ISSG Warns Building Safety Gateway Submissions Must Improve

Building Safety Gateway Submissions Must Start Earlier, ISSG Warns

The Industry Safety Steering Group has warned that poor Building Safety Gateway submissions continue to reveal weaknesses across the built environment sector. Its fifth report was published on GOV.UK on 6 July 2026. It says that poor-quality submissions to Gateway 2 and Gateway 3 continue to expose gaps in industry practice. The warning matters to clients, developers, designers, principal designers and accountable persons and the higher-risk building regime now tests whether project teams have embedded safety throughout design, construction and occupation.

Why Building Safety Gateway Submissions Matter

Poor-quality Gateway 2 and Gateway 3 applications can cause slower decisions, refusals, redesign work and uncertainty around occupation. Strong Building Safety Gateway submissions require project teams to consider safety, competence and evidence from day one. These requirements should shape the brief, appointments and design process.

Why the ISSG Report Matters

The report recognises progress from government, regulators and several industry bodies, including the Building Safety Regulator’s move to standalone status in January 2026. It also welcomes work on professional competence, industry guidance and the proposed Single Construction Regulator. However, the report says that culture change remains uneven as some parts of the industry have not fully engaged with the new regime. Instead, some project teams still treat regulatory duties as issues to address at the application stage. This approach can produce weaker submissions, slower decisions and possible refusals. It can also cause redesign work and create uncertainty around occupation.

Gateway 2 and Gateway 3 Requirements

The warning is particularly relevant to higher-risk residential projects, remediation work and major refurbishments. Gateway 2 determines whether a project can receive building control approval before construction starts and Gateway 3 determines whether the completed building can receive approval for occupation. Project teams therefore need to develop evidence, coordination and safety strategies early. Leaving this work too late can affect the programme, increase costs and reduce investor confidence.

BSR Data Shows Progress, but Not a Free Pass

The latest Building Safety Regulator data was published on 1 July 2026, showing that approval rates are improving. Across all Gateway 2 categories, the BSR made 368 decisions during the 12 weeks to 28 June 2026 and approved 77% of those applications.

For new-build projects, the regulator approved 25 of the 28 applications it decided. This represents an approval rate of 89%. Approval rates for remediation work on existing buildings also rose to 85% during the same period.

These figures suggest that applicants can navigate the system more successfully when they engage early and provide better information. However, improved regulator performance does not remove the industry’s responsibility to improve its own work. Gateway readiness should shape appointment scopes, design coordination and fire strategies. It should also influence product information, competence checks and client decisions from the outset.

What Clients Should Do

Clients should request clear evidence that the project team understands and has properly resourced its safety responsibilities. They should confirm that competent people hold the relevant roles before key design decisions become fixed. Clients should also check that the fire strategy develops alongside the wider design. In addition, product and system information should support the eventual regulatory submission. Teams should identify gaps early, rather than attempting to resolve them immediately before an application.

What Design and Construction Teams Should Do

Design teams should treat Gateway evidence as an active project deliverable. They should not view it as an administrative pack to assemble shortly before submission. Principal designers and contractors should clearly record assumptions, design changes and safety decisions. This creates a traceable record and helps the wider team understand how decisions affect compliance. For occupied buildings and remediation projects, accountable persons should also consider resident impact and construction sequencing. They must ensure the available information supports the safe delivery of the work.

The Wider Direction of Travel

The BSR’s 2026 to 2027 strategic plan links building safety with restoring confidence in homes. It also connects the regime with housing delivery and economic growth. The ISSG report supports that direction but gives the industry a firmer challenge. It says the sector must make safety culture part of normal business practice. For built environment clients, the regulatory regime is maturing, but scrutiny is not easing. Projects are more likely to progress smoothly when teams embed safety, competence and evidence from the outset.