Gateway 2 lessons: Preparing construction projects for Gateway 3 success

by Breaking NewsBuilding ManagementBuilding ManagementConstructionConstructionFire EngineeringFire SuppressionIFSJ ExclusivesInspectionPassive

Quelfire shares expert insights into the key lessons from Gateway 2, highlighting common compliance challenges and how construction teams can prepare for Gateway 3

In many ways, Gateway 2 has become the new normal. It’s already changing the industry for the better, especially for teams that genuinely want to get things right. That said, the industry isn’t fully there yet.

Some still hold the mindset of “we’ve always done it this way” and approach the Gateway regime as something they have to do, rather than as something that can make a real difference in how we design and construct buildings.

From our perspective at Quelfire, it’s a much-needed change that is pushing the industry toward better decisions and safer buildings – which can only be good things, surely? In early applications, Ishfaq was surprised by the disconnect between the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) teams and the construction industry.

He highlighted that there seemed to be no established process; some BSR teams used staged applications, while others required full submissions.

Some submissions completed in early Stages 3/4 with no contractor details were approved in 12 weeks, whereas other T1 contractors, for instance, provided thorough information on specific parts of the build and waited about 9 months for approval.

Ultimately, this suggests that the BSR was still very much working out its processes during this stage. Because the introduction of the Gateways was such a significant change for the industry, the focus has naturally been on the first stop-and-go gateway, Gateway 2.

However, as the built environment transitions beyond this, the next unknown is Gateway 3, which introduces a new level of uncertainty. Ishfaq raised concerns about potential delays from Gateway 3, especially given the delays experienced with the second Gateway.

He believes it hasn’t been “road tested enough yet” to know what it will entail; the industry is still waiting for feedback.

Where are construction projects still falling short at Gateway 2?

Typically, R5 Consultants will distribute their project schedule to key parties, ready for submission at Gateway 2.

However, upon receiving the completed schedule, the team often finds gaps in expectations and information, with each party often having different ideas about elements of the project.

Ishfaq said, “The challenge with firestopping is that it’s one of the few elements of construction that is genuinely collaborative. The architect will set their position of all these walls, the structural engineer will dictate what size the openings and letterboxes can be and then the M&E engineer needs to tell you what is actually passing through and where and then you can come to a resolution on what the firestopping needs to be.” What Ishfaq and his team are finding is that they’re getting pushback from consultants due to tight deadlines and rising costs, because they haven’t given enough time to Gateway requirements.

Furthermore, Whitty argued that contractors “can’t play the system anymore” and that part of the Gateway regime is about making concrete decisions and following them through on-site.

He said that hidden costs, along with having to redesign a project two or three times, slow development and cost a lot of money to resolve.

What does good Gateway 2 compliance actually look like?

The whole reason for the Building Safety Act 2022 and subsequent Gateways is to improve building safety and protect those in them. Early fire stopping engagement is the only way to ensure this, as it brings all key parties together at the design stage to discuss key deliverables and how they’ll be achieved.

It puts fire safety at the heart of every decision, ensuring the project is designed and then built around available fire stopping tested solutions. Ishfaq said that when looking at the mechanics of what you’re going to submit, it is about design procurement alongside product and system procurement.

If contractors review the information and decide on deliverables, a systematic approach can be taken to articulate it to the regulator.

Further to this, Whitty stated that main contractors need to be clear about and commit to products and systems they want to see in the building. He also raised that you’ve got to make it easy for the regulator to say yes.

You’re taking the BSR on a journey – give examples, show the rationale behind the decisions. This also includes being in dialogue with your regulator spokesperson and finding out what’s required of you: ask the questions.

All panellists agreed that it is better for project teams to take their time at the design stage and focus on getting it right the first time. Multiple redesigns cost time and money, add project pressure and stress and ultimately slow the whole project down.

You might discover that the BSR will ask for additional information after submission. By putting in the effort beforehand, you give yourself an advantage.

Thorough design may take time upfront, but it pays off in the long run for business security and profitability. Not to mention it prioritises building safety!

How can construction teams start preparing for Gateway 3 now?

Both Whitty and Ishfaq agreed that contractors need to improve their QA process. Whitty also went on to say that it’s about the execution of what you set out to do. It’s about evidencing that what you have installed is as per what you submitted at Gateway 2.

