The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) recently published an update about their accelerated building control application processes and increased decisions at Gateway 2, resulting from their new operational changes, alongside some important clarifications about what information to include at Gateway 3.

The Gateway 2 update covered how the accelerated process increased decisions by 111%, while the newly established Innovation Unit, has reportedly progressed the majority of its new build applications by or before the 12-week target. A new batching process was also launched during September, acknowledging that the original Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) model was not effective for managing the volume of cases. More information relating to this update can be found here.

While the above gateway 2 update saw great coverage across trade magazines, the Gateway 3 update is equally, if not more important.

The Gateway 3 update entails:

• What is Gateway 3?

• What developers must provide – as evidence supporting the completion certificate application

• Why Gateway 3 matters

• Early experience and learning

• Issues that have slowed applications down

• Working with BSR during construction

• A cultural shift in building safety

A critical piece of clarification in the update is that developers must provide as-built drawings as part of the evidence supporting the completion certificate application. This is to prevent discrepancies between drawings and site reality, as the as-built information is not matching installed systems or materials. Not providing these as-built drawings, has been one of the factors slowing down the completion certification application process.

While this is a welcome clarification about what information should be provided, APS will engage with the Regulator to get more clarity on who must provide the information. At Gateway 3, designers are often no longer involved, or no longer have control over the work, while they are the ones that would typically provide drawings. The Building Regulations England 2010 (As amended) point to the client as the responsible person, which does not necessarily mean the developer, the named party in the update. This requirement will need to be covered in contracts and suitable arrangements, providing clarity about who will deliver against this information requirement in practice.

APS will seek to get more information about who is understood to be the ‘developer’, in the meantime, the update can be found here.