The Gateway 2 approval process, designed to ensure safety in higher-risk buildings and developments (above 18 m or seven storeys), has become one of the most significant challenges facing the sector. Despite a statutory turnaround time of 12 weeks, applications are currently taking 25 to 40 weeks on average, with some projects experiencing delays of over two years. These prolonged timelines are placing considerable strain on development programmes, budgets and investor confidence, while raising questions about the effectiveness of the Building Safety Regulator (BSR).
While it is important to acknowledge that some submissions have lacked complete or well-structured data, the backlog increasingly reflects issues with the process itself. Limited capacity, fragmented processes, and the demands of multidisciplinary assessment have all hindered performance. As a result, even applicants who have prepared thorough submissions are facing extended and costly delays.
The BSR has taken steps to address these concerns. Over one hundred additional inspectors and engineers are being recruited, and governance reforms are underway to support its transition into an arm’s-length body by early 2026. Andy Roe, recently appointed Chair of the BSR, has recognised the scale of the challenge, stating: “If we have not shown very significant change by the end of the calendar year, we run the risk of losing the complete confidence of everyone in the regulatory regime.” His comments underline both the urgency of reform and the fragility of confidence in the current system.
Centralised inspection teams are being introduced to deliver greater consistency, while the Construction Leadership Council’s suite of guidance notes, published in July 2025, aims to provide clarity for applicants and reduce the proportion of submissions returned for missing data. These changes are steps in the right direction, but their effectiveness will depend on the BSR’s ability to implement them quickly and reliably.
One of the significant challenges facing the Gateway 2 process is that both new developments and existing occupied buildings undergoing remediation are channelled through the same system. This places two very different types of project into direct competition for regulatory resource.
New build schemes require approvals to unlock progress on site, while remediation projects often involve complex interventions in occupied buildings, where the stakes are particularly high given the presence of residents. Treating these distinct cases within a single approval framework risks slowing progress for both. New builds are delayed at the point of delivery, while remediation projects which are critical to improving safety in homes that people are already living in are facing long waits that can prolong exposure to risk.
By operating a one-size-fits-all process, the regulator has created a bottleneck that undermines the very purpose of Gateway 2: to improve building safety outcomes without unduly delaying development. Greater differentiation between new construction and occupied building works may be necessary to ensure that both can proceed efficiently and safely.
For those navigating Gateway 2 today, the risks remain significant. Delays are inflating costs and stalling projects, with wider consequences for housing delivery and industry confidence. While the regulator works to improve its internal processes, developers still bear a responsibility to ensure that applications are complete, accurate and fully evidenced. Submissions that align with the new guidance will be better placed to progress once capacity improves.
By preparing early, engaging residents, and embedding strong inspection processes, social landlords can ensure that they meet these new requirements seamlessly. More importantly, they can deliver peace of mind to the communities they serve. If you would like support in implementing these changes across your housing stock, speak to our team today.
Gateway 2 remains a vital safeguard, ensuring that higher-risk buildings are designed and delivered with safety at their core. However, the current backlog demonstrates that the system is not yet functioning as intended. The regulator must now show that its reforms can restore efficiency and consistency, while maintaining the rigour needed to protect residents. The industry, for its part, must continue to improve the completeness and clarity of submissions to avoid unnecessary delays.
Ventro will continue to support our clients in preparing robust applications and in engaging proactively with regulatory requirements. By combining industry best practice with a commitment to safety, we can help ensure that Gateway 2 achieves its intended purpose: protecting residents, enabling development, and restoring trust in the system.