Remediation toolkit
Remediation applications: pre-submission checklist
Getting your application ready for assessment
- Purpose of this checklist
- Before you apply: seven key checks
- Ready to submit?
- Remediation applications for existing higher-risk buildings FAQs
Building control application and approvals videos
Jane Carroll, Head of external remediation gives an overview of remediation applications and how to get your application ready for assessment.
Purpose of this remediation application checklist
Remediation work plays an important role in improving the safety of existing higher-risk buildings. The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) wants your remediation application to move through the building control process as efficiently as possible by helping applicants understand what information is needed before they apply.
The strongest applications are:
✔️ construction-ready
✔️ clearly explained
✔️ supported by proportionate evidence
✔️ coordinated across relevant disciplines
✔️ clear about how compliance with the applicable requirements of the Building Regulations will be achieved
This remediation application checklist highlights common issues seen in remediation applications and provides practical steps applicants can take before submitting. It is designed to support better quality applications, reduce avoidable requests for further information and help important remediation work progress.
Who should use this checklist?
This remediation application checklist is for those preparing building control applications for remediation work to existing higher-risk buildings, including:
- clients and accountable persons
- principal designers and designers
- contractors
- fire engineers
- façade specialists
- structural engineers
- other technical advisers involved in preparing applications
It is intended to help project teams understand the type, quality and coordination of information needed to support BSR’s assessment.
It does not replace the legal requirements of the Building Regulations or the need for competent professional advice.
Help assessors understand your application
A strong application should provide a clear route through the information submitted.
Providing technical reports, drawings and supporting documents alone may not demonstrate compliance. Applicants should explain how the information fits together and how it supports the proposed approach.
Your submission should clearly explain:
✔️ what is the existing building condition?
✔️ what risks or issues have been identified?
✔️ what remediation work is proposed?
✔️ why has this solution been chosen?
✔️ how does the evidence demonstrate compliance?
✔️ how will the work be controlled, inspected and verified?
BSR should not need to interpret disconnected information or infer the compliance strategy from separate documents.
Coordinate before submission
Successful applications are usually prepared by project teams that have coordinated information across all relevant disciplines before applying.
Before submitting, check:
✔️ fire safety advice aligns with the proposed façade design
✔️ structural implications have been assessed
✔️ design changes have been reviewed across relevant disciplines
✔️ all specialists are working from the same design information
✔️ reports, drawings and specifications provide a consistent picture of the proposed work
Early coordination helps avoid conflicting information and unnecessary requests for clarification.
Structure your application clearly
Complex remediation applications often contain significant amounts of technical information.
A clear application structure helps BSR understand what has been provided and where key evidence can be found.
Consider including:
✔️ application overview document
✔️ compliance statement or compliance narrative
✔️ drawing schedule
✔️ technical evidence schedule
✔️ document register
✔️ clear signposting showing where each requirement is addressed
Before you apply: seven key checks
Check 1: Is your design ready for assessment?
Why we ask for this
BSR needs enough information to assess whether proposed work meets the applicable requirements of the Building Regulations.
Applications should demonstrate that the design is sufficiently developed, coordinated and ready for construction.
Common issues we see:
❌ designs remain at concept or scheme stage rather than construction-level detail
❌ key elements of the external wall system are undefined or left for future design development
❌ important decisions are deferred until after contractor appointment
❌ submissions rely on statements such as:
“Final details will be confirmed once the contractor is appointed”
or
“testing will be undertaken during construction”
Before submitting, check you have:
✔️ construction-level design information
✔️ a fully defined external wall build-up, including materials, systems and interfaces
✔️ clear information about proposed products and systems
✔️ evidence proposed solutions are available, achievable and capable of meeting regulatory requirements
✔️ sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance without relying on later design development
Check 2: Have you clearly explained your route to compliance?
Why we ask for this
Technical documents support an application, but applicants also need to explain how those documents demonstrate compliance.
A clear compliance narrative helps link risks, requirements, design decisions and evidence.
