Submission Strategies – Navigating Gateway 2 Approvals with the Building Safety Regulator

by Jason Foster – Director – enevo Building Safety

If you’ve worked on a high-rise residential project recently, chances are you’ve seen or felt the knock-on effects of the Gateway 2 backlog. Delays are inconvenient enough, but cost overruns, strained relationships, and lots of waiting around, and it gets pretty stressful. The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) also missed its target to clear the queue by April 2025 (Construction Enquirer article April 2025).

As tempting as it might be, let’s avoid finger-pointing. Time is better spent understanding where the pressure points are, and how we can help move things along.

Ultimately the BSR’s task is enormous. Gateway 2 is a major checkpoint under the new regime, designed to make sure buildings meet the right standards before construction starts. That means more scrutiny and that submissions from here on in need to be solid, showing a clear and coordinated route to compliance.

What’s behind the backlog?

Based on recent press articles, hundreds or projects (including dozens of new build high-rise projects) were caught in Gateway 2 limbo. It’s not hard to see why. The system is finding its feet. Alongside this several experienced private building control firms collapsed or stepped back, and there’s a known shortage of registered professionals. On top of that, design complexity is rising.

In an April 2025 interview with BD Online, the BSR admitted it had underestimated just how tough the transition would be, and noted that many applications showed a lack of design expertise. That might be uncomfortable to hear, but it rings true. We’ve seen it ourselves: submissions with great intentions but patchy detail, missing context, or disconnected information.

Where do Gateway 2 submissions go wrong?

The majority of rejection issues seem to come down to Fire Safety – Part B of the Building Regs. Given the intense scrutiny of fire strategy since Grenfell, that’s no surprise. If fire statements aren’t clearly documented, tied to design considerations, and explained clearly it’s going to raise concern.

Part A (Structure) follows close behind – a cause for around one in four rejections. Gaps in structural calculations, vague loading assumptions, or incomplete details on movement joints and cladding all culprits for hold ups.

Then there’s a grab-bag of smaller, recurring issues: Part K (fall protection), Part H (drainage), Part C (moisture), Part L (energy), and Part M (accessibility). On their own, none of these would seem massively impactful. But together they paint a picture of disjointed submissions that lack the level of cohesion now expected.

Doing the basics better

This is where we can all take some responsibility. Every new regime has teething problems – which means there is a chance to improve. Gateway 2 asks us to be more rigorous, and that has to start with quality. Not just polished drawings, but joined-up thinking to accompany them.

Submissions need to tell a clear story. How does the fire strategy shape the layout? Where are accessibility features driving design choices? etc and are all those decisions points properly documented and cross-referenced?

There’s a lot to consider and this is why early involvement of the right expertise makes a huge difference. The enevo Building Safety team is working with clients from the start of projects – guiding on requirments, stress-testing designs, anticipating issues, and producing audit-ready submissions through structured and considered methodologies. Exactly what Gateway 2 now demands.

Once a submission goes in, it’s in.  A single missing calculation or unexplained choice can stall things for weeks. It’s not always a technical fail – it’s often a communication or documentation fail.

Working with the BSR

The regulator, to its credit, is still developing its own internal systems. They’re offering advisory support, they’re listening to industry feedback, and clearly want to improve. We’ve found their pre-app services and ongoing guidance to be helpful when engaged early.

Gateway 2 is still evolving. And smoothing out the process will require all of us, whether consultants, designers, clients, or the regulator themselves to work together.

The road ahead

The BSR backlog is clearly not going to vanish overnight. But we can avoid adding to it. That means being realistic about what’s needed, being honest about where help is required, and raising our submission game.

The BSR isn’t the enemy. It’s a new system tackling a big task. But if we’re serious about safer buildings, we need to be serious about better applications.

Do you have a Gateway 2 submission in the pipeline? Or working through early design decisions? Need help to ensure you have the best chance of approval first time? enevo’s Building Safety team is here to help you – get in touch with us today.