Compliance and ongoing validation of your professional credentials is now becoming a reality for those working in the construction industry. The response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy, which exposed deep flaws in how the industry operated and was policed, has been widespread and far-reaching. 

Since 2017, when the fire took place killing 72, the industry has faced both a landmark public inquiry and a review (overseen by Dame Judith Hackitt) as well as ongoing legislative change, most notably through the Building Safety Act of 2022, and subsequent changes to the Building Regulations 2010, Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022. 

“This is a huge reset for the construction industry,” said Building Safety Regulator (BSR) chair Andy Roe, as he described the ongoing regulatory reform agenda at a press briefing in July. “We will look back at this in 20-30 years as a very significant moment,” he added, referring to how such changes to how standards are upheld and enforced in the sector would, in his view, improve the overall reputation of construction and the quality of the built environment.

The current wave of reform in the industry has started to impact on specific professionals, notably with the creation of the principal contractor and the principal designer roles that emerged from the Building Safety Act as well as tighter regulation being introduced specifically for those working in building control and for fire safety and engineering. The former now have a new registered title in England and Wales overseen by the BSR and, in less than two years, will face their first mandatory four-year revalidation cycle.  

And last year, the British Standard Institution (BSI) published a new competency framework for fire risk assessors to undergo based on three levels of fire risk profiles from low, moderate or high fire risk. 

In late 2025, the Fire Engineers Advisory Panel, a body set up by the government earlier that year, recommended that a new protected title is introduced for fire engineers to ensure that fire safety strategies are “developed by individuals who meet recognised education, ethical and competency requirements”. 

The expectation is that further professions across the industry – particularly those in safety-critical roles or with key safety responsibilities – will face similar tightening of regulation. It is anticipated for some roles that this may include externally verified registration and revalidation. 

The government is planning wider reform of regulations for the profession alongside the formation of a single construction regulator. This was a key recommendation from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry and, last December, the government published the prospectus for this new body, which hints at plans for tighter controls on competence. The aim is to reduce the fragmentation of the construction sector’s regulation and, more widely, to promote cultural change. 

A recent report from the Industry Safety Steering Group (ISSG), an independent body formed to scrutinise changes to the industry to make it a “safer and more trusted sector”, summed up the significance of the proposed regulator. “Establishing a dedicated regulator for building safety lays the groundwork for an integrated system and will further enable the cultural and systemic reforms recommended by the Inquiry,” the report said.

In June, the government asked regulator Architects Registration Board (ARB) to lead an industry taskforce that will inform future policy options for the new wider regulator. 

In a letter to ARB, the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) said this exercise should assess “the level of life safety, economic, social and environmental risk to the public from professional activity across the building lifecycle. This should consider risk to both individual buildings as well as systemic risk”.

ARB chief executive Hugh Simpson told industry title Building Design: “Our view is that if you’re going to look at systemic problems, it’s quite hard to see how you could [do that] without looking at functions in law, and not just related to architects, but all professions working in the built environment.”

This taskforce would look to identify the key high-risk functions in the built environment that would face future regulatory interventions and will include experts from trade bodies, including the Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB), Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE), RIBA, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and the BSR. This is part of a wider “professions” strategy being formed by the government, which is due to be announced next spring.

In many respects, the industry has been an outlier in not facing independent scrutiny. Regulation and revalidation are well established for a host of other professionals, from doctors to airline pilots, security guards to accountants (see box below comparing other professional regimes). Revalidation is the periodic process by which licensed or registered professionals such as doctors formally demonstrate their ongoing competence, up-to-date knowledge, and fitness to practice in order to renew their legal authority to work.

While some were set up decades ago for doctors and security professionals, the move to a tighter regime was more recent. In medicine, self-regulation was replaced with professional regulation earlier this century and the General Medical Council (GMC) introduced revalidation for doctors in 2012. Security professionals now face enhanced scrutiny from a government-appointed body in a system brought in last year.

In construction, there is a likelihood that models for revalidation will blend the two – requiring submission of documented portfolio evidence including of recent projects and relevant CPD that demonstrate that the person still meets the SKEB of the relevant standard, along with a possibly professional interview, every five years.

Revalidation is expected under current competence assessment schemes, including those offered by APS, who are currently designing their revalidation process. This will not be a full re-assessment, but rather a proportionate approach building on CPD, portfolio evidence and a possible interview.