Common issues we see:
❌ no structured explanation of how the proposed work complies with applicable requirements
❌ drawings and reports provided without explaining their relevance
❌ evidence and design decisions are not clearly linked
❌ documents are expected to “speak for themselves”
Before submitting, check you have explained:
✔️ which Building Regulations requirements apply
✔️ how the design satisfies those requirements
✔️ what evidence supports your approach
✔️ where supporting information can be found
Check 3: Are your claims and assumptions supported by evidence?
Why we ask for this
BSR needs to understand how conclusions have been reached.
Statements about performance, risk or impact should be supported by proportionate technical evidence.
Common issues we see:
❌ conclusions are provided without explanation
❌ assumptions are not identified
❌ statements such as “negligible impact” or “not applicable” are unsupported
❌ claims that standards will not be reduced lack supporting analysis
Before submitting, check you have:
✔️ identified assumptions
✔️ explained technical reasoning
✔️ provided relevant calculations, assessments or evidence
✔️ demonstrated how conclusions were reached
Check 4: Have you addressed all relevant external wall system considerations?
Why we ask for this
External wall remediation involves multiple areas of building performance.
Your remediation application should demonstrate relevant impacts have been considered together.
Common issues we see:
Fire safety:
❌ incomplete evidence for cladding, insulation, membranes or cavity barriers
❌ reliance on generic evidence not linked to the proposed system
❌ unclear cavity barrier strategies or interfaces
Structure:
❌ missing construction-level details for rails, brackets and fixings
❌ no assessment of existing structural capacity
❌ lack of site-specific wind loading information
Moisture protection:
❌ unclear waterproofing or drainage arrangements
❌ poorly defined interfaces
Safety in use:
❌ insufficient information on guarding, glazing, balustrades or fixings
Thermal performance:
❌ missing or generic calculations
❌ failure to consider thermal bridging
Before submitting, check you have:
✔️ considered all relevant technical impacts
✔️ coordinated specialist input
✔️ provided evidence specific to the building and proposed system
✔️ explained how interfaces will be managed
Check 5: Does your PAS 9980 assessment support your remediation proposal?
Why we ask for this
PAS 9980 assessments can support remediation decisions, but they do not replace the need to demonstrate compliance with Building Regulations.
Common issues we see:
❌ PAS 9980 does not align with the proposed remediation design
❌ identified risks are not translated into design responses
❌ PAS 9980 is treated as evidence of compliance on its own
Before submitting, check it:
✔️ reflects the current proposal
✔️ explains how findings informed design decisions
✔️ supports the wider compliance narrative
✔️ aligns with other submitted information
Check 6: Are your documents coordinated and easy to assess?
Why we ask for this
Clear, coordinated information helps applications progress efficiently.
Common issues we see:
❌ reports, drawings and specifications conflict
❌ outdated documents remain in the submission
❌ information from specialists has not been coordinated
❌ there is no clear document register
Before submitting, check you have:
✔️ coordinated information across disciplines
✔️ removed superseded information
✔️ confirmed documents reflect the current design
✔️ provided clear document references and revision details
Check 7: Have you explained how safety will be maintained during and after construction?
Why we ask for this
Remediation applications need to demonstrate how the approved design will be delivered, controlled and managed.
Common issues we see:
❌ Construction Control Plans lack sufficient detail
❌ inspection stages and hold points are unclear
❌ verification arrangements are not explained
❌ handover information does not support ongoing safety management
Before submitting, check you have explained:
✔️ how compliance will be maintained during construction
✔️ how critical elements will be inspected and verified
✔️ how design changes will be identified and assessed
✔️ how updated information will be recorded
✔️ how golden thread information will support ongoing building safety management
Ready to submit your remediation application?
Before submitting your remediation application, check:
✔️ is the design construction-ready?
✔️ is the proposed work clearly explained?
✔️ have you demonstrated compliance?
✔️ is evidence specific and proportionate?
✔️ are documents coordinated and current?
