Nationwide Sureties Archives | Page 2 of 7

Government Policy Nationwide Sureties Planning

Industry response to draft National Planning Policy Framework

The draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published by the UK Government in December 2025, represents one of the most substantial proposed overhauls of planning policy in England for many years. Designed to guide decision-making on development, housing supply, infrastructure, environmental protection and local planning, the consultation document has sparked strong debate across the construction, planning and local government sectors. The government is seeking views on its proposals up to 10 March 2026, and responses from industry bodies, planning consultancies and campaign groups have already begun to shape the national conversation about the future of England’s planning system.

At its core, the draft NPPF aims to update and reorganise existing policy to support the delivery of homes and infrastructure while responding to environmental challenges and economic needs. The document chapters are structured to separate plan-making policies — which help local authorities and neighbourhood planners shape development plans — from national decision-making policies used by planners when deciding individual planning applications. The emphasis on aligning planning practice with broader government priorities, such as meeting ambitious housing targets and supporting renewable energy, reflects the current administration’s desire to accelerate development across the country.

Industry and planning professionals have been engaging with the draft, highlighting both opportunities and concerns. Construction and planning consultancies, such as Ramboll, have underscored that the proposed reforms could reduce delays in planning approvals and increase certainty for developers, particularly by streamlining certain aspects of the system and reducing unnecessary complexity. These voices argue that clearer policy direction at a national level is needed to overcome persistent bottlenecks that slow investment and delivery of homes and infrastructure.

Similarly, specialist planning commentators have noted the draft’s focus on sustainable transport, environmental protections and housing mix, which could support balanced, long-term development if implemented effectively. Enhancements to how transport systems are integrated into planning decisions, stronger links with Local Nature Recovery Strategies and new expectations for accessible housing standards have been flagged as significant shifts that planners and developers must understand and implement.

Despite these positives, responses from professional bodies and campaign groups reveal meaningful concerns. The Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) welcomes elements of the draft, such as support for small and medium-sized builders and recognition of affordable housing needs, but criticises the absence of enforceable brownfield development targets. CPRE’s analysis suggests that without stronger mechanisms to prioritise previously developed land, pressure on greenfield and countryside areas — including Green Belt zones redefined in policy as “grey belt” — could intensify. Consequently, the organisation warns that new homes may increasingly encroach on unspoilt landscapes rather than regenerating urban areas.

Local authorities and elected representatives have also weighed in. MPs have urged the government to ensure the draft NPPF explicitly addresses safety considerations, such as gendered safety in public spaces, signalling that planning policy must be more responsive to community needs. While planning ministers have acknowledged such feedback, there is public debate about how these concerns will be reflected in the final policy.

At the same time, land, planning and infrastructure consultancies are calling for better alignment between planning policy and delivery timescales, particularly for energy infrastructure and low-carbon developments. They argue that without stronger links between plan-making and project implementation, the ambitious policy aims for renewable energy and sustainable growth may falter in practice.

Across the sector more broadly, responses to the draft reflect a mixed landscape of optimism and caution. Many industry stakeholders recognise the need for reform and welcome a shift towards a more rules-based, growth-focused planning system, which could reduce uncertainty for developers and local authorities alike. However, there is also widespread concern about viability, environmental protections and the risk that housing targets may override local character and sustainability objectives if balancing mechanisms are not robustly enforced.

Planning professionals and authorities will be closely analysing the draft’s impact on local plan preparation. Councils preparing the next generation of local plans — which set out how areas will grow and change over time — have already begun to adjust their approaches in anticipation of how the final NPPF may shape strategic planning requirements. Funding and guidance are being updated to help authorities adapt to the emerging policy landscape, with government support mechanisms intended to reduce the planning burden where possible.

Crucially, the outcomes of the public consultation process, which has invited responses from individuals, councils, professional bodies and organisations large and small, will influence the final form of the NPPF. Government analysis shows that thousands of submissions have been received, with contributors commenting on issues ranging from housing delivery and climate change to infrastructure, net zero goals and biodiversity protections. This breadth of engagement underlines the high stakes involved in shaping national planning policy and the diversity of interests that the final framework must accommodate.

In summary, the draft NPPF represents a significant moment for England’s planning regime, symbolising a government push to modernise policy and accelerate delivery of homes and infrastructure. While many in the construction and planning sectors have welcomed aspects of the proposals, concerns remain about environmental safeguards, local autonomy, sustainability outcomes and the practical implications for developers and communities. As the consultation period continues, the final version of the NPPF will seek to balance these competing priorities, providing a framework that guides sustainable development while reflecting the needs of a broad range of stakeholders.

Construction Nationwide Sureties News

Futurebuild and UK Construction Week London to unite in 2026

In a landmark move for the UK construction sector, UK Construction Week London and Futurebuild will come together from 12–14 May 2026, creating a new national platform for the built environment at Excel London.

