New industry guidance – consideration of the Building Control Approval Application for a new Higher-Risk Building (Gateway 2) Guidance Suite

The Construction Leadership Council (CLC), in collaboration with the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) and wider industry stakeholders, has recently (July 2025) published a comprehensive Guidance Suite to support applicants through the Building Control Approval Application process for new Higher-Risk Buildings (HRBs) at Gateway 2.

This is somewhat of a milestone for the construction sector and represents a step forward in promoting building safety, clarity, and best practice.

What is Gateway 2? Under the enhanced Building Safety Regime introduced post-Grenfell, all new HRBs in England must pass through three distinct “gateways”, with Gateway 2 being the critical check before construction can begin. At this stage, applicants must submit detailed information demonstrating how the proposed design and construction will meet the functional safety requirements of the Building Regulations.

What’s in the new Guidance Suite document? The CLC’s Guidance Suite serves as a practical roadmap for the preparation and submission of Gateway 2 applications, stating that, “This guidance may go further than the minimum you need to do to comply with the law with regard to building safety.

Key aspects in the document include:

1. Sufficient level of design – Applicants must submit a comprehensive and robust set of design details. The submission needs to clearly show how all functional requirements of the Building Regulations will be met in detail, demonstrating logical, joined-up thinking and allowing the BSR to confidently assess both compliance and the safety of future occupants. Flexibility remains for evolving elements, but the baseline demands clarity and completeness.
2. Approval with requirements – Reflecting the reality and complexities of major projects, the guidance introduces “Approval with Requirements”. This mechanism enables the BSR to grant approval even if some design aspects are incomplete, as long as the applicant presents a thorough, practical, and sensible plan for resolving the outstanding items. The applicant remains legally responsible for submitting the final detailed designs for these elements, and no building work can commence on a specific area unless its design is fully approved.
3. Application information schedule – A practical tool recommended in the guidance is the “Application Information Schedule”, which outlines all design documentation being submitted. This structured schedule streamlines navigation for assessors, highlights where “Approval with Requirements” applies, and aims to bring transparency around compliance evidence and responsibility.
4. Project brief and document management – The guidance highlights the importance of a clear, well-structured Project Brief that summarises the development’s core features and complexities, defines the project team, and outlines the programme of work. Document management best practices are also outlined, advising on folder structures, naming conventions, and the submission process via the BSR’s online portal to support efficient review and resource allocation.
5. Strategies for complex or multi-building projects – For larger or phased developments, the guidance encourages early engagement with the BSR and submission of an overarching Application Strategy. This allows for effective collaboration and resource planning, reduces delays, and enhances project transparency.

Why does this document matter, and does it answer all questions?

It is fair to say that the Guidance Suite goes “…further than the minimum you need to do…”, sharing lessons learned from the past and championing a culture of accountability, best practice, and continuous improvement in HRB construction projects. It’s a much-needed attempt to set consistent standards and is a useful tool for applicants, designers, contractors, and regulators, supporting clear communication and upholding the highest standards of safety from the outset.

That said, there are still several aspects that continue to generate questions within the construction industry:

Interpretation and consistency of “Sufficient Level of Design” – The guidance outlines what a “sufficient level of design” should demonstrate, but industry feedback still indicates ongoing uncertainty from clients about how much detail is required for acceptance at Gateway 2. There are varied expectations among project teams and regulators regarding which elements can be left as “Approval with Requirements” and which require further clarity. Some organisations could now start overcompensating with excessive information to try and avoid delays (but may ultimately start adding costs and unnecessary administrative time).

Approval with Requirements – Some questions remain over what constitutes a ‘minor omission’ compared to a ‘design detail’ that could prove substantial enough to delay approval, and to what extent ‘Approval with Requirements’ can be relied upon for larger or more complex projects. There is also still potential for varied interpretations, potentially leading to inconsistent outcomes for projects of similar scope.

Competence declarations and Golden Thread management – Evidencing ‘competence’, especially for clients and designers new to the HRB regime, remains a challenge. The required level of detail for competence records is frequently a point of discussion in our engagements with clients. In additions, implementing a robust “Golden Thread” of digital information across project lifecycles needs significant technical and organisational adaptation, with ongoing considerations around data interoperability, long-term access, and responsibility for data maintenance after project handover/close.

Change management and notification processes – The difference between a ‘major’ and ‘notifiable’ change is not always clear-cut. Clients might still therefore have worries about falling foul of notification rules or inadvertently causing work stoppages due to innocent misclassification.

Early engagement – This has been a theme in multiple recent articles, and its fair to say that early engagement with the BSR remains preferable. However, there is no firm guidance on how early or frequently this should take place for multi-phase or complex sites, or what minimum information is required to support meaningful discussions. Both industry and regulator may face challenges ensuring there are enough trained case officers and MDT members available for valuable early engagement, which could limit the effectiveness of any consultations.

Application strategies for complex and multi-building sites – The practicalities of submitting and tracking multiple related applications for a site (e.g. phased development or mixed-use schemes) are not yet comprehensively addressed, still leaving clients to develop their own systems (risking errors or inconsistent cross-referencing).

While the CLC guidance provides a helpful framework, feedback and real-world experience suggest there is still a need for more clarity and sector-wide learning or case study sharing as the first round of Gateway 2 projects are processed. This will only improve through transparent and constructive ongoing feedback loops between practitioners and the regulator as implementation develops.

At enevo, we are committed to staying aligned and abreast of regulatory changes and translating that into real world guidance and support that helps clients implement sensible, practical steps to deliver their projects on time and to budget while adhering to the latest industry best practice.

If you need help and support in delivering your next project in the evolving landscape of building safety and compliance, call us to see what bespoke assistance we can offer or visit https://enevo.co.uk/expertise-category/building-regulations-consultancy/ to read more about our Building Safety services.