How to Get Building Safety Regulator Remediation Applications Right First Time

19th May 2026

Back to News

Practical lessons from the BSR on avoiding delay and improving decision times

As the Building Safety Regulator becomes more established, its message is increasingly clear: remediation applications need to move faster but not at the expense of safety.

For Principal Accountable Persons and those leading remediation projects, the quality of a building control approval application is now a major factor in programme certainty.

In many delayed applications, the problem is not the complexity of the remediation scheme itself. It is that the submission does not explain clearly enough how compliance will be achieved and evidenced.

A strong application does not simply describe the proposed works. It explains the building, the risk, the design strategy and the supporting evidence in a way the regulator can follow.

Performance data: what it tells us: Recent BSR data shows improvement but also continuing risk.

The latest published figures report a 12-week rolling approval rate of 73% for remediation decisions, with the median approval time remaining at 22 weeks. BSR has also stated that its improvement plan aims to reduce average remediation decision times to less than 12 weeks by December 2026.

The batching process appears to be improving assessment speed, with remediation decisions in that process reached at a median time of 10 weeks from issue to supplier to decision. However, that should not be confused with the overall remediation approval time.

The practical point is clear: better prepared applications are more likely to move efficiently. Weak or incomplete applications are more likely to generate queries, delay or rejection.

Why applications are delayed

Most delays do not arise because a scheme is too complex. They arise because the submission does not give the regulator enough confidence.

BSR has identified recurring issues including incomplete design information, unsupported non-worsening claims, poorly organised documents and gaps in technical evidence.

Common technical issues include:

• insufficient evidence for replacement cladding and related materials;
• incomplete structural loading information;
• insufficient explanation of cavity ventilation;
• missing U-value information;
• unresolved cavity barrier information;
• conflicts between the proposed works, fire strategy and existing fire information.

These are not minor presentation issues. They go directly to whether the regulator can understand what is proposed and how compliance has been demonstrated.

BSR is not rejecting complexity. It is rejecting ambiguity.

What better BSR applications look like

A strong application is not measured by the volume of information submitted, but by whether the evidence is complete, coordinated and capable of bridging any gaps between design assumptions, existing building conditions and the proposed works.

It should:

• explain the existing building constraints;
• identify the assumptions being relied upon;
• evidence key compliance claims;
• resolve inconsistencies between documents;
• show how interfaces have been coordinated;
• make the route to compliance easy to follow.

This aligns with BSR’s guidance to identify, clarify and justify the route to compliance. In simple terms, the submission should make clear what is changing, what evidence is being relied upon and why the proposed approach is appropriate for that building.

Practical lessons for remediation projects

Projects that progress well tend to do the basics properly.

They establish the existing building constraints, agree the fire strategy before submission and coordinate architecture, structure and services before the application is made.

They also align drawings, specifications, reports and product evidence so the submission tells one coherent story. Assumptions are made explicit, non-worsening arguments are evidenced rather than asserted and the document pack is clearly indexed and easy to navigate.

Where applications are treated as an administrative exercise, contradictions and evidence gaps are more likely to remain unresolved. That is where avoidable delay starts.

The role of the Building Regulations Principal Designer

The Building Regulations Principal Designer has an important role in helping the design team move from a collection of documents to a coordinated compliance case.

The role is to plan, manage and monitor the design work during the design phase so that the design, if built, complies with the Building Regulations.

On remediation projects, that means checking that design responsibility is clear, assumptions are understood, evidence is complete and the route to approval has been considered before the application is made.

This does not mean taking over the role of the designers or the Building Control Authority. It means helping to ensure that the design information is coordinated, that gaps are identified early and that the submission tells a coherent compliance story.

Getting it right first time

The direction from the regulator is constructive and consistent. Addressing known issues early leads to fewer queries, less rework and more predictable delivery.

For those managing remediation programmes, the key issue is not just whether the information exists somewhere. It is whether the right information is complete, coordinated and available before the application is submitted.

A well-prepared application supports compliance but it also protects programme, cost and stakeholder confidence.

BSR is not simply slowing projects down. Poorly prepared applications are.

The organisations that adapt fastest will be those that produce the clearest, most coordinated and most defensible submissions.

If you are preparing a remediation application or planning future works, taking time to ensure your submission is clear, coordinated and well-evidenced can make a significant difference to the outcome.

Our Building Regulations Principal Designer team, led by Louise Flower, works alongside clients and design teams to help bring structure and clarity to the process. From early design coordination through to pre-submission review, we focus on helping you present a coherent and robust case for compliance.

If you would like an informal discussion about your project or approach, Louise and the team would be happy to share their experience.