You can’t leave it to the last minute to prove how your piling went in, for example, you’ve got to be thinking about all of these things from the get-go.

Ultimately, no one knows what Gateway 3 will fully entail, so if you’re not preparing for it, start now. Willmott Dixon is preparing for Gateway 3 by enhancing its pre-start procedures, working through key deliverables before construction even begins.

The team goes through what they are building, what they will be evidencing and how often and what good looks like. Whitty stated that having these early on-site conversations has been driving value in production and efficiency and that there is generally less conflict on site.

By working closely with supply chain partners, behaviours become apparent. Their willingness to collaborate, but also how they plan, prepare and deliver to make Gateway 3 more achievable.

Are construction projects ready for Gateway 3?

While the built environment’s focus has been on Gateway 2, it highlights one question: Are we ready for what comes next? Gateway 3 is currently the big unknown. The unknown can be scary, but especially for those unprepared.

“We’ll deal with it later” can no longer be an option, as evidence is crucial to demonstrating that what is built is what was designed for Gateway 2. That means thinking ahead now and applying all practices across all projects.

Because, at the end of the day, this is about whole building safety and protecting lives. And sticking to the agreed plan.

This article is based on Quelfire’s London Build 2025 panel discussion, titled Gateway 2: What We Know Now. Craig Wells, Sales Director at Quelfire, was joined by Graeme Whitty, National Product Director at Willmott Dixon and Nasar Ishfaq, Director, Architect and Principal Designer at R5 Consultants, to discuss Gateway 2 and what they have learned since its introduction. However, this article touches on why you should look beyond Gateway 2 to Gateway 3. It also explains how to prepare for it.

Construction site fire safety breaches fall but injuries remain high

by Breaking NewsConstructionHealth and Safety

Fire safety failures on construction sites across Great Britain fell by more than a third last year, but injury figures showed only marginal improvement, according to new data obtained from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

Research by CE Safety, based on a Freedom of Information request to the HSE, found 361 recorded incidences of fire-related non-compliance on construction sites in 2024/25, down from 536 in 2023/24. The figures cover failures categorised as both “fire and explosion risk” and “general fire precautions.”

The fall represents a 37% year-on-year improvement in recorded fire safety failings. Enforcement action also reduced, with 50 notices issued by the HSE in 2024/25, compared with 92 the previous year.

However, the number of non-fatal injuries caused by exposure to fire or explosion remained broadly unchanged, falling from 15 in 2023/24 to 14 in 2024/25. The HSE figures also recorded two deaths following explosions on construction sites in 2024/25. The individuals were not workers, and no further details were provided.

In 2023/24, inspectors recorded 82 cases of non-compliance relating to fire and explosion risk and 454 relating to general fire precautions. In 2024/25, those figures fell to 48 and 313 respectively.

Of the 50 notices issued in 2024/25, 38 were improvement notices and 12 were immediate prohibition notices. In 2023/24, the HSE issued 63 improvement notices and 29 immediate prohibition notices.

The HSE enforces the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, which apply to projects ranging from domestic renovations to major commercial developments. Sites become notifiable to the regulator when work is scheduled to last more than 30 working days with more than 20 workers on site at any point, or when construction exceeds 500 person-days.

Under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, dutyholders must manage fire risks throughout construction work, including hazards linked to hot works, live electrical systems, flammable substances and combustible materials.

The regional picture varied significantly. Looking at both categories of fire-related non-compliance in 2024/25, the South East recorded the highest number of breaches, with 61, followed by London with 57, Yorkshire with 41, the East with 40 and the North East with 35.

For fire and explosion risk alone, Scotland recorded the highest number of breaches in 2024/25, with 11. The South East followed with nine, ahead of the East and London, both on six, and the South West on five.

For general fire precautions, the South East again topped the list, with 52 breaches. London recorded 51, Yorkshire 37, and both the East and North East were among the areas with the highest levels of non-compliance.

CE Safety said the findings show that while standards appear to be improving, construction fire risks continue to require close attention from contractors, site managers and dutyholders.

“Guidelines in construction are in place for a reason,” said Gary Ellis, fire safety training specialist at CE Safety. “Hazards are endless and risks are ever-present, so it is a good thing that the HSE approaches fire safety violations seriously, because those who flout the rules are not, and this potentially comes with a high cost, either to buildings, projects or lives.

