We hope this can act as a checklist to help ensure future Gateway 2 applications contain the relevant information.
This list is based on the best available information at the time and is not exhaustive. CWCT and SFE accept no duty of care, obligation or liability, whatsoever, to its members or others, in relation to the use of this information for any purpose.
Thank you to everyone who shared submission details with us in order to compile this list. We plan to update this list as more information is provided, so please continue to share reasons for rejection with us. Once we have more information, we aim to provide further guidance on ‘what good looks like’ in relation to Gateway 2 façade submissions.
We cannot do this without your input, so please provide feedback here. Alternatively send details to cwct@cwct.co.uk.
General
A list of general reasons why submissions have not been successful.
- Submissions noted as having insufficient detail within the compliance statements on how compliance with all regs is achieved.
- Competence statements included reference to documents that were not provided.
Part A
A list of reasons why submissions did not meet the functional requirements of Part A.
- Submission did not include sufficient calculations to demonstrate the works had been designed to Eurocode requirements.
- Insufficient information on movement joints and how movement is accommodated.
- Submission stated that final design of masonry support elements was contractor designed and no information included in the GW2 pack. As such there was insufficient design of the structural support of masonry.
- Derivation of cladding loads not included.
- Loading plans by structural engineer did not show line loads of façade on slab edges.
- Obvious lack of coordination between structural engineers loading document and façade design identified by reviewer due to loading assumptions and support points not matching.
- Wind loading calculations insufficiently detailed to take into account non-typical areas, funnelling, etc.
- Another submission included insufficient information on how wind loads had been derived.
- Insufficient structural analysis of wind posts, masonry panel checks, masonry support brackets, SFS inner skin, etc.
- Balcony structural design was submitted as a performance based design with insufficient final design and calculation information.
Part B
A list of reasons why submissions did not meet the functional requirements of Part B.
- Insufficient information on compliance of wall and ceiling linings – submission did not link the proposed materials to the fire strategy requirements to show compliance.
- Insufficient data provided on fire stopping and cavity barrier proposals demonstrating products proposed met fire strategy requirements in project context.
- Lack of information demonstrating how integrity of façade would be maintained around ventilation duct openings in façade.
- Insufficient detail about green roofs and compliance to Part B.
- Submission did not include sufficient information on the products proposed for the façade to demonstrate compliance with Part B requirements.
- Submission did not include sufficient information on fire rated constructions and test data for the proposals to demonstrate they are within tested limits.
- The submission did not include elevations showing position of cavity barriers and fire stops.
- Specific requirements of the fire strategy not shown on the drawings – e.g. fire resistant facades adjacent to re-entrant corners.
Part C
A list of reasons why submissions did not meet the functional requirements of Part C.
- Insufficient information about continuity of below ground waterproofing and façade waterproofing at ground floor level.
- Product information and certificates of testing not provided for rainscreen cladding systems.
Part E
A list of reasons why submissions did not meet the functional requirements of Part E.
- Insufficient justification of how the proposed constructions meet the acoustic requirements.
Part K
A list of reasons why submissions did not meet the functional requirements of Part K.
- Lack of information about manifestation to glazing.
- Justification of compliance of glazing to Part K not provided.
- Insufficient information/explanation on how the façade meets the requirements for safe opening and closing of windows.
- Insufficient information/explanation on how the façade meets the requirements for avoiding collision with open windows.
- Insufficient information/explanation provided for how entrance doors meet the requirements to avoid impact and trapping.
Part L
A list of reasons why submissions did not meet the functional requirements of Part L.
- Insufficient explanation on how Part L is achieved. This was a broad statement, so we are not sure if this related to the façade, but it may have been because of lack of information demonstrating how the façade design meets the requirements of Part L, linked to the overall compliance statement by the MEP/Sustainability consultant).