Making an entrance: architects’ tips for navigating Gateway 2

The new gateway system implemented by the Building Safety Regulator to audit the design safety of higher-risk buildings (HRBs) is leading to widespread frustrations among architects, about both the mechanics of submitting to the Building Safety Regulator and the extensions of time that dog the process.

What advice and strategies can architects share who have made it through – or are still stuck in – the Gateway 2 process?

Predictability and consistency are key

First, the problems. Ben Oram, head of technical at Buckley Gray Yeoman and architectural technical lead group (ATLG) chair, explains that while basic issues such as the BSR’s portal functionality are being tackled, ‘the big things we need from the BSR’ are predictability and consistency.

‘We need to know what’s expected, how long it will take and how the day-to-day process works,’ he says. Oram cites a recent Build UK report, which offers useful guidance on gateway deliverables and timings, but draws attention to anecdotal evidence that the statutory 12-week determination process has been subject to extension of time requests that can quite easily triple that timeframe.

One problem is that the process doesn’t tally with design and build (D&B) contracts. This is maybe due to the lack of pilot projects that could have identified pain points, speculates Oram, and perhaps due to the route itself.

‘Dame [Judith] Hackitt’s clear concerns around D&B contracts make me think the Building Safety Act was aiming to target the worst bits of it,’ says Oram, noting that traditional D&B delivery stages are now proving a poor fit for Gateway 2. He adds: ‘It might not spell the end of D&B, but it’s certainly pushing most of the work to the left of the Gantt chart.’

The regulatory framework, while worthy in ambition, may not take account of ‘how buildings are procured and design happens,’ Oram continues. ‘Industry will need to change to suit.’

So how, then, do you structure a project and optimise submission processes to keep delays to a minimum?  

Lived experience

Maber Architects’ £36m Beeston Square project in Nottingham is an eight-storey ‘courtyard’ block of 419 student studio flats, designed for the PBSA provider Cassidy Group, and was one of two projects submitted after the May 2024 transition period closed, with Gateway 2 approval received in October 2024. Nick Keightley, Nottingham studio director at Maber, feels success – determined in 24 weeks – was down to how the 70-strong firm had prepared itself, the client and consultant relationship and the ordered nature of their submission. Here are their lessons for success.

Prepare – and work with who you know

‘We had set up an internal building safety working group – five of us, tasked with reviewing legislation, looking at BSA guidance, establishing competency requirements, attending any relevant forums, undertaking the RIBA Principal Designer courses, collating press articles, considering submission methods – even speaking to our insurer. From this research, we developed our toolkit for fulfilling the entire building regulations principal designer (BRPD) role, from appointment to completion, and Beeston Square was the first HRB project of ours to go through it,’ Keightley says.

Success was aided, he believes, by the design team having worked on the Beeston project for three years previously – and by a well-established and trusted relationship. ‘Choosing the D&B route, with us as principal designer, the client appointed contractor Bowmer + Kirkland with a pre-contract services agreement (PCSA) to help as principal contractor over the Gateway 2 period.’ This path is increasingly being adopted to overcome the fact that contracts are tending to not be signed until RIBA Stage 4, right after Gateway 2 approval.

Organise the team to deliver

Given the unsettling perplexity the profession feels when navigating the Gateways, there’s a refreshing simplicity to Maber’s approach. Keightley says the first thing he did was screenshot every page of the BSR application portal to ascertain what was being requested, in order for the firm to create a tracker.

‘We noted all of it,’ he recalls. ‘Whether a report, drawings or mandatory ocurrence reporting plan, we listed it out and alongside it ran the exact BSA clause pertaining to it. Then we generated two spreadsheets – ours, which was design-focused, and one for client submissions.’

From this, Keightley says, the practice created its compliance tracker. This includes a design responsibility matrix (DRM), to break down the Building Regulations relevant requirement and compliance approaches – whether  approved document, BS or fire engineering solution – and to allocate design team responsibility to all of them.

This meant sitting down with team members to look at demands and deliverables, and assign each of them a lead role: principal designer, principal contractor, structural or M&E engineer, or fire consultant. ‘Engage with the other design consultants from day one – and be forensic on responsibilities,’ he adds.

Think like the regulator

‘We thought about how the BSR would receive the information and how the regulatory lead case officer might send it to other multidisciplinary team (MDT) consultants,’ Keightley continues. ‘Our philosophy was: if all this information is going to be split up and sent out as distinct packages, we’ll create a sum of parts that was digestible from their end.

‘If the MDT wanted to review Part L, we’d list critical items on the building regulations compliance statement, also pointing them to key drawings to show how it was complied with – and we did that for every part of the regs,’ he adds. ‘A drawing might be relevant to different parts of the approved documents, and if so, we noted it every time it was. Don’t hand over a set of drawings and expect them to work out where information is hidden. Our philosophy was, the easier we made it for the BSR to review, the more likely it would stay at the top of the pile and get dealt with.’

Be methodical

The BSR portal demands many mandatory items – including project and team information, competence declarations, construction control plans and fire emergency files – but all the drawings are simply uploaded into one folder at the end. ‘We were submitting 185 drawings altogether and we thought, ‘they’ll never understand where it all is’, so we decided to cross-reference meticulously,’ says Keightley.

