Chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt, the independent panel also comprised four experts with extensive experience in the regulation and use of the Building Control sector, namely Elaine Bailey, Ken Rivers, Nick Raynsford and Dr David Snowball.

The extensive report – based on the results of monthly meetings conducted between April 2025 and March this year – finds that the Building Control system faces longstanding challenges, including fragmentation, conflicts of interest, uneven capacity and inconsistent oversight, despite the professionalism and commitment of those working within it.

Indeed, the report’s Executive Summary references “a broken system leaving consumers at risk from buildings which have not been effectively regulated and investors, insurers and Government at significant financial risk when problems are discovered”.

Vital role

The Building Control system in England should perform a vital public safety role in ensuring that building work is safe and carried out in compliance with the Building Regulations. As things stand, the independent panel believes the system cannot provide reassurance that this public safety role is being met consistently, with associated risks posed to Health and Safety and the potential for substantial future remediation costs.

According to the panel, the public sector system of Building Control has been “progressively neglected”. Local Authority Building Control Authorities (LA BCAs) have been “unable to sustain the level of advice, oversight and enforcement expected of them” for all building work on a consistent basis. The panel also asserts that the pressure exerted on LA BCAs in certain areas of England to operate a commercial, client-based function has “exacerbated a conflict of interest” with their wider legal obligations to the public.

The private market has expanded to fill public sector capacity gaps, but with no corresponding public duty to enforce against poor quality building work. This has created an “uneven and fragile” landscape, with LA BCAs not consistently able to meet their statutory obligations to provide compliance advice and follow that up with risk-based inspections as well as take early enforcement action where necessary.

Within LA BCAs, there’s an “inherent conflict of interest”, as found by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry in relation to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, with the local authority leading large-scale public sector building and renovation projects, while also acting as the Building Control and enforcement body. “As was seen with the Grenfell Tower tragedy, if the Building Control service within an authority is not resourced or experienced enough, opportunities to step in and challenge proposals can be missed or advice ignored by the wider local authority.”

Individual professionalism

The system depends increasingly on individual professionalism to counter pressures created by the structure itself. The Building Control Independent Panel suggests this reliance is neither sustainable nor fair on the workforce. The consequence is a model that delivers variable outcomes and exposes the public to risks that are not always visible or consistently managed, even though many of those risks originate upstream in design and construction practices rather than within Building Control itself.

The evidence points to “persistent” structural weaknesses, with fragmentation across approximately 300 LA BCAs and multiple private providers, alongside low capacity in the sector overall, particularly so in LA BCAs, in turn leading to “rare and uneven” enforcement. LA BCAs are not adequately resourced or incentivised to offer consistent advice, undertake enforcement and prosecute where necessary.

As there is no corresponding duty on the private sector to enforce, LA BCAs face further pressure from ‘reversions’, which is the statutory process by which Building Control responsibility returns to the local authority when a Registered Building Control Approver (RBCA) can no longer continue acting on a project.

There’s some evidence to suggest that this is driving poor behaviours in the private sector, with them taking on work that’s initially undervalued and underinspected, sometimes due to pressures from clients and duty holders. This has undermined financial resilience over time, leading to closures of RBCAs.

The panel’s view is that if it were tasked to design a system from first principles, it wouldn’t introduce a system where duty holders can choose their regulator. The independent panel’s recommendation for the long-term Building Control model is for choice to be removed.

Strengths and experience

Recognising the reforms made since 2017, the independent panel’s report recommends duty holders should continue (for now) to be able to express a preference of Building Control provider within a system where the legal obligations currently with LA BCAs are taken independently of the LA.

In this system, the mixed public–private nature of Building Control in England can (and should) remain. Both local authorities and private providers can continue to offer client-facing services, drawing on the strengths and experience that already exist.

In essence, the independent panel’s report sets out an end state model for Building Control. A single and coherent regulatory system that provides independent and consistent oversight for building work in England and prioritises the public interest.

Within this model, statutory Building Control functions are delivered by fewer, larger and publicly accountable ‘Building Control Bodies’ operating at a scale that sustains specialist expertise, offers attractive and stable career pathways and enforces and inspects work consistently.

Recognising that this end state will take time to deliver, the report sets out steps that should be taken earlier in order to strengthen the current system, while laying the groundwork for long-term reform. The panel consider these steps will help to reduce pressures in the system, make better use of existing capacity and create the conditions for further consolidation to proceed smoothly.

