The registered version controls the technical framework behind a rating: its issue structure, evidence expectations, minimum standards and treatment of environmental priorities. Version selection is a substantive project decision.
BREEAM, a registered trade mark of BRE, is published through defined standards and versions. The scheme version controls the technical framework used for an assessment, including its issue structure, evidence expectations, minimum standards, rating method and treatment of environmental priorities. Version selection is therefore a substantive project decision rather than a document-management detail.
A rating name does not stand apart from the version that produced it. Pass, Good, Very Good, Excellent and Outstanding may appear across different editions, but the requirements supporting those labels can change. A later version may revise assessment issues, introduce new minimum standards, alter evidence expectations or place greater emphasis on emerging environmental priorities.
The project team needs to know the registered version before it prepares a score forecast or assigns responsibilities. A tracker based on an older manual may refer to credits that have changed, evidence that is no longer sufficient or minimum standards that do not apply in the same form. The resulting percentage may look precise while being methodologically wrong.
Version choice also affects procurement and programme decisions. Some requirements depend on early design work, specialist appointments, surveys, calculations, product information or construction records. If the project identifies the controlling version late, it may discover that the evidence route or design opportunity has already been lost.
New Construction Version 7 was launched by BRE on 30 September 2025. Registrations opened in September 2025. The new version introduced changes intended to strengthen the meaning of higher performance, including new minimum standards defining what Outstanding and Excellent should look like.
BRE also highlighted whole-life carbon, including the embodied carbon of mechanical, electrical and public-health systems, climate resilience and biodiversity. These subjects illustrate why a version update can change the substance behind a familiar rating label.
A project using Version 7 should therefore rely on the Version 7 method rather than assume that a previous project provides a complete model. Earlier experience remains useful for understanding the overall process, but the current registered version determines what must be demonstrated and how the assessment is audited.
When Version 7 registrations opened in September 2025, BRE provided a three-month transition period. During that window, projects could still be registered under Version 6 or the 2018 version as well as moving to the new version.
A transition period allows projects at different stages of development to make an orderly decision. A project already designed around an earlier version may have contracts, evidence plans and client commitments based on that method. A less advanced project may be better placed to adopt the newer framework.
The existence of a transition does not make the versions interchangeable. Once a project selects and registers a version, its assessment must follow that version unless the registration is formally moved forward through the permitted process. Mixing criteria from several versions would not create a valid assessment.
Registration establishes the scheme, version, territory and project details under which the assessment proceeds. It creates the formal link between the project and the applicable technical method.
This is why the language used in contracts, briefs and scorecards should match the registration. A general requirement to achieve a rating without naming the scheme and version can create uncertainty, particularly during a transition period. The parties may assume different technical obligations while using the same rating word.
The licensed assessor plays an important role in identifying the correct registration route and applying the chosen version. The assessor validates the assessment evidence, while BRE Global Ltd carries out the quality audit before certification. An internal project score has no formal status unless it is carried through that controlled process.
A registration has a five-year validity. The validity period gives the project a defined window in which to progress under the registered method.
The five-year period matters for long programmes, delayed developments and phased delivery. A project should not assume that registration remains open indefinitely merely because design work began within the relevant version. Programme reviews need to include the registration position alongside planning, procurement and construction milestones.
Where delay creates a risk to validity, the project team should address the issue before the registration expires. The consequences and available administrative route should be confirmed through the formal scheme process rather than inferred from an older project or informal summary.
A registration can be moved forward to a newer version of the same scheme. This allows a project to adopt an updated technical framework where the parties decide that the change is appropriate.
Moving forward is not simply a change of label. The project may need to revise its score forecast, evidence plan, minimum-standard review and design commitments. Credits expected under the earlier version may not transfer directly, and new requirements may introduce additional work.
The decision should therefore consider design maturity, contractual obligations, available evidence, programme and the client's objectives. A newer version may align better with current environmental priorities, but the project must be capable of satisfying it rather than assuming that previous work will automatically remain sufficient.
A registration cannot be moved back to an older version. The permitted direction is forward to a newer version of the same scheme, not backwards after the change has been made.
This rule makes the decision to transfer significant. Once the project moves forward, the earlier version is no longer available as a fallback route for that registration. The project team should complete a disciplined review before authorising the change.
