Getting building control applications right
Support for high-rise developers with building control applications
Helping developers submit high-quality compliant applications through early engagement, collaborative problem-solving and practical guidance.
The challenge
Under the new regulatory regime for higher-risk buildings (HRBs), passing through Gateway 2 demands more than a standard building control submission.
Developers must clearly demonstrate how their design meets all applicable building regulations’ requirements including fire and structural safety requirements – supported by well-reasoned, robust evidence and a clear compliance narrative.
Although the functional requirements remain the same, this represents a significant shift in approach for many, especially those working on complex or mixed-use schemes. The new regime not only raises the bar technically but also calls for a new mindset. One rooted in demonstrable accountability and early engagement.
Initial submissions to the Building Safety Regulator have often fallen short. Often because critical fire and structural safety elements were unclear, undocumented, or assumed rather than substantiated.
BSR’s collaborative approach
To support better outcomes and reduce avoidable delays, the Building Safety Regulator has listened to industry and opened up a range of engagement opportunities for applicants.
For dutyholders submitting multiple applications, we can offer targeted engagement to help improve consistency and overall quality.
Where we identify recurring themes or patterns across their submissions, we may invite dutyholders to take part in a feedback session with the relevant BSR operational team. These sessions provide an opportunity to share insights, clarify expectations and support applicants in strengthening future applications.
Structured pre-application meetings, direct conversations with case officers and technical specialists, and access to detailed guidance materials can also take place where needed. This can help applicants understand how to apply the guidance in practice, embed safety and quality from the earliest design stages and ensure their applications meet the required regulatory standards.
Applicants can support this process by sharing forward plans – for example, highlighting any upcoming projects or applications linked to the same development. This enables BSR to understand the wider context and coordinate our engagement and reviews more effectively.
For complex or unusual projects, we may also offer proactive engagement opportunities. In such cases, project teams can approach us to discuss the best way to structure and present their building control application.
This route is intended to support particularly challenging schemes and may not be appropriate for all projects.
Across all forms of engagement, our aim is to provide clarity on what needs to be demonstrated, how to present evidence effectively and how to avoid common pitfalls.
We encourage applicants to adopt the “Identify, Clarify, Justify” approach to ensure their submissions meet the expectations of the new regulatory regime. This also reduces the likelihood of rework and improves the chances of a timely decision.
By engaging early, developers will now be able to test assumptions, resolve uncertainties and strengthen their applications. Reducing both the risk of rework and the likelihood of delay.
Graeme Mitchell, Remediation Associate Director at Telford Homes, reflects on his experience in engaging with BSR – and the benefits it brings:
“Over the last two months we have welcomed increased engagement from BSR and Jane Carroll, Principal at the Building Safety Regulator.
Having a designated liaison for Telford Homes projects and BSR applications has led to a better understanding of the ‘process’, the associated timelines for project determinations, knowledge of the key individuals involved and their specific roles and responsibilities.
It has helped to highlight where common issues and recurring themes have occurred in applications. Addressing these issues should lead to higher quality applications which should in turn lead to more positive outcomes.
As we continue to work through the process, we believe this increase in engagement has been a necessary and positive step forward for all concerned. We hope to see the benefits of these efforts in the coming weeks and months.”
Real-world examples
An applicant planning to submit over 80 projects to BSR between now and summer 2026 approached the Regulator early in the process to seek guidance on managing such a large volume of submissions. Early engagement meetings were held to discuss a coordinated strategy for progressing applications through to approval.
Initial applications were reviewed and concerns were raised about the clarity and completeness of the accompanying documentation. It was clear that, without improvements, assessment teams would need to repeatedly request additional information, potentially delaying progress.
In response, BSR carried out a more detailed review and held a structured feedback session with the applicant to explain what was required. This gave the applicant the opportunity to revise all previously submitted documents and make necessary amendments to those still in preparation.
In other cases, early engagement has resolved specific technical uncertainties . Such as clarifying the extent of cladding replacement, confirming proposed products and verifying wind load calculations for external remediation.
Project teams were then able to revise their submissions using the “Identify, Clarify, Justify” model. Enabling the assessment process to move forward toward approval.
Key takeaway
Developers who engage proactively with BSR gain a clearer understanding of expectations, reduce the risk of rework or rejection and ultimately benefit from more efficient approvals and improved safety outcomes.
Jane Carroll, Principal, Building Safety Regulator, puts it simply:
When developers actively engage with the collaborative support BSR offers, it helps them gain a clear understanding of what ‘good’ looks like. By working together from the outset, we see a shift to stronger applications, safer buildings and fewer delays. That’s the goal we all want.
