Leading on Competence, Collaboration & Culture: Can the UK Building Control Sector Rise to the Challenge?
- truthaboutlocalgov
- Oct 17
- 11 min read
A Sector Transformed: Lessons from Grenfell and the Road Ahead
The Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 was a watershed moment for the UK’s built environment sector. It exposed not only catastrophic failures in fire safety and building regulation, but also a deeper malaise fragmented responsibilities, inconsistent standards, and a culture that too often prioritised expediency over safety. In the years since, the sector has been forced to confront uncomfortable truths and embark on a journey of reform. Central to this transformation has been Dame Judith Hackitt, whose 2018 independent review, Building a Safer Future, laid bare the systemic weaknesses that contributed to the tragedy. Her findings were uncompromising: the regulatory framework was “not fit for purpose,” and the culture across construction and building control lacked the accountability and competence needed to protect lives.
Now, in her recent reflections published in The Planner, Hackitt returns with a renewed sense of urgency. She challenges the building control profession and the wider built environment sector to lead the next phase of reform by embracing three core principles: competence, collaboration, and culture. These are not abstract ideals; they are the foundations upon which a safer, more resilient system must be built.
“In the aftermath of Grenfell, there was recognition that the whole system had failed. Yet too many parts of industry still want to be told exactly what to do. That mindset is not compatible with the culture of responsibility we need.”
Hackitt’s words cut to the heart of the issue. The legacy of Grenfell demands more than regulatory compliance it requires a fundamental shift in mindset. The tendency to wait for instruction, to defer responsibility, and to treat safety as someone else’s problem is no longer acceptable. This passive culture must be replaced with one of proactive leadership, professional pride, and shared accountability.
A System Under Scrutiny
For local government officers particularly those working in planning, building control, housing, and regeneration the implications of Hackitt’s challenge are profound. The introduction of the Building Safety Act 2022 marked a turning point, establishing a new regulatory framework designed to embed safety from the earliest stages of development. At the heart of this framework is the Gateway system, which introduces three key checkpoints for higher-risk buildings. Gateway One, which sits at the planning stage, is especially critical. It requires developers to demonstrate how fire safety has been considered in the design, and it empowers local authorities to raise concerns before a project progresses.
This shift places new responsibilities on councils. It demands earlier engagement with fire engineers and safety professionals, more rigorous scrutiny of design proposals, and a willingness to challenge poor practice. It also requires investment in skills, systems, and culture to ensure that officers are equipped to fulfil their role as guardians of public safety. Hackitt’s call to action is not just about compliance it’s about leadership. It’s about recognising that building control is not a back-office function, but a frontline service with the power to shape the safety, quality, and integrity of the places we build.
Gateway One: A Critical Juncture
The introduction of Gateway One under the Building Safety Act represents a fundamental shift in how safety is considered in the planning and design of higher-risk buildings. It is no longer acceptable for fire safety and structural integrity to be addressed late in the development process. Instead, these issues must be embedded from the very beginning at the point of planning submission. Dame Judith Hackitt is unequivocal in her assessment:
“Gateway One is profoundly important. Concerns raised at this stage cannot be ignored. If they are, the project will almost certainly fail to clear later gateways.”
This early-stage scrutiny is designed to prevent unsafe designs from progressing, ensuring that fire engineers, building control officers, and other safety professionals are not just consulted, but actively involved in shaping proposals. Their expertise must inform layout, materials, access strategies, and evacuation plans long before a spade hits the ground.
For local authorities, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity. On one hand, councils are under immense pressure to meet housing targets, regenerate communities, and accelerate delivery. On the other, they are now tasked with enforcing a more rigorous safety regime that demands time, expertise, and confidence to push back when standards fall short.
Hackitt acknowledges this tension and offers a pragmatic way forward:
“There are ways to build faster without cutting corners – for example, standardised designs approved once and built many times, or staged approvals at Gateway Two. But quality remains non-negotiable.”
This means councils must be empowered to say “no” when necessary, and supported to work collaboratively with developers to find safe, efficient solutions. It also means investing in systems and processes that allow Gateway One to function as intended not as a bureaucratic hurdle, but as a safeguard for future residents.
Competence: The Cornerstone of Reform
While regulatory frameworks are essential, Hackitt is clear that rules alone will not deliver safer buildings. The real issue, she argues, is competence or rather, the lack of it across parts of the sector.
“We know that this isn’t just about the guidance, but is also about a lack of overall competence throughout the sector.”
This is a sobering observation. Competence is not simply about qualifications or job titles it’s about the ability to apply knowledge effectively, make sound judgments, and uphold professional standards under pressure. It’s about knowing when to challenge, when to escalate, and when to take responsibility. The creation of the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) was a direct response to this concern. Initially housed within the Health and Safety Executive, the BSR is now transitioning to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, reflecting the need for closer integration with planning and housing policy. This move signals a recognition that building safety cannot be siloed it must be embedded across the entire development lifecycle.