✔️ are assumptions justified?
✔️ have construction controls and safety management arrangements been explained?
Clear, complete and coordinated applications help BSR complete assessments efficiently and reduce avoidable requests for further information.
Getting these areas right before submission supports smoother assessment and helps progress remediation work that improves building safety for residents.
Remediation application for existing higher-risk buildings FAQs
What makes a strong remediation application?
The applications that progress most effectively are typically those that are:
- construction-ready
- clearly explained
- proportionately evidenced
- coordinated across all technical disciplines
Successful applications clearly demonstrate how the proposed works will comply with the applicable requirements of the Building Regulations and are supported by sufficient technical detail from the outset.
Why are some remediation applications delayed?
Applications are commonly delayed where:
- designs are incomplete or still at concept stage
- key technical details are missing or deferred
- evidence is generic or unsupported
- there is no clear explanation of how the proposal complies with the Building Regulations
- documents are inconsistent or poorly coordinated
The Regulator must be able to clearly understand the proposed works, how compliance will be achieved, and how that compliance is evidenced.
What level of design information should be included in an application?
Applications should contain sufficiently mature, construction-ready design information. This includes:
- a clearly defined external wall build-up
- specified materials and systems
- coordinated interface details
- construction-level technical information
- sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance before work starts
Applications are more likely to be delayed where important elements remain undefined or are intended to be developed later during procurement or construction.
Why is a clear compliance narrative important?
Providing drawings, reports and product information alone is not usually sufficient.
Applications should clearly explain:
- which requirements of the Building Regulations are applicable
- how the proposed design satisfies those requirements
- where compliance is evidenced within the submission
One of the most common causes of delay is where evidence is provided, but the overall compliance approach is unclear.
What happens if technical claims are not properly evidenced?
Unsupported assumptions or conclusions are a frequent cause of delay. Examples include:
- “non-worsening” claims without comparative analysis
- statements such as “negligible impact” without calculations or evidence
- assumptions that are not clearly identified or tested
Where conclusions are reached, applications should include proportionate technical reasoning, calculations and supporting evidence explaining how those conclusions have been reached.
What technical issues are commonly missing from remediation applications?
External wall remediation is inherently multi-disciplinary, and applications are often delayed where important technical matters are incomplete or only partially addressed. Common omissions include:
- fire performance evidence
- cavity barrier strategies
- structural loading assessments
- waterproofing and drainage details
- thermal bridging analysis
- information relating to guarding, glazing and fixings
Applications are generally stronger where fire, façade, structural and other disciplines are coordinated from an early stage.
How should PAS 9980 assessments be used within an application?
PAS 9980 is an appraisal methodology which can support competent professionals in assessing external wall construction and fire risk.
However, PAS 9980 should not be treated as a substitute for demonstrating compliance with the Building Regulations.
Where PAS 9980 assessments are included, they should:
- support the wider compliance narrative within the application
- align with the current remediation design
- clearly explain how identified risks inform the remediation strategy
Why are coordination and document management important?
The Regulator must be able to understand and rely on the submitted information.
Applications can be delayed where:
- reports from different consultants are inconsistent
- outdated information is included
- version control is unclear
- there is no structured document register
Good practice includes:
- structured document management and version control
- coordinated submissions across all disciplines
- clear identification of the current design basis
What information should be included about construction and post-completion management?
Applications should demonstrate not only how compliance has been designed, but also how it will be delivered and maintained. This includes:
- information supporting ongoing building safety management and the golden thread
- construction control arrangements
- inspection and verification processes
- management of critical fire safety features
Why is early preparation important?
Applications that are well prepared before submission are more likely to progress smoothly and require fewer requests for further information.
Addressing design maturity, technical coordination, compliance explanations and evidence requirements early in the process can significantly improve the likelihood of timely approvals.
Building safety guidance and resources
A to Z of building safety
Updates from the Building Safety Regulator
Keep up to date with the new regulator with our e-bulletin.