Construction testing in London is undergoing a fundamental shift in 2026, driven by the evidential requirements of the Building Safety Act 2022 and the operational oversight of the Building Safety Regulator (BSR). While site testing activities such as anchor pull-out testing, plate load testing, and structural investigations remain critical to validating design assumptions, the regulatory focus has moved beyond whether testing is carried out to how testing is evidenced, structured, and traceable within the Golden Thread.
Across high-rise residential schemes and infrastructure projects, delays at Gateway 2 and Gateway 3 are increasingly linked not to missing tests, but to insufficient documentation, unclear methodologies, and lack of traceability between design intent, test execution, and recorded results. This creates a compliance gap where technically correct testing fails to satisfy regulatory scrutiny, placing both contractors and designers at risk.
As London’s construction sector adapts to a compliance-led delivery environment, construction testing must now be treated as a structured evidence system, not an isolated technical activity.
While construction testing is often seen as a site-level verification activity, evidence shows that incomplete documentation and lack of traceability between design intent and test records are the primary causes of compliance failure under the Building Safety Act.
Construction Testing Evidence Framework
Under the Building Safety Act regime, construction testing is no longer assessed purely on technical execution but on its ability to form part of a coherent, auditable evidence chain. This means that every test (whether anchor pull-out testing, plate load testing, or structural investigation) must be linked to design assumptions, installation conditions, methodology, calibration records, and verified results.
The Building Safety Regulator evaluates not just whether a test has been completed, but whether the test can be understood, verified, and relied upon within the Golden Thread of information. In practice, this transforms testing from a physical activity into an evidential process, where clarity, traceability, and structured reporting determine compliance outcomes.
As a result, organisations that focus only on performing tests, without aligning them to evidential requirements, face increasing regulatory risk and project delays.
1. The Shift from “Testing” to “Evidence”
Historically, construction testing has been viewed as a technical confirmation step:
- Install element
- Perform test
- Record result
- Issue report
Under the Building Safety Act, this model is no longer sufficient.
The regulator now expects:
- Defined test purpose linked to design
- Clear methodology and standards compliance
- Documented installation conditions
- Traceable equipment calibration
- Structured result interpretation
Without these elements, a test result has limited regulatory value.
2. Why Gateway 2 Is Failing on Testing Evidence
A recurring issue in Gateway 2 submissions is the disconnect between:
- Design assumptions (e.g. anchor load capacity)
- Installation methodology (e.g. resin curing conditions)
- Test verification (proof load testing)
Common failure points include:
- No link between test location and design calculation
- Missing installation records
- Unclear test setup or loading regime
- Lack of competence evidence for operatives
- Reports that state results without interpretation
The result is a validation failure, not a technical failure.
3. Anchor Testing: The Highest Risk Area
Post-installed anchors are now one of the most scrutinised elements under BS 8539 and BSR review.
Key compliance risks include:
- Proof testing without design reference
- Incorrect test load selection
- No record of installation torque or embedment
- Lack of traceable anchor identification
- Missing photographic evidence of test setup
In many cases, anchor tests are carried out correctly on site, but the report does not provide enough information to prove compliance.
This creates exposure for:
- Principal Contractors
- Designers
- Dutyholders
4. Plate Load Testing and Ground Verification
Plate load testing under BS 1377 is another area where compliance is shifting.
The regulator expects:
- Incremental loading records
- Time vs settlement data
- Interpretation of bearing capacity
- Link to design requirements (e.g. formation level performance)
A simple load vs settlement graph is no longer sufficient without:
- Methodology explanation
- Data validation
- Contextual interpretation
Again, the issue is not the test, it is the absence of structured evidence.
5. Competence and Accountability
The Building Safety Act places a strong emphasis on competence.
For testing activities, this includes:
- Who performed the test
- What qualifications they hold
- Whether they are competent for the specific method
- Whether the organisation has a QA system
Without this, test results may be considered non-reliable evidence.
This is a critical shift, testing is no longer just a service, it is a regulated activity with accountability.
6. The Emergence of Structured Testing Systems
In response to these pressures, leading organisations are moving towards:
- Standardised testing procedures
- Structured reporting templates
- Digital evidence capture (photos, logs, calibration data)
- Traceable test IDs linked to design elements
- Integrated QA systems
This aligns testing with the Golden Thread requirement. The goal is not just to test, but to create a defensible record.
7. What This Means for Contractors and Consultants
For contractors and consultants, the implications are clear:
- Testing must be planned, not reactive
- Evidence must be structured from the start
- Reports must explain, not just record
- Compliance must be demonstrable
Failure to adapt leads to:
- Gateway 2 delays
- Rework and additional testing
- Increased liability
- Insurance exposure
Evidence-Based Summary
Construction testing failures in 2026 are not driven by a lack of testing but by a combination of insufficient evidence structure, poor traceability, and unclear linkage to design intent. While tests may be technically correct, evidence shows that regulatory approval depends on whether results can be verified, interpreted, and integrated into the Golden Thread.
In practical terms, organisations must shift from performing tests to delivering structured, auditable evidence systems aligned with Building Safety Act requirements.
Image © London Construction Magazine Limited
|
Expert Verification & Authorship: Mihai Chelmus
Founder, London Construction Magazine | Construction Testing & Investigation Specialist |
