Inside the Gateways: What the BSR Really Requires

24th September 2025

Back to News

The Building Safety Act and the establishment of the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) are transforming the design, approval, and management of higher-risk buildings (HRBs). While the framework is ambitious, early evidence shows the system is under strain.

Gateway 2, the critical approval point before construction begins, has become a major bottleneck. Only a small proportion of applications are approved on the first attempt, creating costly delays and a growing backlog. Early impacts are already visible. In Staffordshire, a newly completed student accommodation block was prevented from opening at Gateway 3, despite earlier approvals. Elsewhere, developers are deliberately scaling back schemes to sit just below the 18-metre threshold—reducing ambition to avoid Gateway 2 scrutiny.

These examples highlight the practical challenges of the new regime, raising questions about accountability, competence, and the enforceability of reform.

The Three Gateways

The Act introduced three statutory Gateways, each acting as a legal stop/go point for HRBs:

• Gateway 1 (planning stage): requires fire safety and high-level design principles to be addressed before planning permission.
• Gateway 2 (before construction): the BSR must confirm that the design complies with Building Regulations. Developers must submit a Regulation 4 evidence pack, including a competence declaration, construction and change-control plans, compliance statement, fire and emergency file, occurrence reporting plan, partial completion strategy, and developer statement. Reviews cost £180 per application plus £144 per review hour, so omissions quickly add delay and expense.
• Gateway 3 (before occupation): final evidence must demonstrate full compliance before residents can move in.

Gateway 2 is proving the toughest hurdle. Approval rates remain low—some sources suggest fewer than one in ten succeed at first submission. Failures are usually due to incomplete golden-thread records, weak fire-strategy evidence, gaps in supply-chain competence, poorly structured packs, or a misalignment between staged delivery and regulatory expectations.

Even successful Gateway 2 projects face risks at Gateway 3. The Staffordshire case illustrates this: despite earlier approvals, the scheme was prevented from opening when the golden thread and final evidence pack were incomplete. The fallout—displaced residents, lost revenue, reputational damage—showed how unforgiving the regime can be.

Meanwhile, some developers are sidestepping the system altogether. In Manchester, Kellen Homes and Great Places reduced a scheme from 19 storeys to six to avoid Gateway 2 scrutiny (Place North West). While expedient, this undermines the Act’s intent and raises broader questions about safety, affordability, and housing supply.

Early Challenges in Practice

Early experience confirms the strain. The Fire Protection Association (FPA) reports that three-quarters of Gateway 2 submissions are currently being rejected. According to the HSE, many failings involve “fairly fundamental” gaps in fire and structural safety information—requirements that have been in place for over a decade. Deputy Director Tim Galloway noted the need for greater investment in upfront design and preparation, a transition the industry has struggled to make.

Guidance and support remain limited. The Housing Forum notes that unclear requirements, minimal feedback, and the absence of standardised templates have driven high rejection rates and unnecessary costs. With few precedents and no formal pre-application process, applicants are left uncertain about what constitutes a compliant submission. Direct engagement with the BSR is limited, reducing opportunities for early dialogue and problem-solving.

However, recently, some progress has been made. The Construction Leadership Council has published a guidance suite on Building Control Approval Applications for New Higher-Risk Buildings (Gateway 2). While not a step-by-step manual, it provides a framework for structuring applications, outlining expectations for design detail, staged approvals, project briefs, and document management. This is a useful starting point, but it does not replace the need for standardised templates or formalised early engagement with the regulator.

Competence is another unresolved issue. Unlike professional bodies with formal testing and sign-off, many BSR declarations remain self-assessed, raising concerns about accountability and professional standards. Accreditation for the Building Regulations/Principal Designer role remains limited, with recognition available only through RIBA, CIAT, APS, and ACA. Standards vary sharply: some schemes involve little more than a fee or short course, while others, such as CIAT, require evidence and an interview to prove competence.

The result is a fragmented system where competence is largely self-declared. Without consistent, independently verified standards, accountability and credibility remain in question.

From Compliance to Assurance

The early rollout of the Act has produced a system marked by uncertainty: low approval rates, unclear requirements, and inconsistent guidance. Yet these are not permanent flaws; they reflect a sector in transition.

To make the system work, both industry and regulator must shift from reactive compliance to proactive assurance. This means:

• Embedding structured, multidisciplinary reviews
• Developing standardised templates and checklists
• Introducing a formal pre-application process
• Providing clear, constructive feedback
• Defining and verifying competence across all duty holders

If Gateways are treated as strategic quality checks rather than obstacles, they can drive safer, more efficient, and more cost-effective delivery. Locked-in designs, auditable golden-thread records, and disciplined change control turn regulation into a framework for excellence.

The Building Safety Act and BSR are essential reforms, but their success depends on consistent application, clarity, and accountability. The current challenges, delays, rejections, and fragmented guidance highlight the scale of the cultural and procedural change required.

Handled correctly, Gateways can do more than enforce compliance: they can embed a culture of safety and quality from the outset. The task now is to move from confusion to confidence—so that HRBs are not just legally compliant, but safe, resilient, and fit for purpose long into the future.