“The construction sector is a dynamic working environment, where continuous change is taking place and because of this, the fire risk is constantly evolving. Having strong fire safety principles in place, which are monitored and enforced on site, will reduce the risk of serious fires and explosion.”

Fire safety failures can lead to enforcement action, project delays, prosecution and significant financial penalties. One recent case saw a construction firm fined £165,000 after repeated failures during a warehouse renovation, including inadequate fire detection, poor planning and no effective means of raising the alarm.

CE Safety said basic controls remain central to compliance, including site-specific fire risk assessments, management of ignition sources, safe storage of flammable materials, suitable fire detection and alarm arrangements, firefighting equipment, clear escape routes, construction phase planning and fire awareness training for workers and visitors.

The company added that construction firms should follow HSE guidance in HSG 168: Fire Safety in Construction, as well as the Joint Code of Practice on the Protection from Fire of Construction Sites and Buildings Undergoing Renovation, published by the Fire Protection Association and the Association of British Insurers.

Fire safety behaviour change central to UK built environment reform, says Fire Aware

by Breaking NewsBuilding ManagementConstructionConstructionHealth and SafetySafety

Fire safety behaviour change is central to efforts to improve standards across the UK built environment supply chain, Fire Aware has said in comments made this week to industry members and stakeholders.

Fire safety behaviour change is being positioned as a key requirement for delivering lasting cultural reform across the UK built environment supply chain, according to membership organisation Fire Aware.

The organisation said this week that its expanding membership base reflects growing recognition across construction, asset management and building operations that responsibility for fire safety extends across all levels of the sector.

The emphasis on behavioural reform comes amid ongoing changes following the Grenfell Inquiry, which has driven sustained scrutiny of safety culture across the industry.

The inquiry, led by Dame Judith Hackitt, has previously called for a shift towards ethical responsibility and cultural change, rather than reliance on regulatory compliance alone.

Regulatory oversight has also been strengthened through the creation of the Building Safety Regulator, which is tasked with improving competence and raising standards across the built environment.

Fire Aware chief executive Gavin Skelly said behavioural change across contractors, subcontractors, asset owners and managers remains essential to achieving consistent safety outcomes.

He said the challenge is not limited to compliance, but extends to attitudes and day-to-day decision-making across different professional disciplines.

“Changing behaviour can be difficult especially across different disciplines whether you are a contractor, sub contractor, asset owner or manager. However, it is the difference between meeting the cultural change that is needed or not,” he said.

Skelly added that exceeding minimum compliance standards is increasingly seen as both a safety expectation and a commercial differentiator in the post-Grenfell environment.

“Actions do speak louder than words. Adopting best practice above the minimum requirements of compliance can feel like an unnecessary step – yet it is a valuable USP for any business with a duty of care in the post Grenfell era,” he said.

Fire Aware said its members are joining to adopt its code of conduct and sector-specific charters designed to standardise expected behaviours across the supply chain.

The organisation said this is intended to create a more unified approach to competence, accountability and professional responsibility across the industry.

It also highlighted that fire risk is particularly acute in hospitality settings such as bars, restaurants and hotels, as well as healthcare environments where vulnerable occupants may require additional support during emergencies.

Fire Aware said its wider aim is to embed behavioural standards across the built environment by linking moral responsibility with professional practice and regulatory expectations.

BSR gateway 2 approvals rise to 71%

by Breaking NewsBuilding ManagementConstructionFeatured NewsFire EngineeringHealth and SafetyInspection

The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) made 323 gateway 2 decisions in the 12 weeks to 1 May 2026, with 71% of applications approved, according to its latest building control update.

Of all decisions made during the period, 62% related to London projects.

Applications covering 17,046 residential units were determined during the 12-week period, including approvals for 12,299 housing units. BSR said 36,984 units remain in live cases.

The regulator also reported receiving new applications covering up to 17,626 residential units over the same period.

BSR’s Innovation Unit, which manages more complex higher-risk building applications, made 33 decisions in the 12 weeks to 1 May, approving 24 applications, equivalent to a 73% approval rate.

Fourteen of those approvals were for London projects. BSR said all 14 Innovation Unit decisions in London during the period were approved.