Way forward

The independent panel’s proposed steps forward include:

*levelling the regulatory environment between public and private providers

*improving guidance and public information such that duty holders understand their responsibilities

*supporting LA BCAs and RBCAs to stabilise workforce capacity

*establishing a strong digital system underpinning Building Control in England

*improving transparency, data quality and performance oversight

According to the independent panel, the transition will require careful sequencing and sustained political commitment over several years. It must also be managed in a way that doesn’t destabilise a system that’s already under pressure, particularly as the country faces the challenge of delivering the Government’s stated 1.5 million new homes, while maintaining public confidence in their safety.

The independent panel observes: “Lessons from the establishment of the Building Safety Regulator underline the importance of phasing change at a pace the system can absorb and ensuring that reforms strengthen, rather than stretch, the capacity of those delivering them.”

The panel is “mindful” that its recommendations introduce further layers of oversight into the system. The cost of implementing these reforms must be weighed against the significant benefits resulting from greater assurance and increased public confidence in the system.

Response from LABC

Lorna Stimpson, CEO of Local Authority Building Control (LABC), has responded to the Building Control Independent Panel’s findings.

“The long-anticipated report is a significant contribution to the conversation on the future of Building Control,” affirmed Stimpson. “I’m encouraged by the independent panel’s acknowledgement of the skilled, knowledgeable and deeply committed people who work in the Building Control profession and the acknowledgement that the profession has been let down by a system that’s fragmented, inconsistent and places its constituent professionals under conflicting pressures. I’m also grateful to see recognition of the significant reform that Building Control has already embraced since 2017.”  

Stimpson added: “The driver of these recommendations is, as it should be, public safety. The independent panel’s recommendations for levelling the current system, including aligning application types, improving inspection consistency and reforming fees, are all very welcome and long overdue.”  

Further, Stimpson continued: “We’ve spent many years working closely with Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) officials and the Building Safety Regulator to improve capacity and capability in public service Building Control, providing qualifications and competence-specific learning to over 2,500 surveyors and technicians working for local authorities across England and Wales. The panel’s report, alongside recent significant Government funding, reinforces the importance of our drive to upskill, reskill and increase the capacity in public service Building Control. It also recognises that the profession is already transforming its ways of working and its overall contribution to safety and quality.”  

Stimpson concluded: “We look forward to working with MHCLG officials and colleagues across both public and private sector Building Control in addressing the principles laid out in the report to help shape the future of our profession.”

*Read the Government’s response in full online

The landlord – namely Zaffar Hussain of Tinsley Drive in Sheffield – was responsible for a privately rented property on Foljambe Drive in Rotherham. An inspection of the premises conducted by Rotherham Council’s officers identified a number of hazards, including the absence of smoke alarms, fire safety concerns, exposed electrical wiring, poor property security, excess cold, defective windows and evidence of rodent infestation.

Due to these findings, Rotherham Council served a legal notice requiring Hussain to carry out remedial works that would then address the risks identified. Despite the legal notice being issued, the required works were not completed. Some repairs were attempted, but were left unfinished and didn’t resolve the hazards present.

As a result, Rotherham Council decided to initiate legal action. Hussain was subsequently convicted and ordered to pay a £4,000 fine, a £1,600 victim surcharge, £500 in compensation and £564.30 in prosecution costs, bringing the total financial penalty issued to £6,664.30.

Legal responsibilities

Speaking about this case, Councillor Linda Beresford (Cabinet Member for Housing at Rotherham Council) said: “Everyone deserves to live in a home that’s safe, warm and free from hazards. This case shows what can happen when landlords repeatedly ignore their legal responsibilities and fail to act, even after being formally required to do so.”

Beresford added: “The majority of landlords in Rotherham do the right thing, and we will continue to support those who manage their properties responsibly. However, we will not hesitate to take firm enforcement action where landlords put tenants’ Health and Safety at risk.”

Rotherham Council reminds landlords that compliance with housing standards, legal notices and licensing requirements is mandatory. The organisation takes tenants’ living conditions seriously and will continue to prosecute – or issue civil penalties of up to £40,000 per offence – in those instances where serious breaches are identified.

*Further information is available at www.rotherham.gov.uk

The team of investigators has been increased to 220 to support work to submit the files in the timescales committed to by the Met for the bereaved families and survivors of the tragedy that occurred in June 2017.