From declaration to demonstration
Under the previous system, it wasn’t uncommon for applicants to reference “Part A” or “Part B” of the Building Regulations and attach hundreds of pages of plans and drawings – often without any context. That approach is no longer acceptable under the robust building control regime for higher-risk buildings.
Now, the onus is on the applicant to prove how their design meets regulatory requirements. Not just by including evidence, but by explaining and interpreting it.
In simple terms: it’s not about what’s in the submission. It’s about whether you’ve clearly shown how and why it proves compliance.
The three essentials of a strong application
A high-quality HRB building control application follows a structured, logical approach that enables BSR to understand, assess and verify compliance. This approach can be broken down into three key steps:
Identify – what needs to comply
The first step is to clearly identify all aspects of the design that fall within the scope of the Building Regulations. This includes elements such as structural systems, fire safety measures, energy performance and accessibility features.
Vague statements like “compliant with Part A” are no longer acceptable. Instead, applicants must break down design components and describe them in clear, project-specific terms.
For example, rather than simply stating that cladding is used, a strong application will explain how the cladding is fixed, what the structural loading is and how the building safely carries that load.
Too often, critical information is buried deep in technical reports with no signposting. A good application highlights these details, making them easy to find and clearly linked to compliance.
Clarify – the standards in use
Next, applicants must clarify which technical standards, codes or methodologies have been applied. And, crucially, why those standards were selected for this specific project.
Simply listing a standard isn’t enough. The application must explain its relevance and how it’s been applied to the design.
Imagine explaining to a colleague why a particular fire safety code was used for a complex mixed-use development. That level of clarity – logical, contextualised and tailored – should appear in writing within the submission.
This is often where applications fall short. As this level of justification may not have been required under the previous system. But it is essential in the new regime.
Justify – the compliance case
The final – and perhaps most critical – step is to justify how the proposed design complies with the regulations. This means building a clear, evidence-based narrative that connects the identified elements and clarified standards into a cohesive compliance story.
This isn’t a tick-box exercise or a list of referenced documents. It’s the applicant’s opportunity to articulate the thinking behind key design decisions, demonstrate alignment with regulatory expectations and point directly to the supporting evidence.
Too many submissions rely on volumes of technical documentation to “speak for themselves” without interpretation. A strong application makes that interpretation explicit, helping reviewers clearly see how compliance is achieved.
How much detail is enough?
The right level of detail is the level that allows another professional unfamiliar with the project to read the application and confidently understand how compliance has been demonstrated.
A practical way to test this? Give the application to a colleague who hasn’t been involved. If they can follow the logic and narrative – without needing to sift through dense technical drawings – then the submission is likely on the right track.
Raising the bar – and meeting it
The new HRB building control regime is not about adding complexity for its own sake. It’s about raising safety standards and ensuring that those responsible for design and construction are fully accountable for the decisions they make.
A good application reflects this shift in culture. It is clear, well-structured and thoughtfully written. It interprets the regulations with care and provides a compelling compliance narrative that’s easy to follow.
This is what good looks like: an application that is demonstrably compliant, logically reasoned and ready for BSR to review.
It not only helps avoid costly delays and rework – but it also contributes to a safer built environment, greater industry confidence and better outcomes for the people who will live and work in these buildings.
Building Control case study
We’ve produced a case study detailing why BSR’s work is so important for building control. It explains the issues, outcome and conclusion. Ensuring that new high-rise developments adhere to the strictest safety standards from design to completion.
Reasons why applications are rejected
To help industry better understand why their applications are not being approved we’ve carried out analysis on a selection of rejected applications (42%). These are applications which were rejected post validation.
50% of existing buildings applications and 45% of new-build applications were rejected as they did not comply with building regulations.
Key reasons behind rejections of existing building applications:
- 89% of applications did not contain sufficient detail
- 80% of applications did not meet the legal requirements for approval for work to an existing HRB
- 50% of applications set out work which would contravene existing building regulations and longstanding functional requirements
- 43% of applications set out work only accounting for a small proportion of the actual work planned
Key reasons behind rejections of new-build applications:
- 73% of applications did not meet the legal requirements for approval for work to a new HRB
- 73% of applications did not contain sufficient detail
- 45% of applications set out work which would contravene building regulations including longstanding functional requirements
- 27% of applications did not adequately set out how changes would be managed through the construction phase.
Other reasons for rejection found in both new-build and existing building applications include:
- not adequately setting out how the project would satisfy the golden thread requirements
- issues around or absence of a change control plan
- duty-holders and competence issues
- mandatory occurrence reporting
A to Z of building safety
To find out more about any terms or organisations used on this page, refer to our A to Z of building safety glossary.