The collaborative co-location will form the UK’s Built Environment super event, designed to reflect the full scale, complexity and ambition of an industry facing unprecedented change.

Futurebuild and UK Construction Week London to unite in 2026 — Image: UK Construction Week London

Together, the events will bring 25,000 built environment professionals, 600+ exhibitors and 700+ speakers across 14 dedicated stages under one roof – making it the largest and most comprehensive construction event in the UK calendar.

Two distinct shows. One connected destination

While collaborating closely, UK Construction Week London and Futurebuild will retain their own powerful identities, communities and curated content, ensuring clarity of purpose alongside the benefits of scale and connection.

Futurebuildwill remain the UK’s leading event for sustainability, Net Zero and innovation in the built environment. It will continue to deliver highly respected CPD-accredited content, connecting architects, designers, local authorities and developers with ideas and solutions driving low-carbon construction, circular materials and large-scale retrofit. This leadership is anchored by The National Retrofit Conference, a flagship forum for policymakers, housing providers and Net Zero leaders.
UK Construction Week Londonwill continue to champion the practical delivery of construction projects, bringing a hands-on, solutions-led focus to the industry. The event connects contractors, housebuilders, trades and engineers with the tools, systems and skills needed on site, supported by live demonstrations, immersive features and CPD-accredited content grounded in real-world delivery.

Expanding the materials and finishes offer

Alongside Futurebuild and UK Construction Week London, The Stone & Surfaces Show will also take place at Excel London, adding a specialist focus on natural stone, surfaces, finishes and materials. Its inclusion strengthens the event’s materials and interiors offer, creating new opportunities for crossover between design, specification and installation.

The power of coming together

This collaboration responds directly to the industry’s call for greater cohesion, clearer leadership and more connected experiences, at a time when meeting net zero targets, modernising skills and decarbonising the built environment have never been more urgent.

By bringing together Futurebuild’s sustainability leadership and systems-level thinking, UK Construction Week London’s scale and delivery focus, and The Stone & Surfaces Show’s specialist materials expertise, the co-located event creates a 360-degree experience — from vision and innovation through to specification, materials and on-site implementation.

Martin Hurn, Event Director, Futurebuild, commented: “This is about creating one connected platform that reflects how the industry actually works – from vision to specification to delivery.

“Futurebuild will continue to lead on sustainability and long-term systems thinking, and collaborating with UK Construction Week London enables us to extend that influence into the practical, on-site world, turning ideas into real impact across the supply chain.”

Sam Patel, Divisional Director, UK Construction Week London, added:

“UK Construction Week London has always championed scale, experience and solutions that matter to those delivering projects on the ground. Collaborating with Futurebuild and The Stone & Surfaces Show unlocks new depth and strategic value, creating a destination that is richer, more relevant and more valuable to every part of the built environment.”

Commercial scale. Strategic reach. Connected opportunity

For exhibitors, the co-location delivers a step change in commercial opportunity, bringing together specifiers, consultants and sustainability leaders with contractors, housebuilders, engineers and delivery partners.

Benefits include:
●   Expanded reach and cross-sector visibility
●   Increased dwell time and more connected visitor journeys
●   Stronger alignment between specification, materials and delivery
●   Higher-quality leads across fast-growth markets such as retrofit, digital construction, offsite and sustainable materials

One destination. One vision. One future

The UK Built Environment Super Event will serve as the new national platform for innovation, skills and sustainable delivery, showcasing solutions across:

Retrofit and Net Zero systems
●   HVAC, heating and building services
●   Circular and low-impact materials
●   Offsite and modern construction methods
●   Tools, plant and equipment
●   Digital construction, ConTech and AI
●   Stone, surfaces and finishes

This is where the future of the built environment connects.

Nationwide Sureties News Refurbishment

Heat Pumps Explained: When They Deliver Cheap, Low-Carbon Heat – and When They Don’t

Heat pumps are widely promoted as a cornerstone of the UK’s low-carbon future, offering the promise of efficient, environmentally friendly heating. Yet, as adoption grows, the reality of why heat pumps succeed in certain situations — and why they sometimes fail to deliver on expectations — is nuanced. Understanding the strengths and limitations of this technology is crucial for homeowners, landlords and policymakers alike.

Heat Pumps: When they deliver cheap heat – and when they don’t — Image: E.ON

At their core, heat pumps work by moving heat from one place to another rather than generating it by burning fuel. This fundamental difference gives them a theoretical advantage: a well-designed system can produce three to four units of heat for every unit of electricity it consumes, substantially outperforming traditional gas boilers in terms of energy efficiency. In addition to heating, many heat pumps also provide cooling in the summer, adding year-round functionality that conventional boilers can’t match. Relying on electricity rather than fossil fuels also means fewer direct carbon emissions at the point of use, aligning with broader climate goals and reducing dependence on volatile gas markets.