While in no way pre-empting the CPS’ decisions, work has also begun on next steps should charges be brought, including plans to build a replica of elements of Grenfell Tower in order to assist any potential future Juries.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Kevin Southworth said: “The Grenfell Tower fire remains one of the most complex investigations ever undertaken by any UK law enforcement agency. Our investigation began in June 2017 and has continued relentlessly ever since.”

Southworth continued: “We have been working in close partnership with the CPS for many years and are on schedule to submit all files this autumn. The CPS will then consider them in detail to make charging decisions and are confident they can do so before the 10^th Anniversary of the fire.”

Further, Southworth noted: “While our timescales are on track, we know for the bereaved, survivors and residents, who remain at the heart of everything we do, it has been a very long wait to reach this point. We cannot begin to understand the impact upon them of such a lengthy investigation, running alongside a Public Inquiry, but they have our commitment we have worked as quickly as possible, while ensuring our investigation is meticulous to present the very best possible evidence to the CPS for charging decisions.”

Immense scale

The scale of the police investigation is immense. The roles of 15,000 individuals and 700 organisations have been examined. It’s reported that 57 individuals and 20 organisations are suspects for criminal offences. Those offences include corporate manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, misconduct in public office, fraud and Health and Safety-related matters.

Investigators have gathered 165 million electronic files to meticulously search for evidence. They’ve examined in detail the work of the Public Inquiry, including the 1,700 pages of the final report, in order to cross-reference against the police investigation and ensure they had obtained every possible piece of evidence.

A total of 14,400 statements have been taken. More than 27,000 exhibits – including cladding, insulation, doors, windows and other parts of the building, all the way down to screws, nuts and bolts – are stored in a warehouse.

So far, 15 of 20 files have been submitted to the CPS and ten of 14 overarching evidence files are complete. The word count of the Met’s summary reports to the CPS exceeds 2.2 million.

Legal test

Frank Ferguson, head of the CPS’ Special Crime and Counter-Terrorism Division, explained: “Our thoughts remain with the bereaved families, survivors and all those affected by the Grenfell Tower fire who’ve endured a long and deeply painful wait for answers. We have worked closely with the Metropolitan Police Service over a number of years now as this substantial and complex investigation has progressed. We understand how important the next stage is for those impacted. As the files are submitted, we will consider all of the available evidence carefully, independently and in line with our legal test.”

Ferguson concluded: “We are committed to carrying out that task thoroughly, fairly and as expeditiously as possible, all the while recognising the significance of these decisions for all those affected.”

While it will be a matter for the CPS to decide if charges should be brought, the investigation team at the Metropolitan Police Service is planning now for any potential court proceedings.

Police officers have explained to the families that the Met is building a replica of some elements of Grenfell Tower, with that work currently at the planning stage. If trials take place, they will be some of the most complex ever held in the UK and the replica will bring to life how elements of the building looked before, during and after its refurbishment for Jurors in such a way that any drawing or 3D rendering could not.

Criminal trials can often involve site visits. Grenfell Tower will have been carefully taken down by the time any trials take place and so cannot provide that real-life visual reference.

Sensible to prepare

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Kevin Southworth said: “The work on the replica in no way presumes charges will be brought, which is entirely a matter for the CPS to make independent decisions based on the evidence files we submit. It will take some time to construct and it’s sensible to be prepared.”

In conclusion, Southworth stated: “Should charges be brought, we are committed to working with criminal justice partners on the next stages to ensure the Grenfell families and survivors are supported as well as possible through what I’m sure will be a tremendously difficult and hugely emotional process.”

Even where software exists to help, poor adoption often means these low-tech processes continue being used in the background. Then, at the end of the project, everything has to be pulled together into a report for the client, principal contractor or auditor.

It’s a process that’s slow, inconsistent and increasingly difficult to defend under today’s compliance expectations. That’s why more fire protection teams are adopting cloud-based platforms such as Onetrace to manage compliance, quality assurance and project visibility in real-time.

Scaling without losing control 

The challenge becomes more difficult as contractors grow. Kent-based specialist contractor Trail Group experienced this first-hand. As the company expanded, project volumes increased and there was a need to find a better way of standardising reporting, improving visibility across teams and reducing the administrative burden tied to compliance documentation.

Before digitising its workflows, reporting and evidence collection for Trail Group had become increasingly time-consuming to the point where the business was considering hiring additional support to simply manage compliance data.

After digitising its workflows with Onetrace, Trail Group streamlined and standardised how site evidence, quality assurance records and project updates were captured and shared in real-time. This afforded management teams live visibility into project progress and quality control without adding administration overhead, while site team members record evidence directly as they work.

