Navigating the Building Safety Act:
What It Means for Design and Delivery
The Building Safety Act 2022 has reshaped how complex and higher-risk buildings move from concept to completion. Its impact on live projects is no longer theoretical; it now shapes how design teams, contractors and clients work together from day one.
The Act's impact on live projects is no longer about whether it applies; it's about what it requires once a project is underway. The duty holder and competence requirements in the Building Regulations apply broadly to design and building work, not only higher-risk buildings. The relationship with building control has shifted from collaborative problem-solving to regulatory oversight. The burden of proof now sits with the industry, not the regulator. For us, this is where design management has an important role to play: understanding the compliance obligations early, building the evidence trail as the project develops, and keeping the design programme aligned to the regulatory one rather than treating it as a separate track.
DUTY HOLDER ACCOUNTABILITY
The Act formalised duty holder roles under the Building Regulations, distinct from their CDM counterparts even when the same person holds both: the client, the designer, the principal designer, the contractor, and the principal contractor. Each has a duty to plan, manage, and monitor their part of the work, and to cooperate and coordinate with everyone else on the project. That accountability also lasts longer than before. Claims relating to defective fire protection or other structural defects can now be brought against a project's delivery team, and in some cases associated companies, for up to thirty years after completion for buildings completed before 28 June 2022, and fifteen years for those completed after.
DOCUMENTATION IS NOW EVIDENCE, NOT PAPERWORK
A project team must now demonstrate what was installed, how compliance was managed, who carried out the work, and how changes were controlled. The golden thread makes this clear: an accurate, current record connecting design intent to what was built, not assembled retrospectively when requested. Poor records or undocumented changes cause programme delays and cost pressure well before any incident. A gap in the evidence must be resolved before a gateway will pass or a change will be approved.
We have managed this process effectively on numerous projects over the past few years, including Willen House, a student accommodation retrofit. We meticulously recorded non-standard details throughout the building, ensuring each had its own engineering judgement or test evidence and that all records were maintained in schedules and precise filing systems.
PROGRAMME IMPLICATIONS
Gateway 2 has become a genuine stop/go milestone for High Risk Buildings (HRB). HRB’s are those which are eighteen meters or more in height and have contain at least two residential units. Construction cannot legally begin until the Building Safety Regulator approves the design and safety information.
Gateway 3 requires a completion certificate before anyone can occupy the building. Both are hard stops. In 2025 and into 2026, significant backlogs occurred, with Gateway 2 decisions routinely taking longer than programmes allowed. The regulator responded with batch processing and a dedicated Innovation Unit for straightforward applications. They also published an ambition to reduce non-complex Gateway 2 decisions to eighteen weeks by March 2027. Still, the practical implication remains: build the approval timescale into the programme from the earliest stages, not as a contingency.
Programmes are extending for a more structural reason too. The overlap that used to exist between early enabling or demolition works and the final stages of design has become less common. Site works generally cannot start until Gateway 2 approval is in, no matter how straightforward the enabling package is. Change control adds another layer once approval is granted. Changes to the approved design must be notified to the regulator and are split between notifiable and major changes. A major change needs BSR approval before implementation, with a six-week review period. This is pushing some clients toward procurement routes designed to minimise changes after Gateway 2, rather than treating procurement strategy and Gateway timing as separate decisions.
That means design typically needs to reach a coordinated RIBA Stage 4 before a Gateway 2 submission. Contractor and specialist input must come earlier rather than waiting until appointment. Early contractor engagement, potentially through a pre-construction services agreement, and earlier key client decisions support that certainty. The result is often a longer pre-construction period than clients expect. They need to plan for it rather than be surprised.
COST IMPLICATIONS
Historically, clients could defer decisions and keep momentum on site. Under the Gateway process, delayed decisions can now directly delay approval. This means design certainty and cost certainty are more closely linked than before. Additional design coordination, regulatory submissions, and late design changes all carry a cost.
Handover strategy is a less obvious cost implication. Larger schemes have traditionally handed over completed floors or apartments in stages before the whole building is finished. That approach does not fit the new regime. Current guidance says the entire building needs sign-off before any part can be handed over.
Much of this is front-loading: design development and decision-making that used to happen post-contract now needs resourcing earlier. Realistic cost planning must account for this shift, along with the less direct costs of an extended pre-construction period, an additional regulatory review triggered by a design change, or the holding costs of a handover strategy that no longer works as before.
HOW DESIGN MANAGEMENT SUPPORTS THE PROCESS
Getting through the gateways without delay depends on coordinated design, a properly evidenced safety case, and a golden thread built as the project progresses rather than reconstructed when someone asks for it.
This is where design management sits alongside the client design team, planning information release around the gateway requirements, flagging early where a change will trigger formal change control, and keeping the safety case, the fire strategy and the construction detail talking to each other throughout, so the administrative weight doesn't fall on the design team alone.
The Act was never really about paperwork. It's a framework for accountability, built into how a project runs day to day rather than bolted on at the end. For clients delivering HRB’s, or working alongside them on connected schemes, a technical partner who understands where it bites is the difference between a project that keeps moving and one that stalls at Gateway 2.
At HPC, this is core to how we manage design on complex projects, working alongside architects, engineers and specialist consultants to keep the safety case, the golden thread and the design programme aligned. As a result, our clients reach the gateways with the information ready, not assembled under pressure.
We are applying the robust systems and processes developed for HRB Gateway approvals across our non-HRB projects, strengthening our approach to Building Regulations compliance and design governance. Our team are Building Safety Act trained, and our knowledge of the latest regulatory requirements and industry standards remains current through regular CPD attendance.
[email protected]