop notice would be a clear deterrent

The most prevalent theme in comments of support for the proposal was that a standalone stop notice would send a clear and compelling message that compliance would be enforced. A few felt a stop notice would be more effective than notices to suspend works or a statement in an enforcement notice. A professional/membership body thought it would be a helpful deterrent, particularly where issues are recorded, publicly available and communicated to regulators. One local authority agreed but suggested that the implementation of the new approach should be kept simple to allow it to be used quickly and easily when needed.

Several endorsed a standalone stop notice but provided little additional information about why. Two professional/membership bodies felt this would align Scotland with elsewhere in the UK and contribute to cultural change in the industry, which would result in safer buildings over time. A local authority echoed this view.

“By stopping work, local authorities can ensure that corrective measures are implemented promptly and comprehensively, thereby enhancing public safety and the integrity of the built environment…A standalone stop notice under section 27 would… enhance the effectiveness of enforcement measures and promote responsible ownership and management of buildings in [this area] and beyond.” – Local Authority

“Agree with this in two scenarios. Firstly when alternate products may have been used that have not been checked as compatible with other materials as a result of something such as value engineering. Secondly, in a situation as per the Building Safety Regulator in England where the authority is not notified of what is termed a notifiable change from the original warrant.” - Professional/membership body

Reinforcement

Enforcement, including proportionate penalties such as fines, would be required to back up the stop notice, according to several respondents. In isolation, legislation was not considered a deterrent. One professional/membership body cautioned that without sufficient resources to identify non-compliance and then inspect to ensure the stop notice is adhered to, there was a risk that non-compliant owners would consider the likelihood of being handed a notice so low that it would not be a deterrent. One local authority felt that existing legislation had been ineffective, combined with a reluctance to pursue enforcement other than initial verbal or written warnings.

Need for additional resources

Three respondents noted the additional cost that could be placed on local authorities, which they felt could strain existing resources and processes. This included the burden on council services if enforcement is ignored and the additional costs required for monitoring, enforcement, and compliance verification.

“It is important that sufficient resources are made available, including the ability to identify such premises and then determine where they need to be ‘stopped’. Sufficient competent staff with the resources available to undertake meaningful action will help add an additional safety net to the building safety regime.” – Professional/membership body

Other points raised

Two respondents felt existing powers were sufficient, with one commercial organisation querying how many actions to suspend works had been issued by local authorities under Section 27, implying this proposal was not required.

A further two organisations noted that stopping works could have consequences for commercial organisations. One suggested penalties for not stopping might be less severe than penalties for missed completion dates and would, therefore, not act as a deterrent, as the developer could be willing to continue working and accept the fine.

One local authority requested clarity on who would be served the notice:

“It would be good to clarify if the notice would be served on the owner and developer/builder or just the owner/developer or the builder. Verifiers often encounter instances of enabling works that are actually commencement of works, and owners and builders blaming each other for either instructing the work to commence early or builders starting early as it suits them, and there is no impact on them. It would be welcome to have clarity on this so that it can be highlighted throughout the application process and customer journey.” – Local Authority