For many fire protection teams, the value of digitisation goes well beyond replacing paperwork. It’s about improving traceability, visibility and control, improving operational efficiency and delivering peace of mind.

From paperwork to project control

For subcontractors managing multiple live projects, visibility is critical. Clients increasingly expect accurate audit trails, photographic evidence and real-time reporting, particularly so on those projects where the golden thread of information-centred requirements are a priority.

This shift means that many contractors are rethinking how they capture and manage project information. Using Onetrace, Cotswold Fire Service has digitised compliance records, site evidence and quality assurance workflows to improve visibility across live projects and reduce reliance on manual reporting.

For Lee Drew, project manager at Cotswold Fire Service, the biggest operational improvement has been the consistency and accountability that comes from having everything captured in one place. “Efficiency and organisation are the biggest impacts,” confirmed Drew. “We’re automating more, reducing repetitive administration tasks and holding people to a higher standard because everything’s traceable.”

Clearer oversight

Overall, the end result is faster documentation, clearer project oversight and more consistent information for clients, in turn helping contractors to meet rising compliance expectations, while also creating a competitive advantage in a market where transparency, accountability and professionalism increasingly influence who wins available work.

Digitisation is no longer just an operational upgrade. Rather, it’s becoming a commercial and compliance necessity. As documentation requirements increase and clients demand greater transparency, fragmented paperwork and manual processes create growing operational risk.

The businesses leading the sector are already moving towards real-time quality assurance, structured compliance records and fully traceable project delivery. Not simply to reduce administration time, but also to protect margins, scale by improving consistency and give clients greater confidence in the work they deliver on-site.

*Further information is available online at www.onetrace.com

Combining elements of tennis and squash, padel is one of the fastest-growing sports in the UK and perfect for players of all abilities. Whether you’re experienced or trying padel for the first time, this event offers a fantastic opportunity to connect with colleagues from across the fire industry, while at the same time boosting the resources of a truly meaningful cause.

This is very much an inclusive event and women working in the fire safety sector are encouraged to attend and take part alongside their male colleagues.

The Children’s Burns Trust

The Children’s Burns Trust is a national charity dedicated to providing support and rehabilitation for burned and scald-injured children and their families. The charity also realises prevention and awareness campaigns for which there’s no national funding. The organisation is not funded by the Government and only able to continue its magnificent work as a result of fundraising efforts.

Further information is available online at www.cbtrust.org.uk

Event overview

Date: 9 July 2026
Venue: Surbiton Racket & Fitness Club
Time: 10.00 am-4.00 pm

Teams will compete in group stage matches followed by knockout rounds, with plenty of time built-in for networking, lunch and drinks.

As stated, all profits will be donated to The Children’s Burns Trust, in turn helping to support those children and their families who’ve been affected by burn injuries.

Spaces are going to be limited so willing participants are encouraged to register early.

Participation costs

*Team (comprising two players): £300+VAT

*Single player: £150+VAT

Interested parties can register online

Sponsorship opportunities

Court sponsor: £500+VAT (package includes court-side branding, free team entry and a page in the event programme)

Food and beverage sponsor: £750+VAT (package includes branding in the hospitality area, free team entry and a page in the event programme)

Sponsorship packages can be booked online

The FIA hopes that plenty of guests will attend what promises to be a fantastic day of sport, networking and charity support.

*Further information is available online at www.fia.uk.com

Since their launches in 2016 and 2019 respectively, The Fire Safety Event and The Security Event have experienced exceptional development. Each year, thousands of industry professionals travel from across the UK to the NEC in Birmingham, firmly establishing these shows as the UK’s leading annual meeting place for the fire and security industries.

Building on this continued success, both The Fire Safety Event and The Security Event have rightfully earned strong international recognition and are increasingly attracting the attentions of European integrators, consultants, specifiers and end users seeking innovation, insight and the opportunity to realise valuable industry connections.

The evolution into recognised European brands reflects that growing influence, while in tandem supporting a long-term vision for both shows to become the leading destination for the wider European market.

Expansion of vision

Importantly, the move signals expansion of vision, not relocation. The Fire Safety Event and The Security Event will remain firmly rooted at the NEC, with the UK market continuing to sit at the heart of both shows.

Nineteen Group notes that the UK industries remain central to these events’ future ambitions. Indeed, Nineteen Group foresees a significant opportunity to welcome even more visitors from European markets, many of which lack a dedicated trade event on such a scale to serve their respective country/region.

