The three building safety gateways and where planning sits
Only Gateway One sits in the planning system. Here is what each of the three building safety gateways decides, the definitions that differ between them, and how change control links planning to building control.
Only one of the three building safety gateways sits in the planning system. Gateway One is a planning stage, delivered through Article 9A of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, which requires a fire statement with the application and makes the Health and Safety Executive, acting as the Building Safety Regulator, a statutory consultee. Gateways Two and Three are building control stages under the Building Safety Act 2022 and its procedural regulations, and they are hard stops rather than consultations.
Understanding which decision belongs where saves a lot of wasted argument. A planning officer cannot approve your compartmentation strategy, and the regulator will not accept a design because a planning inspector liked the elevations.
What each gateway controls
Gateway One tests whether fire safety matters that are relevant to planning have been considered in the design and layout: site access for fire appliances, water supplies for firefighting, the position of the building relative to its boundaries, and the planning implications of the fire strategy.
Gateway Two is the building control approval. For a higher-risk building the application goes to the Building Safety Regulator rather than to a local authority or an approved inspector, and construction cannot lawfully start until it is approved.
Gateway Three is the completion stage. The regulator must issue a completion certificate before the building may be occupied, and it will check that what was built matches what was approved.
The definitions differ between the gateways, which catches people out. The Gateway One duty attaches to buildings of a prescribed description, including residential buildings and certain educational accommodation of 18 metres or more in height or seven or more storeys. The higher-risk building definition for Gateways Two and Three turns on height or storeys together with the presence of at least two residential units, with hospitals and care homes brought in during design and construction. Our note on counting storeys and measuring height sets out how those measurements are taken, because a scheme can be inside one regime and outside the other.
Gateway one inside the planning application
The fire statement is a validation requirement, submitted on the published form. Submit it late and the application is not valid, which is the most common Gateway One failure and the easiest to avoid.
The statement is a planning document with a fire engineering basis, and it has to be prepared by someone with the necessary fire engineering competence. A Fire Statement is one of the report types where professional input is legally required rather than advisable, so an AI-assisted draft is a starting point for that professional and never a substitute for their judgement or their sign-off.
What the consultee looks for is consistency between the fire strategy and the planning drawings. Recurring problems:
- Fire appliance access shown on a site plan that conflicts with the planting or drainage layout.
- Hydrant positions and water supply capacity asserted without evidence from the undertaker.
- A single stair strategy where policy or the design expects two.
- An evacuation strategy that depends on a lift the structural or services design does not include.
- External wall build-ups described in the statement that differ from the approved elevations.
The regulator's response is advice to the local planning authority, not a veto. The authority decides, and it can grant permission with the response as a material consideration. In practice an unresolved objection at Gateway One tends to produce either a refusal or a long extension of time.
Gateway two before construction starts
Gateway Two is where the programme risk lives. The building control application for a higher-risk building goes to the Building Safety Regulator with the full design information, and work cannot begin until it is approved. There is no equivalent of starting on site under an initial notice while the detail catches up.
The statutory decision periods are measured in weeks rather than days: broadly twelve weeks for a new higher-risk building and eight weeks for work to an existing one, extendable by agreement. Those periods run from a valid application, and an application judged incomplete is returned, so the effective duration depends on how complete the submission is.
Two consequences for the design programme. The level of design development needed at Gateway Two is higher than most teams were used to under the previous regime, which pulls specialist design forward. And the planning permission has to be capable of accommodating whatever the regulator requires, because a change forced at Gateway Two may need a section 73 or section 96A application to bring the planning permission back into line.
Illustrative example: a nine storey residential block where the Gateway Two review questioned the smoke ventilation strategy for the single stair. Resolving it added a small plant enclosure at roof level, which sat outside the approved parameters and needed a non-material amendment before construction could begin. The sequence is illustrative and used to show how the regimes interact.
Gateway three before occupation
At completion the client applies for a completion certificate, supported by the as-built information and the declarations the regulations require. The regulator checks the building against the approved design and the change control record. Occupation before the certificate is issued is not lawful, which makes Gateway Three a funding and handover issue as much as a technical one.
