With Gateway 2 in the rearview mirror for an increasing number of projects, it is essential to shift focus to Gateway 3, and the challenges that this poses to clients, design teams and contractors alike.

Before new higher-risk buildings of a residential nature can be occupied, they must be registered as higher-risk buildings. This registration process requires a valid Completion Certificate from the Building Safety Regulator (BSR), granted only after a compliant Gateway 3 application is submitted at the end of the construction phase. Occupying a new higher risk building prior to registration constitutes an offence.

This Gateway 3 submission must demonstrate how the Building Regulations have been met and how changes from the Gateway 2 submission, if any, have been controlled, engineered, and documented.

Whilst a completion process was also relevant to the previous Building Control regime, the requirements are now more exacting and extensive, not to mention the uncertainty surrounding some of the requirements and processes, and general concern related to timescales for responses.

It is fair to say that the industry can expect greater scrutiny from the Regulator, in a similar fashion to what we have been seeing throughout the Gateway 2 process. With the stakes so high, and the uncertainty around the waiting times for approvals, it is essential to manage and record construction works clearly and effectively throughout the entire construction process to allow a smooth Gateway 3 submission and approval.

Recording and Managing Change

Historically, changes to the design were an accepted and normal part of the construction stage, with various work packages continuing to be designed and coordinated as construction proceeds, to streamline timescales, but sometimes at the expense of quality and best practice design. The Building Safety Act aims to fundamentally change this approach.

Duty holders are now responsible for identifying and documenting any deviations from the approved Gateway 2 design, justifying their necessity and demonstrate how the details still comply. Depending on the nature of the change, it may need to be submitted to the BSR for approval or notification.

As the current building safety approval regime is specifically designed to avoid ad[1]hoc design changes on site, any process to get major changes approved can be lengthy, intensive and disruptive to the overall construction programme.

Major changes will require the works associated with that change to stop and not resume before the changes are approved. It is therefore essential to develop a robust and complete Gateway 2 design, as well as engage a competent design team to support the change-process during construction.

All documentation previously issued as part of the Gateway 2 submission is required to be kept up to date and recorded as part of the “Golden Thread” statutory requirement. This record must include evidence to demonstrate that all safety requirements have been considered and met. The Client, Principal Designer and Principal Contractor are responsible for establishing and maintaining this process. In practice, this will require a continual updating of the Gateway 2 information whilst also including new design and material submissions that had not been part of the original submission.

Types of Change

The Building Safety Act classifies any changes from the Gateway 2 submission as Major, Notifiable or Recordable, depending on the nature of the change.

“Major changes” are the most disruptive to the procurement and construction process. Such changes require the works affected by the change to stop, and not to resume until this change is approved by the Building Safety Regulator. A justification for the change needs to be prepared by the design team, and this needs to be submitted and approved by the BSR, which is likely to slow down that portion of works by at least 6 weeks, on the assumption that an agile design team is on-board and can quickly produce the relevant documentation required and submit to the BSR.

Importantly, a “Major change” includes modifications that may not have been normally thought of as significant in the past.

The term “Major” is referring to the consequence should the “change” lead to a failure, rather than on the extent or visibility of the change. For example, changing the size of a primary structural beam and changing the type of wall tie used in cavity wall construction are both considered as Major changes, requiring the same approval process.

The Act provides several examples of Major changes, a small selection of these is listed below.

• replacement of materials with ones having an inferior fire classification,
• changes to active and passive fire safety measures,
• changes to secondary structural elements, such as wall ties and support systems in external walls, etc

“Notifiable changes” also require a submission to the BSR but works can continue on-site. However, with each notifiable change submitted to the BSR comes the possibility of further interrogation of the change, and possible rejections by the BSR. Invariably, this could significantly affect the program of works and may also result in expensive remediation works on[1]site if the construction work had progressed significantly. An example of a “notifiable change” provided in the Act includes a change from the originally proposed product to another product of equivalent or superior reaction to fire.

Any other changes that are not defined as “Major” or “Notifiable” are classed as “Recordable changes” which need to be documented as part of the Golden Thread, the overarching process of managing and recording decisions and changes to the design, to be submitted at the end of the process as part of the Gateway 3 submission.

The Regulations also require that if the project has more than one “major” or “notifiable” change, these will each require their own individual submission to the BSR. Changes cannot be grouped or lumped together unless they are intrinsically related. As such, most changes will require preparation of their own individual submission, and subsequent re-approval via the BSR on an individual basis, a process that requires significant added work for the designers involved and fraught with risks. These requirements emphasise the need for a well-engineered Gateway 2 submission to help ensure a smooth transition to Gateway 3.

Inspection and Mandatory Occurrence Reporting

The inspection of the works needs to be carried out in line with the documentation and methodologies submitted as part of Gateway 2, specifically the Construction Control Plan. This document should set out the frequency and scope of inspection as part of the Gateway 2 submission and should then be adhered to during the construction phase. Changes to the plan should be reported to the BSR as part of the change-control process.

Inspections would be carried out by the duty holders, such as Principal Contractor, Sub-Contractors, Principal Designer and the rest of the Designers. In addition, the BSR team may also conduct independent inspections.

The duty holders are bound by the Mandatory Occurrence Reporting system which requires deficiencies in the works relating to structural integrity and fire performance that may, if not adequately addressed, present a risk of a significant number of deaths or serious injuries, to be formally reported to the BSR within set timeframes. This applies to works inspected on-site, but also to design work carried out after the Gateway 2 submission.

This is a seismic change that redefines the relationships between Clients, Designers, Main Contractors and Sub-Contractors. Effective and successful construction projects will increasingly rely on close collaboration, competence and the need for all parties to focus on delivering compliant best practice designs and workmanship. The key take away is clear: competence of leadership, designers and operatives, and the focus on getting it right first time, prior to regulatory scrutiny and inspection.

Smooth Transition

The evolving legislative landscape presents new challenges for the construction industry, with considerable risks involved.

Delays in obtaining the completion certificate can result in extended occupancy delays, leaving buildings vacant for an indefinite period. This not only affects developers but also causes uncertainty for tenants, who may face complications with mortgages, cancellation of tenancy agreements, and indefinite move-in delays. What should be a milestone in one’s life can quickly transform into a stressful ordeal.

With its extensive experience in collaborative projects and multidisciplinary services, Wintech is committed to working with the Building Safety Regulator, Clients, Designers and Contractors by staying informed about industry developments, sharing insights, and most importantly, supporting clients in achieving their objectives by providing support across multiple engineering disciplines, with the aim of achieving a smooth transition through all Building Safety Act Gateways.