One of the biggest talking points in the profession during the past couple of years has been the delays at Gateway 2; for either approval or rejection both are exceeding the targeted timeframes and are putting a brake on the delivery of new homes. Data covering the first 18 months of the BSR regime to March this year shows that the average time to get BSR approval was 36 weeks, or three times as long as was originally envisaged.
To help architects and construction professions navigate this process – a process the government has committed to refining and improving - the Construction Leadership Council (CLC), the collaboration between government and industry, has published a suite of guidance to support making a Gateway 2 application to the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) for a new higher risk building (HRB).
This new guidance suite has been drawn up by the CLC and industry stakeholders, including RIBA, to help applicants present well structured and clearly evidenced submissions that should progress through the BSR’s examination process more efficiently.
The new guidance sets out ways to help improve the quality of applications, says Tim Galloway, Deputy Director of the Health and Safety Executive, where a series of internal reforms at the BSR will be implemented over the coming months (which will also apply to the switchover to the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government): “Applications that clearly demonstrate compliance are approved faster, and everyone in BSR wants those designs and plans off the page and onto site as quickly as possible.”
What’s in the Gateway 2 guidance?
Ben Oram, Technical Director at Buckley Gray Yeoman and a member of the CLC Task and Finish group for the guidance, says delays are the result of numerous factors, but from the applicant’s side are often caused by missing statutory documents, insufficient design detail, over reliance on conditional approvals (Approval with Requirements) and poorly structured submissions.
The suite of guidance comprises seven guidance notes are:
- The Building Safety Regime for a new HRB: summary process map of the BSR regime;
- Sufficient Level of Design: how to approach the sufficient level of design detail requirement;
- Approval with Requirements: approach and management of the use of Approval with Requirements;
- Application Information Schedule: baseline design information to be submitted, includes an example schedule. This is a useful document to submit but is not a statutory requirement);
- Application Project Brief: use and submission of an Application Project Brief (a brief is required as part of submissions, but a separate document is not a statutory requirement), includes an example project brief;
- Application Document Management and Submission: best practice for document management and submission, includes an example schedule;
- Application Strategy: use and submission of an application strategy for staged building control approval application(s) for multiple buildings within a single development, includes an example strategy. This is a useful document to submit but is not a statutory requirement).
"A Gateway 2 submission should contain good quality, detailed information that clearly and comprehensively demonstrates how the design and construction of the HRB will comply with the Building Regulations 2010. In turn, a well-structured submission will enable the BSR to efficiently locate and assess the information it requires", Ben says.
“Architects can help by ensuring applications are robust, clearly structured, and compliance evidence-led. Avoid vague intent statements – use evidence-based design information in your submissions. Tools like the Application Information Schedule and Project Brief help present the design in a format that’s easier for the BSR to assess.”
Furthermore, early engagement with the BSR should include a Project Brief that outlines the development’s complexity, team structure and programme, he advises, as this will help the BSR to understand its incoming pipeline of work and allocate resources accordingly.
Including an Approval with Requirements plan early on for discussion with the regulator will help discussion and agreement to identify those design and technical matters that will be developed further after Gateway 2. He notes that any approval with requirements elements must be agreed in advance with the regulator, and the regulator may reject such requests if insufficiently supported by evidence. He also recommends that applicants should highlight any non-standard approaches to guidance or derogations.
For large phased or multi-building developments, applicants should present a clear Application Strategy that can include timelines, staged application arrangements, partial completion strategies and identifiers for each phase.
Read more about what the fast track process might look like under the BSR reforms.
What are the most common reasons for rejection, or a formal Request for Information (RFI), and how can applicants reduce the risk?
Rejections and RFIs usually stem from missing statutory documents, inadequate design evidence, missing information in accompanying documents, or poorly structured submissions. Submissions that rely on vague assurances, rather than demonstrable compliance, are likely to be challenged, Ben says. Very often the technical information is correct, but has been poorly presented.
Applicants should ensure submissions are complete, well organised and clearly reference any previous application Identifying Numbers where relevant. Using the Application Folder Structure and Contents Schedule helps provide a coherent and navigable information structure for submissions.
Where applicable, and only if agreed with BSR, Approval with Requirements plans supported by strong justification and supporting documentation, including a robust Change Control Plan and Construction Control Plan, help the BSR understand how elements of design will be developed post-Gateway 2.
Read more about why applications to the BSR fail.
How does the BSR interpret and apply the balance of “sufficiency” and “flexibility” in assessing applications?
The BSR expects robust design detail to demonstrate compliance, while, where agreed in advance with the BSR, allowing flexibility through “Approval with Requirements” (AWR) where applicants can robustly demonstrate and justify the need to provide further detail after the Gateway 2 application.
It’s not enough to say “we’ll comply”, says Ben. Applicants will need to show how they will comply, what evidence they will provide to show compliance, and when they will provide it.
Applicant submissions might include drawings showing compliant arrangements and detail that can accommodate multiple compliant products, performance specifications or dimensional constraints that allow for future selection.
Applicants should also be aware that if their later proposals fall outside the bounds agreed for the AWR process in the initial application, they might need to submit a notifiable or major change application.
What are the benefits of submitting non-statutory documents like the Application Information Schedule, Project Brief, and Application Strategy?
These documents help the BSR and its Multi-Disciplinary Teams (MDTs) understand the project’s scope, complexity and compliance strategy. They are particularly useful for large and complex projects where there may be a significant number of submitted documents and a complex compliance strategy.
The Project Brief supports allocation of appropriately skilled MDTs. The Information Schedule maps design evidence against specific regulatory requirements, making the application easier to navigate.
The Application Strategy helps the BSR plan its engagement, especially for complex or multi-building schemes.
Collectively, these documents assist in creating a legible and cohesive application pack that can be easily assessed by the MDT.
Download the CLC Guidance Suite
Thanks to Ben Oram, Buckley Gray Yeoman.
Text by Neal Morris. This is a professional feature edited by the RIBA Practice team. Send us your feedback and ideas.
RIBA Core Curriculum topic: Legal, regulatory, and statutory compliance.
As part of the flexible RIBA CPD programme, professional features count as microlearning. See further information on the updated RIBA CPD core curriculum and on fulfilling your CPD requirements as a RIBA Chartered Member.