The practical risk is accumulated undocumented change. A building assembled with fifty small deviations that nobody recorded is very hard to certify, and the remedy at that stage is opening up work.
Registration of the occupied building with the regulator is a separate duty from the gateway, and the responsibilities of the accountable person and the principal accountable person begin at occupation.
Change control between the gateways
The change control regime between Gateways Two and Three is the part that most affects how planning and building control interact. Changes are categorised, and the more consequential ones require the regulator's approval before the work is carried out, while others must be recorded and notified. The golden thread of building information has to be kept current throughout.
Where a change affects external appearance, height, massing or anything else controlled by the planning permission, two consents are in play at once. Sequence matters: an approval from the regulator does not authorise a breach of a planning condition, and a planning amendment does not authorise a departure from the approved building control design. The external wall specification is the usual flashpoint, as our note on combustible materials rules and planning elevations explains.
Keep a single change register that records the planning consequence of each item alongside the building safety consequence. Two separate registers drift apart within months.
What the sequence does to the programme
The gateways convert a process that used to run in parallel into one that runs in series at two points. Design has to be materially complete before Gateway Two, and construction has to be materially complete and documented before Gateway Three.
Three habits help:
- Appoint the fire engineer before the planning application rather than after, so the Gateway One statement and the emerging Gateway Two design are the same design.
- Build the statutory decision periods into the programme as fixed durations, not as risk items.
- Agree with the client who holds the principal designer and principal contractor duties under the building regulations regime early, because those duty holders shape the submissions.
Documents that carry across
Several documents serve both regimes if they are written with that in mind. The fire strategy underpinning the Gateway One statement becomes the basis of the Gateway Two submission. A Fire Safety Strategy to BS 9991 or BS 9999 is a fire engineering document requiring a competent author, and it should be drafted once rather than twice. Access and water supply evidence gathered for Gateway One is reused at Gateway Two. And the as-built drawing set feeding Gateway Three should be structured from the outset to show the approved condition and the recorded changes.
The regulator's organisational arrangements have been subject to change, so confirm the current submission routes, forms and decision periods against the regulator's published guidance when you submit. This is general guidance, not legal advice, and whether a building falls within either regime depends on measurements and use, so check the position with your local planning authority, the regulator and a qualified fire engineer before relying on it. PlanScope drafts the planning documents that surround this work, structured to UK planning policy and flagging the facts it needs from your consultants. Enter your postcode to see which reports your site needs.
PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.
Frequently asked questions
Which buildings need a fire statement at Gateway One?
Article 9A of the Development Management Procedure Order 2015 applies the duty to buildings of a prescribed description, including relevant residential buildings and certain educational accommodation that are 18 metres or more in height or have seven or more storeys. The statement is a validation requirement, so an application submitted without it will not be made valid.
Is the Gateway One consultee response binding on the council?
No. The Health and Safety Executive, acting as the Building Safety Regulator, responds as a statutory consultee and its response is a material consideration. The local planning authority still decides the application. In practice an unresolved objection usually produces either a refusal or a long extension of time while the design is revised.
Can construction start before Gateway Two is approved?
No. For a higher-risk building the building control approval comes from the Building Safety Regulator and work cannot lawfully begin until it is granted. There is no route equivalent to starting on site under an initial notice with the detail following. That makes the statutory decision period a fixed programme item rather than a risk allowance.
What happens if Gateway Two forces a design change?
Check the change against the planning permission. Anything affecting height, massing, external appearance or a matter controlled by condition may need a section 96A non-material amendment or a section 73 application before the work can proceed. A building control approval does not authorise a breach of a planning condition, and the two consents have to be reconciled.
Why do the definitions differ between the gateways?
Gateway One is a planning duty attached to a prescribed description of building, which includes some educational accommodation. The higher-risk building definition governing Gateways Two and Three turns on height or storeys together with at least two residential units, with hospitals and care homes included during design and construction. A scheme can fall inside one regime and outside the other.
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.