Yet Hackitt warns against over-reliance on top-down regulation:
“It must be a joint responsibility. Industry and professional bodies should come together to produce practical guidance, with the regulator confirming that it meets the required standard.”
This collaborative model places responsibility on all stakeholders developers, consultants, councils, and professional bodies to co-create solutions and uphold standards. For local authorities, it means investing in continuous professional development, enforcing codes of conduct, and ensuring that poor practice is addressed not ignored or tolerated.
It also means recognising the societal value of building control roles. These are not administrative posts they are public safety functions. Officers in these roles protect lives, shape communities, and uphold the integrity of the built environment. Their work deserves respect, investment, and visibility.
A Profession Under Pressure: Understanding the Workforce Challenge
The building control profession is facing a pivotal moment. As of mid-2024, the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) has registered approximately 4,049 professionals across the UK, categorised into four competency levels that reflect both experience and responsibility:
Class 1 – Trainees: 1,971
Class 2 – Registered Inspectors: 1,614
Class 3 – Specialist Inspectors: 464
Class 4 – Technical Managers: 516
These figures reveal a profession with a substantial number of early-career entrants, but a relatively small pool of senior specialists and managers. The latest CABE survey (2025) reinforces this concern: 41% of respondents were operating at Class 3 or 4, while 50% were at Class 2. This distribution suggests a growing imbalance there are not enough experienced professionals to meet the increasing complexity and volume of work, especially as regulatory expectations rise.
Local authority building control teams remain the cornerstone of enforcement. In 2023, councils in England employed around 2,680 technical staff. On average, district councils had seven officers, while unitary authorities employed eleven. These numbers, however, mask a deeper issue: workloads are intensifying, and staffing levels are not keeping pace. Nearly two-thirds of professionals reported a significant decline in resources over the past three years, citing budget constraints, recruitment difficulties, and rising expectations.
Salaries in the sector sometimes reaching £52,000 reflect the growing demand for skilled professionals. Yet even competitive pay is not enough to resolve the talent shortage. The public sector is increasingly competing with private firms for the same pool of candidates, and many councils are struggling to attract and retain the expertise they need.
Recruitment and Retention: A Growing Concern
The workforce is ageing, and many experienced officers are choosing to retire or leave the profession altogether. The introduction of competency-based registration, while essential for raising standards, has had unintended consequences. Some long-serving practitioners have opted out, unwilling or unable to undertake new assessments. Others have transitioned from private sector roles to local authorities, drawn by improved work-life balance or better public sector pay. But these shifts, while helpful, are not enough to close the gap.
The urgency to recruit new talent has never been greater. Without a clear and supportive pathway into the profession, and without the mentoring and development opportunities needed to retain staff, the sector risks losing momentum. The challenge is not just to fill vacancies it’s to build a sustainable workforce that can uphold safety, quality, and public trust.
What Are We Really Asking Ourselves?
Dame Judith Hackitt’s reflections do more than highlight technical shortcomings they challenge the entire sector to confront some uncomfortable but necessary questions. These are not just questions for regulators or policymakers, but for every professional involved in shaping the built environment. They go to the heart of what kind of profession we want building control to be and whether we are doing enough to secure its future. First and foremost:
Are we attracting the next generation? Do young people see building control as a career that matters as a role that safeguards lives, shapes communities, and contributes to the public good? Or do they still perceive it as a narrow, bureaucratic function, disconnected from the real-world impact of the buildings we live and work in?
Are we providing clear, structured pathways for progression? From Class 1 trainees to Class 4 technical managers, the journey through the profession must be navigable, transparent, and supported. Without practical routes for development, we risk losing talent before it has a chance to flourish.
Do both public and private sectors have the capacity to nurture excellence? Training, mentoring, and continuing professional development (CPD) are not optional extras they are essential tools for building competence. Yet many organisations, especially under-resourced local authorities, struggle to provide the time and investment needed to support their staff.
How do we shift the narrative? Building control is not just about ticking boxes or enforcing compliance it’s about protecting people. It’s about ensuring that buildings are safe, accessible, and fit for purpose. We must reframe these roles as vital public safety functions, not administrative hurdles.
Can we create a level playing field across the sector? Local authority teams often face recruitment challenges due to disparities in pay, conditions, and career progression compared to private firms. If we want to retain talent in the public sector, we must address these inequalities and ensure that councils are equipped to compete.
And perhaps most critically:
How do we move beyond compliance to embed a culture of competence? Hackitt warns against a regulatory mindset that focuses solely on meeting minimum standards. Instead, she calls for a culture where professionals take ownership, where safety is a shared responsibility, and where excellence is the norm not the exception.