The regulator said all-time Innovation Unit approvals now total 33, with a median approval time of 22 weeks. The unit is currently handling 143 live applications representing 27,900 residential units.

Gateway 2 approvals continue to rise

BSR also published updated figures on remediation applications. The number of legacy remediation cases submitted in 2024 has fallen to 20, down from 42 at the start of 2026, with a further 12 applications expected to be determined by mid-May.

The regulator said remediation approval rates are nearing its 2026 target of 65%.

Under BSR’s batching process, where applications are grouped for external assessment, the median time from a case being issued to a supplier to a full assessment being returned was four weeks across new build, remediation and refurbishment categories.

The regulator said 254 new build cases, 408 remediation cases and 758 refurbishment cases have been issued through batching so far.

Median times from issue to supplier through to decision were nine weeks for new build cases, 10 weeks for remediation cases and 11 weeks for refurbishment cases.

BSR said the number of long-term legacy cases has been reduced to eight, which are being managed separately as complex cases.

Transitional cases have risen to 43 after BSR took over higher-risk building projects previously managed by Assent Building Control following the company’s closure in November 2025.

Charlie Pugsley, acting chief executive officer of BSR, said the regulator was continuing to process new build and remediation applications while maintaining building safety requirements.

Siderise CEO Adam Turk reappointed as Chair of Construction Products Association

by Associations and OrganisationsConstructionFeatured NewsPeopleSafety

Adam Turk of Siderise to lead trade body for third year

Adam Turk, the CEO of Siderise, will remain as Chair of the Construction Products Association (CPA) for a third consecutive year to assist the sector during a period of intense regulatory transition.

The CPA confirmed the reappointment during its Spring Lunch on 23rd April.

As the primary organisation for UK construction product manufacturers and suppliers, the CPA works with government officials to develop evidence-based policies and safety solutions.

Turk has supported the association for nearly two decades and possesses extensive experience within the construction sector.

His leadership is intended to help the industry adapt to a more robust regulatory regime and a culture focused on integrity.

The CPA acknowledged his contribution by extending his tenure beyond the standard two-year limit.

Siderise CEO addresses regulatory reform and market challenges

Turk described the current environment as a triple challenge involving a difficult UK market, global uncertainty and a major reform agenda.

He commented on his reappointment: “As the umbrella organisation for the construction products sector, the CPA is highly respected for its contribution.

“It is an honour for me to have been asked to stay as Chair for another year, as the industry faces the triple challenge of a difficult UK market and uncertainty caused by global factors whilst being asked to undertake a significant reform agenda under the Construction Products Regulation and General Safety Requirements proposals.

“I will be doing all I can to ensure a smooth transition through the various obstacles in front of us.”

Peter Caplehorn, Chief Executive of the CPA, added: “We are extremely grateful for Adam’s continuing support of our Association and the work we undertake to support this sector.

“His vast industry experience and considerable energy and enthusiasm are priceless as the challenges facing us seem to grow in complexity and severity.”

The association provides economic, technical and sustainability insights to support its members during these changes.

PlanRadar research reveals technology investment influences construction staff retention

by AI & Deep LearningConstructionFeatured NewsIndustry CommentResearch

PlanRadar research identifies technology as a factor in staff retention

Research from PlanRadar indicates that over half of construction professionals are more likely to remain with their current organisation if it increases investment in AI and technology.

One in four respondents reported they would be significantly more likely to stay with an employer that prioritises digital tools.

The study found that nearly half of participants have no current plans to invest in digital tools with AI capabilities despite the potential impact on talent retention.

Attracting and retaining experienced project management talent is currently a critical priority for the construction industry.

UK professionals prioritise data security and accuracy

Data from the UK market shows that 57% of professionals cite accuracy and trust as their primary concern when using AI tools for project management.

Data privacy and security represent a top-tier concern for 29% of UK respondents.

Fear of job displacement ranks last among global concerns and was cited by only 6% of participants.

Nearly half of the respondents spend more than 11 hours per week on tasks they believe AI could streamline.

Among those already using AI-integrated tools, two-thirds report saving at least two hours per week on each project.

Rob Norton, UK Director at PlanRadar, commented: “We’ve reached a point in UK construction where a pay rise alone just isn’t enough to keep hold of your best people.

