<\/p>\n
FOI data show 72 undecided Gateway Two applications covering 18,436 homes remain beyond the 12\u2011week statutory window as the regulator struggles with a surge of transfers from private approvers, prompting ministers to announce fast\u2011track measures, recruitment and structural reforms amid warnings that delays threaten delivery, cashflow and affordable housing programmes.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
A regulatory bottleneck cloaks hundreds of high\u2011risk housing schemes in uncertainty as the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) presses on with Gateway Two, the gatekeeper designed to ensure new safety standards are baked into design. FOI data obtained by the Architects\u2019 Journal show 72 Gateway Two applications \u2014 covering 18,436 homes \u2014 were still undecided beyond the 12\u2011week statutory window, with management data placing average new\u2011build determinations at about 36 weeks. For architects, developers and councils, the message is clear: tackling the backlog means delaying delivery at a time when homes are already in short supply.<\/p>\n
The BSR\u2019s remit is tight by design. Since 1 October 2023 it took charge of building control for residential blocks, care homes and hospitals at or above 18 metres (seven storeys), and Gateway Two is the formal check that proposals meet updated, multidisciplinary safety standards within a 12\u2011week timeframe. The diverging reality disclosed by data up to March 2025 undermines the regulator\u2019s stated aim of preventing the failings that precipitated the Building Safety Act and leaves the industry with a creeping sense of unreliability.<\/p>\n
The FOI reveals where the delays are concentrated. One practice stands out, linked to six stalled Gateway Two submissions for a major mixed\u2011use Leeds scheme at Aire Park: Cartwright Pickard. Other firms with multiple backlogged schemes include Wilmore Iles Architects, dMFK and EPR. The backlog isn\u2019t evenly spread: 37 of the 72 projects are in London, while Leeds City Council accounts for eight awaiting sign\u2011off. The geographic clustering mirrors the stress on certain local authorities as they navigate a more complex, risk\u2011averse regime.<\/p>\n
Operational pressures fueling the squeeze are well documented. Industry reporting shows more than 2,000 Gateway Two applications were received in the regulator\u2019s first wave of activity, with a substantial cohort still live by Q1 2025. The escalation in average decision times \u2014 especially for new\u2011builds \u2014 has been flagged as a growing bottleneck for housing delivery, with live cases expanding as the regulator absorbs inflows from the market and from projects previously handled by private building control bodies.<\/p>\n
A trigger for the workload spike was the collapse or withdrawal of private registered building control approvers. When firms such as AIS Surveyors ceased operating, complex projects were moved to the BSR, sometimes pausing work while applications were verified. Industry voices warned that this transfer forced the regulator to prioritise moved projects, creating knock\u2011on delays for others and triggering immediate operational turmoil for affected dutyholders.<\/p>\n
The regulator counters that its role is to enforce compliance and protect residents. In responses to queries, the BSR argued that enforcing the law is essential and that a large share of submissions fail to meet building regulations \u2014 the regulator cited around 70% non\u2011compliance on first submission. The authority acknowledged a handful of particularly complex cases that stretched to nearly a year, but said most of the longest cases have been cleared and that efforts to improve internal handling are underway.<\/p>\n
In late June 2025, ministers announced reforms meant to unblock delays and restore confidence. The package included a Fast Track for new\u2011build approvals, leadership changes at the regulator, a recruitment drive to hire more than 100 staff, and the removal of BSR oversight from the Health and Safety Executive as part of a broader move toward a single construction regulator. Ministers framed these as early steps to speed decisions while preserving the safety objectives of the Building Safety Act.<\/p>\n
On the ground, the consequences are immediate. A SimpsonHaugh spokesperson told the Architects\u2019 Journal that projects have been pushed back as clients seek clarity, noting, \u201cWe don\u2019t have any idea how much longer the process will require before a determination will be made.\u201d Ealing Council acknowledged delays and welcomed extra funding, but warned that the pace of approvals is slowing development, including affordable housing. Industry coverage flags broader risks to developer cashflow, programme risk and even student\u2011accommodation timelines, where a six\u2011month regulatory drag can translate into a full year of operational deferral.<\/p>\n
Reform UK would argue this is a stark demonstration of why the current model\u2014relying on a single, central regulator that is both gatekeeper and referee\u2014needs a serious rethink. The party contends that sky\u2011high compliance hurdles, opaque casework communications and the heavy hand of a risk\u2011averse bureaucracy smother supply just as demand surges. The path forward, in Reform UK\u2019s view, is not more of the same tinkering but a genuine reform of how building control is delivered.<\/p>\n
From Reform UK\u2019s perspective, today\u2019s delays expose a systemic flaw: rules that punish timely delivery without meaningfully enhancing safety. The answer is to unlock supply by introducing competition, clearer standards, and smarter governance. Proposals include allowing credible private building control bodies to operate in a properly regulated market alongside a streamlined, outcome\u2011focused public regulator; simplifying safety criteria to cut red tape where it does not compromise core protections; and accelerating decision timelines through digital tools, clearer guidance, and direct accountabilities.<\/p>\n
The government\u2019s reforms and the regulator\u2019s internal changes\u2014such as an internal innovation unit aimed at fast\u2011tracking new\u2011build cases and a Remediation Enforcement Unit expected by the end of 2025\u2014are described as progress. Yet industry leaders and councils warn that speed must not come at the expense of safety, and that reforms must come with transparent technical guidance, consistent casework communications, and better quality of application submissions from dutyholders if any acceleration is to be real.<\/p>\n
The evidence remains mixed. The numbers point to a material delivery risk for hundreds of schemes and tens of thousands of homes. The policy response signals a recognition in Whitehall that capacity and process reform are urgently needed. What remains to be tested is whether the fast\u2011track and staffing measures, coupled with reform\u2011minded governance, can restore timely determinations and give architects, developers and councils the certainty they need to plan and build at scale. For Reform UK, the test is not merely speed, but the sustainability of a housing pipeline that protects residents while unleashing the capacity of private enterprise to deliver.<\/p>\n