Sheppard Robson’s Adrian Tanner on why staging may open a BSR gateway

The new building control regime for higher-risk buildings implemented in response to Dame Judith Hackitt’s ‘Building a Safer Future’ report has led to upheaval across almost every aspect of the design and development process for tall residential projects.

There is widespread support for improvements in the interests of building safety, but there is no escaping the challenges that still need to be tackled to improve the system. Put simply, we all agree on the destination we want to reach, but need more flexibility in how we get there.

The situation is evolving rapidly, with new reports and guidance being published regularly. However, I wanted to focus on one aspect that I think could help us mitigate some of the current challenges: staged applications. While this is not a complete solution, it could unlock significant change to how projects progress.

Staged applications are not a complete solution, but could unlock significant change

The recent House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee report, which examines the work of the BSR, has cast a spotlight on the “unacceptable” delays in gateway 2 building control decisions that stretch far beyond the regulator’s statutory timelines.

The report supports the BSR’s decision to change aspects of the gateway 2 approval process, which have the potential to transform what has frequently been a difficult, time-consuming and unpredictable journey. Previously, staged approvals could be made building by building for complex projects with multiple elements, such as multiple towers (or blocks) on a shared podium or basement. But the BSR expects that plans for any given block in a stage would be submitted as a full application, including complete details on all aspects of the design necessary to demonstrate compliance.

However, recent BSR and Construction Leadership Council guidance provides clarification on how the idea of staging has been reinterpreted, allowing single buildings, or complex buildings with shared basements or foundations, to be broken down into two elements. The first could include the foundations, ground-floor slab or basement for a building, while the second could relate to everything above the substructure.

Splitting the approval process

This alone will not unlock the gateway bottleneck and eliminate delays. However, it provides clients, contractors and consultant teams with greater flexibility, allowing them to split the approval process. This means approvals can be granted for the first stage to start on site, while the design and procurement of the works in later-stage applications can continue in parallel.

This reinterpretation of staged approvals can also be used in conjunction with the ‘approval with requirements’ process that allows applicants to demonstrate compliance on the proviso that additional information will be provided at a later date. This allows the applicant to carefully structure the flow of information on their project in the most efficient way possible, creating a bespoke pathway that suits the development.

Of course, none of these positive developments diminishes or dilutes the applicant’s obligation to submit an application that clearly demonstrates ‘how’ and ‘why’ the proposed building is compliant with the relevant requirements of the building regulations.

However, it introduces an emerging framework that adds a degree of flexibility to the approval of safety-critical features, without detracting from the delivery process.

It is notable that a relatively small tweak to the interpretation of the approval process’s staging could have a significant impact on a project’s programme and, by extension, a development’s viability. In the future, could we see the staging of gateway 2 submissions become even more nuanced, broken down into additional elements that keep development moving forward?

There will be limits to this, and common sense will prevail in structuring applications, but further tweaking could yield additional benefits as the gateway 2 process matures.

Adrian Tanner is partner and technical director at Sheppard Robson