BSR in action: Regulating higher-risk buildings in England
What does the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) do as the Building Control Authority – and how are we helping to keep higher-risk buildings safe?
In a new series of short video clips, Philip White, BSR’s Chief Inspector of Buildings, shares insights into our role at the heart of Gateway 2 – the pivotal stage in building control for higher-risk buildings (HRBs) in England.
Our role in higher-risk building control
Since October 2023, BSR has been at the centre of a new, more rigorous system designed to make sure building work in HRBs meets legal standards. At its core is a digital portal where developers must submit comprehensive building control applications for assessment.
As the Building Control Authority for HRBs in England, our priority is to ensure developments are safe, high-quality places to live, work and use. We expect developers’ applications to clearly demonstrate full compliance with building regulations.
We acknowledge that many applications have taken longer than anticipated to process. But we’re having to reject around 70% of applications because they don’t meet the legal requirements.
This isn’t ‘red tape’ for the sake of it. We’re preventing risks and problems from being designed into the built environment.
It’s about making sure residents have safe and quality homes and avoiding costly works at a later date. Or homeowners not being able to secure lending and insurance.
Getting it right from the start isn’t just a legal requirement, it’s the responsible thing to do.
How the process works
It’s the responsibility of those who are doing the building work (designers and contractors) to meet the requirements of the Building Regulations for whatever kind of building they’re working on and for clients to check that this happens.
BSR’s responsibility is to check that this is being achieved in higher-risk buildings (HRBs).
It’s important to understand: the building regulations themselves have not fundamentally changed. What’s changed are the steps that have to be gone through to obtain approval.
The Gateway 2 building control process for HRBs has two key stages.
Initial validation check
We review every application to ensure all the required documentation set out and required in the legislation is present. Where documentation is incomplete applications are returned – this improves efficiency and saves time for everyone involved.
Detailed technical assessment
Valid applications are assessed by a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) of experts. Around two-thirds of these professionals come from local authority building control, the private sector, or local fire and rescue services.
One of the challenges we’ve faced is setting up MDTs quickly enough, which has impacted delivery. But we’re taking steps to speed this up so assessments can begin sooner.
Navigating early challenges
When BSR first took on its building control role for HRBs, application volumes were steady. But by Spring 2024 everything changed.
The end of transitional arrangements from the pre-Building Safety Act regulatory regime triggered a surge in submissions. At the same time, the collapse of a private building control provider transferred a large number of ‘in-flight’ projects cases into BSR’s remit. This also placed them under the new requirements of the Building Safety Act.
This added further pressure to our resources. It’s to our regret that processing times increased and a temporary backlog of cases began to build up to July 2024.
But we responded fast, recruiting more staff, scaling up operations and engaging more closely with industry.
Today, that pre-July backlog is almost cleared, and we continue to streamline operations to meet demand.
We worked really hard with the sector to better understand how we could make more improvements to the process and support applicants.
Progress and what’s next
The changes introduced last summer are delivering measurable results We’re seeing examples of really good, compliant applications – so it can be done.
The safety and standards of residents’ homes are key in our decisions. We want applications which meet legal requirements to be approved as quickly as possible.
Our most recent data shows 44% of applications are still being rejected at the validation stage. This is often because they are missing basic information. This stage is a simple administration check that all required documentation has been supplied.
A checklist for what is required is readily available in legislation: Building control approval for higher-risk buildings – GOV.UK
It worries us that, if applicants can’t get these basic points right, will they be able to comply with standards? This includes standards that aim to keep people safe?
Supporting progress but balancing resources
For those applications that have passed through validation and have been assessed by MDTs, we’ve tried to be pragmatic and supportive in our approach.
For example, instead of simply rejecting applications that don’t show that legal requirements will be met, we’ve routinely given opportunities for further information and clarifications to be provided.
The downside has been these requests can take a number of weeks to process, both for information to be received and to be analysed. This can mean that applications take longer and appear to be delayed.
Of course, the time we spend on those incomplete applications is time we can’t spend on others, some of which would be perfectly good to go.
We’re thinking about what we might have to change in our approach to help these applications make progress. This might mean we take a firmer approach to rejecting those applications that aren’t making the bar straight away rather than asking for the missing information.
We know that determination times are a major concern – especially for some complex developments. These include a small number of ‘in flight’ transitional cases.
Our message is clear. Industry needs to step up and comply with the process. That’s how we’ll ensure timely decisions, safe buildings, and long-term trust.