These benefits are most pronounced in the right circumstances. Well-insulated buildings with a modern building fabric and good thermal retention provide the ideal context for a heat pump to thrive. In such properties, a heat pump can operate consistently and efficiently, spreading low-grade heat evenly and maintaining comfortable indoor temperatures without excessive cycling or supplemental heating. Upgrading to underfloor heating or larger radiators — which deliver heat effectively at the lower flow temperatures typical of heat pumps — can further enhance comfort and performance,

Yet many UK homes, particularly older stock, were built for high-temperature gas boilers and often lack the insulation and airtightness that heat pumps need to perform well. Poor insulation undermines the cost and carbon benefits by letting heat escape faster than the system can replenish it, forcing the pump to run longer and harder and reducing overall efficiency. This mismatch between technology and building fabric helps explain why households sometimes report higher running costs despite heat pumps’ theoretical efficiency advantage — especially in an environment where electricity prices remain significantly higher than gas.

The financial picture complicates matters further. The upfront cost of a heat pump installation far exceeds that of a conventional gas boiler. Typical air-source systems can cost several thousands of pounds, while ground-source versions — which draw heat from the ground rather than the air — can be considerably more expensive still. Even with government incentives like the UK’s Boiler Upgrade Scheme, which provides grants of up to around £7,500, many households find the initial investment prohibitive, particularly when insulation or heating distribution upgrades are also needed. Critics argue that subsidies disproportionately benefit wealthier households who can afford the upfront costs, limiting the technology’s reach among those who could benefit most from lower energy bills.

Cold weather performance is another area where heat pumps can fall short of expectations. Air-source heat pumps rely on extracting heat from the outside air, a process that becomes more challenging as temperatures drop. Although modern units can function in sub-zero conditions, their efficiency declines — and in very cold spells, some systems may require supplemental electrical heating elements to maintain comfort, eroding the cost benefits. This limitation is less of an issue in milder climates but becomes evident in regions with prolonged cold periods, where heat pumps struggle to match the instantaneous heat output of fossil fuel systems.

Installation quality and system design also play a pivotal role in outcomes. Heat pumps must be sized correctly and integrated into the broader heating system with care. Errors in design — such as incorrect sizing, poor placement, or failing to account for a property’s heat loss — can lead to underperformance, increased energy consumption and even dissatisfaction among owners. Unlike gas boilers, which often provide rapid bursts of heat, heat pumps deliver warmth at a slower, steadier rate. As some homeowners have noted, this “low and slow” approach feels unfamiliar and can be misinterpreted as inadequate heating if expectations aren’t properly managed.

Despite these challenges, many installations do succeed, particularly when broader retrofit strategies are adopted. Combining heat pumps with improvements to insulation, airtightness and heating distribution can unlock long-term savings and comfort gains. Some community buildings and churches, for example, are embracing heat pumps as part of wider sustainability initiatives, reflecting both practical and ethical motivations for low-carbon heating.

In summary, heat pumps can deliver energy-efficient, low-carbon heating and cooling, but their success depends on a combination of good building fabric, careful system design, realistic expectations and supportive policy. In poorly insulated homes or cold climates with high electricity prices, they may struggle to live up to the promise of cheap heat and instead lead to higher bills and dissatisfaction. As the UK pushes toward ambitious climate targets, aligning heat pump deployment with insulation upgrades and clearer communication about costs and performance will be essential to maximise their potential.

Civil Engineering Construction Materials Nationwide Sureties News Public Works Contract

RAAC hospital replacements set to miss 2030 target

The £56bn New Hospital Programme, which includes the remediation and replacement of hospitals built with Reinforced Aerated Autoclaved Concrete (RAAC), is set to miss its original 2030 deadline, with some projects now expected to overrun by several years.

According to a new report from the National Audit Office (NAO), RAAC hospital remediation projects are likely to be delayed by between two and three years. While this represents a significant setback for estates identified as critical safety priorities, the watchdog says the programme is now on a firmer footing following a major reset under the current government.

The NAO states that the final hospitals within the programme are now expected to be completed in the 2045–46 period, more than a decade later than initially pledged. However, it adds that improved governance and clearer delivery plans have increased confidence among contractors and the wider supply chain.

The report highlights that the programme reset has improved certainty for construction partners, but warns that delivery remains finely balanced. With tight schedules and limited alternatives available, the next five years will need to see minimal errors, delays or cost increases if further slippage is to be avoided. The NAO notes that overly ambitious timetables were a key factor behind earlier delays to RAAC hospital projects.

Despite these risks, industry interest remains strong. Around 20 contractors and 16 firms have been shortlisted to participate in the programme, including major players such as Bam, McLaren and Morgan Sindall.