The review should identify changes to assessment issues, minimum standards, evidence and likely score. It should also record the client's decision and update contractual and project-management documents so that all parties work to the same version.
A project may be contractually required to use an older scheme version. BRE can accommodate an obligation to an older scheme where sufficient evidence of that contractual requirement is provided.
This provision recognises that construction projects can be governed by agreements made before a later version becomes available. A rating obligation may be embedded in a development agreement, funding condition, lease requirement or other binding document that cannot simply be rewritten by the assessment team.
The existence of an old reference in an informal brief should not automatically be treated as proof of a contractual obligation. The project needs sufficient evidence for the accommodation route. The formal position should be resolved through registration rather than assumed from the age of the project.
An assessor's existing territory licence for a scheme covers all versions of that scheme in the licensed territory. A separate new licence is not required merely because the assessment moves from one version to another within the same scheme and territory.
This helps maintain continuity during version transitions. An assessor already licensed for the relevant scheme and territory does not need to repeat the entire licensing process solely because a new version has been released.
The licence position should still be distinguished from competence with the updated method. Coverage of the version under the existing licence does not remove the requirement to understand the new technical framework.
Although no new territory licence is required for a version change within the same scheme, the assessor must complete the applicable version update training module. The training requirement supports consistent interpretation of the revised method.
This distinction is important. Licensing establishes authority to act within the scheme and territory, while update training addresses the changes introduced by the new version. One does not replace the other.
For a project team, the practical question is whether the appointed assessor is licensed for the relevant scheme and territory and has completed the required update training for the version being used. The answer should be established before the project depends on version-specific advice.
A version transition should be handled as a controlled change. The project team should compare the old and new methods at a high level, identify affected workstreams and determine which decisions or evidence need to change.
The change review should cover minimum standards separately from the percentage forecast. Version 7 introduced new expectations for Outstanding and Excellent, so a project that appears to retain a strong score may still face a different qualifying gate.
Responsibilities should then be updated. Designers, contractors, specialists and client representatives need to know which version controls their evidence. Retaining old templates alongside new instructions can create duplication and contradictory submissions.
Certificates issued under different versions can each be valid, but their ratings are not automatically identical in substance. A comparison should state the scheme, version, country basis, assessment stage and boundary.
The published rating benchmarks in the UK New Construction 2014 non-domestic technical manual, reference SD5076, are specific to that method. Outstanding begins at 85 per cent or above, Excellent at 70 per cent, Very Good at 55 per cent, Good at 45 per cent and Pass at 30 per cent, with Unclassified below 30 per cent. Those bands should not be assumed to govern another version.
Version-aware comparison protects against overstating equivalence. The rating name remains useful, but the technical framework explains what the project had to demonstrate to receive it.
The project should establish the intended scheme, territory and version before detailed assessment planning begins. It should then confirm registration, record the five-year validity period and align contracts, scorecards and evidence plans with that decision.
Where a newer version is considered, the team should remember that movement is permitted forward but not back. Where an older version is contractually required, sufficient evidence can support accommodation through the formal process.
The governing principle is consistency. One registered version should control the assessment, the licensed assessor should hold the relevant territory licence and complete the required update training, and every rating claim should identify the version that gives the certificate its technical meaning.
A registration can be moved forward to a newer version of the same scheme. It cannot be moved back, so the earlier version is no longer available as a fallback once the change is made.
Where a project is contractually required to use an older scheme, BRE can accommodate that obligation where sufficient evidence of the contractual requirement is provided.
An assessor's existing territory licence covers all versions of that scheme in that territory, so no new licence is needed for a version change, although the applicable version update training module is required.
Yes, a registration can be moved forward to a newer version of the same scheme. It cannot be moved back to an older version, so the decision should follow a disciplined review of changes to issues, minimum standards, evidence and likely score.
BRE can accommodate an obligation to an older scheme where sufficient evidence of that contractual requirement is provided. An old reference in an informal brief is not by itself proof of a contractual obligation.
No. An assessor's existing territory licence for a scheme covers all versions of that scheme in the licensed territory. The applicable version update training module is still required, because licensing and update training address different things.
This is an independent information resource. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to BRE. BREEAM and BRE are the trademarks of their respective owners and are used here only to identify the scheme described.