The Gateway regime, introduced under the Building Safety Act 2022, was designed to ensure that higher risk buildings (HRBs) meet rigorous safety standards throughout their lifecycle.
Gateway 2 acts as a critical checkpoint before construction begins, requiring developers to demonstrate that their designs comply with building regulations and safety principles. However, as highlighted in John Forde's April 2025 article, the reality has been far from smooth. Delays in Gateway 2 approvals have become a significant bottleneck, stalled projects and creating uncertainty across the sector.
In response to these challenges, the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) has taken a bold step: the creation of the Innovation Unit (IU). This article explores how the IU is reshaping the Gateway 2 process, offering a more agile, efficient, and collaborative model for regulatory engagement.
Understanding the problem: Gateway 2 delays in context
Gateway 2 is intended to be a robust filter, ensuring that only safe and compliant designs proceed to construction. Yet, the process has been plagued by delays. Between October 2023 and September 2024, only 146 of 1,018 Gateway 2 applications were approved. The average determination time reached 22 weeks, nearly double the statutory 12-week limit. These delays have had real world consequences: over 700 projects have been held up, including vital remediation works and new housing developments.
The causes are multifaceted. A significant proportion of applications, estimated at 75%, are rejected due to missing or inadequate information. Moreover, the BSR’s reliance on outsourced Multidisciplinary Teams (MDTs) has led to coordination issues, inconsistent feedback, and extended review periods. In some cases, applicants have waited up to 40 weeks for a decision, undermining confidence in the system.
The Innovation Unit: A new model for regulatory engagement
Launched in mid-2025, the Innovation Unit represents a strategic pivot by the BSR. Rather than relying on fragmented MDTs, the IU offers a centralised, structured approach to Gateway 2 approvals, particularly for new build HRBs. As of October 2025, the IU is managing 27 applications, covering over 6,000 housing units. Early results are promising, and applications processed through the IU are consistently meeting or exceeding the 12-week service level agreement (SLA).
Key features of the Innovation Unit
- Pilot delivery model: The IU operates under a pilot model that replaces the legacy MDT structure. It leverages inhouse expertise and streamlined workflows, enabling faster and more consistent decision making.
- Batching and specialisation: Applications are grouped into batches and assigned to dedicated engineering service providers. This allows for focused technical review and avoids the delays associated with ad hoc MDT coordination.
- Performance monitoring: The IU tracks milestone timings and performance metrics, allowing for real time adjustments and continuous improvement. This data driven approach is a marked departure from the opaque processes of the past.
- Collaborative engagement: Applicants working with the IU report clearer guidance, more constructive feedback, and a greater sense of partnership. This cultural shift, from regulator as gatekeeper to regulator as a facilitator, is central to the IU’s success.
Policy shifts supporting innovation
The IU’s emergence coincides with broader policy changes aimed at improving Gateway 2 outcomes. Notably, the BSR has introduced a more flexible approach to staged delivery. Previously, applicants were required to submit fully developed designs for entire buildings, often before viability had been established. Now, the regulator allows for “Approval with Requirements,” enabling staged submissions and conditional approvals. This change has been particularly beneficial for complex or phased developments.
Additionally, the Construction Leadership Council (CLC) has published updated guidance, including process maps and submission templates. These resources, developed in collaboration with industry stakeholders, help applicants understand what is expected and how to meet those expectations. The IU complements this guidance by offering a practical, responsive interface for navigating the Gateway 2 process.
Implications for developers and legal teams
For developers, the IU offers a pathway to faster approvals and reduced risk. Projects managed through the IU are progressing more swiftly, with fewer surprises and clearer timelines. This has financial implications: reduced holding costs, improved cash flow, and greater certainty for investors.
Legal teams also benefit. The IU’s structured approach makes it easier to advise clients, prepare documentation, and anticipate regulatory requirements. Moreover, the shift toward staged approvals and conditional requirements aligns with commercial realities, allowing for more flexible project planning.
However, success is not guaranteed. Applicants must still meet high standards and provide comprehensive, well organised submissions. The IU is not a shortcut, it is a more efficient route for those who are prepared.
Challenges and future outlook
While the IU has shown early promise, challenges remain. The backlog of legacy applications, many submitted under the old MDT model, continues to strain resources. The BSR must balance its commitment to innovation with the need to clear these historic cases.
There is also a question of scalability. Can the IU model be expanded to cover all Gateway 2 applications? Will similar units be created for Gateway 3 or other regulatory functions? These are open questions, but the IU’s success provides a compelling case for broader reform.
Finally, cultural change takes time. The IU’s collaborative ethos must be embedded across the BSR and its partners. Training, communication, and leadership will be key to sustaining momentum.
Conclusion: A blueprint for reform
The Innovation Unit is more than a pilot: it is a blueprint. By centralising expertise, streamlining processes, and fostering collaboration, it addresses the root causes of Gateway 2 delays. For developers, legal teams, and regulators alike, the IU offers a glimpse of what a modern, responsive regulatory system can look like.
As the BSR continues to evolve, the lessons of the IU should inform future reforms. Gateway 2 is a critical juncture in the life of a building. Getting it right means safer homes, more efficient construction, and greater public trust. Innovation, in this context, is not optional, it is essential.