Andy Morrison, who directed the NAO report, said: “The programme to upgrade and build new hospitals is now on a more realistic timetable. The final hospitals to be completed will be in 2046.

“However, despite being priorities, hospitals built with Reinforced Aerated Autoclaved Concrete (RAAC) are now not expected to be replaced until 2032-33.

“Standardised hospital designs plan to have single rooms and be digitally enabled, offering potential savings and a stronger market for contractors. But these benefits depend on robust programme oversight.

“Staff will also need to buy-in to operational changes for hospitals to achieve efficiencies and improvements in patient care.”

The New Hospital Programme was originally announced by then prime minister Boris Johnson in 2019, with a headline commitment to deliver 40 new hospitals by 2030. It later emerged that this figure included refurbishments and extensions to existing hospitals, rather than 40 entirely new builds, prompting criticism over how the pledge had been presented.

Further scrutiny revealed that, under the original plans, funding for the programme would have been exhausted by March 2025, leaving later projects without confirmed financial backing.

Under the revised approach, HM Treasury will now fund hospital construction in five-year investment waves. Each wave is expected to increase by £15bn, reaching an average annual spend of £3bn per year from 2030 onwards. While this model provides longer-term certainty, it also means the overall programme completion date has moved to more than 10 years beyond the original target.

Secretary of state for health and social care Wes Streeting was highly critical of the programme’s condition when he took office, saying: “I was shocked by what I found on entering the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). The programme was hugely delayed, by several years more than had already been revealed by the National Audit Office. Most shocking of all, the funding for the programme was due to run out in March of this year, with no provision for future years whatsoever. The money simply was not there. The programme was built on the shaky foundation of false hope and without the confirmed funding these building projects could not be delivered, let alone delivering them all in the next 5 years.

“If I was shocked by the state of this programme, patients ought to be furious. Not only because the promises made to them were never going to be kept. They also desperately need new buildings and new hospitals.”

While the NAO acknowledges that the reset has improved the programme’s credibility, it warns that sustained political focus, tight cost control and strong oversight will be essential if the government is to deliver safer, modern hospitals and address the ongoing risks posed by RAAC across the NHS estate.

Construction Nationwide Sureties

Former Carillion Directors fined by Financial Authority for misleading investors

Former Carillion Directors Fined by Financial Authority for Misleading Investors In a significant regulatory action nearly eight years after Carillion’s collapse, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has fined two former finance directors of the now-liquidated construction and outsourcing giant for misleading investors about the company’s financial health in the period leading up to its downfall.

What Happened?

On 7 January 2026, the FCA confirmed it had imposed fines totalling £371,700 on Richard Adam and Zafar Khan for their role in issuing misleading statements about Carillion’s financial position. Adam received a penalty of £232,800 and Khan £138,900 after both men withdrew their challenges to the FCA’s findings, effectively accepting the regulator’s conclusions.

The regulator found that both directors were aware of serious financial troubles in Carillion’s UK construction business but failed to reflect this in public disclosures or properly alert the board and audit committee, contributing to poor oversight and misinformed investors.

FCA’s Statement on Accountability

Steve Smart, joint executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, emphasised the duty senior executives have to markets and investors: “Those in positions of responsibility have a duty to keep the market accurately and adequately informed. With Carillion, we have seen the serious impact it can have when they don’t. The action taken against Mr Adam and Mr Khan demonstrates our commitment to preventing market abuse and upholding the standards we expect.”

The FCA concluded that both directors acted recklessly and were knowingly concerned in breaches of the Market Abuse Regulation and Listing Rules, which require clear, truthful disclosure of material financial information.

Carillion’s Collapse: A Reminder of Broader Impact

Carillion’s liquidation in January 2018 triggered one of the largest corporate failures in UK history. The company went into administration with debts around £7 billion, leaving thousands of employees redundant and causing widespread disruption across hundreds of public contracts, including infrastructure and hospital projects.

The fallout affected supplier chains, subcontractors and public services, thrusting corporate governance and financial reporting standards into the spotlight. For the logistics and construction sectors, Carillion’s collapse remains a cautionary tale about risk management and transparency in long-term contracts.

Political and Regulatory Reactions

While the FCA’s latest action focuses on accountability, politicians and industry figures have previously criticised the regulatory framework for being slow to act and inadequate in preventing such corporate failures.

A senior MP on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee commented in a recent session: “Carillion exposed deep weaknesses in corporate governance and regulatory oversight. Real reform means ensuring that executives are held accountable quickly and clearly for misleading markets and that investors and taxpayers are protected.”

Calls for legislative and regulatory reform have continued, particularly around audit quality, board accountability, and early warning systems for investors. The Carillion fallout has spurred debates in Westminster on tightening directors’ duties and enhancing transparency for large contractors working with public funds.

