Proof Not Promise: Why Gateway 2 Is a Process to Be Understood
No one sets out in development expecting an easy ride. But the introduction of the Building Safety Regulator and the Gateway process has undoubtedly raised the bar and with it anxiety across the industry.
Having recently taken our first higher risk building project, Temple Reach, a 22-storey student living scheme in Bristol, through Gateway 2, I can say this with confidence; The process is demanding, at times frustrating and stressful, but it is not something to be feared. Gateway 2 is often described as adversarial, a hurdle to be cleared or a test to be survived. In reality, it is neither. It is a structured, evidence led conversation about whether a building genuinely does what we say it will do.
That distinction matters.
From Assumption to Evidence
For years, the industry has relied heavily on professional assurance. Drawings were issued, strategies written and compliance often inferred rather than demonstrated. Gateway 2 fundamentally changes that dynamic. Every assumption is tested. Every interface is interrogated. Every claim must be supported by proof. At Temple Reach, this meant multiple rounds of Requests for Information, technical workshops and multi-disciplinary reviews over an 18-week period. This was slightly beyond the statutory timescale, but well within the average for a higher risk building and crucially constructive throughout.
The process did not weaken the project. It strengthened it.
A Discipline of Informed Judgement
Gateway 2 is not a binary exercise of pass or fail. Nor is it a negotiation. It is a discipline of informed judgement, applied against the functional intent of the Building Regulations. The process demands that teams move beyond compliance by assertion. It requires a clear understanding of risk, transparent articulation of assumptions and the ability to demonstrate, with evidence, why a particular solution is appropriate, proportionate and safe. In practice, many issues are not resolved through redesign, but through precision. Tightening technical logic, strengthening calculations or clarifying how evidence aligns with regulatory outcomes. Where judgement is exercised correctly, it is grounded in data, not opinion. This approach does not dilute standards. On the contrary, it raises them. It distinguishes between genuine risk and perceived risk, ensuring regulatory focus is directed where it matters most.
Gateway 2 therefore rewards teams that can exercise professional judgement with discipline. Teams that understand both the letter and the intent of the Regulations and can demonstrate compliance without overcomplication or defensive design.
The Importance of the Team
What Gateway 2 exposes very quickly is that no single discipline can carry a project. Fire safety, structure, façade, building services, acoustics and environmental design do not exist in isolation. Success depends on how well those disciplines collaborate, how clearly responsibilities are defined and how consistently information is controlled. At Temple Reach, progress was driven not by any one solution, but by coordination. Bringing specialists into the same room, aligning their outputs and presenting a single, coherent narrative to the regulator.
That level of collaboration does not happen by accident. It requires leadership, trust and a shared understanding that evidence is a collective responsibility.
Gateway 2 Is Just Another Stage (If You Treat It That Way)
One of the biggest misconceptions is that Gateway 2 sits outside the normal development lifecycle. It does not. When approached properly, it is simply another stage like planning, procurement or construction with its own inputs, outputs and programme demands. At Cubex, the Temple Reach experience has reshaped how we approach future projects. Evidence planning now runs alongside design programming. Verification is treated as a discipline, not an administrative task. Clarity is prioritised over volume at every stage.
The difference is that Gateway 2 punishes late thinking. Teams that treat evidence as an afterthought will struggle. Teams that design for proof from the outset will not.
A Message to the Industry
There has been understandable concern that the new safety regime would slow delivery or stifle ambition. While many projects have experienced delays over the past two years, our experience suggests the industry is beginning to adapt and that the Building Safety Regulator is increasingly tightening review timescales. Yes, the process requires more effort upfront. Yes, it demands greater discipline and coordination. But it is navigable.
Gateway 2 does not stop good projects. It filters out weak ones. For developers willing to invest in highly motivated, highly competent teams, the Gateway process becomes just another structured step in delivering safe, resilient buildings that stand the test of time...
…and that is no bad thing.