“Project managers are exhausted by administrative tasks that effectively wipe out a full day of their week.

“They don’t want AI to do their jobs for them; they want it to clear the paperwork off their desks so they can focus on high-value project delivery.

“If firms keep ignoring that, they’re going to lose their most experienced leaders to the competitors who are actually willing to modernise these outdated manual processes.”

Growth in project management demand shapes technology adoption

Ibrahim Imam, Co-Founder and CEO of PlanRadar, said: “Construction professionals are spending more than a full working day every week on tasks that AI is already proving it can dramatically reduce.

“This is an unnecessary drain on some of the most experienced people in the industry.

“Our research shows that professionals are not fearful of AI, quite the opposite, more than half say investment in AI tools would make them more likely to stay with their employer.

“In a market where experienced project management talent is increasingly difficult to attract and retain, organisations that fail to invest in the tools their people need are taking a risk they may not fully appreciate.”

The Project Management Institute (PMI) estimates the construction industry will require nearly 2.5 million additional project professionals by 2035.

Sander van de Rijdt, Co-Founder and CEO of PlanRadar, added: “Construction professionals are not resistant to AI, they are asking for something very reasonable: tools they can trust, with outputs they can rely on and confidence that their project data stays protected.

“At PlanRadar we believe that trust in AI cannot be an afterthought.

“Construction professionals manage sensitive project data every day, so any AI working with that information must meet the highest standards for protection, compliance and user control.

“That expectation is shaping how we are developing AI, with these principles built in from the outset.”

The Deloitte 2026 Engineering and Construction Industry Outlook notes that construction wages have risen 4.2% year-on-year as firms compete for talent.

Strengthening competence: How BSI Competence Hub supports Building Safety Act compliance

by Breaking NewsConstructionHealth and SafetySafety

Ian Richardson, Sector Lead at BSI, introduces the BSI Built Environment Competence Hub

Competence has quite rightly become a defining issue for the built environment sector following the Building Safety Act 2022 and tightening regulatory expectations.

Professionals across fire safety, construction, building control and facilities management are now required to demonstrate clearer accountability, stronger oversight and more consistent decision-making.

However, competence guidance has often remained fragmented, making it difficult to interpret requirements and apply them in practice.

In response to these challenges, BSI has launched the Built Environment Competence Hub, a national digital platform designed to bring together standards, competence frameworks, regulatory guidance and industry insight.

Developed in collaboration with the Industry Competence Steering Group (ICSG) and the Building Safety Regulator (BSR), the Hub aims to support clearer understanding, practical implementation and ongoing professional development across the building lifecycle.

Why competence needed a central focus

The renewed emphasis on competence stems directly from the regulatory reforms that followed the Grenfell Tower fire and the subsequent Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety.

The Building Safety Act 2022 and the establishment of the BSR placed statutory weight behind competence requirements for duty holder roles and those responsible for managing safety throughout a building’s lifecycle.

These reforms have been underpinned by a suite of new and emerging standards, including the BS 8670 series and PAS 8671, PAS 8672, PAS 8673 and BS 8674.

Together, these documents define core competence criteria and role-specific expectations for principal designers, principal contractors and those managing residential building safety.

While these developments have strengthened the regulatory framework, they have also created a complex and fast-moving landscape.

Competence materials have been distributed across multiple organisations, websites and professional bodies.

The worry is that for many professionals and organisations, identifying which standards apply to which roles, and how to evidence compliance, is an increasingly burdensome task.

Industry has also been moving towards more consistent, cross-disciplinary competence criteria.

The adoption of Competence frameworks for building safety – Core criteria.

Code of practice (BS 8670-1), which sets out core competence criteria based on skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours (SKEB), alongside role-specific documents, has highlighted the need for alignment across disciplines.

This shift reinforces the value for a single, authoritative reference point.

Introducing the Built Environment Competence Hub

The Built Environment Competence Hub has been created to meet that need.

Quite simply, it is designed to be a national digital repository and central point of reference for competence-related information.

It consolidates standards, competence frameworks, regulatory guidance, webinar recordings, articles and discussion forums within one accessible platform.

The Hub is free to professionals, organisations and stakeholders across the sector, including designers, contractors, manufacturers and suppliers, building owners and managers, those undertaking duty holder roles, professional bodies, training providers and regulators.

