Client and project details have been anonymised for confidentiality. All images are for illustration purposes only.
Project Overview: The Development
Development Context
This is an exciting new project that will be made up of high-rise residential buildings that range from 6 to 12 storeys, creating affordable homes and student bedrooms.
Design Stage Focus at a Glance
A property developer approached us in September 2024 for support on a Gateway 2 submission due in November 2024.
After outlining our proven approach of early engagement, the client decided to submit independently due to time and resource limits.
They later contacted us in June 2025 to discuss how we could support with the firestopping package, after receiving pushback from the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) for more information.
Due to time constraints, the early design stages really focused on achieving Gateway 2 approval with requirements, which involved gathering information on typical details and keeping the goal of full approval in mind.
What Challenges Emerged During the Design Process?
Late-Stage Engagement
A key challenge was that engagement took place later than we’d recommend. When the client contacted us in 2025 after the application had been submitted, we had little time to adequately support them, and the project team was unable to fully complete the Information Collection Schedule (ICS).
Coordination Issues Between Disciplines
Furthermore, collaboration between stakeholders proved challenging at times. This was caused by MEP drawings that combined ducts with other services, conflicting structural and firestopping information, and design teams feeling under pressure to meet deadlines.
Why Was Gateway 2 Particularly Challenging for This Project?
Pressure to Provide “Typical Details” Quickly
Following a meeting with the BSR, the design team was given two weeks to provide compliant fire stopping information.
During this time, we reviewed the team’s ICS and identified proposed applications that would add complexity. For example, higher fire rating requirements for wall systems.
Consequently, the focus shifted from full Gateway 2 approval to approval with requirements.
Concerns Around BSR Submission Quality
After the BSR’s request for further information, there were, understandably, concerns that the initial submission might not meet legal requirements and could be rejected. 
This prompted the team to revise the package and reconsider the system, which added time and pressure to the project schedule.
How Did Quelfire Support the Design Team?
Introducing Specification Tools and Systems
To support the client, we introduced the QuelSelector, our solution-finder tool, to make it easier to find the most relevant standard installation details and fire stopping products.
Being organised first by substrate and then by penetrating services makes it simple to use, as it aligns with typical construction methods.
Additionally, we shared the ‘Golden Rules & Considerations when Designing BWIC's’ document.
This offers guidance to MEP designers when planning service penetrations through compartmentation lines, and ensures compatibility with our passive fire protection products and their installation requirements.
The high level of technical information covered prevents time-consuming rework during design and also costly remedial work at the build stage.
Finally, the ICS. This tool makes sure every party, from design to ongoing maintenance of the building, has all fire stopping information in a clear format. Simply, it helps build the golden thread of information.
For buildings undergoing the Gateway process, it demonstrates to the BSR: what will be built and how it will be achieved.
Reviewing the ICS and Identifying Risks
Manufacturers understand their test evidence and technical information best, and can recognise what will work and what won’t.
The ICS is critical in encouraging collaboration and helping us identify any perceived risks.
For instance, from the client’s ICS, we identified a potential coordination issue with combined ductwork and service spacing, and provided recommendations for wall systems.
Ongoing Technical Engagement
Construction today depends on strong technical assistance. We understood the project would be complex due to timescales, so we supported through ‘early engagement’ meetings, catch-up sessions, and ad hoc support where required. 
Working this way brought all parties involved in the specification, design, and installation management of firestopping solutions together, to discuss key objectives and ultimately ensure everyone was on the same page.
What Was the Outcome of This Collaborative Approach?
Gateway 2 Approval With Conditions
In February 2026, the project team secured Gateway 2 approval, but the firestopping is ‘approval with conditions’. Their next step is to finalise the full project schedule and submit it to the BSR.
Clearer Direction for the Next Stage
Collaboration during those crucial two weeks really helped set the trajectory for the next stage of the project.
It set the required motion by defining responsibilities – what is needed from each party – to ensure a compliant design and progress towards full Gateway 2 approval.
Improved Coordination Across the Design Team
The firestop is only ever as good as the design, installation, substrate, and installed services. Compliance requires open communication because parties' actions affect one another, which can impact the fire stop system’s effectiveness.
The discussions among the client, the design team, and us highlighted areas where structural, MEP, and fire stopping required better coordination. These conversations helped iron out issues and uncover any potential grey areas.
What Lessons Does This Project Highlight for Future Developments?
Engage Manufacturers Earlier in the Design Stage
Simply, it guarantees the building is designed and constructed around tested solutions, avoiding costly rework and delays, minimising project stress, and, most importantly, saving lives should a fire break out. 
We believe that product manufacturers should be involved at RIBA Stage 3: Spatial Coordination.
Our reasoning is that if the MEP design is employed across the building, the MEP designer should consult the product manufacturer to ensure that openings match the fire test evidence. Engagement at Stage 4 often leads to rework and design changes.
Tested Details
Additionally, engaging early increases flexibility when designing services, which makes it easier to choose a tested solution based on what has already been tested.
If no solution exists, with enough time, the manufacturer may be able to conduct a fire test if they are aware of any trends.
Tested details are the only way to guarantee that compartmentation will work as intended in the event of a fire.
Collaboration Reduces Risk Later in the Project
Construction isn’t easy; it relies on trust between all parties and joint responsibility. The end goal should always be the protection of people and property.
And this depends on clear communication and parties working together to get service penetration sealing right the first time around.
If communication is lacking and sectors work in silos, it only leads to confusion and challenges later in the process.
Like many projects, the design of this one has come with its challenges, but it clearly highlights the importance of early manufacturer engagement.
The bottom line being, if you want to ensure building safety, you’ve got to want to do it right the first time around and not cut corners, even if it takes extra time.
Although Quelfire was brought in after the initial submission had begun, we worked closely with the client to solve design challenges and support their Gateway 2 approval with conditions. We now look forward to continuing that support into the next stage.
