From bottleneck to breakthrough – is 2026 the year of the BSA fix?

The BSR has faced consistent criticism for failing to approve applications within the timeframes set out in the legislative framework. The bottleneck has been most apparent at Gateway 2 with average decisions last year taking closer to 36 weeks (almost three times longer than the indicative timeframe provides for).

Reasons cited for these delays include:

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

Of particular note is the fact that timeframes for approvals vary across the country. There is a stream of projects that appear to be obtaining Gateway 2 approval within 12-15 weeks but there are others that drift into 30–48-week territory. Whilst it has been hard to ascertain the reason for such divergence, the following actions have been identified as key in smoothing the process:

• Involve compliance and safety experts during RIBA Stages 1 to 3.
• Assign a team member to manage the relationship with the BSR throughout the approval process.
• Ensure that the application is accompanied by proper and complete documents at the outset (including consistency within the document package, no gaps or missing information or incorrect information, no design changes, settled change control plans etc.). This enables a reviewer to progress through the technical analysis without having to start again or seek resubmission.
• Define precisely what the application covers, what is excluded, what is defined as the HRB and the methodology behind such analysis.
• Define roles and responsibilities clearly – an organogram or map showing who the responsible duty holders are and who is responsible for compliance decisions can be particularly a useful aid.
• Include a careful index or schedule of the information contained in the works package. This facilitates a validation process that involves navigating through a clearly defined document bundle rather than having to search for what is needed.
• Demonstrate how the construction project will be delivered in a compliant manner (show how the project will be built, supervised and verified), whether that be indications of hold points, record keeping, change control protocols, or testing strategy.
• Sense check the package by an internal validation team before submission.
• Treat and plan for the Completion Certificate at Gateway 3 as a compliance milestone, not a project afterthought.

Although there is less data on Gateway 3, freedom of information requests have indicated that approximately one third of applications are taking more than 3 months to process.

Similar reasons for delay are cited including poor quality of documentation retention, missing documents or incomplete information, lack of installation evidence and missing fire stopping sign offs or compartmentation records.

For those making these applications, controlling the controllables is the key – this essentially boils down to submitting good quality, complete and consistent applications that are easy to navigate and ensuring regular dialogue with the BSR to help them to help you!

On 27 January 2026, the same day the BSR became a standalone body, the BSR released data demonstrating that the waiting time for Gateway 2 approval was significantly reduced to approximately 13 weeks, not too far removed from the statutory timeframe of 12 weeks. It also reported a continued rise in Gateway 2 determinations, with a record number in the last quarter of 2025, equating to approximately a 250% increase in decisions.

Attention is now inevitably turning to delays at Gateway 3 as more and more projects move through the gateway process.  Only time will tell whether the government can perform the same turnaround on Gateway 3 approvals.

The BSR are however the first to recognise that whilst things are moving in the right direction there remains much work to be done.  On 31 March 2026, it published its strategic plan for 2026 to 2027.  The plan sets out five key priorities for the year ahead, which include:

• Priority 1: Continuing to improve operations and processes 
• Priority 2: Remediation to increase remediation activity
• Priority 3: Building phase and Gateway 3 focus to facilitate faster Gateway 3 application assessments as well as feedback on rejected applications
• Priority 4: Keeping the safety of people and the standard of buildings under review
• Priority 5: Improving professional standards across industry

Furthermore, these recent and current consultations below all evidence the fact that the government recognises that collaboration is key and that the industry has a significant role to play in shaping the wider regulatory landscape to ensure a proportional approach to building safety.

• Improving proportionality and safety outcomes in building control: telecommunications work – GOV.UK which closed on 24 March 2026 sought views on proposals to streamline the building control procedural requirements for fibre optic cabling and mobile masts within the HRB regime.

• Proportionality in building control: categorisation of higher-risk building work – GOV.UK which closed on 28 May 2026 sought views on how to improve the proportionality of the building control process for Category A and Category B building work to existing buildings under the HRB regime as well as how guidance could be improved and the role of Competent Persons Schemes in Category B works.

• Review of Approved Document B: Fire safety – GOV.UK which closes on 1 July 2026 seeks views on proposed changes to Approved Document B: Fire safety (ADB). These would clarify and update the guidance, revise the rules on combustible materials in external walls and attachments, and introduce a new requirement for evacuation lifts.

The consultation that looks at re-categorising HRB work – essentially moving away from the current ‘one size fits all’ treatment of HRB works – is of particular interest to industry stakeholders and derives from a place of BSR self-interest given that it has received around five times the expected number of category A applications. This has been one of the main cause of delays for both residents and the BSR and of course impacts upon the delivery of new homes and completion works to make existing homes safe.

In essence, the government have proposed two options, to narrow the legal definition of category A works so that certain lower‑risk activities – most notably works within individual residential units (Option 1) and limited works to communal areas (Option 2) – would no longer trigger the most onerous documentation requirements under the HRB regime.

These two options are not mutually exclusive, and the government proposes implementing both subject to the responses to the consultation.

Option 1: excluding most works within individual flats from Category A for example:

• Movement or removal of non-load bearing walls within a flat
• Building work to windows
• Modifications to kitchens or bathrooms

Works within a flat would remain Category A where they could have wider safety impacts, for example if they:

• affect active fire safety measures (like fire alarms)
• affect load‑bearing walls in the flat
• affect external walls (excluding windows), or
• involve work to fire doors that connect the flat to communal areas (subject to Option 2, below).

Option 2: excluding small‑scale works in communal areas from Category A for example:

• Electrical work to install new emergency lighting in a communal hallway
• Work to repair a single fire door in a communal area
• Work to repair a window frame in a communal area

To qualify as “small‑scale” though, the work would need to meet all of the following criteria:

• It can typically be carried out by a team of no more than three people
• It can typically be completed within five working days (40 hours), and
• It does not impact active fire safety systems (like sprinklers), load‑bearing walls, or external walls (excluding windows).

Interestingly not only does this consultation propose a framework for re-categorising works but it also:

• recognises the need for support and guidance for applicants in identifying whether works are actually Category A or Category B works;
• asks whether there are any types of building work that could fall within the scope a Competent Person Scheme in the future for Category B works; and
• raises the question as to whether works inside flats and small‑scale works should, in the longer-term, be removed from the higher-risk regime entirely and overseen by other building control bodies outside the BSR.

This consultation is a clear indication of the direction of travel however somewhat frustratingly the current consultation does not touch upon works to commercial units in mixed use HRBs. This means that for the time being independent section analysis when carrying out works to commercial parts in a mixed HRB remains key.

The scale of change required following the enactment of the BSA has been unprecedented and it has been a sharp learning curve for all those involved.

MHCLG’s recent structural and operational reforms to improve efficiency and restore confidence appear to be successful in reducing bottlenecks, but continued scrutiny and collaboration will be key to ensuring the BSR meets its mandate.

While legislative and regulatory developments form the foundation of the new building safety regime, the question of whether the post-Grenfell framework can provide an efficient and practical solution for managing building safety going forward will turn on the success of the structural and operational changes within the BSR and the quality of the guidance made available to stakeholders to assist them in navigating the new regime.