Building safety gateway costs for a higher risk building
The gateway fee is the smallest part of the cost. The design information, the float between approval and start, and change control are what move an appraisal.
Building safety gateway cost on a higher risk building is mostly not a fee. The regulator's charge is real and recoverable on a time basis, but the money that moves an appraisal is the earlier and deeper design information each gateway demands, the programme float between application and approval, and the change control process once construction has started.
A higher risk building is one of at least 18 metres in height or with at least seven storeys, containing two or more residential units. Get that determination settled at the outset, because a scheme that creeps over the threshold during design acquires a different regulatory regime and a different programme.
The three gateways and what each requires
Gateway one sits in the planning system. For a relevant building, an application for planning permission has to be accompanied by a fire statement under Article 9A of the Development Management Procedure Order 2015, and the Health and Safety Executive is a statutory consultee. The statement deals with the site layout, access for fire appliances, water supplies for firefighting and the principles of the fire strategy as they affect the planning decision. A Fire Statement is a report where a licensed or competent professional is legally required, prepared by someone with the necessary fire engineering competence, and an AI-assisted draft is a starting point for that professional rather than a substitute.
Gateway two is a hard stop. Building control approval has to be obtained from the Building Safety Regulator before construction begins, and the application needs a developed design rather than a stage three scheme with details to follow. That is the single largest change from the previous regime.
Gateway three is the completion certificate application, assessed before the building may be occupied, with registration of the building required before residents move in. An approved building that cannot obtain its completion certificate is an asset generating no income, which is the risk that matters most to a funder.
How the regulator charges
Charging is on a cost recovery basis rather than through a fixed fee scale. An application attracts an initial charge, and time spent by the regulator and its multidisciplinary team assessing the application is charged at an hourly rate set in regulations.
Two consequences follow. A well prepared application costs less than a poor one, because it takes less assessment time, so investment in the submission is recovered directly. And the cost is not knowable in advance to the pound, which means an appraisal needs a provision and a contingency rather than a line item taken from a fee table.
Rates are set in regulations and change, so check the current schedule rather than using a figure from a previous project. The same applies to the determination periods.
Design information needed at each stage
| Gateway | Information expected |
|---|---|
| One | Site layout, appliance access, firefighting water supplies, fire strategy principles |
| Two | A developed design with the full fire and structural strategy, construction control plan, change control plan, mandatory occurrence reporting arrangements and competence declarations |
| Three | As-built information, the golden thread handover, test and commissioning evidence, and the completion certificate application |
Gateway two is where the appraisal moves. The design has to be resolved to a level most developers previously reached well after a start on site, including the facade build-up, cavity barriers, compartmentation details and the structural solution. That means more consultant fees earlier, drawn down before the funding typically arrives, and a longer period of spend before any income.
The Fire Safety Strategy that supports it is a fire engineering document, so a competent professional is legally required for it in the same way as for the fire statement.
Programme float between approval and start
Allow for the statutory determination period, and allow for the fact that the clock stops when the regulator asks for further information. A submission with gaps does not simply take longer, it takes longer by an amount nobody can predict, and the programme risk is asymmetric.
Practical provisions worth making:
- A realistic assumption for the gateway two determination period, taken from the current regulations rather than from optimism.
- A contingency for one round of further information requests.
- A decision point in the appraisal where a delayed approval triggers a re-forecast rather than a hope.
- Enabling works scoped so they can proceed lawfully before approval, if any can.
- Funding drawdown profiled to the deeper pre-start design spend.
Starting higher risk building work without gateway two approval is not an option to be managed, so a programme that assumes a start date before approval is a programme that will fail. It is a different kind of risk from waiting on a third party, though the modelling discipline is the same one set out in the guide to budgeting utility connections and diversions.
Change control during construction and its cost
Once approval is granted, changes are categorised, and the significant ones cannot simply be built and recorded. Major changes require approval before the work proceeds, notifiable changes require notification, and everything is recorded in a change control log that forms part of the golden thread.
The cost sits in three places. The regulator's assessment time for each major change is charged. The design team time to prepare and justify each change is charged. And the programme consequence of waiting for approval is the expensive one, because a contractor standing by costs more per week than the application did in total.
The practical response is to resolve more at gateway two, to resist value engineering that touches fire-critical elements, and to brief the contractor that substitution of a specified product is a regulatory event rather than a procurement decision.
Completion certificate and occupation risk
Gateway three is assessed against what was approved and what was built, which is why the golden thread has to be maintained throughout rather than assembled at the end. Test and commissioning records, as-built drawings, product information and the change control log all feed it.
The commercial exposure is straightforward. Until the completion certificate is issued and the building is registered, residential units cannot be lawfully occupied, so sales completions and rental income are deferred while finance costs continue. Model that period explicitly rather than assuming completion follows practical completion.
Provisioning gateway cost and time in the appraisal
Put four separate lines in the appraisal: the regulator's charges with a contingency, the additional pre-start design fees, the programme float with a cost of delay attached, and a change control provision. Then test the appraisal against a delayed gateway two and a delayed gateway three, because those are the two scenarios that determine whether the scheme survives.
Where the numbers only work on an optimistic regulatory timetable, that is information rather than a presentational problem. The viability discussion with the authority is better had with the gateway programme in it, and the approach to evidencing that is covered in the guide to budgeting a viability assessment and its review mechanism. PlanScope's published prices are on the pricing page if you are costing the planning documents alongside it.
This is general guidance, not legal advice. Charging rates, determination periods and the detail of the gateway regime change, so check the current regulations and the regulator's published guidance before relying on anything here. For specialist technical reports, qualified professional input may be required.
PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.
Frequently asked questions
What makes a building higher risk?
A building of at least 18 metres in height or with at least seven storeys, containing two or more residential units, falls within the higher risk regime under the Building Safety Act 2022. Settle the determination at the outset, because a design that creeps over the threshold acquires a different regulatory process, a different programme and a different cost base.
How does the Building Safety Regulator charge for a gateway application?
On a cost recovery basis, with an initial charge plus time spent by the regulator and its multidisciplinary team at an hourly rate set in regulations. A well prepared application takes less assessment time and therefore costs less. Rates change, so check the current schedule rather than using a figure from an earlier project.
Can construction start before gateway two approval?
No. Gateway two is a hard stop for higher risk building work, so a programme that assumes a start before approval will fail. Some enabling works may be capable of proceeding lawfully, but that has to be scoped carefully and confirmed rather than assumed, because the consequences of starting unlawfully are serious.
What does change control cost during construction?
Three things. The regulator's assessment time for each major change, the design team time to prepare and justify it, and the programme consequence of waiting for approval while a contractor stands by. The third is usually the largest, which is why resolving more detail at gateway two is the cheaper strategy.
What happens if the completion certificate is delayed?
Residential units cannot be lawfully occupied until the certificate is issued and the building is registered, so sales completions and rental income are deferred while finance costs continue. Model that period explicitly in the appraisal rather than assuming the certificate follows practical completion as a matter of course.
Sources and further reading
This article is general guidance about the planning system in England and, where stated, the rest of the UK. It is not legal or professional advice. Check your local planning authority’s validation requirements and take professional advice for your specific site.