Transitional projects and complex cases
Some of these transitional projects are not yet of a sufficient standard to be approved but cannot be rejected without stopping work. Therefore, we’re taking a pragmatic approach so that building work can continue.
We’re carrying out Gateway 2 and Gateway 3 assessments simultaneously for these projects to help minimise the impact of their transition into the new regime partway through construction.
These kinds of projects aren’t subject to the periods set out in the Building Safety Act for building control approval (known as the SLAs). But we’re still working as speedily as we can and as quickly as the quality of the applications will allow.
When we look at the overall picture of turnaround times on applications, the picture is improving. There are a small set of applications from the pre-July backlog that have been in the system for a long time.
We have been actively working on these and giving the applicants many opportunities to give us the information needed to get them over the line where possible.
Improving turnaround times
For other applications, the average Gateway 2 handling time is now around 16 to 18 weeks to decision – a significant step forward. For lower-risk Category B projects, turnaround times now average around 10 weeks.
Nevertheless, we’ve been saying for some time that applicants can help themselves by factoring around 18 to 20 weeks for building control into their project plans.
We know some organisations have regarded the SLAs as hard deadlines and then struggled when their applications can’t be approved in that time.
With contingency measures in place, and operational capacity increasing, we are confident that approval times will continue to improve as we progress further into this financial year.
Supporting better applications
We recently produced new guidance on the process: Building control approval for higher-risk buildings – GOV.UK
It’s aimed at all applicants, from residents themselves through to Tier 1 contractors.
We’re also working closely with the Construction Leadership Council (CLC) to develop industry-led materials to help improve applications, and we’ve encouraged other stakeholders to start working on materials to help their parts of the sector.
We know that industry-produced guidance has real advantages – it can use the right language and reflect the way the industry or sector actually works and how the various players interact.
It’s in everyone’s interest to get projects that meet the legal requirements through the Gateway 2 process and onto site, and we’ll continue to work hard with organisations and groups that want to step up and achieve that.
We’re not rejecting applications over small issues. These are serious, life safety matters.
But we can’t and won’t let applications go through when we know that safety and standards won’t be protected – even if that means we’re criticised for the time we take.
Serious issues we continue to see
Some of the most common, and concerning, failures we see include:
- missing details on how key structural components connect
- inadequate information on fire resistance of cladding, walls or barriers
- corridors that don’t meet evacuation width requirements
- poorly designed or unproven smoke extraction systems
- gaps in sprinkler layouts and water supply capacity
Common issues found in applications
Structure (Part A)
No information or details on:
- How the building has been designed to prevent collapse
- How the foundations will support the building
- How the stairs, balconies, handrails and other fixtures will be supported
- How building materials (concrete and structural steel) were capable of supporting any loads required by a building
- No rationale on how the building parts are tied together to prevent it from collapsing
Fire (Part B)
Risks identified:
- The smoke-extracting design risks pulling smoke from the source of a fire (in a flat) into the evacuation stairs. Applicant’s own smoke analysis shows smoke will be pulled into the lobby ‘safe area’.
- No assurance that the wall will be built to required fire resistance
- No details of required fire barriers in the external (cladding) to prevent a fire spread externally
- Some corridors not wide enough to allow total evacuation if recommended by the fire service
- No smoke detectors provided in the flats, only one heat detector in kitchen
These aren’t minor omissions – they present significant safety risks and lead to delays in the approval process. By highlighting them, we aim to drive up standards, support faster approvals and ensure that safety and standards are embedded from the onset.
We, along with the organisations and stakeholders mentioned above, are working towards a much better position. Where legal requirements are consistently met, applications are approved and projects can start and progress to successful completion.
But some players do not appear to share this aim. Despite all the communications, and publicity over the years before the Act came into force, and despite the terrible loss of life from Grenfell and the unflinching commentary in the two Inquiry reports, some organisations haven’t stepped up.
It’s high time they did.
Final word
I cannot stress this enough: we need developers to submit high-quality, complete building control applications that clearly show how they meet the regulations.
The bar for building control approval is deliberately high.
Our role is to make sure that HRBs are safe and good quality from the outset, and we’re unwavering in that commitment.
But we can’t deliver this alone.
Industry has a critical responsibility, to submit robust, fully documented and regulation-compliant applications. This is what enables timely decisions, reduces delays and protects people.
Together, we can deliver safer and better buildings, stronger compliance – and genuine peace of mind for the people who live, use and work in them.
Further information
Visit our Building Control Authority page for more information and read our FAQ Explainer.