Addressing fragmentation and inconsistency

BSI decided to develop the hub following frequent reports from professionals that competence information was fragmented and difficult to navigate.

They were finding guidance and frameworks inconsistent across roles and disciplines, with resources spread across numerous platforms.

This created uncertainty and, in some cases, inconsistent interpretation of legal duties.

This is not just inefficient, but ultimately risks undermining the good work being done to support building safety in the last near-decade.

For organisations, the challenge extended beyond understanding requirements.

Demonstrating competence through documented processes, training plans and audit trails requires significant time and effort to gather and interpret information from multiple sources.

The Hub addresses these issues by consolidating key resources and signposting authoritative documents within five thematic areas.

It aligns standards, ICSG-led frameworks and regulatory information according to role, duty holder expectation and lifecycle stage.

By doing so, it reduces duplication, minimises conflicting interpretations and establishes a common reference point for project teams and organisations.

Promoting consistency across the building lifecycle

A defining feature of the Hub is its lifecycle perspective.

By organising resources by role, lifecycle stage and topic, and by signposting both core and role-specific competence criteria, it aims to promote a shared vocabulary and threshold expectations from concept and design through construction, commissioning, handover and in-use management, and ultimately to refurbishment or deconstruction.

This cross-referencing is also designed to reduce divergence between teams and support continuity of competence at interfaces and regulatory gateways.

In a sector where safety depends on coordinated action across disciplines, such alignment is critical.

Supporting day-to-day professional practice

The Hub is designed to support day-to-day work.

Organisations can use it to identify applicable role and function requirements, such as PAS 8671 for Principal Designers, PAS 8672 for Principal Contractors and PAS 8673 for those managing residential building safety.

Through clear signposting, our hope is that it will help organisations align policies, role profiles and training plans with national standards.

It is intended to support the operationalisation of competence by linking duties to SKEB criteria and encouraging structured evidence capture.

This strengthens due diligence processes, supports audit readiness and reinforces accountable appointments and oversight.

The platform also provides updates on regulatory developments and emerging good practice.

This will help inform decisions at key gateways, during design changes, procurement stages and in-occupation risk management.

Beyond its repository function, the hope is for the Hub to serve as a collaborative space, where members can engage with peers, share lessons learned from real projects, discuss areas of uncertainty and contribute to informed debate.

This community element reflects the fact that competence development is not static, but an ongoing, shared responsibility.

A living resource for a changing landscape

The regulatory and standards landscape will continue to evolve.

New documents will be developed, existing standards will be revised and expectations will mature as further lessons are learned.

The Built Environment Competence Hub has therefore been designed as a “living resource”.

Users are encouraged to register, contribute content and participate in events.

Feedback from industry will inform future updates, ensuring the platform remains aligned with BSR expectations and emerging standards.

Ultimately, this reflects a broader shift: from reactive compliance towards proactive competence management and continuous improvement.

Raising confidence and improving safety outcomes

As the built environment sector adapts to a new regulatory era, clarity and consistency around competence are essential.

Through the Hub, BSI, working alongside ICSG and the Building Safety Regulator, aims to provide the infrastructure to support that change.

Success will be measured by this work’s impact on professional confidence and, ultimately, in the safety of buildings.

By replacing fragmented sources with a single, trusted reference point, the aim is to reduce uncertainty and variability in interpretation, and to support more consistent competence management across organisations and supply chains, strengthening the quality of appointments, supervision and assurance.

In doing so, it will contribute to the wider objectives of the Building Safety Act 2022: improving accountability, restoring trust and delivering safer buildings.

This was originally published in the April 2026 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

Why this fire safety ruling matters for insolvent contractors

by ConstructionFeatured NewsSafety

Fire safety orders granted in Portsmouth case

The High Court has granted two Building Liability Orders in proceedings linked to fire safety defects at the Admiralty Quarter development in Portsmouth.

Gateley Plc said the Technology and Construction Court ruled that associated Ardmore group companies could be jointly and severally liable for an unpaid adjudication award of about £14.9 million and for any future liability that Ardmore Construction Limited (ACL) may be found to owe.

The claim was brought by entities within the Crest Nicholson group of companies, which acted as developer and headlease proprietor of the residential scheme.