This next phase of progression is set to further enrich the experience of all stakeholders, enhance collaboration, drive innovation, open new export opportunities and expand community reach.

Increasing importance

Nineteen Group managing director Tristan Norman informed Fire Safety Matters: “From humble beginnings, The Fire Safety Event and The Security Event have evolved into hugely significant exhibitions in the global calendar for the industries they serve. This repositioning reflects both their continued growth and increasing importance. We look forward to further establishing these events as world-leading trade shows.”

Commenting on the evolution of the brands, and following on from his recent promotion to Group event director across the portfolio, Peter Poole observed: “The direction of a trade show is shaped by the industry it serves and our brand evolution is designed to reflect that journey. The growth of both events has been phenomenal in a relatively short period of time and the continued support we receive from the UK is something we deeply value.”

Poole added: “The UK remains hugely important to us, while this strategic repositioning has been carefully aligned with the growing interest we’re now seeing from across Europe. We’re entering an exciting new phase, reinforcing The Fire Safety Event and The Security Event as the UK’s premier shows in their sector, while also establishing them as the key hub for the European community right here in the heart of the UK. I’m incredibly excited about the additional value this development will bring to our partners.”

Underpinned by hundreds of global leading brands, influential speakers, live demonstrations, networking opportunities and sector-defining thought leadership, The Fire Safety Event and The Security Event have become known for their strong sense of community and culture.

Safety and Security Event Series

Nineteen Group’s Safety and Security Event Series – comprising The Fire Safety Event, The Security Event, the National Cyber Security Show, The Workplace Event, The Facilities Event and The Health and Safety Event – is Europe’s largest exhibition series wholly dedicated to the safety and security of people places and assets.

Covering the entire buying chain, these events provide a unique platform for networking and collaboration. Attendees are afforded the opportunity to connect with major industry players showcasing their latest products and solutions.

*Further information is available online at www.nineteengroup.com

However, events that fall outside ‘business as usual’ raise a more difficult question: ‘What happens when the largest environmental impact comes from something the reporting framework isn’t designed to fully capture?’

The 2023 loss of Luton Airport’s Terminal Car Park 2 (TCP2) offers a useful Case Study, not because of how the incident started, but instead due to how its environmental consequences are accounted for.

London Luton Airport’s Sustainability Report 2024 classified the fire as a non-‘business as usual’ emergency. As such, the primary emissions associated with the incident itself were treated as being outside the core reporting boundary, while emissions linked to demolition and deconstruction activities were recorded as part of Scope 3 construction-related impacts.

From a reporting perspective, this follows accepted practice. Exceptional events are often separated from baseline figures in order to maintain comparability between reporting years. However, the environmental reality behind the figures is somewhat harder to ignore.

Analysis suggests that the total carbon impact associated with rebuilding the lost structure alone, including replacement materials and associated works, may be equivalent to three-to-four years of London Luton Airport’s reported Scope 1 and Scope 2 operational emissions.

Let that sink in. One event, a fire attracting global attention, that is ‘non-business as usual’ is equivalent to three-to-four years of the location’s reported emissions. All this receives is a footnote bubble in the Sustainability Report. This isn’t a marginal adjustment. In truth, it represents the loss of several years’ worth of environmental progress in a single incident.

Sustainability in practice

This highlights a broader issue in terms of how sustainability is defined in practice. Most carbon strategies focus on predictable sources of emissions such as energy use, transport and operational efficiency. These are areas where incremental improvements can be measured and reported. What they rarely address is the environmental consequence of sudden infrastructure loss.

When major assets are lost prematurely, the environmental impact is immediate. Replacement requires new materials, new transport movements and new construction activity, all of which carry embodied carbon. In other words, the environmental investment already made in the original structure is written off and the carbon cost of building must be paid again.

None of this diminishes the operational response that followed the TCP2 loss. Maintaining airport operations under disruption reflects significant capability and planning, but resilience should not be understood only as the ability to recover. From a sustainability perspective, resilience also means limiting the scale of loss in the first place.

This distinction will become increasingly important as emissions targets tighten and whole-life carbon assessments become standard practice. Many sustainability frameworks assume continuity, with assets that will perform throughout their intended lifespan. Events such as the London Luton Airport car park fire challenge that assumption by showing how rare, but nevertheless high-impact incidents can dominate long-term environmental performance.

