Comparative Gateway 2 & 3 Submission Documents and Decision Outcomes (Oct 2023 - Jul 2025)
Received: 4 August 2025
I am submitting this request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and, where relevant, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). Under Section 1 FOIA, public authorities must confirm or deny whether the requested information is held, and under EIR Regulation 12, disclosure is the default unless an exemption clearly applies. I note that the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) guidance confirms that building safety information, particularly where linked to public protection, should generally be disclosed unless a clear exemption applies.Information Requested1.Comparative Submission Documents - Gateway 2 and Gateway 3*Copies of multiple submissions (ideally 4-6 per Gateway stage) representing:*Small vs large Higher-Risk Buildings*Different project complexities (e.g. residential‑only vs mixed‑use)*Varied outcomes: approved, deferred, and rejected.*Please provide redacted versions to ensure no personal, commercially sensitive, or security‑sensitive information is disclosed.*If full disclosure is not possible, representative extracts showing structure, content, and evidence requirements would still be extremely valuable.2.Templates and Standard Forms*Any checklists, templates, or standard formats issued for Gateway 2 and Gateway 3 compliance.3.Decision Outcomes and Explanations*A statistical breakdown of Gateway 2 and Gateway 3 applications received between 1 October 2023 and 31 July 2025, showing how many were:*Approved*Deferred*Rejected*Where available, anonymised decision notices or review summaries explaining the reasons for deferrals or rejections.Scope & Clarifications*Definition of Higher-Risk Building: As per the Building Safety Act 2022 (at least 18 metres in height or 7 storeys, with at least 2 residential units).*I am not requesting disclosure of applicant identities, proprietary design details, or commercially confidential strategies.*I am happy to receive representative samples if providing full sets would exceed the statutory time/cost limit.Public Interest JustificationThis request is made firmly in the public interest.The Grenfell Inquiry highlighted the urgent need for greater transparency, consistency, and shared learning in building safety. The Gateway process was introduced precisely to prevent the repetition of past failures.Access to a comparative set of anonymised Gateway 2 and Gateway 3 submissions will:*Illuminate best practices and common pitfalls across projects of different scale and complexity.*Clarify the reasons why some applications are approved while others are deferred or rejected.*Reduce repeated errors and unnecessary delays, helping applicants, consultants, and local authorities alike.*Support regulators and councils by signposting good practice, reducing resubmissions, and easing administrative burdens.*Strengthen compliance efficiency, ultimately improving safety for residents of Higher-Risk Buildings.Willingness to Refine ScopeIf necessary, I am willing to:*Limit the number of submissions requested (e.g. 4 per Gateway stage).*Accept anonymised extracts, summaries, or representative samples instead of full documents.*Clarify or refine the scope informally within 5 working days of notification to avoid delays and ensure the request remains practical.Please provide the information electronically by email if possible.
Outcome / Documents
- Response (not held) - application/pdf - Download