Building Safety Act Gateway 2 cost impact on residential HRBs, 2026

What design, programme and construction cost lines the Gateway 2 approval regime is adding to residential higher-risk buildings.

Trails Research·Updated 2026-04-19·6 min read
Typical cost uplift on HRB+3 to +8%Versus pre-BSA HRB baseline
Gateway 2 approval window8 to 12 wks16 to 20 weeks on complex schemes
Labour YoYN/A Prelim inflation during the approval wait

Gateway 2 is the first statutory approval checkpoint for higher-risk buildings. It is adding 3 to 8% to total build cost on eligible residential projects, plus 8 to 12 weeks of pre-start programme, and is reshaping how QSs cost-plan these jobs.

Sources: Building Safety Act 2022, BSR operational guidance, RICS and CIOB market commentary. Live labour cost backdrop: ONS Labour Cost Index for construction. Latest: N/A.

A higher-risk building (HRB) is defined under the Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2023 as a building that is 18 metres or taller, or has 7 or more storeys, and contains at least 2 residential units. Gateway 2 sits between planning and construction under the Building Safety Act 2022, and no in-scope project can start on site without Building Safety Regulator (BSR) approval of the design.

Which projects this applies to

  • 18 metres or more above ground level.
  • 7 or more storeys.
  • Contains at least 2 residential units.
  • In-scope from planning through to handover.

Mid-rise residential developers are increasingly running buildings just under the threshold (typically 17.5m, 6 storeys) specifically to avoid the regime. That is a strategic choice with its own cost and design consequences, and worth modelling alongside the in-scope option on any marginal scheme.

Source: Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2023. Always confirm against the current guidance at gov.uk/guidance/higher-risk-buildings-regulator.

The cost lines that change

Cost areaChangeTypical uplift
Design feesPrincipal Designer competence evidence, Gateway 2 package, fire and structural safety case+20 to +40% on design fee
BSR approval feeBuilding Safety Regulator statutory fee, scales with floor area+£30,000 to £150,000 per building
Programme8 to 12 week BSR review, longer if deficiencies+£50,000 to £300,000 of preliminaries
Competence evidenceCompiling contractor and designer competence records+£10,000 to £40,000 of management time
InsurancePI and latent defects repricing+5 to +15% on cover cost
Golden threadInformation management system for regulated info+£20,000 to £60,000 set-up plus ongoing

Ranges are based on market commentary from RICS, CIOB, and BSR guidance at time of writing. Actual figures vary substantially by project complexity and by how well the design team has prepared the submission.

What Gateway 2 actually checks

The BSR reviews the design package for compliance with Building Regulations with particular weight on fire and structural performance. Four specific items sit at the top of the review list:

  • Design package compliance with Building Regulations, with fire and structural performance scrutinised hardest.
  • Competence evidence for the Principal Designer and Principal Contractor.
  • The proposed construction control plan (how changes will be managed during build).
  • The golden thread information management approach.

Source: Building Safety Act 2022, Part 3; BSR operational guidance.

Timeline implications for cost planning

ONS Labour Cost Index for construction. Base: 2015 = 100. The plot lines show when the Building Safety Act received Royal Assent and when the full Gateway regime became live for in-scope HRBs.

Assume 12 weeks from submission to approval as a realistic baseline. BSR statistics through 2024 and into 2025 showed average review times lengthening, with complex submissions running 16 to 20 weeks. Price the preliminaries on the longer scenario, not the statutory minimum.

Minor design changes mid-construction need change-control approval. Major changes require resubmission to Gateway 2, which can stop work on site. Cost planners should build in a change-management contingency of 2 to 4% of contract value on HRB projects that is ring-fenced for this risk specifically, rather than folding it into the general contingency where it competes with scope risk and prelims overrun.

How QSs should adjust their cost plans

  1. Add a dedicated Gateway 2 line in the cost plan, not just spread the uplift across existing headings.
  2. Price design fees on the high side until the practice has a completed HRB in its track record.
  3. Build preliminaries at 12 to 16 weeks of pre-start for Gateway 2, on top of the standard mobilisation period.
  4. Carry a separate change-control contingency of 2 to 4% on top of the base contingency.
  5. Flag competence evidence compilation as a distinct workstream with its own cost.
  6. Price PI cover uplift into fee proposals; do not absorb it.