What This Means for Investors and Directors

The FCA’s enforcement action reinforces that regulators will pursue former executives for past misconduct, even years after a collapse. For current and future directors in corporate Britain, the message is clear:

Transparent financial reporting isn’t optional – it’s a legal obligation.
Directors must ensure that systems and controls accurately capture and disclose financial risks.
Regulators will hold individuals, not just companies, accountable for market abuse and misleading information.

For investors, the FCA’s penalties may offer a measure of confidence that regulatory bodies are prepared to enforce accountability, albeit belatedly, as UK markets aim to rebuild trust after high-profile failures like Carillion.

Construction Contracts Developers Nationwide Sureties

Clegg Construction secures Gateway 2 approval for £46m Sheffield build-to-rent scheme

Clegg Construction has secured Gateway 2 approval for a £46 million, 12-storey build-to-rent development in Sheffield, clearing a key regulatory hurdle under the Building Safety Act.

The Nottingham-based contractor, working on behalf of Liverpool developer Brickland, has received formal sign-off from the Building Safety Regulator for the 267-apartment Nursery Street scheme, allowing construction to progress.

Gateway 2 approval confirms that the design and construction plans meet the enhanced safety requirements introduced for higher-risk residential buildings, particularly those exceeding 18 metres in height.

Michael Sims, managing director at Clegg Construction, said: “Securing Gateway 2 approval from the Building Safety Regulator confirms that this development in Sheffield meets the most stringent of safety requirements.

“This approval means that we can now proceed to the next stage, with enabling work starting on site to deliver this 12-storey concrete-frame apartment project.”

The scheme will be delivered using a concrete frame construction, with enabling works now scheduled to begin following regulatory clearance.

Project team appointed

The professional team appointed to deliver the Nursery Street development includes:

Architect: Hadfield Cawkwell Davidson
Built environment consultancy: Ridge
MEP consultant: Futurserv
Project manager and quantity surveyor: Egan Lucocq
Fire engineering: Design Fire Services

The development forms part of Sheffield’s growing build-to-rent sector, responding to continued demand for professionally managed rental accommodation in the city centre.

The Nursery Street project adds to a strong pipeline of residential schemes for Clegg Construction. The contractor has recently completed The Ironworks in Sheffield, a 12-storey residential building providing 229 apartments.

Elsewhere, Clegg has delivered Spinners Yard in Leeds and Gilders Yard in Birmingham, further strengthening its presence in the build-to-rent and urban residential markets.

Alongside residential development, the contractor remains active across non-residential construction in Sheffield, and is currently delivering a new Faculty of Health building at the University of Sheffield.

Construction Contracts Nationwide Sureties Public Works Contract

Engineers with a head for heights rock up for specialist work

Engineers have been scaling the heights to carry out strengthening work on steep slopes above Gloucester as part of National Highways’ A417 Missing Link scheme.

Running up and over the Cotswolds escarpment in dramatic Jurassic limestone cuttings, the landscape-led scheme is creating a free-flowing 3.5-mile dual carriageway link between the Brockworth bypass and the Cowley roundabout in Gloucestershire.

Navigating the escarpment, which has one of the highest inland concentrations of landslides in the country, has presented the company and contractor Kier with one of its biggest engineering challenges.

Engineers have been scaling the heights to carry out strengthening work on steep slopes above Gloucester as part of National Highways’ A417 Missing Link scheme — The excavated cuttings across the Cotswold escarpment

Two deep cuttings – 50 metres wide and up to 19 metres in height – have been excavated through the limestones to make way for a half-mile section of the new road.

And following excavation, a team of dentitions from engineering specialists GT Jones are now climbing the escarpment with safety ropes to clear loose material from the rock faces and repair and strengthen any faults and voids.

The aim of the scheme is to blend the new dual carriageway into the natural surroundings and enhance the special character of the area – reconnecting landscape, ecology and geology.

And once the road crosses the top of Crickley Hill, it will effectively be hidden from view by false embankments, while the deep rock cuttings will make visible the unique foundations of the Cotswold landscape.

The current rock climbing work will play a vital role in preventing future weathering and instability of the slopes, while creating a natural looking and improved finish.

National Highways Senior Project Manager Celine Acard said: “It’s amazing, specialised work and another example of the many unseen facets of work going into construction of the new dual carriageway.

“Our work on this vital scheme goes beyond simply building a new road, but also helping to preserve and enhance the landscape, and we’re really proud of all the engineering, environmental and ecological work being carried out as part of this project.

Ed Jones, Commercial Manager at GT Jones, said: “We’re proud to support the A417 Missing Link dentition works which requires specialist personnel, IRATA rope-access capability, and equipment designed for operating safely on steep and unstable rock faces.

