Which buildings need a fire statement at Gateway One

The gateway one fire statement threshold turns on a single defined term. Article 9A of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, which has applied since 1 August 2021, requires a fire statement to accompany a planning application where the development involves a relevant building. A relevant building is one that contains two or more dwellings, or contains educational accommodation, and that meets the height condition of 18 metres or more, or seven or more storeys. Miss it and the council can refuse to validate the application.

The relevant building definition

Two limbs have to be satisfied together. Use is the first limb, height is the second, and a building that fails either is outside Article 9A.

On use, the building must contain two or more dwellings or educational accommodation. A block of flats qualifies. A pair of flats over a shop qualifies, if the height limb is met. A single large house does not, however tall it is. Purpose-built student accommodation and residential accommodation attached to a school or college fall within educational accommodation.

On height, the building must be at least 18 metres tall or have at least seven storeys. The two tests are alternatives, so a seven-storey building of 17 metres is caught, and a six-storey building of 19 metres is caught as well. Designers sometimes assume the metre figure governs and lose a scheme at validation over the storey count.

The definition sits inside a wider set of rules under the Building Safety Act 2022, which uses similar thresholds for higher-risk buildings at the building control gateways. The definitions are related but not identical, so do not read across from one to the other without checking the wording that applies to the consent you are seeking.

Height and storey counting rules

The measurement conventions decide borderline cases, and they are not intuitive.

Height is taken to the floor surface of the top storey rather than to the parapet or the ridge, so a building with a tall top-floor volume can measure lower than the elevation suggests. A plant enclosure on the roof does not create an extra storey and does not raise the measured height.

Sloping sites cause the most argument. Where ground level differs around the building, the measurement is taken on the side that produces the relevant result, which on a site falling away to the rear can push a scheme over the threshold from one elevation and not from another. Show the measurement on a dimensioned section in the application rather than leaving the officer to scale it. That section is also what the case officer will use to decide whether to consult the Health and Safety Executive.

Basements and below-ground storeys sit outside the storey count for these purposes, which surprises people who assume every floor plate counts. The detail of how a mezzanine or gallery is treated is a question to put to the authority before submission if your scheme sits within a storey of the threshold. Guidance on counting storeys and measuring height goes through the measurement conventions in more detail.

Where two or more dwellings triggers it

The dwelling count limb is broader than most applicants expect, because it does not require the building to be primarily residential.

A mixed-use block with commercial floors and two flats at the top is a relevant building if it meets the height condition. A conversion of upper floors to create two flats within an existing tall building is caught by the works limb. An extension or alteration to an existing relevant building is caught even where the works themselves are modest, because the test is whether the development involves a relevant building rather than whether the works are extensive.

That last point catches refurbishment schemes. A recladding application, a new plant enclosure or an added storey on an existing 20-metre block of flats all involve a relevant building, so the fire statement requirement attaches. Applicants who treat the requirement as something that only applies to new towers get caught at validation.

Where the scheme creates a single dwelling in a tall building, the use limb is not met. Where it creates two, it is. That is a strange cliff edge, and it is the wording as drafted.

Care homes, hospitals and student accommodation

This is where the two regimes diverge and where errors are common.

Article 9A reaches buildings containing dwellings or educational accommodation. A care home or a hospital ward is not a dwelling, so a standalone care home or hospital generally sits outside the Article 9A fire statement requirement even at 18 metres or more. Where a scheme mixes a care home with self-contained extra care flats that are dwellings, the position changes, and the flats can bring the building within the definition.

Under the Building Safety Act 2022 regime, hospitals and care homes of that height are treated differently again at the building control gateways for the design and construction phase. So a hospital scheme can be outside the planning fire statement requirement and inside the building control regime. Read each requirement against its own definition.

Student accommodation is normally within scope through the educational accommodation limb. Do not rely on the sui generis use classification to argue otherwise, because Article 9A is drafted around the accommodation provided rather than the use class. A Fire Statement is a national validation requirement where the building qualifies, and a council cannot waive it.

Applications the requirement does not reach

The requirement attaches to applications for planning permission. Several routes to development therefore sit outside it, and the distinction matters when you are choosing a consent route.

• Prior approval applications under the General Permitted Development Order, which are not applications for planning permission.
• Lawful development certificates under sections 191 and 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
• Listed building consent applications, which are made under separate legislation.
• Discharge of conditions applications on a permission already granted.

Where you are submitting a reserved matters application following an outline permission, or a section 73 application to vary a condition, check the position with the authority before assuming the requirement does or does not apply. Practice differs between councils and the answer turns on the wording of Article 9A and the council's validation list, so a short pre-submission email saves a refused validation.

The statement also does not replace a building control submission. Passing Gateway One says nothing about whether the detailed fire strategy will be accepted later, and a Fire Safety Strategy to BS 9991 or BS 9999 is a separate document produced at a different stage. Where the scheme includes firefighting shafts, the planning-stage layout has to anticipate them, which is covered in firefighting shafts and how they shape a residential core.

Validation consequences of omitting it

The fire statement is part of the national validation requirements, so an application for a relevant building submitted without one is invalid. The practical consequences follow in order.

1. The council writes to say the application is invalid and the determination clock has not started.
2. The submission sits unregistered, which on a programmed scheme can cost weeks rather than days.
3. Once registered, the council consults the Health and Safety Executive as the Gateway One statutory consultee, and the response period runs from that point.
4. Any advice from the Executive then has to be addressed, which can mean amended plans and a further consultation round.

Build that sequence into the programme rather than treating the statement as a form to complete at the last minute. The Executive's advice at Gateway One is about the fire safety implications of the design in planning terms, so points about site access, water supply for firefighting and the position of cores are better resolved before submission.

Who is competent to author it

The statement has to be completed on the form published by the Secretary of State, and the form asks who prepared it. That question is the point of the exercise.

Fire safety in a tall residential building is a fire-engineering matter, and a person with the necessary fire-engineering competence should author the statement. An architect completing the form from a template is not what the regime contemplates, and thin statements attract exactly the kind of Gateway One advice that delays a decision.

PlanScope drafts a Fire Statement structured to the information the form requires, from your project details, with "TO BE CONFIRMED" flags wherever a figure or a strategy decision is missing. 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. 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.