IN Brief:
- The Building Safety Regulator received 64 new-build and conversion applications in September, up from 34 in August.
- The overall Gateway 2 caseload reached 1,706, including 186 live new-build and conversion cases.
- The regulator has deployed contingency assessment arrangements following the introduction of the building safety levy.
The Building Safety Regulator received 64 applications for new higher-risk buildings and conversions during September 2026, almost twice the 34 recorded in August, while the outstanding Gateway 2 caseload increased to 1,706. The increase came as developers approached the 1 October introduction of the building safety levy, which changes the financial treatment of qualifying residential developments according to when their building control applications were submitted.
September’s intake followed 17 new-build applications in July and 12 in June, indicating a marked change from the previous months rather than a continuation of a steady rate of submissions. Although the regulator has improved its assessment performance, the overall number of cases awaiting determination rose by 34 during September. Among those outstanding were 186 new-build and conversion applications representing more than 40,000 proposed homes, alongside a considerably larger volume of other Gateway 2 work.
Under the levy regulations, qualifying residential work in England can attract a charge, subject to exemptions, whereas relevant applications submitted before 1 October 2026 generally fall outside the new requirement. Developers with sufficiently advanced designs consequently had a financial reason to submit before the change, and the regulator had anticipated extra activity in its August reporting. That incentive offers a plausible explanation for the surge, although the available figures do not establish how many individual applicants acted primarily because of the levy.
Regardless of when an application was lodged for levy purposes, the higher-risk building regime still requires technical approval before relevant construction can begin. Gateway 2 is a separate building control approval stage at which applicants must show that proposed work complies with structural and fire safety requirements and the other applicable building regulations. Plans, specifications, calculations and arrangements for controlling building safety risks have to describe a consistent design; missing information or contradictions between disciplines can prevent the regulator from reaching an approval decision.
The Gateway 2 caseload includes new buildings, conversions and work to existing structures, with different requirements contributing to the 1,706 outstanding cases. For most residential developments, the higher-risk regime captures buildings at least 18 metres high or with seven or more storeys containing at least two residential units; qualifying hospitals and care homes are also covered under relevant conditions. Applications for remediation, refurbishment and other building control work sit alongside new construction, with different evidence and determination requirements, so the outstanding figure is not a count of residential towers waiting to break ground.
Within an individual application, coordination between structural design and the fire strategy can affect the completeness of the submission. Moving an opening through a structural wall, for example, may change the way fire separation is maintained; revised ventilation routes can introduce penetrations through floors and compartment boundaries. Designers must reconcile those interfaces before submitting the overall design, because drawings prepared separately by each discipline cannot demonstrate compliance when the resulting construction details conflict.
Where submitted information contains serious gaps, the regulator has strengthened screening and can reject an application rather than repeatedly seeking material that should have accompanied it. Such a decision can require a developer to prepare a further submission even when land, planning permission and financing have already been secured. The consequences extend into the construction programme, but the building control decision still turns on whether the proposed work is adequately demonstrated to comply with the regulations.
In the rolling 12 weeks to 5 October, the regulator approved 330 of the 378 Gateway 2 applications determined across the relevant categories, equivalent to 87%, with approved projects representing 20,471 residential units. New higher-risk buildings and conversions accounted for 55 approvals from 57 decisions underlying the reported approval percentage, or 96%, with a reported median approval time of 23 weeks. These are outcomes for applications determined during the period, not a forecast for those still awaiting decisions.
September’s workload grew despite the improvement in completed decisions, because the approval percentage and the outstanding caseload measure different activity. September’s 64 submissions measure incoming demand over a single month; the total of 1,706 describes work still live at its end. Neither figure can be compared directly with the 87% approval measure to infer the eventual outcome of cases that have yet to be assessed.
To absorb the additional submissions, the Building Safety Regulator has activated contingency arrangements involving triage and closer initial scrutiny, with project teams to be contacted individually about expected assessment times. The response is intended to keep older applications moving while new cases enter the assessment process. It does not establish a common decision date for every applicant, and projects requiring further technical evidence may follow different programmes from those whose documentation is complete.
Construction planning has to reflect that uncertainty because relevant permanent building work cannot begin before the required Gateway 2 approval has been granted. Contractors may have developed procurement schedules, temporary works proposals and specialist packages, but design changes requested during assessment can affect structural openings, service routes, equipment orders and site mobilisation. The exposure varies by project and contract: a complex conversion within an existing structure may require different coordination from a new building with fewer retained interfaces.
Levy liability is assessed under a separate set of provisions, so applicants must plan for potential charges alongside the technical Gateway 2 approval process. Application dates and the specific legal conditions govern whether the charge applies, while evidence of compliance governs the Gateway 2 decision. Submitting before the levy deadline does not establish compliance, and paying a levy would not remove the separate requirement for approval; commercial and technical requirements must both be provided for in the programme.
Monthly data following the October commencement date will indicate whether the accelerated flow of new applications subsides and whether additional assessment capacity starts to reduce the outstanding total. With 1,706 live cases recorded at the end of September, improved approval rates have yet to translate into an overall reduction in the work awaiting determination.
