________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
what timeline the BSR is working to. This is problematic for everybody,” says Tim.
“ The BSR was supposed to deal with applications within 12 weeks, and that timescale was realistic and could allow for necessary changes while still delivering a building on time. But the BSR currently takes more than 40 weeks to decide on 80-to-90 per cent of all applications. This has huge knock-on effects on the delivery window for buildings, as well as making everyone in the process extremely reluctant to make a change, even when reasonable and necessary, and could even save money or be more environmentally friendly.”
Tim and Graham also point out issues with the Gateway process that forms part of the Building Safety Act.“ As an industry where traditionally 80 per cent of site instructions and variations are made in the last 20 per cent of the site programme, we are facing the situation that needs to be the other way around. This is because for the last 20 weeks on site, any instruction or variation that might change the design at Gateway 2 is now potentially toxic to practical completion. If it doesn’ t achieve Gateway 2, it doesn’ t move to Gateway 3, and nobody can move in.
“ Gateway 3 occurs at the most financially committed point of a project, and there is a lot at stake because you have a completed building leveraged against financing and it may not be handed over. These sorts of changes are creating turbulence in the market for facade contractors, and while we are all aware of the situation, we’ re mindful that we’ re not in control of what is happening,” says Tim.
One change that Tim and Graham are calling for the BSR to review is tied to the piling and foundation stage. If decisions could be made prior to Gateway 2 approval, the site could pick up momentum at an earlier stage.“ The BSR are talking about building safety, and
104