Gateway 2 approval times: what the latest Building Safety Regulator figures mean for construction projects

What has changed?

The Building Safety Regulator published updated Gateway 2 figures covering July to September 2026, with data correct to 5 October.

Its report identifies a substantial increase in applications for new higher-risk buildings immediately before the Building Safety Levy came into effect.

The number of new-build applications reported rose from:

• 12 in June 2026;
• 17 in July;
• 34 in August; to
• 64 in September.

The regulator linked the increase to projects submitting ahead of the Building Safety Levy commencing on 1 October 2026.

What do the figures say about approval times?

For the latest reported rolling period, the regulator recorded median approval times of:

• New higher-risk buildings and conversions: 23 weeks
• External remediation: 32 weeks
• Higher-risk building internal works: 31 weeks

The regulator also reported 1,706 Gateway 2 applications in progress in its latest weekly series.

A median approval time is not a statutory promise about how long any individual application will take. Different projects can involve very different levels of technical complexity and completeness.

Official guidance also identifies assessment periods of up to 12 weeks for applications for new higher-risk buildings and 8 weeks for work to existing higher-risk buildings, unless a longer period is agreed. The published median figures therefore provide useful evidence of actual recent approval experience, but they should not be confused with an automatic legal deadline or guaranteed determination date.

What has the regulator said about rejecting applications?

One of the more significant parts of the October update concerns how BSR intends to deal with applications that are incomplete or deficient.

The regulator had previously warned that clearly sub-standard submissions showing significant gaps in compliance could be rejected.

The latest publication confirms that additional assurance checks have been introduced. Decisions to reject or invalidate applications will be reviewed through second and third lines of assurance.

BSR says it will only reject applications where there is no realistic prospect of approval within a reasonable timeframe. It has also described triage and demand-management steps intended to minimise disruption to applications already progressing.

This is an operational development in the regulator's approach. It does not change the underlying statutory requirements.

Does this change the legal requirements?

No.

For projects falling within the higher-risk building regime in England, the relevant building control approval must still be obtained before the controlled work begins.

The application must demonstrate compliance with the applicable Building Regulations and include the prescribed information and documents. Depending on the project, that can include material relating to design compliance, construction control, change control and competence.

Additional assurance before rejection does not make an incomplete application compliant and does not guarantee approval.

Why does this matter commercially?

A prolonged approval process can have consequences extending beyond regulatory administration.

A developer may have committed to financing, procurement and target completion dates. A contractor may have agreed rates, reserved labour or entered into subcontracts on the assumption of a particular commencement date.

If approval is obtained later than anticipated, possible consequences can include additional preliminaries, inflation in labour and material costs, subcontractor availability issues and movement of the critical path.

The important contractual question is then who bears those consequences.

There is no automatic entitlement to extra payment or an extension of time merely because regulatory approval takes longer than anticipated. The position depends on the contract, the cause of delay, responsibility for the application and compliance with any notice provisions.

Check the contract before a dispute arises

The allocation of Gateway 2 risk should be considered when the construction contract is negotiated. Relevant questions include:

• Responsibility for the application: who prepares, coordinates and submits the information required for approval?
• Design responsibility: who must ensure that the design and supporting material demonstrate compliance?
• Commencement: is the contractual start date conditional on Gateway 2 approval?
• Programme allowances: has the programme allowed realistically for regulatory review and further-information requests?
• Extensions of time: how does the contract deal with delay caused by statutory approvals or inadequate information?
• Additional cost: is there an entitlement to recover delay-related cost and what notices are required?

What should project teams do now?

1. Review the application before submission. A coordinated and properly evidenced application is essential.
2. Review the programme. Check whether the intended start date reflects current approval experience rather than an optimistic assumption.
3. Identify responsibilities. Confirm who owns each submission document and who will answer BSR queries.
4. Preserve records. Keep submissions, clarification requests, design changes and regulator communications in a form that can later be reconstructed.
5. Review contractual notices. If a live approval issue affects time or cost, check the contract immediately.
6. Assess financial consequences. Consider procurement commitments, funding, insurance and specialist subcontractor availability.

What remains uncertain?

The figures describe current operational performance; they do not predict the outcome or timescale of an individual application.

It will also take further data to assess the practical effect of the regulator's additional assurance and triage procedures. Project teams should therefore keep both current BSR guidance and their own programme assumptions under review.