These questions are not rhetorical. They demand answers and action. They require collaboration across government, industry, and education. And they call on every professional in the sector to reflect on their role in driving change.
Improving Competence & Reframing the Profession
Dame Judith Hackitt’s message is unequivocal: if the building control sector is to meet the demands of a more complex regulatory landscape, it must go beyond surface-level reforms. The sector needs a fundamental rethink not just of how it operates, but of how it is perceived, supported, and sustained. At the heart of this transformation is competence. Hackitt argues that technical ability alone is not enough. What’s needed is a profession that understands its purpose, takes ownership of its role in public safety, and is equipped to make informed, confident decisions. This means embedding competence not just in qualifications, but in culture, behaviours, and everyday practice.
To achieve this, Hackitt calls for earlier and deeper collaboration between disciplines particularly the inclusion of fire engineers and safety specialists at the earliest stages of design. She also emphasises the importance of professional bodies in upholding robust codes of conduct and supporting practitioners through clear standards and guidance. But competence cannot be built in isolation. It requires a collective effort from industry, regulators, employers, and professional institutions to reimagine career pathways, invest in upskilling, and promote the real-world impact of building control work. The profession must be seen not as a regulatory necessity, but as a vital contributor to safe, sustainable communities. That shift in perception is essential if we are to attract and retain the talent needed for the future.
Collaboration: Breaking Down Silos
One of Hackitt’s most powerful observations is the need to dismantle the silos that have long characterised the built environment sector.
“Too often in the past, engineers were consulted too late. Early collaboration allows better solutions to be engineered in from the start.”
This insight is particularly relevant to local government, where departments such as planning, housing, building control, and fire safety often operate independently. The result is fragmented decision-making, missed opportunities for early intervention, and a reactive rather than proactive approach to safety.
Hackitt’s vision is one of shared responsibility where professionals across disciplines work together from the outset to co-design safe, functional, and resilient buildings. For councils, this means fostering cross-departmental collaboration, creating integrated project teams, and ensuring that safety is considered not just at the point of enforcement, but throughout the development process. It also means engaging with external partners developers, consultants, and regulators in a spirit of openness and mutual respect. Collaboration is not just a technical necessity; it is a cultural shift that requires trust, communication, and a shared commitment to outcomes.
Culture: The Hardest Change of All
While systems and structures can be redesigned, changing culture is far more challenging. Hackitt, who chairs the Industry Safety Steering Group (ISSG), has seen first-hand the resistance that persists across parts of the sector. Her assessment is stark:
“An appalling attitude continues to prevail,” despite the reforms now in force.
This culture of complacency where safety is seen as someone else’s responsibility, and minimum compliance is treated as sufficient must be replaced with one of accountability, leadership, and pride. Hackitt urges engineers and building professionals to:
“Demonstrate leadership, not just in technical competence but in advocating for safety outcomes as the purpose of the whole system.”
For local government officers, this means embedding safety into every aspect of their work not just in regulatory enforcement, but in procurement, commissioning, policy development, and community engagement. It means challenging poor practice, supporting continuous improvement, and modelling the behaviours that will define the future of the profession.
Ultimately, cultural change is not about ticking boxes it’s about shifting mindsets. It’s about recognising that building control is not a peripheral function, but a central pillar of public service. And it’s about empowering professionals to lead with confidence, integrity, and purpose.
Call to Action: Rebuilding Trust, Capacity and Purpose
The ambitions facing the UK’s built environment sector are vast and urgent: delivering 1.5 million new homes, achieving net zero carbon targets, and ensuring that every building new or existing is genuinely safe for the people who live and work within them. These goals are not abstract policy aspirations; they are real-world imperatives that demand a capable, confident, and collaborative building control profession.
To meet these challenges, every part of the system must step up. From trainees to technical managers, from local authority teams to private sector consultants, and from regulators to professional bodies, we must work together to rebuild not only capacity, but credibility. The sector must be equipped with the skills, resources, and leadership needed to deliver on its responsibilities and it must do so with integrity, transparency, and pride. This is not just about filling vacancies or updating guidance. It’s about reimagining the profession: making it visible, valued, and future-ready. It’s about creating career pathways that attract new talent, supporting existing professionals to thrive, and embedding a culture where safety is not a box to tick, but a principle to uphold.
The question we must now ask is this: How will we, collectively, drive the change that the public not only expects but deserves? And more importantly: Do we have the capacity, competence, and courage to do so? The answers to these questions will shape more than just the future of building control. They will determine the safety, quality, and sustainability of the places we build and the trust that communities place in those who regulate them. This is our moment to act. To lead. To rebuild. Let’s not wait for permission. Let’s start asking the right questions and let’s start answering them, together.
