Breaking the bottleneck: Making the Building Safety Act work for you

A follow-up from our 2025 construction breakfast seminar.

Despite the dust having had a chance to settle since the Building Safety Act (BSA) came into force back in 2022, the reality is that navigating projects feels more challenging than ever.

We were therefore delighted to welcome:

• Iain Benson, Legal Director (construction), Cripps
• Andrew Butler KC, Tanfield Chambers
• Clare Goggin, Partner, Jackson Coles
• Tom Jordan, Architect & Technical Director, Barr Gazetas

who, during the course of a panel discussion, chaired by Christobel Smales, legal director at Cripps, harnessed their industry knowledge and practical experience to:

• turn legislative complexity into practical and actionable guidance;
• unpack the reasons behind project bottlenecks; and
• share strategies as to how best to manage key legal, commercial, and operational risks and ensure that projects stay on track,

ensuring that the audience came away with top tips on how to future-proof projects, and what ‘good’ looks like when assembling teams and documentation under the new regime.

Understanding the regulatory landscape

Andrew Butler KC opened the session by grounding the discussion in the legal framework. Despite the volume of commentary surrounding higher-risk buildings (HRBs), he noted it is easy to forget that elements of the BSA, particularly the dutyholder and competency regime, apply to all buildings, not just HRBs.

He highlighted five essential foundations:

1. What counts as an HRB both in the context of new-build and in occupation buildings.
2. How the new dutyholder and competency requirements have been introduced into the new legislative framework, when they apply and what they mean in practice.
3. The fact that almost all works in an HRB fall within scope of the new enhanced building safety regime with only narrow exceptions for exempt work, competent person scheme work or emergency repairs.
4. How the new gateway process works with a focus on Gateway 2 which is now universally recognised as the critical pressure point in the building approval process.
5. What counts as an independent section in an HRB and the role of independent section analysis – a developing area that may offer opportunities to de-risk works in commercial and retail units within mixed-use HRBs.

The conclusion was clear: understanding the complex structure of the legislative regime is a prerequisite for navigating it successfully and making the BSA work for as opposed to against you.

Gateway 2 – delays, realities and emerging change

Clare Goggin and Tom Jordan then turned to the practical realities of the Building Safety Regulator’s (BSR) operation.

Although the original timeframe for Gateway 2 decisions was set at 8–12 weeks, this has shifted considerably. Average decisions now sit closer to 36 weeks, with the BSR’s newly appointed non-executive chair suggesting the true position is closer to 48 weeks.

Reasons for the delays include:

• the steep learning curve for the BSR;
• challenges for the BSR in assembling multi-disciplinary assessment teams; and
• an industry still adapting to a highly complex regime.

Encouragingly, reforms are under way. Following the BSR’s transfer to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, measures are being introduced to increase in-house expertise, improve IT systems, create dedicated cladding and remediation teams, and offer account managers for major developers. The sector is also awaiting the findings of the House of Lords inquiry.

Crucially, in July 2025 the BSR published data on the top reasons for rejecting applications, with rejection rates sitting at an extraordinary 70–75%. Understanding these patterns is now essential for anyone preparing a submission.

Why Gateway 2 applications often fail

Clare and Tom summarised the most common pitfalls citing the following as the most common cause of rejection:

• Failure to explain how construction-phase work will be managed.
• Submissions covering only part of the intended works.
• Contraventions of Building Regulations or functional requirements.
• Missing or unclear information, including inadequate surveys.
• Weaknesses in Golden Thread management, change control plans, or mandatory reporting.
• Competency concerns — still cited by the BSR despite assurances it will not “assess” competency.
• Subjectivity in demonstrating compliance with functional requirements.

With such a high rejection rate, the panel emphasised that strong, well-structured, fully evidenced applications are no longer desirable — they are essential.

Building success: Strategies for stronger submissions

1. Start at the feasibility stage

The BSA must be factored into decision-making from the outset. Project teams need to be assembled with organisational capability front and centre: competency must be evidenced, not assumed. Structural and fire engineers will be required to contribute more — and earlier — than they traditionally might.

2. Get consultant appointments right

Iain Benson explained how consultant appointments are evolving. Principal Designers and Principal Contractors now have explicit duties under the new dutyholder regime. Appointments must:

• reflect Golden Thread responsibilities,
• define information management duties,
• set out Gateway deliverables, and
• require coordinated working across all design disciplines.

