Held this week in London, a Building Insights LIVE event, sponsored by leading manufacturers involved in Higher Risk Buildings in the UK, saw the value chain discussing approaches for ensuring that Gateway 2 submissions are best equipped to be approved first time.

With the Building Safety Act requiring all HRBs (residential and certain care facilities over 18 metres) to pass through a new Gateway approvals process, the considerable logjam of scheme approvals at Gateway 2 has been cited as key drag on construction productivity. However, with the regime having been in place for over four years, what have both the industry and the Building Safety Regulator learned and improved in order to help clear the backlog?

With around 1500 schemes thought to currently be waiting in line for Gateway 2 approvals, and many still being rejected to subsequently rejoin the queue, the strategies shared by our experts around the table were crucial pieces of knowledge.

The event also featured sponsor representatives from Leviat, Metsec and Premcrete, demonstrating both their investment in strategies, data and informing customers around Gateway 2 requirements, but also their concerns on areas such as potential value engineering and product substitution.

There was much consensus from the panellists on the issues which continue to bedevil the Regulator in the light of the need to fast-track schemes including the many remedial projects required in social housing which are in scope of the Act, which could wait up to 40 weeks for approval or rejection. From a lack of resources and the necessary need to begin a wholly new process from a position of limited knowledge, to a culture of ‘instant rejection’ of schemes based on a single flaw in presentation, the group cited many areas where the Regulator needed to adapt its approach to avoid the backlog of schemes being extended further.

 There were other key issues for speeding approvals, such as how certain elements of buildings were being placed in ‘Category A’ of designs and therefore allocated ‘complex’ status, when delegates believed they should not be treated as such. Also, delegates such as Mark Batchelor, managing director of Property Services at The Hyde Group, vociferously fought the case for excluding key ‘emergency’ elements such as certain lifts, from the Gateway process, given that holding up schemes based on such issues was disadvantaging social housing residents awaiting much-needed projects. 

Issues needing addressing in terms of the sector itself were ‘cut and paste’ submissions, and resulting data inconsistencies and a general concern around the ‘congested’ nature of data and information around products which was required to cover the interfaces within structures. This was seen as a major focus area needing improvement, given its complexity and likelihood of causing continued problems for submissions. Also, ownership of the data on products and third-party testing were further key areas needing more work. 

But examples of success were mentioned too, such as improvements made by the Regulator recently, the batching of schemes, and staged applications. In addition, architects present including Jamie Chubb, director of PRP, showed just how a concerted approach to meeting the Regulator’s requirements as well as construction rigour could lead to schemes with a high success rate of passing Gateway 2.

A Building Insights podcast capturing highlights and recommendations from the discussion, will be available at: insights.netmagmedia.co.uk