Remediation Enforcement Unit webinar

These are the fundamental, often administrative or procedural errors that lead to rejections: 

• incorrect info: for example, wrong buildings, irrelevant information or wrong plans 
• inaccurate information: where one document does not link to the next 
• contradictory strategies: the applicant refers to different fire strategies. For example, defend in place vs. evacuate 
• unanswered queries: the applicant cannot answer basic queries when asked, such as the exact scope of the project 
• changing design mid-assessment: requesting to alter the design while BSR is already assessing the application 
• changing scope mid-assessment: requesting to totally change the scope of works 
• hidden sections: the inclusion of independent sections (non-HRB parts of a building) “hidden” within details 
• poor signposting: having no index to signpost documents, making it difficult for assessors who do not know the project to find information 
• Requests for Information (RFI) delays: requests for extended time to obtain information from RFIs or failing to reply to them in a timely manner 

These are specific, technical failings commonly seen in external remediation applications: 

• insufficient evidence of fire-resistant properties: particularly for replacement cladding and related materials (like membranes), such as missing test data 
• lack of structural loading calculations: failing to provide calculations for wind loading, load transfer methods and confirmation the wider building can support proposed changes 
• failure to explain cavity ventilation: in external walls to prevent moisture build-up that could damage the building fabric 
• incomplete demonstration of thermal performance: missing or incomplete U value data 
• unsupported “non-worsening” claims: where applicants state that work won’t reduce safety standards but fail to provide the evidence 
• lack of final design details: often because the cladding subcontractor is not yet onboard.  This then creates the lack of evidence for fire resistance and structural loading mentioned above 
• vague compliance statements: consistently using unacceptable one-line phrases such as:
  • “Testing will occur during the construction phase”
  • “Part A, B, L is compliant” – instead of demonstrating how they comply 
• poor schedule 1 documents: failing to provide adequate accompanying documents
  • BSR is supporting the Construction Leadership Council (CLC) to develop specific guidance to help with this 
• cavity barrier issues: not providing sufficient data/regulation evidence to support their design 
  • or incorrectly claiming there is no need to install them under a “non-worsening” clause, because replacement cladding makes the overall external wall system “better” 
• fire strategy conflicts: issues surrounding the fire strategy for buildings 
• this includes inconsistencies between the proposed work and existing fire information 
  • or conflicts between proposed work and issues raised by the Fire Risk Appraisal of the External Walls (FRAEW) 

Q: Does installing originally missing compartmentation fire barriers or replacing a lift require a Gateway 2 application?  
A: Yes. BSR takes a firm stance that retrofitting missing fire barriers and replacing lifts both meet the legal definition of “building work”. Therefore, these projects legally require a Gateway 2 application before work can commence. 

Q: What about replacing fire doors? Does that also require Gateway 2?  
A: This depends on whether the replacement is planned or an emergency. Scheduled replacements of fire doors are considered building work and must go through the Gateway 2 process.  

However, if a door requires immediate replacement due to vandalism or emergency services forcing entry, this falls under “emergency repairs”. In those emergency cases, you do not need prior Gateway 2 approval in advance, but you must notify the regulator within 24 to 48 hours of starting the work. 

Q: If we have an EWS1 form that identifies no combustible materials, do we still need a Fire Risk Appraisal of the External Walls (FRAEW)?  
A: Yes. An EWS1 form is merely a survey identifying materials, whereas the law requires a comprehensive assessment of the risk of fire spread.

While the appraisal might be very short if there are no combustible materials, a formal assessment following the PAS9980 methodology is still expected. 

Q: How should we handle unforeseeable changes, such as structural issues that we won’t discover until the cladding is removed?  
A: Applicants should future-proof their applications by detailing foreseeable options in their construction and change control plans upfront. Comprehensive pre-project surveys can be of help here.

By detailing the various options for structural remedials before work starts, you can make a case for these being treated as “notifiable” changes rather than “major” changes. This prevents you from having to halt work and restart the Gateway 2 approval process. 

Q: If a building has both a High-Risk Building (HRB) section and a non-HRB section sharing the same facade, can one Gateway 2 application be submitted for the whole building?  
A: No. The BSR only has legal jurisdiction over the section that meets the definition of an HRB (over 18 metres or seven storeys).

Work on the non-HRB section must be submitted separately to the relevant local building control authority. This duplication is unfortunate, but BSR is strictly bound by current regulations. 

Q: Can BSR reject a Gateway 2 application if it only covers partial remediation of a facade?  
A: No. The BSR must assess the specific scope of works applied for. Even if the BSR or its multi-disciplinary team (MDT) believes more of the facade should have been remediated, a disagreement over the scope of the remediation is not grounds for rejecting the application. 

Q: What is the REU doing about unqualified individuals carrying out substandard fire risk assessments? 
A: The REU utilises a dedicated panel (via the Cladding Safety Scheme [LINK]) to review fire risk appraisals.

This panel checks whether the assessor is competent as defined in PAS9980, ensures the correct methodology was followed and verifies that the report’s recommendations are backed by sufficient evidence. 

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is currently considering introducing a formal licensing mechanism for assessors as part of a future Remediation Bill. 

Q: When will the REU investigate buildings with combustible materials other than ACM and HPL (like timber or EPS)?  
A: The REU’s immediate priority is the approximately 600 buildings with ACM and HPL.

The timeline for moving on to buildings with timber cladding or Extruded Polystyrene (EPS) systems will depend entirely on how quickly Principal Accountable Persons progress the assessment and planning for the initial batch of ACM/HPL buildings.