Shake-up of construction sector regulation coming

A significant shake-up of the construction sector’s regulatory environment is looming after investigations into four recent building collapses that claimed 17 lives and injured a further 24 people exposed recurring weaknesses across parts of the built environment system.

Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure Dean Macpherson said on Thursday the Council for the Built Environment (CBE) investigations identified serious failures across different parts of the regulatory, professional and construction system that now require attention.

Read:

Macpherson said these weaknesses had, in some cases, allowed dangerous or unlawful construction to proceed, limited the ability of authorities to intervene, weakened professional accountability and left known risks inadequately managed.

But he stressed that the investigation reports did not support the conclusion that every construction site in South Africa is unsafe, or that every municipality, regulator or built environment professional had failed.

Four collapses, 17 deaths

The investigations into four serious building and construction incidents that occurred in South Africa between December last year and March this year were commissioned against the backdrop of the 6 May 2024 collapse of a multi-storey residential building under construction in George, which claimed 34 lives.

The four incidents were:

The collapse of a five-storey building under construction at the River Range Ranch Temple site in Redcliffe, Verulam, KwaZulu-Natal, on 12 December 2025, which killed five people and injured 11.
The collapse of a two-storey section of a residential structure in Doornkop, Soweto, on 28 December 2025, which killed three members of the same family and injured three others.
The collapse of temporary falsework at the Magnolia residential development in Sea Point, Cape Town, on 17 February 2026, which injured four workers.
The collapse of part of an industrial building under construction in Ormonde, Johannesburg, on 2 March 2026, which killed nine workers and injured six.

Macpherson said several broader findings became clear from the investigations into the four cases.

ADVERTISEMENT

CONTINUE READING BELOW

These included:

The main problem is the inconsistent implementation, inadequate oversight, weak enforcement and non-compliance with South Africa’s already extensive regulatory framework covering planning, building standards, occupational health and safety, professional regulation, municipal approvals and construction.
Significant unlawful construction can remain outside the formal regulatory system for too long, raising concerns about the unacceptable practice of construction proceeding before approval is sought.
There is an excessive focus on the initial building-plan approval stage, while authorities also need greater visibility during construction to ensure that what is being built corresponds with what was approved.
There are concerns about shortages of suitably qualified building-control personnel, limited inspection capacity and municipalities’ ability to identify construction that has never entered the approval system.
Professional registration cannot simply mean that someone’s name appears on a form. Anyone accepting responsibility for a structural system must have the competence, knowledge, training and experience required for the specific work.
There are concerns about inadequate supervision, failures to fulfil statutory responsibilities and weaknesses in verifying whether those responsible for specialised or high-risk work have the necessary competence.
South Africa’s regulators do not share enough information about the same construction projects. The investigation reports recommend better information sharing between municipalities, the Department of Employment and Labour, the National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC), professional councils and other regulators.

Regulatory gaps laid bare

Macpherson said the investigation reports also identified areas where the regulatory framework itself needs to be modernised and strengthened.

He said the government and authorities could not respond to every failure simply by introducing another rule, but neither could they “ignore areas where existing legislation has become outdated, where penalties no longer provide a meaningful deterrent, or where responsibilities need to be clarified”.

“Where the reports recommend further investigation by professional councils, those investigations must now take place.

“Where owners, developers, contractors or professionals deliberately ignore statutory requirements, penalties must provide a real deterrent.

“The reports recommend that sanctions for violations of planning and construction requirements be strengthened.

“They specifically raise the need for far stronger consequences where non-compliance contributes to death or serious injury.

“They also recommend stronger consequences for ignoring stop-work notices.

ADVERTISEMENT:

CONTINUE READING BELOW

“People cannot regard compliance with building legislation as optional because the financial consequences of breaking the law are less significant than the financial benefits of continuing construction.

“That balance has to change,” he said.

Construction oversight under pressure

Macpherson said the recommendations arising from these investigations now need to be considered and acted on by the institutions responsible for implementing them.

He has directed the CBE to formally share the relevant findings and recommendations with the respective municipalities and other affected stakeholders, and to engage directly with them on the findings and proposed interventions.

He added that where recommendations require action by national government or changes to the regulatory framework, they must be considered by the relevant institutions.

“Where information arising from these investigations may be relevant to possible criminal conduct, it will be made available to the appropriate law enforcement authorities,” he said.

Read:

Macpherson said the DPWI shared the view that people should not die as a result of professional misconduct, only for those responsible to just receive a fine.

“In any other sector, if your professional misconduct led to the deaths of people, that at the very least would be considered manslaughter, maybe murder, if there was intent behind it.

“I see no reason we should not approach the same in the construction industry.

“I’m not content with just seeing fines dished out. I do not think that is a sufficient deterrent, and for so long as that is the worst-case scenario, people will continue to cut corners,” he said.

Read:
DPWI building bridges to encourage private partnerships
Macpherson: Poor performers will be blacklisted from state projects

#Shakeup #construction #sector #regulation #coming