Environmental resilience

When the carbon cost of rebuilding outweighs several years’ worth of operational emissions, resilience becomes an environmental issue as much as an engineering one. Measures that limit the scale of damage, therefore, have a role to play in sustainability strategy, not just safety planning.

Automatic fire sprinkler systems are traditionally associated with life safety and property protection. Increasingly, they should also be understood as environmental safeguards. By controlling incidents at an early stage, sprinklers can reduce structural damage, limit material loss and avoid the need for large-scale reconstruction, directly reducing the carbon cost of recovery. That’s why the new car park at London Luton Airport has sprinklers.

There’s a risk that sustainability narratives focus heavily on incremental gains, while overlooking the potential for large-scale setbacks. Reporting frameworks struggle to reflect the environmental consequences of sudden disruption. As a direct result, organisations may appear to be progressing steadily towards ‘Net Zero’, while remaining vulnerable to events capable of reversing that progress in just a matter of hours.

The lesson to be learned from London Luton Airport is not about reporting methodology alone, but instead recognising that durability and resilience sit at the heart of sustainability. The most significant carbon events are not always those recorded in Annual Reports. Sometimes, they’re the exceptional ones. The losses that sit outside ‘business as usual’ and, it must be recognised, carry the greatest environmental cost.

Tom Roche is Secretary of the Business Sprinkler Alliance (www.business-sprinkler-alliance.org)

Nearly nine years on from the Grenfell Tower tragedy, there are still far too many buildings harbouring unsafe cladding. The cladding safety crisis continues to endanger lives and leave so many individuals stuck in unsuitable homes they’re unable to sell.

The Remediation Bill delivers on the Labour Party’s General Election Manifesto commitment to fix the cladding crisis. It will make construction product manufacturers pay towards fixing the problem they caused by fixing long-standing gaps in the law and ending years of inaction.

For the first time, developers, contractors and others who’ve paid to make buildings safe will be able to properly pursue manufacturers, rather than being blocked by technical legal barriers.

Regulators are going to be equipped with the powers they need to compel action and bring the cladding safety crisis to an end. From the Government’s perspective, it’s wholly unacceptable that the current regime lacks the severe sanctions needed to punish those who “continuously and egregiously” determined to block remediation.

Further, the Remediation Bill will introduce a new legal duty to remediate, compelling those responsible for the safety of their buildings (such as freeholders) to identify, assess and fix their buildings without delay. Those responsible must act or otherwise face the consequences (including criminal prosecution in the most severe cases).

In addition, the Remediation Bill is going to mandate how external wall assessments are carried out in order to ensure a nationally consistent approach to remediation work and introduce an 11 to 18-metre register to identify all remaining buildings requiring remediation work.

For the first time, the Government will have a complete record of all medium-rise buildings in England, thereby putting an end to the information gap and improving system readiness if new risks affect homes.

Remediation backstop

The Government intends to implement a remediation backstop to allow a third party, such as Homes England, to step in and carry out remediation work themselves, ensuring that residents have a route to remediation even where the responsible party is determined to ignore their duty to keep residents safe. This will be supported by tough sanctions so they cannot benefit, including cost recovery and potential sale of their interest.

There’s a determination to fix gaps in previous legislation to protect residents and guarantee a route to remediation even in those instances where ownership is absent, unclear or negligent.

Every building made safe will allow those who are stuck in unsuitable housing, through no fault of their own, to sell their flats and move on with their lives.

For clarity, the Remediation Bill will extend to England and Wales, although the majority of measures will apply in England only.

Of the 4,310 buildings that are 11 metres tall and above in England that have been identified with unsafe cladding, remediation work has been completed on only 35% of them. Too many of those responsible are not complying with their obligations to make their buildings safe. To date, regulators have had to take enforcement action at over 800 buildings with suspected unsafe cladding.

The Government – and some members of the construction industry – is funding the cost of remediating external wall defects. The Government has committed circa £5.15 billion to remediate buildings in England, while the cost to the 53 developers who’ve signed the Developer Remediation Contract is estimated at £4.2 billion for those buildings for which they hold responsibility. Construction product manufacturers have yet to contribute towards the cost of fixing the problem they caused.

As yet, no claim against a manufacturer has been brought to court. The Remediation Bill takes important steps to address this position. The Government will continue work to ensure manufacturers play their part, including from a financial standpoint.

