How the Health and Safety Executive consults at Gateway One

The hse gateway one consultation is the step that most often surprises a developer on a first tall residential scheme. Since 1 August 2021 the Health and Safety Executive has been a statutory consultee on planning applications for relevant buildings, and its comments arrive part way through the determination period with no negotiation beforehand. The Executive does not decide the application. What it does is tell the council whether the fire statement gives enough information about the fire safety matters that planning, rather than building control, can still fix.

The regulator's role as statutory consultee

The Building Safety Regulator sits within the Health and Safety Executive, and Gateway One is the planning stage of the three-gateway regime established under the Building Safety Act 2022 framework.

At Gateway One the Executive is consulted by the local planning authority once a valid application for a relevant building has been registered. It reviews the fire statement that accompanies the application and responds to the council. The council then determines the application, having regard to that response alongside everything else.

Two consequences follow from it being a consultee role. The Executive cannot refuse the application, and a favourable response is not a permission. And the council cannot delegate the fire safety judgement to the Executive either, so a bare response of no comment does not relieve the case officer of the duty to consider the point.

The practical effect is different from the formal position. A case officer who receives a response saying the fire statement lacks the information needed to assess the design is unlikely to recommend approval until that is remedied.

What the consultation covers and what it does not

The Executive is interested in the fire safety matters that are fixed by the planning permission, because those are the ones that cannot be resolved later without coming back.

• Site layout and access for fire service vehicles, including route widths, turning provision and standing positions relative to the building.
• Water supplies for firefighting, including hydrant provision and any private supply arrangements.
• The principles of the evacuation strategy, and whether the core arrangement supports it.
• The position and number of stairs and firefighting shafts, in outline.
• The relationship between the building and its neighbours, including boundary distances and unprotected areas.
• Whether the statement identifies who prepared it and on what basis.

What it does not cover is detailed compliance. Product specification, fire-resisting construction details, sprinkler design, alarm systems and the detailed escape strategy all belong to the building control process at the later gateways. A fire statement that reads like a building control submission usually attracts a comment that the planning-relevant matters have not been addressed.

The access and water supply points are the ones that most often force a layout change, because a turning head or a hydrant position cannot be added to a consented site plan without an amendment. Guidance on fire service vehicle access widths, turning and standing covers the dimensions to design to.

Response periods and holding positions

The Development Management Procedure Order sets the framework for statutory consultee responses, and the period is commonly 21 days from the date the council sends the consultation, unless a longer period is agreed.

Two things distort that in practice. The clock starts when the council consults, which may be several days or weeks after validation, so the Executive's response can land late in an eight or thirteen week determination period. And where the statement is thin, the response may be a holding position asking for further information rather than a substantive comment, which restarts the cycle.

Build the sequence into the programme rather than the other way round.

1. Validation, which the fire statement is part of.
2. Consultation sent by the council, which you can chase but not control.
3. The response period, during which amendments are difficult because the Executive is reviewing what was submitted.
4. Response received, followed by any amendment and reconsultation.
5. Determination, often with an agreed extension of time.

Where the programme is tight, the way to compress it is to submit a fire statement good enough to draw a substantive response first time. There is no fast track.

Typical comments and how to pre-empt them

The recurring comments are consistent enough to design against.

The statement is not on the published form, or the form is completed with cross-references to other documents instead of answers. Site access is described in general terms without dimensions, gradients or turning geometry. Water supply for firefighting is not mentioned at all. The evacuation strategy is stated as a conclusion without the reasoning that supports it for that building height and layout. External wall construction is left to a later stage even where the elevations show a material that raises questions. And the statement does not say who prepared it or what competence they hold.

Pre-empt each of them in the submission. Give access dimensions on a drawing rather than in prose, mark hydrant positions and state the assumed flow requirement, set out the evacuation strategy with the reasoning, and name the author's competence. A Fire Statement that answers the form's questions directly, with drawings behind each answer, is the whole of the technique.

One point worth making early. Where the scheme has a single stair, expect that to be the focus of the response, and address it explicitly rather than hoping it passes unremarked. The layout implications of firefighting shafts and stair cores are covered in firefighting shafts and how they shape a residential core.

Resubmission after an adverse response

An adverse response is not a refusal, and it is usually recoverable within the same application.

The normal route is to submit amended information, which may be a revised fire statement, additional drawings or a design change, and ask the council to reconsult. The Executive then reviews the amended package. Where the change is a design change rather than an information change, check whether it triggers reconsultation of neighbours as well.

Do three things when responding.

Answer the comments in a schedule, point by point, cross-referring to where each answer now sits. Keep the original statement and issue a revision rather than a new document, so the reviewer can see what changed. And agree an extension of time with the council before the determination period expires, because a refusal issued for want of time is harder to undo than a delay.

Where the response identifies a problem that cannot be fixed within the scheme, such as an access route that does not exist on land you control, it is better to withdraw and redesign than to press for a decision. A refusal on fire safety grounds is an awkward planning history to carry into a resubmission.

Recording the response in the officer report

The paper trail matters, and it matters more than usual here because the regime is still bedding in.

The officer report should record that the Executive was consulted, quote or summarise the response, and explain how the fire safety matters were taken into account in the recommendation. Where the response raised points that were addressed by amendment, the report should say which amendment dealt with which point. Where the authority departs from the advice, the reasoning needs to be on the record.

Check the report before committee if you can, because an incomplete account of the consultation is a weakness in the decision. And keep the correspondence yourself. At Gateway Two the Building Safety Regulator will be looking at the same building, and the ability to show what was agreed at planning stage saves argument later.

Interaction with later gateways

Gateway One is about planning. Gateway Two is the building control approval application to the Building Safety Regulator before construction begins, and Gateway Three is the completion certificate stage before occupation. They apply different tests.

Passing Gateway One therefore tells you nothing about whether the detailed design will be accepted at Gateway Two. What it does do is fix the things that are hard to change: the footprint, the access arrangements, the core positions and the elevational treatment. Where the Gateway Two design work later shows that the consented layout does not work, the remedy is a planning amendment, with the delay that implies.

The practical discipline is to run the fire engineering earlier than the planning programme demands. A Fire Safety Strategy developed to outline before the planning submission, even though it is not required then, is what prevents a conflict between the two regimes. It also gives the fire statement author something to base their answers on.

PlanScope drafts a Fire Statement structured to the information the form requires, from your project details, with "TO BE CONFIRMED" flags wherever a strategy decision is outstanding. A fire statement is one of the report types where a competent professional is legally required, and the PlanScope draft is a starting point for that professional rather than a substitute for them. 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. Browse the 66 report types to see what a tall residential scheme usually needs.