For contractors working across Essex, Kent and London, the Building Safety Act is no longer just a compliance issue for the legal or design team. It is changing the commercial risk of taking on work, particularly higher-risk building projects where approval, documentation and handover now depend on a much more demanding regulatory process.
The latest Building Safety Regulator data, reported on 19 August 2026, makes the position clear. Between 11 May and 1 August:
- 340 valid Gateway Two applications received decisions, with an 82% approval rate.
- 300 applications, representing 47% of the total received, were deemed invalid or withdrawn.
- New-build applications had a median decision time of 22 weeks.
- Remediation applications took a median of 34 weeks.
- Gateway Three decisions took a median of 16 weeks, against an eight-week statutory target.
- No new-build project that has passed Gateway Two has yet reached Gateway Three.
There has been improvement, especially through the BSR’s Innovation Unit. Median new-build approval time has reduced from 43 weeks to 22 weeks over the past year, based on 102 determinations. But even the improved figure remains well beyond the 12-week statutory target for new-build Gateway Two approval.
For contractors, this creates a difficult position. Clients want certainty, consultants are narrowing their own exposure, and insurers are becoming more cautious around fire safety, façades and higher-risk buildings. The contractor can end up carrying the risk of an outcome that depends partly on decisions and information outside its control.
The gateway timetable is now a commercial risk
The Gateway regime is intended to create hard stops at key stages of a higher-risk building project. Gateway Two approval is required before construction can proceed, while Gateway Three approval is required before occupation, subject to the relevant rules and limited exceptions.
That structure is important for safety, but it also creates a programme risk that cannot sensibly be managed by relying on statutory targets alone.
The statutory target for a new-build Gateway Two decision is 12 weeks. However, Beale & Co reported that the average time to reach a decision was 35 weeks in the 12 weeks to 1 May 2026. The latest figures show that new-build decisions are moving more quickly, but Category A and B applications still had a median approval time of 32 weeks and remediation applications 34 weeks.
Major change requests add another layer of uncertainty. There were 181 live requests in the latest reporting period, with 42% relating to new-build projects. New-build change requests were taking an average of seven weeks to close, compared with a six-week statutory target.
This matters because a contract may still contain a completion date based on an assumed 12-week approval period. If the approval takes 22, 32 or 35 weeks, the contractor may face extended preliminaries, disrupted labour arrangements, financing pressure and claims for liquidated damages.
The problem becomes more serious when the contract treats gateway approval as an absolute contractor obligation. A contractor may be responsible for coordinating information and managing the construction process, but it cannot guarantee that a regulator will approve a submission within a particular period.
That distinction needs to be made at tender stage, not after the project has started.
Clients are transferring risk down the supply chain
The direction of travel in many building contracts is familiar. The employer wants a single point of responsibility, so BSA compliance is written as a broad contractor obligation. The contractor then looks to pass the same obligation to designers, consultants and subcontractors.
In practice, that risk is not always passed through effectively.
A main contractor may be required to warrant that the project will comply with the Building Safety Act, satisfy the regulator and be fit for occupation. Yet the architect or specialist consultant may have a reasonable-skill-and-care appointment, a liability cap and exclusions for particular fire-safety or façade risks.
That leaves a gap between the promise made by the contractor and the liability accepted by the consultant.
We are also seeing contractual provisions that:
- carve “building safety” or “fire safety” claims out of liability caps;
- extend liability periods, sometimes by reference to the 30-year retrospective period under the Defective Premises Act;
- impose competency warranties that go beyond the contractor’s statutory role;
- create open-ended obligations to maintain the golden thread;
- treat regulatory delay as contractor delay; and
- retain high liquidated damages exposure even where completion depends on Gateway Three approval.
Some of these obligations may be reasonable if they are carefully defined and priced. The concern is the broad drafting now appearing in some contracts, where the contractor is expected to guarantee an outcome without having control over every design input, client decision or regulatory response.
Risk cannot simply be left in the middle. It needs to be identified, allocated to the party best placed to control it and supported by insurance that actually responds.
Fitness for purpose can create an insurance gap
Fitness for purpose wording deserves particular attention.
A fitness for purpose obligation can require a contractor to guarantee that the works will achieve a specified outcome. On a BSA project, that may be linked to compliance, fire safety or suitability for occupation.
The difficulty is that professional indemnity insurance is generally written around negligence or breach of a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care. It is not usually designed to cover every failure to achieve an absolute result, particularly where the failure does not arise from negligence.
This can leave a contractor with a contractual liability that is wider than its PI cover.
A contractor should therefore resist an unqualified fitness for purpose obligation where possible. A more workable position may be to:
- express design obligations by reference to reasonable skill and care;
- specify compliance with applicable law and building regulations without guaranteeing regulator approval;
- identify which party is responsible for each design element;
- ensure consultant appointments are back-to-back with the main contract; and
- obtain written confirmation from the broker and insurer that the proposed obligations are understood.
This is not about avoiding responsibility for safety. It is about ensuring the contract reflects the responsibility the contractor can actually manage and insure.
Gateway Three needs to be planned from contract stage
Gateway Three is becoming the next major pressure point.
The latest figures show 45 Gateway Three applications received in the relevant 12-week period, with 29 decisions made. The approval rate was 72% and the median determination time was 16 weeks, double the statutory eight-week target. Importantly, no new-build project that has passed through Gateway Two has yet reached Gateway Three.