“We’ve built strong experience in rock stabilisation, fissure remediation, and slope-engineering projects, and we’re applying that expertise directly here on the A417. By combining controlled descaling, targeted remediation, and engineered backfilling, we’re able to restore the structural integrity of the limestone escarpment and support Kier and National Highways in delivering a long-term, resilient solution.”

The scheme is progressing well and the construction of an underbridge at the top of the escarpment this year will enable a traffic switch from the existing A417 early in the new year, when drivers will be able to travel on a stretch of the new road in early 2026.

Supporting the landscape vision of the scheme, National Highways is continuing to work with stakeholders to maximise environmental benefits.

Alongside the programme of dry stone walling, environmental work is continuing with the planting of trees, along with hedges, and the creation of woodland and grasslands to improve sustainability.

So far, 17,000 trees have been planted, the programme of planting and seeding will continue into the spring and following completion of the project, a five-year maintenance period will follow to ensure the successful bedding in and growth of all new trees and shrubs.

Demolition Nationwide Sureties News

HSE Consultation Signals Stricter Asbestos Rules for UK Businesses

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has launched a major consultation on proposed changes to the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, prompting warnings that UK businesses may soon face tighter compliance requirements and increased liability risks.

According to law firm Clarke Willmott, the consultation signals the potential for tougher expectations around asbestos management. The HSE is seeking feedback on three key proposals aimed at improving safety standards and strengthening protections for workers and building occupants.

Three Proposed Changes to Asbestos Regulations

The consultation focuses on gathering views on reforms in three key areas:

Improving independence in the four-stage clearance process
Raising the standard and accuracy of asbestos surveys
Providing clearer guidance on asbestos management duties

The changes are designed to reduce exposure risks and ensure more consistent compliance. With HSE estimating that around 5,000 people die each year from asbestos-related diseases, the regulator says improvements are essential for protecting both workers and the public.

Bridget Sanger of Clarke Willmott warned that while no legal changes have yet been implemented, the direction of travel is clear. She said: “While these proposals are not yet law, they indicate that compliance expectations may rise in the future. Businesses should take this consultation seriously and consider how the changes could affect their operations. It’s also a chance to think about practical challenges, influence guidance, and ensure that asbestos management processes are robust.”

Sanger urged firms to review internal procedures sooner rather than later: “Duty holders should review their asbestos management procedures, ensuring that surveys are up to date, clearance processes are independent and staff understand their responsibilities. It’s also important to clarify what counts as notifiable non-licensed work to avoid mistakes. Acting now can reduce the risk of fines, prosecution, or reputational damage, while ensuring a commitment to keeping people safe.”

Asbestos Still a Serious Risk in the UK

Despite asbestos being banned in the UK since 1999, it remains widespread in buildings constructed or refurbished before the ban.

New research published last month by High Speed Training highlights that the risks are far from historical. The training provider found that a significant number of employers and workers do not treat asbestos with the seriousness required.

According to the findings:

26% of tradespeople who encountered asbestos did not follow safe removal guidelines
Another 26% said their employers instructed them to ignore those guidelines
35% did not believe asbestos is hazardous
36% viewed it as merely a “problem of the past”

Dr Richard Anderson, head of learning and development at High Speed Training, said the research underscores a major gap in awareness and compliance.

He said: “Whilst asbestos has been banned in the UK since 1999, it is still present in many buildings in the UK – with some reports stating it’s present in 1.5 million – and it can take as long as 30 years or more for symptoms of related diseases to appear, which really indicates the need for better awareness for tradespeople, their families, and the general public.

“Asbestos removal regulations are in place to make sure that the risk of exposure to harmful fibres is limited, and it’s imperative that guidelines are followed by a trained professional. It is never something that you should attempt to do yourself, whether you are a tradesperson or a member of the general public. There can be serious risks to your health if asbestos is disturbed and fibres are released into the air.”

The consultation provides an important opportunity for organisations to influence the future regulatory landscape while assessing their current level of compliance.

With the expected increase in enforcement and the ongoing risks highlighted by recent research, businesses that proactively strengthen their asbestos management procedures will be better positioned to meet rising standards and protect their workforce.

Construction Construction Costs Government Policy Nationwide Sureties

Construction industry reacts with relief to the 2025 Budget

The construction sector’s response to Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s 2025 Autumn Budget was a mixture of cautious welcome and frustration. Industry bodies praised measures aimed at planning capacity and skills but warned that higher taxes, wage rises and a lack of support for retrofit risk blunting the Budget’s positive signals for housing and infrastructure.

Ministers scored a clear win with a commitment to boost planning capacity. The Federation of Master Builders (FMB) highlighted the Government’s pledge of £48 million over three years to strengthen planning departments — a move the FMB described as “welcome” given long-standing delays that hold up projects. At the same time the FMB flagged omissions: the Budget offered no new national retrofit strategy and the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) is being scrapped, leaving a gap in support for home upgrades.

