Building Safety Act Knowledge Base: What’s Different About Applying for Building Regulations Under the Gateway Regime?
How Building Control Changed After the Building Safety Act
For decades, applying for Building Regulations approval in England followed a familiar route.
- Design the scheme.
- Appoint Building Control.
- Submit drawings.
- Resolve comments during construction.
The Building Safety Act has fundamentally changed that process for Higher-Risk Buildings (HRBs).
If you delivered residential towers before Grenfell, the difference is not subtle.
It is structural.
This article explains what has changed — and why. If you want a broader overview of the HRB regime, start here: High Risk Building Hub.
About the editor
Before the Building Safety Act: A Flexible Building Control Process
Under the previous regime:
- Developers could appoint either Local Authority Building Control or an Approved Inspector.
- Design information was often developed progressively.
- Building Control comments were resolved during construction.
- Construction could begin before all details were fully coordinated.
- Regulatory risk largely sat within the project team.
There was scrutiny, but there was also flexibility.
The system allowed design evolution during delivery.
After the Building Safety Act: A Regulated Gateway Process
For Higher-Risk Buildings, Building Control is now delivered by the Building Safety Regulator (BSR).
And the process is no longer continuous and flexible.
It is staged and approval-led.
The key shift is this:
You cannot start construction until Gateway 2 approval is granted.
Gateway 2 requires a full technical submission before works commence.
No approval. No start on site.
For a real example of how Gateway 2 packages are structured in practice, see: Submission for Gateway 2 in Knightsbridge (Listed Building).
The Biggest Structural Changes
1. The Regulator Is No Longer Chosen by the Developer
For HRBs, the BSR acts as the Building Control Authority.
There is no ability to appoint a private Approved Inspector.
This removes competitive appointment dynamics and introduces direct regulatory oversight.
2. Design Must Be Technically Resolved Before Construction
Under the old system, design development during construction was common.
Under Gateway 2:
- Fire strategy must be fixed.
- Structural strategy must be coordinated.
- Means of escape must be fully justified.
- Key life safety systems must be defined.
- The submission must demonstrate compliance before construction begins.
The tolerance for “design to follow” has effectively disappeared.
This is one of the reasons contract strategy and programme allowances matter more than ever. If you’re aligning procurement and risk, read: Construction Contracts and What to Think About.
3. Dutyholder Competence Is Scrutinised
Previously, Building Control primarily assessed the building.
Now, the regulator assesses the people.
Gateway 2 requires confirmation of:
- Client duties
- Principal Designer appointment
- Principal Contractor appointment
- Competence declarations
This introduces personal and corporate accountability.
4. The Golden Thread Is Mandatory
Information management is no longer informal.
The submission must demonstrate:
- Structured digital information
- Clear document control
- Defined change control procedures
- Traceable compliance evidence
This is a major cultural shift for many project teams.
5. Change Control Is Regulated During Construction
Under the previous regime, design changes during construction were common and often informal.
Under the Gateway regime:
- Major changes require BSR approval.
- Notifiable changes must be formally recorded.
- Construction cannot proceed on unapproved major revisions.
This significantly reduces design fluidity once works commence.
What Hasn’t Changed?
The technical standards themselves — Approved Documents, British Standards, fire and structural principles — largely remain.
What has changed is:
- Timing of scrutiny
- Depth of interrogation
- Formality of process
- Accountability of dutyholders
The regime shifts risk earlier in the programme.
For context on how the post-Grenfell landscape has changed expectations, you may also find this relevant: Roots, Renewal & Resilience.
The Commercial Implication
The old Building Regulations route allowed risk to be managed progressively.
The Gateway regime forces resolution upfront.
This means:
- More detailed pre-construction design
- Greater consultant coordination
- Longer pre-start periods
- Increased information management discipline
- Reduced tolerance for ambiguity
For experienced developers, the key realisation is this:
Gateway 2 is not a submission exercise.
It is a pre-construction regulatory audit.
Frequently asked questions
The following questions and answers summarise common queries relating to this topic.
Why This Matters for Developers and Contractors
Schemes that were programmed on historic assumptions — eight-week approvals and design development during build — are often now misaligned with reality.
Higher-Risk Buildings require:
- Early fire strategy integration
- Clear dutyholder structures
- Strong Principal Designer leadership
- Realistic programme allowances
The regulatory culture has changed.
And successful projects are adapting accordingly.
If you are transitioning from pre-Building Safety Act delivery models to the Gateway regime, early strategy alignment is critical.
The difference is not procedural.
It is systemic.
If you want to discuss a live HRB scheme or a Gateway 2 strategy, contact: hello@follyarchitects.com or visit: Contact.
Contact us
If you would like to discuss a project, clarify regulatory requirements, or understand how our experience may be relevant to your work, you are welcome to get in touch.
