Building standards enforcement and sanctions: consultation analysis

8. Impact assessments and other impacts

The consultation included three further questions addressing the potential impact of the proposals on people with protected characteristics, businesses and island communities. The analysis of these three questions, which were answered by a smaller number of respondents, is provided below.

A majority of most groups felt that the proposals did not impact people with protected characteristics. Overall, 53% felt they did not, 12% that they did, and 15% were unsure or did not answer. Opinion varied among organisations; while all commercial organisations and 67% of local authorities felt there should be no impact, 86% of professional organisations were unsure or did not answer.

Just over a quarter of respondents provided an open comment in Q10. Most comments were brief, and there was little consistency across the points raised.

The potential implications of the proposals for people with disabilities were highlighted by two respondents. An individual explained that people with disabilities and their carers may require speedy access to adapted accommodation and urged that any amended legislation should not negatively impact these individuals making modest changes to their homes. Similarly, a local authority called for careful consideration of any enforcement action against disabled people.

Two respondents each:

• Highlighted that the proposals could affect mental health or buildings occupied by children, young people, or older adults, but did not indicate whether they thought these impacts would be positive or negative or elaborate further on what these might be.
• Expressed the view that everyone should be treated equally within building standards regulation and in line with any equalities legislation, regardless of protected characteristics.

Other comments in Q10, each mentioned by a single respondent, included that:

• New legislation must make it easier for vulnerable people, and the wider population in general, to hold professionals and companies to account.
• There is a need to ensure those with protected characteristics know what to do and can access complaints procedures in the event of potential non-compliance. It was highlighted, for instance, that not everyone uses a computer.
• None of the proposals will adversely impact people with protected characteristics or mentioned potential positive impacts of the proposals for these groups.
• One commercial organisation suggested that the proposals would have a positive impact:

“We have not identified any proposals in this consultation that we consider will adversely impact individuals with protected characteristics. We believe the effects of the proposals in this consultation - and the recommendations we have made - will positively affect the safety of protected groups, notably building occupants with impaired abilities.” –Commercial organisation

Opinions on whether the proposals could impact businesses varied. Overall, 53% felt there could be an impact, 26% did not, and 21% were unsure or did not answer. While 44% of individuals thought there could be wider implications, this rose to 60% of organisations. Local authorities were notably more likely to believe there would be an impact (73%).

Just over half of all respondents provided an open comment in Q11. The most prevalent theme in open comments was the additional demands that could be placed on staff in the sector, especially within local authorities. A small number highlighted other potential negative impacts on costs, with a few others noting potential positive impacts.

Resource implications

The most prevalent theme outlined by many respondents, particularly local authorities, was that the proposals could place additional demands on resources, staff time, training and workforce planning. Several stated that increased statutory or enforcement responsibilities would be time and resource-consuming, with three expressing a view that these services are already underfunded or stretched. There were several calls for the proposals to be accompanied by increased funding and staff training to ensure their successful delivery and protect against adverse impacts on current workstreams.

“The increased powers will require greater enforcement investigation and processing by verifier teams that are already stretched. This increased duty and expectation will likely impact upon performance figures unless additional resource can be identified, recruited, and trained up within the service.” – Local Authority

Two local authorities reflected on the resource implications for local authorities of pursuing prosecutions. For example, as well as additional demands on verifier teams, support from other teams, such as local authority legal services, would be required.

“If it is the expectation that Local Authority building standards are to be more proactive with enforcement then this will have an impact on resources. Allied to this is the expectation that following enforcement action a prosecution is required the resources required for this are considerable and will impact on the provision of providing an efficient building standards service. Additionally, if the LA is expected to carry out the work and recover the costs of doing so, this could lead to both financial and resource implications.” – Local Authority

The resource implications of the proposal to take action after a competition certificate had been accepted were noted by three respondents.

“The proposal to introduce enforcement after a completion certificate has been accepted would have financial and resource implications for us, even where a complaint is unfounded. Any issue raised would have to be investigated referring to the approved plans and the regulations in force at the time of the warrant. Often any complaints could be dealt with through the construction contracts, but Building Standards may be seen as the easier and cheaper route to take.” – Local Authority

Two professional/membership bodies also highlighted the potential for increased workload due to the proposed changes. One described the resource implications of producing resources about the implementation and impact of new legislation for their members. Another described additional workload for their members due to increased audit and inspection of buildings to better support local authority verifiers, as well as the need to deliver and embed new training.

Negative impact on costs

Two organisations raised the potential negative impact of the proposals on building costs. One warned that insurance costs could rise if work is revisited after acceptance of the completion certificate. A commercial organisation suggested that organisations which plan to or incur financial penalties may try and recover those costs to the detriment of their customers, either through higher costs or cost-cutting which leads to poorer service.

“Some of our members have highlighted the unfair nature of potential for work to be revisited when at the time they were approved and in accordance with the building warrant as well as the fact it is impossible to predict future regulatory changes. We suggest they are treated as a new project, not as a change otherwise, it could significantly add to the risk premium attached to a building project by an insurer or financer.” – Professional/membership body

Positive impacts

Three organisations felt that the proposals could have positive implications for their work, or more generally. They suggested that the proposals could lead to a culture change and that, rather than using sub-standard products to get the job done cheaply, there would be a greater emphasis on a right first-time approach which uses better quality products and materials which improve safety and standards. One commercial organisation elaborated on this point by noting that while there may be increased short term costs to implement the changes, this would be negated by reduced maintenance costs in the long term.

Most respondents were unsure about the implications for island communities (49%) or did not answer (7%). Just over one in ten individuals (11%) and organisations (12%) thought there could be an impact, though organisations were more likely to say they were unsure or not answer (68%).

One in five respondents provided a comment at Q12. The most common theme, outlined by three respondents, was that island communities face logistical challenges, possibly making compliance with building standards harder. It was, however, noted that island communities typically have fewer High Risk Buildings.

Examples of some of the challenges included: difficulties accessing materials; limited access to specialist expertise and professionals to carry out building work or inspections; and logistical challenges accessing and inspecting buildings. There were calls to take these logistical challenges, and the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018, into account in future legislation. One professional/membership body advocated for island authorities to have sufficient expertise and power to determine whether non-compliance with regulations is due to negligence, or due to difficulties arising from the remoteness of the development.

Another professional/membership body cautioned against the potential negative impact on investments in island communities should the proposals lead to delays.

“If the regulatory framework does not cause delays, then we do not see it causing a problem. If, however, there are significant hold points, it could be more costly and impactful to a project deemed higher risk within an island community and prevent the investment.” – Professional/membership body

Conversely, one commercial organisation highlighted the potential positive impacts of the proposed changes, as it should mean that buildings are constructed with the level of resilience they need to withstand the more challenging island environment.