Construction industry reacts with relief to the 2025 Budget — https://depositphotos.com/portfolio-3957801.html?content=photo

Housebuilders welcomed one specific reversal. Neil Jefferson, chief executive of the Home Builders Federation (HBF), said it was “encouraging that the Chancellor has listened to industry concerns and chosen not to impose the 3000% increase in Landfill Tax consulted on earlier in the year,” but warned that even the revised measures still “represent an increase in tax on development when the economics of home building are already challenged.” The HBF urged ministers to tackle worsening scheme viability and a lack of support for potential homebuyers.

Merchants and suppliers voiced disappointment that the Budget lacked a strong growth stimulus for the sector. John Newcomb, CEO of the Builders Merchants Federation (BMF), criticised the package as “small incremental measures,” adding: “We needed to see a jumpstart to get the sector moving… The Budget has not done enough to bridge the gulf between the Government’s ambition to build 1.5 million new homes by July 2029, and the state of today’s market.”

Larger construction firms and professional services gave a more nuanced reading. David Young, chief executive of Bradfords Building Supplies, said: “Today’s Budget offers some positive signals for construction, particularly around housing ambition, skills and the transition to a lower-carbon economy. But it falls short of the reset the sector was hoping for. The real test will be how quickly planning is unblocked and investment flows into projects on the ground.”

Costs and labour remain dominant concerns. The Budget confirmed an increase in the National Living Wage (to £12.71 from April 2026) and froze income tax thresholds — measures that the FMB and BMF warned will squeeze margins for small firms and add pressure across the supply chain. Construction Management summarised the mood: with output fragile and workforce shortages persisting, “rising costs remain a major concern” that could push tender prices higher and curtail hiring.

Skills and apprenticeships were among the clearest positives. The Government announced free apprenticeship training for under-25s in small and medium-sized enterprises, a policy the FMB said should help firms recruit young talent without immediate training costs. Industry leaders urged prompt, practical rollout so apprenticeships translate quickly into on-site labour capacity.

Infrastructure certainty won plaudits but not complacency. Several commentators welcomed continued funding for major projects — such as the Lower Thames Crossing and other priority investments — because visible pipelines help the sector plan capacity and investment. James Corrigan, UK managing director for infrastructure at Turner & Townsend, described confirmed funding and pipeline clarity as “positive steps” but said government must now mobilise private investment to fill funding gaps.

Where the Budget disappointed most was its handling of retrofit and housing demand. Industry groups described the scrapping of ECO and the absence of a committed retrofit strategy as “missed opportunities” to mobilise skilled labour and long-term workstreams for SMEs. Meanwhile, housebuilders pointed to weak mortgage availability and affordability as barriers the Budget failed to address — constraints that blunt the impact of planning reforms and infrastructure spending on actual housing delivery.

What it means next: mixed but actionable. In the short term, firms will welcome reduced immediate risk from the most punitive tax proposals and the money for planning and skills. But many businesses say the Budget does not go far enough to fix structural problems: planning delays, project viability, labour shortages and the need for a national retrofit plan. If ministers and delivery bodies can translate the Budget’s commitments into faster planning decisions, clearer pipelines and targeted incentives for first-time buyers and retrofit work, industry confidence could recover. If not, firms warn the sector will remain fragile.

Developers Nationwide Sureties News

Emergency Guidance Issued by HSE Following Assent Collapse

In light of the sudden failure of Assent Building Control and its associated companies, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has moved swiftly to issue emergency guidance for higher-risk construction schemes. The collapse of Assent has created a regulatory and operational challenge for projects underway across the UK — and in this article we outline exactly what you as a developer, contractor or building owner must do now, how the guidance affects you, and what best practice steps you should adopt.

Why the Assent Collapse Matters for Building Control and Safety

The company Assent Building Control (alongside its subsidiaries) reportedly handled more than 30,000 projects a year and was registered as a building control approver under the Building Safety Regulator (BSR.)

When it ceased trading, this triggered disruption for both higher-risk buildings (HRBs) and non-HRB schemes:

The collapse left at least ten high-rise schemes in limbo at Gateway 2 stage.
The BSR has taken on responsibility for higher-risk schemes previously held by Assent, while non-HRB schemes revert to local authority unless a new registered building control approver (RBCA) is appointed.

The risk is that delays in building control approval, reallocation of oversight and confusion over responsibilities may lead to increased cost, programme disruption or – critically – compromised fire and structural safety. In this volatile environment, the HSE’s emergency guidance is effectively a regulatory “stop-work and reassess” directive for impacted sites.

Key Requirements of HSE’s Emergency Guidance

Immediate cessation and reassessment of higher-risk building projects

For projects classified as higher-risk buildings (HRBs) under the Building Safety Act regime, the guidance states that work must stop and cannot restart until approval to restart is obtained from the BSR.

