Gateway One: fire statements in the planning application

Planning Gateway One is the planning stage of the building safety regime. For a relevant building, Article 9A of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 requires a fire statement to be submitted with the planning application on the form published for the purpose, and the Health and Safety Executive is a statutory consultee on the application. Without that statement the application is invalid, which is why Gateway One shows up most often as a validation problem rather than as a design problem.

Work out whether your building is a relevant building at the first design meeting. The answer changes the submission, the programme and occasionally the massing.

What Article 9A requires

Article 9A applies to applications for planning permission for development which involves a relevant building, and requires the application to be accompanied by a fire statement on a form published by the Secretary of State. The statement addresses fire safety matters so far as they relate to the land or the proposed development, which is the phrase that sets its scope.

That scope is narrower than a full fire strategy and broader than a design note. It covers the principles, concepts and approach to fire safety, the site layout, emergency vehicle access and water supplies for firefighting, the approach to escape and to means of warning, and how the proposals affect fire safety for people in and around the building.

The Health and Safety Executive comments as statutory consultee and can raise matters the authority then has to take into account. In practice a scheme that receives an unfavourable response at Gateway One is redesigned rather than refused, because the issues raised are usually about access, water supply or escape strategy and all three are capable of resolution.

Which buildings are relevant buildings

A relevant building for Article 9A purposes is one that contains two or more dwellings or educational accommodation and meets the height condition, which is reached at 18 metres or more in height, or seven or more storeys.

Three measurement points cause trouble. Height is measured in the way the legislation specifies rather than to the top of any structure, so parapet, plant enclosure and lift overrun need checking against the definition. Storey counting includes the arrangement at the base of the building, where a podium or an undercroft can add a storey without adding obvious height. And a scheme designed at 17.6 metres has no margin, because a later change in floor build-up or in site levels can cross the threshold after the planning drawings are issued.

Where the scheme sits close to the line, record the measurement basis on the drawings. An officer who can see the calculation will not send the application back for it.

The Health and Safety Executive as statutory consultee

The consultation runs alongside the ordinary planning consultation, and the response addresses whether the fire safety principles set out in the statement are adequate at the level of detail appropriate to a planning application.

Two habits shorten the process. Engage before submission where the building is complex, because the regulator would rather discuss an access arrangement in advance than write about it afterwards. And answer the form's questions directly rather than attaching a 60 page strategy and inviting the reader to find the answers, which is the commonest cause of a request for further information.

Gateway One is not a technical approval of the fire design. It is a check that the planning decision is being made with fire safety in mind, and that the layout does not foreclose a safe technical solution later.

What the fire statement has to cover

The published form structures the answers, and each section expects a proportionate response tied to the drawings.

• The principles, concepts and approach to fire safety for the development.
• Site layout, including the position of the building relative to the site boundaries and to other buildings.
• Emergency vehicle access, including routes, hardstandings and turning.
• Water supplies for firefighting, including hydrant positions and any private supply.
• The approach to means of escape, including the evacuation strategy relied on.
• Any policies or design guidance applied, and any performance based approach adopted.

The single most useful addition is a site plan marked up with the appliance route, the hardstanding positions, the distances to the riser inlets and the hydrant locations. Half the questions disappear once that drawing exists. A Fire Statement drafted without it usually attracts a request for exactly that drawing.

Who is competent to prepare it

The statement has to be prepared by someone with the fire engineering competence appropriate to the building, and the form asks for details of the author's experience and qualifications. In practice that means a fire engineer with membership of a recognised body and experience of the building type, rather than the architect filling in a form.

That requirement is not a formality. The Building Safety Act 2022 framework has tightened competence expectations across the sector, and the Building Safety Regulator will examine the basis of the design at Gateway Two. An author who cannot evidence competence at Gateway One is unlikely to survive that examination.

A Fire Statement and a Fire Safety Strategy both require a professional with fire engineering competence, and an AI-assisted draft is a starting point for that professional rather than a substitute. Reviewers who can take that role are listed in the professional directory.

How Gateway One relates to Gateways Two and Three

Gateway Two is the building control stage for higher-risk buildings, where the full design is submitted to the Building Safety Regulator before construction starts, and Gateway Three is the completion stage before occupation.

The scopes differ, and so do the definitions. The higher-risk building definition used in the building control gateways is not identical to the relevant building definition in Article 9A, so a building can be caught by one and not the other. Check both definitions rather than assuming a single threshold runs through the regime.

The practical link is the escape strategy. A single stair scheme approved at planning on one evacuation assumption and then redesigned at Gateway Two is an expensive sequence, and the way to avoid it is to settle the strategy before the planning drawings are frozen.

Validation problems and how to avoid them

Three failures account for most rejected submissions. The form is missing altogether, because the applicant did not realise the building was a relevant building. The form is present but unsigned or missing the author's competence details. Or the answers cross-refer to a strategy document that was not submitted.

Run a short check before submission. Confirm the height and storey count against the definition and record the basis. Confirm the use brings the building in scope. Complete the published form rather than a substitute document. Attach the marked-up site plan. Name the author and state their competence. Check the local validation list as well, because some authorities ask for additional fire related information of their own, and the current position on the wider regime is tracked on the planning law updates timeline.

PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval. For specialist technical reports, qualified professional input may be required. This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it.