Updated RIBA and CIC templates help, but bespoke tailoring remains essential.

3. Appoint the right principal designer

Both Clare and Tom were unequivocal: the lead designer — usually the architect — is best placed to act as the Building Regulations Principal Designer. This reduces duplication, eliminates ambiguity, and gives clients a single point of design compliance responsibility.

4. Prepare gateway submissions early — and properly

Key principles included:

• Begin structuring the application and information schedule at Stage 3.
• Base the submission on fully designed Stage 4 information — not 4a.
• Create clear, concise and well-signposted documentation.
• Focus heavily on Parts A (Structure) and B (Fire).
• Avoid recycling material from other projects.
• Consider third-party review of fire, façade and structural design before submission.
• Engage contractors early to ensure specialist design elements are closed out.

Teams unable to demonstrate systematic coordination should expect long delays.

Contracting for uncertainty: Dealing with regulatory delay

Even the best-prepared teams submitting A* applications cannot eliminate the subjectivity and uncertainty inherent in the BSR’s approval process. Iain explained how construction contracts, development agreements and agreements for lease must evolve to reflect this.

Good practice now includes:

• Clarifying whether Gateway delays are Relevant Events under JCT.
• Allowing extensions of time for regulatory delays, while separating these from loss-and-expense claims.
• Ensuring liquidated damages do not apply until Gateway approvals are obtained.
• Adjusting longstop dates in agreements for lease to carve out delays caused solely by the BSR.
• Ensuring responsibility for information readiness sits with the design team, while responsibility for coordination sits with the contractor.
• Aligning completion triggers with the statutory approval process.

The message was clear: contractual documentation must now be as Gateway-ready as the project teams themselves.

De-risking existing buildings: Practical pathways

Tom highlighted several strategies for existing HRBs:

• Confirm whether the works qualify as “Building Work” under the regulations.
• Explore competent-person or self-certification schemes.
• Treat emergency repairs cautiously — they must be genuinely urgent.
• Consider whether the works fall within, or could be moved into, an independent section.
• Future-proof design for potential commercial uses, especially around services such as extract ducts and consider whether it is worth carrying out works to create independent sections to prevent works falling within scope of the enhanced building safety regime in the future.

In a regime where delays are the norm, small strategic decisions can significantly reduce programme impact.

Final tips from the panel

Clare and Tom closed with practical advice:

• Get your compliance statement right — detailed, specific, and unambiguous.
• Make your application easy to navigate; assume the reviewer knows nothing about your project.
• Mandate data environments to maintain the Golden Thread.
• Ensure your Building Regulations tracker clearly identifies ownership of compliance.
• Avoid unnecessary detail — precision beats volume.
• Consider third-party review before submission.
• Expect future reform and stay engaged; industry knowledge-sharing is accelerating.

Iain added that good drafting now involves embedding Gateway compliance schedules in contracts and ensuring cross-referencing between all consultant duties.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that strengthening the BSR’s resources and processes is vital to clearing the current bottleneck. But today’s discussion made one thing clear: industry also plays a critical role in reducing delays. By understanding the legislative framework and submitting robust, coordinated applications, project teams can help their own schemes progress — while contributing to easing the wider backlog.

Patience, clarity and collaboration are now the defining skills of successful project delivery under the BSA, and as we reflect on the insights shared, the message is clear: we must endure the delays, engage with the complexity, and work collectively to turn the Building Safety Act from an obstacle into an opportunity.

If you would like to discuss how the Building Safety Act affects your projects, or to explore further resources, please get in touch with Iain Benson, or visit our dedicated Building Safety Act hub.

Useful links

• The Building Regulations 2010 – Regulation 3
• The Building Regulations 2010 – Schedule 3
• Types of building work:
  • • Competent person scheme – current schemes and how schemes are authorised
• CLC guidance notes:
  • The Building Safety Regime for a new Higher Risk Building (PDF)
  • Building Control Approval Application for a New Higher Risk Building Gateway 2 (PDF)
• Principal Designer BR Services England (PDF) – RICS
• Building control approval for higher-risk buildings:
  • Exempt work – GOV.UK
  • Competent person scheme work – GOV.UK