Firstly, portfolio and reflection. Professionals are expected to undertake training, quality improvement activity as well as feedback from both patients (or users of their services) and colleagues. For example, if a doctor receives a complaint or if they have been involved in a significant event, they need to actively reflect on this. These activities need to be recorded and form part of an appraisal process.

Secondly, practical testing. This is a more hands-on process that relies on a professional attending an independent facility every few years to physically prove they still possess the technical capability to safely handle high-risk tasks and is in systems that regulate professions such as airline pilots.

In construction, there is a likelihood that models for revalidation will blend the two – requiring both documented portfolio evidence of recent projects (CPD/SKEB) and formal, independent third-party assessments every 3-5 years. This is the case for the principal designer and principal contractor roles overseen by the Building Regulations Act 2010 (amended in 2023).

A key aspect to any regime is the idea of proportionality – designing a framework that reflects the risk profile of the task that a professional is carrying out as well as to avoid overburdening professionals who typically have a high volume of work with excessive added bureaucracy. This is a particularly relevant issue for the government to juggle given its stated aim to increase construction of infrastructure and new housing to support wider economic growth.

A relevant example of proportionality is the competence framework for fire risk assessors launched last August under BS8674. Under this, buildings are now classified as low, moderate or high fire risk and each category is directly tied to the level of competency required such as foundation, intermediate, or advanced. The principle is clear – the complexity of a building should match the competence of the assessed.

Unsurprisingly, given the serious repercussions for professionals who do not meet the standards or face charges of misconduct/being struck off from a register, these systems are never always straightforward to administer. Revalidation in medicine has been subject to two more reviews in 2017 and 2018 since it was introduced, and the doctor’s union the British Medical Association (BMA) last year called for a new body to replace the GMC, which would “protects patients, treats doctors fairly”, and “puts them [doctors] at the heart of its decision-making”.

Medicine is also a field where having robust checks and balances for professionals to undertake has become challenging during periods of increased demand for those practitioners such as the Covid-19 pandemic.

The pathway for future mandated competence assessments and registers is one supported by APS, which they see as part of a wider industry step change in improving safety culture and practices. The theme of its upcoming conference in September is Beyond Compliance, and the APS chief executive argues that legal requirements set minimum standards and do not tackle wider safety issues. 

“The real challenge for clients, consultants and contractors is building collaborations where competence, culture and accountability are embedded throughout every stage of a project,” the chief executive said, adding that successful projects are “rarely those that simply tick compliance boxes”. “They are the projects where information is shared effectively, responsibilities are clearly understood and teams work together to achieve safe, high-quality outcomes.”

With this shared philosophy, combining the more structured approach of competence frameworks and registration schemes with behavioural and cultural change will create rewards for those professionals that embrace and engage with the drive for improving professionalism. 

As the ISSG report concluded: “We envision a future defined by a more skilled and productive workforce, creating sustained economic growth.”

Key events in the past decade driving compliance for built environment professions

14 June 2017 – Grenfell Tower Fire: the tragedy exposes systemic failures across design, construction oversight, product testing and supply chain accountability.

May 2018 – The Hackitt Review: Dame Judith Hackitt publishes her landmark independent review. She condemns the construction industry’s “race to the bottom” and calls for a mandatory framework to ensure dutyholders are demonstrably competent.

28 April 2022 – Building Safety Act (BSA) 2022: the BSA becomes law, establishing the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) and creating new criminal liabilities for failing to comply.

2022/2023 – The PAS Frameworks published: BSI publishes PAS 8671 (Principal Designers), PAS 8672 (Principal Contractors), and PAS 8673 (Residential Building Safety Managers).

October 2023 – Regulations under the BSA come into force. Clients face a legal duty to appoint only competent principal designers and principal contractors. The Gateway System for higher-risk buildings (HRBs) goes live.

6 April 2024 – Building Control registration: Private inspectors and local authority inspectors must register with the BSR.

2024/2025 – The Gateway 2 backlog: the initial implementation faces friction. Gateway 2 pre-construction sign-offs experience significant delays, and early Building Assessment Certificates (BACs) show high refusal rates as the BSR rejects duty holder applications that lack robust evidence of real-world competence.

27 January 2026 – BSR becomes independent: the Building Safety Regulator transitions out from under the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to become a standalone body sponsored directly by the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG).

Mid-2026 – Consolidation plan for a single construction regulator: government responds to consultations on establishing a single construction regulator, designed to unify oversight across buildings, construction products, and duty holder competence registers into one centralised authority.