Gateway 2, three years on: lessons from enevo’s Manchester panel

Chaired by Rachael Cunliffe, the panel featured Nick Mullins, Helen Gribbon, George Howman, Lee Houston and enevo’s Jason Foster. Questions and contributions from the audience added to the discussion, with people sharing their own experiences of navigating the process.

The conversation covered the work involved in preparing submissions, the difficulties caused by uncertain timescales and the importance of keeping accurate information throughout construction. Across these topics, the panel shared practical examples of what teams are learning and changing.

Bringing specialists into the design process

Early engagement was a recurring theme, particularly when it came to specialist and supply-chain information.

Helen explained how consultants depend on this input to develop coordinated design details. George described the contractor’s experience of identifying gaps in consultant scopes and establishing what further expertise a project needs.

Both contributions highlighted the importance of agreeing who will provide the information needed for a submission, and when it will be available.

Lee described the pressure created when specialist information arrives shortly before the submission date. This leaves teams with limited time to check how it fits with the wider design and resolve any issues.

He also challenged the idea that every project needs the same preparation period. The time required depends on the complexity of the scheme, how it is procured and when specialists are appointed.

Nick’s developer perspective showed how these decisions affect the wider project. He spoke about selecting the right consultant team and allowing for uncertainty in both time and budget. His experience linked the detail of project preparation with the challenges of securing funding and planning delivery.

Making submissions clear and easy to follow

The discussion then turned to how teams present their designs and supporting evidence.

Lee explained that assessors encounter a project without the knowledge a design team has built up over months or years. Clear folder structures, useful signposting and easy access to key technical information can help them understand the proposals.

Helen described the frustration of being asked for information that the team believed it had already clearly identified. Her experience showed why teams need to consider how easily someone unfamiliar with the scheme can find and follow the evidence.

Jason added the importance of a Building Regulations compliance statement that connects the design information and explains the route to compliance.

Together, these points highlighted a practical part of submission preparation: checking that drawings, reports and specifications explain how the design works as a whole.

The panel also discussed the value of direct conversations with assessment teams. Lee and Jason described meetings that had helped explain schemes and show where relevant information could be found, while noting that their experiences of engagement had varied.

Planning for what happens after approval

Although Gateway 2 was the focus of the evening, the discussion also looked ahead to construction, Gateway 3 and occupation.

George spoke about the work involved in keeping accurate records of design development and changes during construction. He described the time needed to address issues when changes had not been properly identified or recorded.

Helen discussed how change control encourages teams and clients to consider the consequences of a proposed change before proceeding. Once work is underway, those decisions can affect cost, programme and parts of the building already completed.

Jason connected this with the golden thread and the importance of keeping building safety information accessible, connected and up to date.

These contributions showed how decisions made during design continue to affect a project through construction and into occupation. They also highlighted the need to plan how information will be maintained and passed to those responsible for managing the completed building.

Addressing uncertainty and sharing experience

Alongside the practical lessons, panellists spoke openly about challenges with the assessment process.

They described differing assessment approaches, changes within assessment teams and uncertainty over timescales. Nick explained how that uncertainty affects development decisions, while Helen and Lee raised concerns about the potential effect on design innovation.

These were individual project experiences, but they helped explain why consistency and clear communication mattered so much to those taking part.

Lee called for more knowledge sharing across the industry. He encouraged teams to discuss what is working, share recurring difficulties and feed their experiences back to the regulator.

For us at enevo, this was a valuable part of the evening. Hearing different perspectives together showed how closely design coordination, submission quality, funding and construction records are linked.

The discussion reinforced the importance of involving the right people early, presenting evidence clearly and planning beyond the application itself. It also gave us a fuller understanding of the pressures facing different members of a project team.