The BSR’s demanded building regulations compliance statement became Maber’s core document and the firm listed each approved document part, from A to T, and allocated them to the consultants who would need to provide the evidence of compliance. As BRPD, Keightley says this took discipline and meant a steep learning curve.

‘An acoustic consultant might have wanted to do a Stage 4 report and we’d say, “We don’t want that, we want a Buildings Regs report; we just need to know exactly how you propose meeting Part E compliance, so our drawings can reflect that.”’

Going through the regulations methodically also meant whittling down the task scope. ‘No gas boilers? Then don’t worry about flues and combustion elements. Stick only to what relevant to your project; and of that, who then needs to discharge it.’

Don’t overspecify

‘Only supply the information a MDT needs to come to a decision and no more – what we prepared was tailored just to Building Regs compliance,’ Keightley continues. ‘They don’t need to know everything about the design – we just need to evidence compliance.’ So, for an external wall say, the BSR is interested in structural and fire safety aspects of that build-up, so state those clearly. ‘We did specify products, insulation and cavity closers, for instance, but not brick types as that’s not a regs item. We redacted typical details to only show what the BSR need to evaluate.’

Likewise, you don’t need to fully specify a reception desk to supply a drawing proving a wheelchair will fit under it to meet Part M, he adds. ‘We did one drawing showing where the waste storage was, its capacity and how a vehicle accessed it: not the world’s most exciting drawing but it did the job, and via our regs compliance list, they knew just where to find the information.’

Don’t over-dimension

Given that, post approval, any change is considered either a notifiable or a major change, Maber took the view not to dimension anything not critical to demonstrating compliance. Furthermore, if Part M defined a minimum door width or maximum travel distance, these dimensions were reflected in the GA plans.

‘Why state a door is 1300mm wide or 18m from an accessible WC, when both dimensions might change in design development?’ Keightley points out. Don’t state every dimension only to become hostage to them later. Tailor them to show clearly they are within minimum, or maximum, regulation parameters.

Case study: Dyecoats, Leeds for Latimer
42 weeks to Gateway 2 approval in Feb 2025

Phase 1 of this £100 million residential-led scheme is 434 homes in three housing blocks, which while similar in nature and designed by the same team for the same client, were seen as separate applications. We are aware of other schemes that have been split between different BSR review panels, which could take different views on the same strategy, so we requested they be dealt with by the same MDT. Luckily, the BSR consented.

Initially, we weren’t clear about the gateway process, so we appointed BSM CDM consultancy Safer Sphere as principal designer. We assume that role now, but it was good to have them onboard at the time. BSR’s portal was problematic to upload to, not user-friendly, and could be improved to provide status and tracking to make the process more transparent. We had to pursue the BSR for updates over the approval period. Since the lack of these makes clients nervous, we now tell them to allow six months to get approval.

The client entered into a pre-construction services agreement (PCSA) with the D&B contractor and a fixed price was agreed prior to Gateway 2 approval; the contract was signed the day after it was received – at Stage 4. There were real challenges holding to the price during the submission.

In the future, we believe we’ll see contracts being let at end of RIBA Stage 3 – ‘Stage 3+’ – so the gateway process will be managed by the contractor, the architect is novated and the principal designer is appointed at that stage. There would be a full NBS spec at that point and further employer requirements included so as to benchmark quality.

I think RIBA stages might need to adjust, because clients are already adapting them to suit their procurement needs. BSR’s HRB requirement is such that you need a contractor on board to do the contractor’s design portion (CDP) of the application.

Luke Walter, London director of architecture, Broadway Malyan

Case study: Chestergate, Stockport for Great Places Housing Association
29 weeks into Gateway 2 application, submitted October 2024

The scheme is a £33m residential HRB of 150 apartments, over two blocks. The application was submitted in October 2024, is yet to be determined, and so far we’ve had two BSR extension-of-time requests. Lack of communication has been the key issue. When you submit, you aren’t allowed to contact anyone, which is frustrating. You are then unable to answer clients’ questions about timelines, which makes planning and cash flow management hard. If grant funding is at risk, the project could become unviable.

As this process was new to our client and the principal contractor, there were gaps in understanding around the areas each was responsible for. To keep things moving and ensure the application went in on time, we stepped in to provide support and drive the process. The absence of example documents or templates, such as for the construction control plan, added to the complexity, and some uncertainty around responsibilities led to quite a bit of back and forth.

Once approval is granted, attention turns to change control, which is raising concerns as we continue to navigate Gateway 2. We’re also having to manage change control on-site without clear guidance on what qualifies as a recordable, notifiable, or major change.

Fees also present their own challenges. In many framework tenders, the Building Regs principal designer role seems to be included late in the process, often without a full understanding of its scope. Pricing is typically tied to a percentage of construction value, which doesn’t always account for the wide variation in project complexity. These frameworks are competitive to secure, but once you’re on them, the terms are fixed for three to five years, so fee proposals can feel like a leap of faith, especially with the role still evolving.

Victoria Millward, director, Paddock Johnson