Non-HRB projects: appointment of a new RBCA within 7 days

For non-higher-risk building works:

The developer/owner must appoint an alternative registered building control approver (RBCA) within seven days of the cancellation notice issued by Assent (or its subsidiaries.)
That new RBCA must submit a new “initial notice” to the local authority within seven days of the appointment.
If no new initial notice is submitted within the required timeframe, the project defaults to the local authority for control.

Responsibilities for principal contractors, developers and duty-holders

Under the guidance, key duty-holders must:

Verify whether their project is HRB or non-HRB.
Confirm whether Assent or its subsidiaries were acting as RBCA for their scheme.
Secure documentation (cancellation notice, project status, initial notices, etc).
Liaise with the BSR (for HRBs) or the relevant local authority (for non-HRBs) to secure continuity of building control.
Review risk assessments, fire-safety documentation and building-control condition compliance as part of the hand-over.

What It Means For Project Timelines and Cost Control

Programme disruption and potential cost increase

The immediate halting of higher-risk projects until approval is secured will inevitably delay programmes. With at least ten high-rise schemes already identified as affected, the ripple effect across construction supply-chains is clear.
Delays may incur additional contractor standing time, remobilisation costs or more expensive design/approval routes via the BSR.

Risk of insurance/contractual implications

Projects governed by contract conditions (eg. JCT, NEC) must consider:

Whether the cessation constitutes a change event or employer’s risk.
The potential liability for stand-down, latent defects or remobilisation.
Insurance cover may be challenged if building-control arrangements are seen as materially disrupted.

Impact on remediation and regulatory compliance

For HRBs especially, time is not on your side: legislative deadlines (for example under the Building Safety Act) must still be met. Failure to timely re-submit or continue may also draw enforcement action from the HSE or the BSR.

Best Practice Steps for Developers, Contractors and Duty-holders

Here is a practical checklist to navigate the disruption:

Identify all schemes where Assent/its subsidiaries acted as RBCA.
Categorise each project as HRB vs non-HRB by reference to the Building Safety Act definitions.
Secure all cancellation notices and project documentation from Assent/RBCA.
For HRBs – contact the BSR immediately, submit new application for building-control approval, and implement hold on site work until approval is confirmed.
For non-HRBs – appoint a replacement RBCA within seven days and ensure a new initial notice is submitted to the local authority within seven days.
Communicate with your supply-chain and finance teams to model cost/risk exposure from delays or remobilisation.
Review contracts and insurance policies to determine the effect of the disruption and safeguard your position.
Update your site safety file, fire-safety strategy and condition surveys to reflect any change in building-control oversight.
Engage with your accounting adviser (such as CMA Accountancy) for financial implications, including cash-flow, cost overruns and contingencies.
Monitor regulatory updates from both the HSE and the BSR — further guidance may follow as the sector responds.

Why This Guidance Signals Broader Industry Risks

The abrupt failure of Assent not only poses immediate project-specific disruption but also catalyses concern over sector resilience, capacity in building control and regulatory integrity. Some key issues emerging:

The collapse raises questions over oversight of building-control companies, their financial resilience and their role in higher-risk building projects.
With a heavy workload transferring to the BSR and local authorities, resource bottlenecks may develop, further exacerbating delays.
Developers and contractors must now build contingency planning for building-control failure, not simply design/construction risk.
From a fire-safety, health & safety and regulatory compliance perspective, the event is a reminder that duty-holders cannot rely solely on third-party approvers but must maintain oversight of control arrangements themselves.

While this guidance originates in the high-rise/residential sectors, its lessons extend into the logistics and haulage sector and for fleet operators in a number of ways:

Companies with in-house premises, multi-storey logistics hubs or multi-tenant industrial buildings must check whether their building-control approver has changed or is at risk.
If buildings are under construction or extension, the collapse of an approver firm may delay occupation, affecting logistics roll-out, warehousing availability and contractor mobilisation.
Insurance and bond providers (such as those engaged by haulage firms expanding depots) will treat this as a warning sign: due diligence must include verifying the stability of the building-control supply-chain.
Smaller businesses should consult firms such as CMA Accountancy to assess the financial impact of any delay or change in building-control approval on cash-flow, project finance and contractual commitments.

The HSE’s emergency guidance issued after the Assent collapse is a wake-up call for the construction sector – and for developers, contractors and duty-holders it demands immediate action. By taking a systematic approach — identifying affected projects, categorising them correctly, engaging with the appropriate regulator and updating contracts/insurance — stakeholders can mitigate delay, liability and cost. The collapse of a building-control firm may seem niche, but its consequences are wide-ranging and underline the importance of robust risk-management across all stages of the build-process.

Newer Posts

Older Posts

0151 931 5599

Nationwide Sureties