Robust assessments lacking

Too many buildings still lack clear and robust assessments of their external walls, delaying remediation and leaving residents exposed to unacceptable risk. The Remediation Bill will put into law the standards and assurance practices already proven across Government remediation programmes. It will legally require fire risk appraisal of external walls-focused surveys to follow the PAS 9980 framework, thereby providing a clear, proportionate and evidence-based methodology for assessing external wall risks.

The ongoing cladding safety crisis is blighting lives across the country. Those stuck in unremediated buildings are unable to feel safe in their homes, while being unable to sell up and move on. They also face higher costs.

The Financial Conduct Authority has stated that there was a 187% increase in insurance premiums for buildings with identified flammable cladding from 2016 to 2021. The continued presence of unsafe cladding undermines confidence in the safety, value and viability of living in (and owning) flats.

Achieving the goal

Lord Andrew Roe KFSM, chair of the Building Safety Regulator’s Board, has stated: “The Remediation Bill will give us the additional tools we need to compel reluctant landlords to take action to remediate their buildings and remove unsafe cladding or face severe sanctions.”

Lord Roe added: “Everyone deserves to feel safe and be safe in their homes. The Remediation Bill will help us to achieve that goal.”

London Fire Brigade Commissioner Jonathan Smith observed: “We welcome this announcement and the continued progress towards legislation that will help to address fire safety risks in high-rise residential buildings. Nearly nine years on from the Grenfell Tower fire, there remain far too many buildings with serious fire safety issues. Ensuring that remediation progresses more effectively is critically important when it comes to restoring the confidence of residents in the safety of their homes.”

Slow pace

Jaclyn Mangaroo, chief communications officer of The Property Institute (the professional body for residential property management) stated: “The slow pace of fixing unsafe buildings has clearly shown the need for legislation. The Remediation Bill is to be welcomed as far as it goes, particularly so for residents who’ve been living with dangerous cladding for years. However, the proposed legislation falls short on two crucial issues: implementing a backstop for pledged developers and addressing internal safety defects.”

Mangaroo continued: “First, the backstop for inaction applies to landlords, but not to developers who pledged to fix their buildings more than three years ago, but – according to our data – have still only completed 10% of the necessary remediation work. This is counterintuitive when developers were responsible for the construction of their buildings and are taking the longest time to fix them. We’ve found that nearly 60% of developer-pledged projects have not yet even agreed the scope of works.”

In addition, Mangaroo went on to comment: “The Government is justified in focusing on removing unsafe external cladding and façades, but the Remediation Bill fails to address internal safety defects such as inadequate compartmentation and non-compliant fire doors. This means that residents will continue living in potentially unsafe buildings, which has a significant knock-on consequence of paying unjust costs to fund interim safety measures, not to mention higher insurance premiums.”

Mangaroo concluded: “Our members, who collectively manage over two million homes in England and Wales, are still facing too many barriers and challenges in attempting to ensure residents are protected from risk and further costs resulting from safety-centred remediation work. The Government must understand and legislate for the fact that that the building safety crisis goes beyond cladding and that residents should not be left in limbo.”

Traditionally, fire detection and alarm systems have been designed and implemented to ensure safe and rapid evacuation in the event of fire. However, today’s risk landscape increasingly requires buildings to respond effectively to a broader range of threats, including intruders, violent incidents, external hazards or environmental risks. This new guidance demonstrates how existing fire detection and alarm infrastructures can be used to support both evacuation and lockdown scenarios in a safe, compliant and co-ordinated manner.

The document emphasises that, while integration is possible and often beneficial, fire safety must always remain the highest priority. Any use of fire detection and alarm systems for non-fire purposes must ensure that fire detection, alarm transmission and evacuation signalling are never compromised. Clear differentiation between signals is essential, with distinct tones, messages and procedures to avoid confusion among building occupants.

One key principle highlighted in the guidance is that lockdown signalling can share fire detection and alarm system infrastructure – leveraging its reliability, monitoring and resilience – provided that the system is carefully engineered. Fire alarm signals must remain clearly distinguishable and cannot be masked, delayed or overridden by other alerts.

Different approaches

The guidance also explores how different European countries are addressing this topic. While there’s no harmonised European Union regulation, national frameworks increasingly support a multi-hazard approach. Examples include the Netherlands, where evacuation alarm systems are explicitly intended for ‘fire or other emergencies’ and recent updates in the UK that allow fire alarm sounders to be used for lockdown with distinct signalling.

Beyond regulatory context, the document provides practical engineering and design recommendations. These include conducting thorough risk assessments, defining clear cause-and-effect logic, ensuring signal intelligibility and establishing priority hierarchies between evacuation and lockdown functions.

