BIM4HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WORKING GROUP MEETING 24-04-2026
Date: 23 April 2026
Purpose of the Session
The meeting focused on three key areas affecting residential development and building safety:
- financial viability and sustainability-linked funding
- Gateway 2 / Gateway 3 regulatory experiences
- risk-based approaches to building safety and design management
The discussion brought together perspectives from housing associations, consultants, sustainability specialists and process safety experts.
Key Themes & Discussion Points
- Financial viability, sustainability and GRESB
Representatives from Savills introduced the Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB) and explained its growing role in real estate investment and sustainability reporting.
Key points included:
- GRESB is used by investors to benchmark sustainability performance
- Some lenders link loan conditions and preferential rates to sustainability performance
- It provides a like-for-like comparison across real estate portfolios
- Participation requires both reporting effort and evidence of sustainability processes in place
The discussion explored whether:
- social housing providers may increasingly need to engage with GRESB
- sustainability-linked finance could affect development viability
- operational, energy and safety information could be reused across multiple reporting requirements
A strong theme emerged around:
collecting information once and using it for multiple purposes.
- Gateway 3 and Building Safety Regulator clarity
The group discussed uncertainty around Gateway 3 requirements for Higher-Risk Buildings (HRBs).
Key conclusions included:
- projects completed after the Building Safety Act transitional dates may still require Gateway 3 approval before occupation
- Gateway 3 is required for HRBs to obtain completion certification
- Safety Case Reports are not required at Gateway 3 itself, but follow afterwards as part of ongoing building safety management
The discussion also highlighted:
- inconsistent advice from different parts of the regulator
- growing importance of pre-application engagement with the Building Safety Regulator
- signs that Gateway 2 applications are becoming more efficient and successful as understanding improves
- Defining “as-built” information
The group referenced ongoing work with the Construction Leadership Council to help define:
“What does ‘as-built’ actually mean?”
This was seen as important because:
- many handover models and records remain incomplete or design-biased
- the industry lacks a shared understanding of verified information
- clearer definitions are needed to support the Golden Thread and Gateway processes
- Moving from compliance to risk management
A major part of the session focused on shifting thinking from:
- simple compliance with regulations
to - active understanding and management of risk.
David Poat shared a developing building safety hazard review process based on:
- HAZID / HAZOP methodologies
- “what if?” scenario analysis
- operational risk thinking during design stages
Examples discussed included:
- blocked escape routes
- disabled residents trapped in car parks
- failure of fire protection systems
- resident interference or sabotage risks
The intention is to:
- create a living document that follows the asset lifecycle
- support operational teams and future Safety Case work
- embed building safety thinking early in design.
- Bow Tie risk modelling and operational thinking
Ian Upton introduced the use of Bow Tie risk assessment methodologies, commonly used in high-hazard industries.
The approach considers:
- initiating events (e.g. fire, system failure)
- preventative barriers
- mitigation measures if failures occur
Examples included:
- smoke control systems
- fire blankets and extinguishers
- evacuation procedures
- operational management controls
The discussion reinforced that:
compliance is the output — understanding and managing risk is the real objective.
- Golden Thread and operational continuity
Participants highlighted that risk information should:
- continue beyond design and construction
- support facilities management and operations
- integrate with Safety Case and asset management processes
This aligns strongly with wider BIMinAM discussions around:
- scenario-based information requirements
- operational resilience
- lifecycle risk management.
Key Insights from the Chat
Additional points raised in the chat included:
- clarification that Gateway 3 approval is mandatory for qualifying HRBs before occupation
- comparison of Gateway 3 and Safety Case cycles using a “new car / MOT” analogy
- strong support for HAZID, HAZOP and Bow Tie approaches
- emphasis on the principle:
“Design – Remove – Mitigate”
Overall Conclusion
The session highlighted a significant shift in the industry from:
- static compliance documentation
toward - dynamic, risk-based understanding of buildings and operations.
Key themes included:
- the growing link between sustainability, investment and asset information
- increasing regulatory scrutiny through Gateway processes
- the need for clearer definitions of “as-built” information
- adoption of structured hazard and risk methodologies within residential development
The discussion reinforced that the future of building safety and operational assurance will depend on:
- better information
- clearer accountability
- lifecycle risk thinking
- and integrated, evidence-based management processes aligned with Golden Thread principles.