Admiralty Quarter was completed between 2007 and 2009 under a design and build contract with ACL as principal contractor.

Crest alleged defects including combustible insulation, missing and defective cavity barriers, deficiencies in fire stopping and compartmentation, and further issues said to render parts of the development unfit for habitation.

ACL entered administration in August 2025, one day before an adjudicator issued a decision awarding Crest about £14.9 million in relation to fire safety defects in the external wall systems.

Court sets out scope of the orders

Gateley Plc said Crest applied for two forms of relief under sections 130 and 131 of the Building Safety Act 2022 following ACL’s insolvency.

The first application sought an anticipatory Building Liability Order so that any liability ACL may ultimately be found to owe under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, or as a result of a building safety risk, would also be the joint and several liability of associated Ardmore group companies.

The second sought an adjudication Building Liability Order to make those same associated companies jointly and severally liable for the adjudicator’s unpaid award.

The Ardmore group defendants accepted that they were associates for the purposes of the Building Safety Act 2022.

They argued that the application was premature, that it was not just and equitable to make the orders at that stage and that an adjudicator’s decision could not amount to a relevant liability under section 130.

Mr Justice Constable held that the Court has jurisdiction to make anticipatory Building Liability Orders before liability is finally determined.

He also held that an adjudicator’s decision can constitute a relevant liability for the purposes of section 130.

Judgment addresses adjudication and future liability

Gateley Plc said the Court found that Building Liability Orders form part of a wider legislative scheme intended to ensure that those responsible for historical building safety defects bear the cost and that liability cannot be avoided through corporate structuring or insolvency.

Mr Justice Constable stated at paragraph 192 of the judgment: “a conclusion that adjudication is fundamentally incompatible with the application of BLOs would deprive the construction industry of the use of one of the most important dispute resolution tools from which it has benefited significantly over the last 30 years.”

At paragraph 193, he added: “building safety matters, in the wake of Grenfell Tower, have given rise to what is probably the single largest area of construction disputes in recent history, if not ever.”

The Court ordered that any liability ACL may ultimately be found to owe under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 or as a result of a building safety risk will also be the joint and several liability of the associated Ardmore group companies.

It also ordered that those companies be jointly and severally liable for the adjudicator’s award of about £14.9 million, even though the decision remains open to final determination at trial.

In each case, the Court held that the statutory test of what was just and equitable was satisfied on the facts.

Gateley Plc said the judgment confirms that claimants do not need to wait until after trial before seeking relief against solvent associated companies where the original defendant is insolvent, and that adjudicators’ decisions can in principle support Building Liability Orders under the Building Safety Act 2022.

Mark Lennon, Gemma Bowkett and Abbie Lockwood of Gateley Legal’s Construction Unit acted for Crest in the application.

The psychological barrier: PlanRadar says digital fear is delaying UK construction projects

by Breaking NewsConstructionSafety

Rob Norton, UK Director at PlanRadar, explains how BSR’s new enforcement powers raise expectations for digital evidence across Gateways 2 and 3

On 28th January 2026, the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) gained full independence and enforcement powers.

For the first time, the regulator can reject Gateway applications without appeal.

This is an urgent wake-up call for an industry that must now demonstrate digital competence at every stage.

For developers currently stalled at Gateways 2 and 3, this development could hardly be more urgent.

The era of the ring-binder is over.

The newly empowered regulator will no longer accept inadequate proof of safety; blurred photographs, missing signatures or incomplete fire safety records won’t satisfy compliance requirements.

But whilst BSR’s independence represents the final nail in the coffin for paper-based compliance, a surprisingly human barrier prevents the workforce from embracing the digital tools that would clear the Gateway 2 and 3 backlogs.

The deeper problem: the psychology of “digital shame”

Despite the regulatory shift, the construction sector remains trapped by what I call “digital shame”.

This is the fear of being permanently exposed by systems that record every mistake.

When portions of workers believe digital platforms exist to catch them out instead of supporting them, a massive disconnect emerges between prescribed processes for regulatory reporting and actual on-site reality.

This “psychological resistance” is expressed in several ways.

Site teams often revert to analogue habits, treating paper records as a safety net to hide errors.

For example, site managers will photograph fire door installations on their personal phones, storing images locally because they’re worried about uploading incomplete work to the official system.

