Two ways to fail: invalid and rejected
An application can fail at two points.
- Invalid at validation. The BSR first checks that the application contains what the regulations require: the documents and information in regulation 4 of SI 2023/909 (regulation 12 for work to an existing higher-risk building), as set out in our Gateway 2 checklist. If something is missing, the application is invalid and doesn't go on to a decision.
- Rejected after validation. A complete application is assessed and can still be refused if it doesn't show that the work will comply with building regulations.
Either way you have to resubmit, and the project waits. Applications that get to a decision are mostly approved: in June to August 2026, 78–92% of decisions were approvals, depending on the type (see below). Getting the basics right is what gets you there.
The latest figures (June to August 2026)
From the BSR's data for England, correct as of 31 August 2026 (GOV.UK):
| Application type | New applications | Decisions | Invalid or withdrawn | Approval rate of decisions | Median weeks to approval |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New higher-risk buildings and conversions | 63 | 50 | 5 | 92% | 22 |
| External remediation | 109 | 118 | 20 | 89% | 33 |
| Internal works to existing higher-risk buildings | 457 | 143 | 141 | 78% | 32 |
Two things stand out. First, work to existing buildings has the most problems: in this period nearly as many internal-works applications were invalid or withdrawn (141) as were decided (143). These aren't the same applications, but the scale is clear. Second, the median time to approval is around five to eight months, so every failed attempt costs months. The BSR now reports invalid and withdrawn applications together, so the two can't be separated. NHS applications are reported separately and aren't shown here.
What the BSR found in rejected applications
The BSR reviewed a selection of applications rejected after validation (it describes the sample as 42% of them; it doesn't give the period) and published the reasons ("Getting building control applications right", BSR). An application can have several reasons, so the percentages add up to more than 100.
| Reason | New build | Existing buildings |
|---|---|---|
| Did not contain sufficient detail | 73% | 89% |
| Did not meet the legal requirements for approval | 73% | 80% |
| Work would contravene building regulations, including longstanding functional requirements | 45% | 50% |
| Did not adequately set out how changes would be managed during construction | 27% | – |
| Described only a small part of the work actually planned | – | 43% |
The BSR also lists, for both types: not setting out how the golden thread requirements would be met, a missing or weak change control plan, dutyholder and competence issues, and mandatory occurrence reporting.
What to check before you submit
Points 2 to 5 follow the BSR's advice on the same page. The others come from the regulations and from our own testing on public planning sets.
- Every required document is there and named as such. Competence declaration, construction control plan, change control plan, mandatory occurrence reporting plan, building regulations compliance statement, fire and emergency file, site plan and plans, and, where they apply, the partial completion strategy and staged work statement. See the full checklist.
- Specific, not generic. The BSR warns against statements like "compliant with Part A". Break the design down into elements and say how each one complies, in terms specific to this project.
- Evidence, not intentions. Phrases such as "to be confirmed", "at a later stage" and "the contractor will design" (our examples) are signs that design detail has been deferred. The BSR describes critical fire and structural elements in early submissions as "unclear, undocumented, or assumed rather than substantiated".
- Standards justified. Say which standard or guidance you used for each element, why it suits this building, and how it was applied.
- Explained, not just attached. Don't rely on a large set of drawings to speak for itself. Signpost where the key information is and link it to the compliance case.
- Consistent facts. Height, number of storeys, number of units and drawing revisions should agree across the forms, the documents and the drawings. A reviewer who finds one conflict will look harder for more.
- Change control that works. A change control plan that explains how changes are identified, assessed, decided, recorded and notified. See major and notifiable changes.
- The whole scope (existing buildings). Describe all the work planned, not only part of it.
- Drawings that are current. Drawings still issued "for planning" invite questions about whether the design is developed enough.
What an automated check can and can't do
The free Gateproof checker screens a pack in your browser for items 1, 3, 6 and 9: documents and information it can't find, statements of intent, conflicting storey counts, heights and flat numbers, drawings last issued for planning, and drawing revisions that differ between file name and title block. It can't judge whether a design complies or whether the detail is sufficient. That still needs competent people, and the BSR offers pre-application engagement for that.
Sources
- BSR, "Building Safety Regulator building control approval application data June to August 2026", GOV.UK, data as of 31 August 2026.
- BSR, "Getting building control applications right", Making Buildings Safer (buildingsafety.campaign.gov.uk), accessed 13 October 2026.
- The Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (England) Regulations 2023, SI 2023/909, regulations 4, 5 and 12 and Schedule 1.
Written on 13 October 2026 from the sources above. Figures change with each quarterly release, so check the latest on GOV.UK. This is general information, not legal or compliance advice. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.