Asif Patel is a partner at law firm Devonshires\u00a0<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
There is undoubtedly an unassailable moral principle behind the gateway two planning checkpoint, introduced following the 2022 Building Safety Act for buildings classed as \u2018higher risk\u2019. But to quote Andy Roe, chair of the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) that oversees these checks, it is \u201ca system that\u2019s not been working for the regulator or for\u2026 the industry\u201d. The frustration of navigating the gateway two process has been significant \u2013 and it\u2019s proved an obstacle to construction developments.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s a gap between what work is technically permissible under regulation and what can practically be achieved\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Gateway two has been experiencing wait times of up to 48 weeks for plans to be approved, when the original target was 12 weeks. The rejection rate of around 70 per cent has been blamed on a lack of detail in submitted plans, as well as a cited failure to meet the required standards in applications.<\/span><\/p>\n A substantial change of approach in the gateway two regime is the requirement for a narrative of compliance \u2013 the question of \u201chow\u201d the design complies, as well as \u201cwhat\u201d is being built.<\/span><\/p>\n This additional onus on applicants substantially adds to the volume and detail required in applications. However, the gateway two rejection rate indicates that applicants have either been unaware, unwilling or unable to provide the quality detailed information expected of them.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Even where an application\u2019s content is sufficient, it is almost impossible to financially plan projects and arrange suppliers when projects are put on pause for almost a year.<\/span><\/p>\n The Construction Leadership Council has published substantive guidance after consultation with the BSR to show \u201cwhat good looks like\u201d, but it is hard to escape the feeling that this has taken longer than it should have done. It will be a relief to some that a pre-application service is planned to assist with applications, once more immediate challenges have been resolved.<\/span><\/p>\n Changes at the BSR and to its processes have been announced to clear the backlog and free up capacity. The BSR now has an internal pool of fire and structural engineers, cutting down on the delays caused by having to assemble multidisciplinary teams. It has also engaged large engineering providers (such as Arup and WSP) to take on bundles of existing applications under BSR supervision.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In the government\u2019s most recent progress report, of the 91 legacy new-build applications still stuck in the system, it is anticipated that all but three will receive a decision by the end of 2025 and the remainder in January. Delayed applications for remediation works do not have the same good fortune, with only 88 of the current 253 applications likely to receive a decision by the end of the year.<\/span><\/p>\n There also continues to be debate around the types of work that ought to be caught within the gateway regime. At the heart of the issue is the broad definition of \u2018building work\u2019: while this has not changed in the new regime, what has been brought into sharp focus is that even relatively simple work is being caught up in the gateways. And this is significantly increasing the volume of applications for the BSR to process.<\/span><\/p>\n One proposed solution is for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to review the scope of the self-certification and third-party certification schemes, and to consult with the industry so that common types of work \u2013 such as replacement of fire-door sets \u2013 can be undertaken without resorting to a gateway application.<\/span><\/p>\n Currently, there is a gap between what work is technically permissible under regulation and what can practically be achieved in the real world.<\/span><\/p>\n We remain in need of urgent action, without which there is little prospect of reducing the still growing backlog of applications for remedial works. Once this is achieved, the BSR should be freed up to consider more substantive applications, but until then, the \u2018gateway\u2019 moniker will remain an unfortunate irony.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Asif Patel is a partner at law firm Devonshires\u00a0 There is undoubtedly an unassailable moral principle behind the gateway two planning checkpoint, introduced following the 2022 Building Safety Act for buildings classed as \u2018higher risk\u2019. But to quote Andy Roe, chair of the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) that oversees these checks, it is \u201ca system …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":531158,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ep_exclude_from_search":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[79552,567],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-532868","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-building-safety","category-opinion"],"yoast_head":"\nChanging scope<\/h3>\n