The lesson is that Gateway Three cannot be treated as an administrative formality at the end of construction. The design decisions made earlier must still be evidenced, and the completed building must reflect the approved design.
Iterative design-and-build between Gateways Two and Three is not a reliable option. If significant changes are made, a further submission to the BSR may be required. That can affect cost, completion and occupation.
The golden thread is central to this process. It should show:
- what decisions were made;
- who made them;
- which information supported them;
- what changed;
- who approved the change; and
- how the final construction reflects the approved design.
The golden thread is not merely a document-management exercise. It may become important legal evidence if a later dispute concerns delay, defects or responsibility for a design decision.
Contracts should therefore name the person or organisation responsible for coordinating this information. They should also require supply chain records to be provided in a consistent format and within agreed timescales.
What this means for Construction Contractor Insurance
The insurance market is narrowing at the same time as contractual obligations are expanding. Underwriters are applying greater scrutiny to higher-risk building work, façade systems and fire-safety responsibilities. Contractors may encounter higher premiums, larger excesses, restricted limits and exclusions that were not present in older policies.
There has also been reduced capacity in parts of the PI market, including following Wren’s withdrawal from the PI market. This does not mean that suitable insurance is impossible, but it does mean that late discussions and generic policy comparisons are less likely to produce a reliable result.
Your Construction Contractor Insurance and General Contractor Liability Insurance should be reviewed against the work you are actually undertaking. In particular, check:
- whether façade and fire-safety activities are excluded;
- whether design responsibility has been accepted inadvertently;
- whether contractual liability is wider than the insured negligence standard;
- whether the policy limit is adequate for the project and potential aggregation;
- whether subcontractor and consultant insurance is sufficient; and
- whether notification and record-retention requirements can be met.
A policy can be valid and still fail to meet a contractual requirement. Equally, a contract can contain an insurance obligation that the market will not provide on commercially realistic terms.
For contractors looking for Business Insurance Essex or Business Insurance London, this is where an experienced specialist broker can add value. Moyak Insurance Services works with leading UK master insurance brokers and takes an individual approach to each client, helping construction businesses assess their contractual exposure before cover is arranged. You can contact Moyak Insurance Services to discuss a review of your current arrangements.
Practical steps for contractors
Before signing a new contract, contractors should:
-
Review gateway obligations at tender stage. Identify which approvals, submissions and decisions are within your control and which depend on the client, design team or BSR.
-
Use realistic programme assumptions. Do not build a 12-week statutory target into the commercial programme without testing longer scenarios.
-
Negotiate time and cost relief. Gateway delays, regulator information requests, major change requests and changes in law should be addressed expressly.
-
Protect the completion date. Consider appropriate liquidated damages carve-outs, relief events, long-stop dates, LAD holidays and early-handover arrangements where they genuinely reduce project risk.
-
Qualify fitness for purpose wording. Aim for obligations aligned with reasonable skill and care and clarify that regulator approval cannot be guaranteed.
-
Make the supply chain back-to-back. Consultant appointments and subcontract terms should reflect the obligations imposed on the main contractor, including records, competency and information requirements.
-
Build the golden thread from day one. Do not wait until Gateway Three to discover that design decisions, product information or change records are incomplete.
-
Check insurance before accepting the risk. Ask specifically about fire safety, façades, PI exclusions, liability caps, retroactive cover and any contractual warranties.
The Building Safety Act is raising standards for good reason, but the commercial framework around it still needs to catch up. Contractors should not be expected to guarantee regulatory decisions or absorb liabilities that consultants, clients and insurers have avoided.
The practical response is disciplined tender review, realistic programming, clear delegation and early insurance advice. For businesses in Essex, Kent and London, a proper review of Construction Contractor Insurance and wider General Contractor Liability Insurance may be the difference between taking on a difficult project with managed exposure and signing a contract that quietly transfers an uninsurable risk to your business.
For further practical guidance, visit Moyak’s useful information hub. Regulatory requirements and insurance policies can vary by project, so contractors should obtain appropriate legal and insurance advice before relying on any contract wording.
Frequently asked questions
What is the current Gateway Two approval time?
The latest data for 11 May to 1 August 2026 shows a median decision time of 22 weeks for new-build applications. Category A and B applications had a median of 32 weeks, while remediation applications had a median of 34 weeks.
Can a contractor guarantee Gateway approval?
A contractor can take responsibility for preparing, coordinating and managing information within its control, but it should be cautious about guaranteeing approval or a regulator’s decision within a fixed period. The contract should distinguish contractor-caused delay from regulatory delay and third-party design issues.
Does professional indemnity insurance cover fitness for purpose obligations?
Professional indemnity insurance is generally written around negligence and reasonable skill and care. An absolute fitness for purpose warranty may create liability that is wider than the policy responds to, so the contract and policy wording should be reviewed together before the obligation is accepted.
Why is Gateway Three important for contractors?
Gateway Three is linked to completion and occupation. The contractor must help demonstrate that the approved design has been properly constructed and that the required safety information is complete. A failure to plan for the final gateway can delay handover even where physical construction is substantially finished.
What insurance should a construction contractor review?
A contractor should review Construction Contractor Insurance, General Contractor Liability Insurance, professional indemnity arrangements where design responsibility is involved, contract works cover and relevant subcontractor or consultant insurance. Particular attention should be paid to façade, cladding, fire-safety and contractual liability exclusions.