Navigating the BSR Gateway Regime
Neil Watts, Lead of the National Housing Maintenance Forum’s Working Group on Building and Fire Safety, examines the latest developments as the Building Safety Regulator becomes a standalone body, and sets out what the changes mean for housing associations and councils managing higher-risk buildings.
The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) is now a standalone organisation, as an arm’s-length body under the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). This represents a landmark moment for the built environment as a key recommendation of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. For housing providers, it is also a signal that the pace and rigour of regulatory oversight is not diminishing. If anything, it is increasing.
The NHMF Building and Fire Safety Working Group has been attending BSR meetings and tracking these developments closely. This article sets out what the Gateway regime requires, where the regulator currently stands, and what housing providers should be doing in response.
WHAT HOUSING PROVIDERS NEED TO KNOW
The National Housing Maintenance Forum’s (NHMF) role is to promote best practice in the social housing maintenance sector, and the Building and Fire Safety Working Group wants to highlight how the BSR Gateway regime will continue to reshape how providers approach development, refurbishment and building management. The three Gateways embody a fundamental shift towards accountability, transparency and safety being built into the design and construction process from the very start.
The Building Safety Act 2022 introduced three mandatory decision points for higher-risk buildings (HRBs), defined as those 18 metres or seven storeys or more in height, containing at least two residential units or qualifying care facilities. These are legal hard stops: a project cannot proceed to the next stage without explicit BSR approval.
Gateway 1 requires a Fire Statement before planning permission is granted, ensuring fire safety principles are embedded from the earliest design phase.
Gateway 2 is the construction start checkpoint, where no building work can begin without the BSR approving a detailed submission covering fire and structural safety documentation, competence declarations for dutyholders, construction control, change-control plans and a building regulations compliance statement.
Gateway 3 is the completion certificate stage, where the BSR must be satisfied that the building as built matches the design that was approved, and the building’s documentation is compliant with the golden thread principle before any residents can legally occupy the building.
THE SCALE OF THE CHALLENGE
The BSR reports that the significant Gateway 2 backlog experienced in 2024 and early 2025 has now been reduced to around 20 complex cases. These are described by the regulator as the “difficult to sort out” category, and the BSR is working to nurse them through without compromising on design standards. Critically, the regulator has been explicit: it will not approve sub-standard design, regardless of how long a case has been outstanding.
A pragmatic and important development has been the increased use of Approval with Requirements (AWR). Rather than an outright rejection where elements of a submission remain incomplete, the BSR is now approving discrete components, such as below-ground or foundation design, while attaching conditions to the remaining elements. This keeps projects moving and allows enabling works to begin without requiring the full superstructure design to be finalised. It is a practical shift that housing providers with stalled schemes should be aware of and actively pursuing.
On Gateway 3, only 16 buildings (new-build and refurbishment schemes) have been approved, . This low volume is expected, given that projects commencing under the new regime are only now reaching completion. The BSR is treating these early cases as a learning exercise and is actively working with the Construction Leadership Council (CLC) to identify lessons that can be shared across the sector. This is an area where housing providers with schemes approaching completion have a genuine opportunity to engage early and contribute to shaping a smoother process for others and for their own future projects.
IMPLEMENTATION HURDLES
The practical challenges for housing providers extend well beyond the construction phase. The BSR has confirmed that it plans to call in thousands of existing occupied buildings to apply for Building Assessment Certificates (BACs). This legal requirement has been in force for some time but has not been enforced at scale. The regulator’s approach will be risk-based, prioritising buildings with poor management histories or known safety concerns rather than issuing a blanket simultaneous call-out. However, housing providers should not wait to be contacted. Those who are known as good managers may find themselves lower down the priority list, but that is no reason to delay getting Safety Case Reports in order. Link to NHMF Building safety section
Regarding remediation, the BSR acknowledges that its handling of remediation cases was previously misaligned with Homes England and associated funding streams, and a new plan is to be published shortly. With 280 active remediation cases, the intention is to ensure that urgent works, principally cladding removal and structural fire safety improvements, do not become stuck in the same queue as new build Gateway 2 applications. The BSR is clear that this is a resourcing challenge rather than a cultural one, and it has a plan to address capacity.
A further concern raised at recent BSR discussions is the risk of competing regulations creating unintended consequences. Awaab’s Law was specifically mentioned as an example where design solutions intended to address one regulatory requirement could inadvertently create a problem in another area. The message for housing providers is that submissions must demonstrate joined-up thinking across all relevant frameworks, and that solving one compliance problem, for example, in the area of ventilation at the cost of creating another in building and fire safety, is not acceptable to the regulator.
BEST PRACTICE EMERGING FROM HARD LESSONS
Since the Gateway regime came into force, the sector has learned a great deal about what the BSR expects and where submissions most commonly fall short. Over 40% of Gateway 2 applications have been invalidated due to missing or inadequate information. Typical failings include incomplete fire strategies, insufficient structural justification and missing competence declarations and submissions, where different professional disciplines have worked in isolation, rather than producing a coordinated and consistent package.
One approach the BSR rejects is the tendency for some submissions to rely on future management controls to satisfy building regulations, rather than demonstrating that the design itself is inherently safe. Safety must be designed in, not managed around afterwards . Providers commissioning development or major refurbishment should be asking their design teams hard questions about how they are evidencing compliance, not simply assuming that a completed submission will pass.
Forward-looking organisations are also recognising the value of early engagement with the regulator. The BSR has expressed a desire to understand the development pipelines of key sector organisations. This is an opportunity to build a constructive working relationship and to signal a genuine commitment to early compliance, rather than presenting the regulator with a completed submission and hoping for the best.
THE OPPORTUNITY
Despite the complexity of the Gateway regime, it offers housing providers a genuine opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to resident safety in a way that is measurable, transparent and defensible. Those who invest in robust Safety Case documentation, strong change-control processes and competent multidisciplinary teams will not only achieve smoother regulatory outcomes but will also build the kind of organisational capability that serves them well for the long term.
The BSR’s move to standalone status is a statement of intent that building safety in England will be resourced, prioritised and enforced with greater consistency than before. The regulator has been clear that applicants, clients and principal contractors will be held accountable, and that responsibility cannot be divested down the supply chain. Housing providers must ensure their contractual frameworks reflect this reality.
As the BSR’s plans for BAC call-ins, the remediation plan and the rationalisation of Cat A (major structural/fire safety changes) and Cat B (minor/fit-out) works comes into sharper focus in the months ahead, the NHMF Building and Fire Safety Working Group will continue to monitor developments and share practical guidance with members. The key is to treat this not as a bureaucratic burden but as a framework that, done properly, makes buildings safer and organisations stronger.
To keep up to date with this issue, visit the Best Practice page of the NHMF website and browse by topic to Building and Fire Safety. You will find the latest regulatory updates, our explanations of them and guidance on how to approach them.
WORKING FOR EVERYONE TO CREATE A BETTER SOCIAL HOUSING
We're called Working Groups because that's precisely what we're doing (working, not just talking and meeting). If you'd like to join us working on behalf of creating a better social housing landscape, consider becoming a member of one of the areas our Working Groups cover: Procurement, Healthy Homes, Building & Fire Safety, Net Zero, Technology, Training, Skills & Culture or HAMMAR regional
Please contact: rhiannon.blower@m3h.co.uk