The design-and-build contractor question

Some developers are moving away from pure design-and-build for HRBs because the Principal Designer duty under Gateway 2 sits uncomfortably with contractor-led design. A common alternative is a two-stage procurement where the design is completed to Gateway 2 approval under an independent Principal Designer, then handed to a contractor for construction. QSs should expect this procurement shift to continue and price accordingly (typically +1 to +2% on overall cost versus pre-BSA D&B baseline, traded off against reduced change-control friction later).

What is less of a problem than first feared

The industry feared Gateway 2 would add 15% or more to HRB costs. In practice, on well-run projects with experienced Principal Designers, the total uplift is sitting at the lower end of the 3 to 8% range cited above. The bigger risk is programme, not direct cost. Badly prepared Gateway 2 submissions that bounce back from the BSR lose weeks, and those weeks hit the preliminaries line hardest, compounded by any labour cost drift during the wait. See the companion guide on fixed-price versus cost-plus contracts for how this reshapes the procurement conversation.

Cost ranges in this article are industry estimates at time of writing, synthesised from RICS and CIOB commentary and from BSR published guidance. The regime is still maturing; numbers will stabilise as more HRB approvals complete. Always confirm with the Building Safety Regulator published guidance (gov.uk/guidance/higher-risk-buildings-regulator) for current statutory requirements. For the live labour figure the preliminaries inflation rests on, see the Cost Tracker.

Frequently asked questions

What is a higher-risk building (HRB) under the Building Safety Act?
A higher-risk building is defined under the Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2023 as a building that is at least 18 metres tall or has at least 7 storeys, and contains at least 2 residential units. Hospitals and care homes of the same height or storey count are also in scope during construction but not during occupation. Buildings that do not meet all three tests (height or storey count plus residential units) are not HRBs, even if they are tall commercial buildings. The definition is strict and hand-off-the-tape; a building at 17.95 metres is not an HRB, and a building at 18.05 metres is.
How much is Gateway 2 actually costing in practice in 2026?
Industry commentary from RICS and CIOB through 2024 and into 2026 puts the total cost uplift on residential HRBs at 3% to 8% versus the pre-BSA baseline, with well-run projects using experienced Principal Designers clustering at the lower end. The cost is spread across design fees (+20% to +40%), BSR approval fees (+£30,000 to +£150,000 per building depending on floor area), preliminaries during the 8 to 12 week approval wait, insurance repricing, competence evidence compilation, and the golden thread information system. The industry feared 15%+ when the regime was announced; the actual number is meaningfully lower on a good team.
How long does Gateway 2 approval take?
The statutory baseline is 12 weeks from submission, but BSR published statistics through 2024 and into 2025 showed average review times lengthening, and complex submissions running 16 to 20 weeks once the BSR raises deficiencies and the team has to respond. Price preliminaries on 12 to 16 weeks, not 12. Minor design changes during construction need change-control approval (typically 2 to 6 weeks turnaround); major changes require resubmission to Gateway 2, which can stop work on site. The programme risk is larger than the direct cost risk for most HRB projects.
Who carries liability for design under the Building Safety Act Gateway 2?
The Principal Designer duty under the BSA is statutory and cannot be delegated. The Principal Designer is responsible for coordinating design to comply with Building Regulations and for the design package submitted to Gateway 2. The Principal Contractor carries equivalent statutory duty during the build phase. Both roles must evidence competence to the BSR. This sits uncomfortably with pure design-and-build procurement, because contractor-led design changes trigger Principal Designer review and potentially re-submission. Many developers are moving to two-stage procurement: design complete to Gateway 2 under an independent Principal Designer, then handed to a contractor for construction.
Are mid-rise developers avoiding HRB status to dodge Gateway 2?
Yes, some are. It is now common to see residential schemes specifically designed to 17.5 metres, 6 storeys, to sit just under the HRB threshold. The trade-off is real: below-threshold schemes save the 3% to 8% cost uplift and the 12 to 16 week programme extension, but lose any unit count or floor area the extra storey would have delivered. On marginal sites the below-HRB option can be commercially superior; on well-located sites where the residual land value supports the full height, the HRB uplift is absorbed. The decision is project-specific and should be modelled both ways at feasibility stage rather than defaulted.