Growing Industry Concerns: The Building Safety Regulator and Gateway 2 Sign-Off Delays
The implementation of The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) has brought with it a new level of scrutiny and governance to ensure that construction projects, particularly those concerning high-risk buildings, meet stringent safety standards. While this initiative is fundamentally important for improving safety, the current regulatory process, specifically Gateway 2, has introduced significant delays, causing commercial and operational challenges across the industry.
Stuck at the Starting Line: The Gateway 2 Gridlock
The BSR has made it unequivocally clear that no work can commence without full approval of all plans, specifications, and processes for how work is to be undertaken, managed, inspected, and signed off by the designated duty holders. While this requirement is understandable from a safety and compliance perspective, it has led to significant project delays.
One of the most pressing issues is the requirement for design teams to remain on standby to respond to any regulator queries within a few days. If responses are not provided in time, applications risk being rejected and pushed to the back of the queue, further compounding delays. The outcome is that design teams, which can be quite substantial in size, remain engaged for extended periods, leading to increased costs for clients, building owners, and ultimately, the residents. These costs are not just limited to professional fees but extend to project delays, financing costs, and potential penalties due to stalled remediation and construction.
The Commercial Domino Effect
The delays caused by the BSR have created a knock-on effect on budgeting and programming for both remediation works and new housing projects. No work can begin without regulatory approval, and the risk of an application being rejected or requiring extensive amendments means that contracts are not being signed or committed to. This uncertainty has put pressure on supply chains, as contractors must either hold their prices and resources indefinitely or risk being unable to deliver the works when approval is finally granted.
Contracts remain unsigned—Clients hesitate to commit without full approval.
Procurement is disrupted—Contractors must either hold prices indefinitely or risk losing resources.
Financing is squeezed—Delays drive up costs, pushing projects over budget.
The longer these delays persist, the greater the likelihood that resources will not be available to commence works promptly, or that pricing will have shifted, further exacerbating project costs. Clients are hesitant to enter into contracts until they have full approval, which in turn delays procurement, contractor engagement, and necessary preparatory work such as site surveys and materials ordering.
More Than Just Delays: The Legal and Logistical Nightmare
Beyond the immediate financial and scheduling implications, the delays at Gateway 2 are also impacting the legal and logistical aspects of project delivery. Licences granted by managing agents need to be continuously updated and maintained due to the extended timelines, adding administrative burdens. If the BSR requires significant changes to the proposed works under the Fire Risk Assessment of External Walls (FRAEW) approach, this can trigger additional contractual negotiations between building owners, residents, and contractors.
Licence extensions — Managing agents must repeatedly update permissions as projects drag on.
FRAEW approvals — Changes to fire risk assessments trigger contract renegotiations.
Retrospective inspections — BSR could demand further verification post-installation, forcing costly rework.
This complexity is especially pronounced where the contractor or developer is a third party that is not remediating the works at their own cost and is instead seeking to minimise financial exposure. While projects funded under the Cladding Safety Scheme may have some financial buffer to absorb these pressures, other developer-led remediation contracts do not, making them particularly vulnerable to cost escalations and significant project delays.
Time for a Smarter Approach
Given the significant challenges posed by the BSR’s current approach, there is a strong argument for differentiating between remediation projects and new-build schemes. The regulator should consider prioritising resources and streamlining processes for existing buildings requiring urgent safety improvements. A separate framework for new-build approvals could allow the BSR to focus on meeting the government’s housing commitments without hindering the remediation of unsafe buildings.
One potential interim solution could involve greater reliance on local authorities and or warranty providers that insure the buildings to oversee and expedite the remediation process. This would align with the government’s stated objective of fixing buildings faster. However, there is currently no clear plan detailing how this will be achieved. The government has committed to remediating all 18m+ high-rise buildings (HRBs) with unsafe cladding in government-funded schemes by the end of 2029. Additionally, by this date, every 11m+ building with unsafe cladding is expected to have either been remediated or have a set completion date for the remediation works, with severe penalties for any non-compliance. However, if stakeholders are unable to determine a start date due to Gateway 2 delays, these targets will be unrealistic.
What’s Next?
The construction industry is already looking ahead to what Gateway 3 will entail. For remediation projects, this may be less of an issue as the asset is already occupied and in use. For new-build developments delays put pressure on the financing by delaying completion of new homes and realising a rental income. For occupied buildings, the requirements for obtaining a Building Assurance Certificate could present additional hurdles. If the regulator demands further evidence of installation quality post-completion, it raises the possibility of retrospective inspections. This could mean reopening completed works. This is an expensive and logistically challenging prospect, especially for HRBs.
Furthermore, given the BSR’s stance that proving compliance is solely the duty holders’ responsibility, the risk of additional scrutiny and rework remains high. If external wall systems or other critical safety elements require verification post-installation, contractors could face significant financial and legal exposure. The question then becomes: who bears the cost of these inspections and potential rework? While the duty holders are accountable, the contractual responsibility remains a grey area.
A Call for Change
The delays imposed by the BSR’s strict Gateway 2 process are causing widespread disruption in both remediation and new-build projects. Without a more flexible and efficient system, the government’s targets for building safety improvements and housing delivery are at risk. A differentiated approach allowing urgent remediation works to progress more swiftly, while maintaining rigorous oversight on new developments, could be a viable solution.
Ultimately, if the regulator does not adapt, the industry will continue to face prolonged uncertainty, rising costs, and potential failures in meeting critical safety and housing targets. A pragmatic and collaborative approach between regulators, local authorities, and industry stakeholders is imperative to resolve these pressing issues before they escalate further.