The irony is acute; the evidence exists, but fear keeps safety observations inside notebooks instead of being entered in the Golden Thread.

The result is a workforce working in parallel to the very systems designed to protect them and the buildings they construct.

The consequence: the gateway crisis

The gateway crisis currently stalling UK construction stems directly from this mental disconnect.

The challenge centres on the lack of quality, tamper-proof evidence required to satisfy Gateways 2 and 3.

Without a robust Golden Thread of digital information, developers are playing Russian Roulette with their completion certificates.

Consider the practical reality: BSR requires comprehensive proof that fire stopping has been correctly installed throughout a 20-storey development.

Fragmented records spread across six different subcontractors, 18 months of work, thousands of installations, well-thumbed notebooks, spreadsheets, and email chains fail to provide a proper audit trail.

The project stalls.

The regulator’s independence means higher standards, but “digital shame” stops teams from creating the evidence trail that would provide assurance and demonstrate compliance.

This absence of complete digital documentation has become the biggest obstacle preventing projects from progressing through the Gateway process.

Strategic solutions: building “psychological safety”   

The answer lies in building psychological safety to encourage voluntary adoption of digital tools.

This requires three practical steps.

First, iterative transparency.

We must use data.

Site teams need to see that digital records can identify issues.

When the first use prevents the first problem, adoption follows naturally.

It must not be about punishment.

Second, frictionless compliance.

Digital workflows must be designed so that doing it right becomes the path of least resistance for site teams.

When capturing a fire door inspection on a mobile device takes less time than filling out a paper form, compliance becomes effortless.

Third, cultural de-stigmatisation.

We must reframe digital tools as a shield for the worker.

A digital record protects the individual contractor who has completed their work correctly.

It provides defensible proof of competence.

The way ahead

The construction sector must stop treating digital tools as extras bolted onto traditional processes.

BSR’s standalone status makes this absolutely clear: the record-keeping standards of the ‘80s cannot satisfy the safety requirements of the 2020s.

The newly empowered regulator will enforce higher standards.

The only realistic response is to embrace digital competence.

This means investing in platforms that capture quality evidence at source, building workflows that make compliance intuitive and fostering a culture where transparent data protects everyone involved.

Digital data forms the Golden Thread that protects the project and the person.

For fire safety consultants and principal contractors, the choice is binary.

Lead the cultural shift towards psychological safety, or fail to act and watch Gateway backlogs extend completion dates by months, while more efficient competitors secure their certificates.

The opportunity window is the 2026 calendar year.

After that, you’re playing catch-up.

This was originally published in the April 2026 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

Exel Composites introduces fire-rated composite for building and infrastructure use

by ConstructionFeatured NewsPassiveProducts

Fire-rated material meets two European standards

Exel Composites has developed a new non halogenated fire-rated composite material that meets key European building standards and has been validated through independent third-party testing in France and the UK.

Exel Composites said the material was tested in accordance with EN 13501 1 and achieved a Euroclass B s2, d0 reaction to fire classification.

Testing by British and French laboratories found the material made a limited contribution to fire, with low smoke production and no flaming droplets.

The material also meets EN 13706 mechanical performance class E23 for pultruded composite profiles.

The company said this addresses a long standing issue in construction applications, where fire retardant composite materials have often lacked clearly defined mechanical classifications aligned with European standards.

Neil Dykes, Technical Sales Manager at Exel Composites, said: “This development is significant due to the removal of the traditionally used halogens which are heavily regulated because of health and safety issues.

“The new material formulation has demonstrated Euroclass B fire performance in external laboratories, while still complying with EN 13706 E23 mechanical requirements.”

Fire-rated composite designed for multiple applications

The formulation can be applied across different profile designs, starting from a wall thickness of three millimeters upwards.

Applications named by the company include façade and envelope elements and frames for fire rated doors.

The material is also intended for technical joinery and modular housing structures.

Dykes added: “This gives designers and engineers a clear and reliable basis for specification, alongside CEN/TS 19101:2022, which defines the European design rules for FRP composite structures.”

The company said the non halogenated solution is already available across its production sites in Europe, Asia and North America.

By validating fire behaviour and mechanical performance through recognised European standards and independent testing, the material is positioned for construction and infrastructure applications in Europe.