The importance of integrating these strategies into the overall fire protection concept and gaining approval from the relevant authorities is also strongly emphasised throughout.

Human factors

The guidance further highlights the importance of human factors. In emergency situations, occupants must be able to quickly understand what action to take. This requires clear and intelligible messaging, regular training and rehearsed procedures. Whether evacuating a building or securing it, the effectiveness of the response depends not only on technology, but also on preparedness.

As buildings become more complex and risks more diverse, integrated emergency communication systems are becoming increasingly important. This new guidance from Euralarm provides a harmonised framework to help stakeholders design and implement systems that support both evacuation and lockdown strategies without compromising safety or compliance.

Through this publication, Euralarm continues to support its members and the wider industry in adapting to evolving safety challenges, promoting Best Practice and enhancing the protection of people and property across Europe.

*Euralarm’s Guidance on the Use of Fire Detection and Alarm Systems for Lockdown is available for download at www.euralarm.org

After due consideration of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Panel’s Phase 2 report, the critical findings regarding systemic failure and the recommendations within regarding fire risk assessments, the Government determined that it would “legislate to make it mandatory for anyone acting as a fire risk assessor to have their competence independently verified”.

The Governments consultation on the Fire Risk Assessors Profession in England presents a vital opportunity for practitioners to express their opinions on how that mandatory process might best be accomplished. This is a rare and crucial opportunity to help create the hugely important legacy of a safer future.

That said, responses to such consultations are never simple. Inevitably, there’s a great deal of information and a myriad of questions to be absorbed. Then it’s about balancing the information presented and answering from a personal perspective in terms of how fire risk assessment affects the individual, be they a building occupant, a building user, the ‘Responsible Person’, a client, a building owner, an insurer or, indeed, a practising fire risk assessor.

It’s also worth remembering that, while any outcome may only apply in England at this stage, all of the Home Nations are watching. Further, the duties detailed in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 in terms of who undertakes the risk assessment are, as things stand, pretty flexible.

Setting out the vision

In setting out its vision for the profession, the Government makes several points that the fire risk assessment sector warmly supports. The keen focus is on reform leading to a coherent and consistent sector-wide demonstration of clearly high standards of competence that create a career pathway for a sustainable future workforce. Ultimately, the vision is for a profession that can both deliver quality and be effectively regulated.

The fire risk assessment sector has been involved in progressing professional improvements. Working with Government and others, the British Standards Institution has enabled individuals and organisations to manage, improve and demonstrate competency as part of the desire to create a safer built environment. That diligent work is illustrated by practical outcomes, including the publication of BS 8674:2025 Built Environment – Framework for Competence of Individual Fire Risk Assessors – Code of Practice.

Concentrating on the core role of fire risk assessment, the sector aim seeks to address the consultation’s underlying question: ‘How might a successful mandate operate in practice?’

Importantly, the sectoral view of the role and scope of the profession is that it cannot offer a ‘pass or fail’ for whether a building is ‘fire safe’, much as many owners might want such an outcome. The variations and complexities of building occupiers, usage, structures, materials, systems and engineering inevitably require a multidisciplinary approach and the engagement of other professions. It must be said that extending the profession’s scope risks weakening personal accountability.

Clear boundaries

If it’s to be regulated, competency requires clear boundaries. The view of the fire risk assessment sector is that three levels of demonstrated competence are practical and would sustain a safe profession. Nominally, remembering that the level of fire risk can only be fully assessed by undertaking the actual assessment, each of the three levels would match the majority of common building types that don’t require highly specialist skills, knowledge, experience or behaviours (SKEB).

Outlined in BS 8674, these three levels – ie Foundation, Intermediate and Advanced – express appropriate SKEB for each competence, which also aligns with the UK’s recognised accredited or certified competence. For example, an individual of Advanced level would be successful in an accreditation scheme, such as the BAFE SP205 Life Safety Fire Risk Assessment Scheme, itself recognised by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS).

Similarly, an individual operating at the Intermediate level would have appropriate Level 4 certification within the Regulated Qualification Framework (RQF), while someone at Foundation level, who could be a new starter or an apprentice (a scheme is being developed), would have RQF Level 2 or 3 certification. The sector has worked with Awarding Organisations and training bodies alike to ensure there’s widespread availability of these RQF qualifications as a key part of ensuring there’s sufficient capacity for a future regulated profession.

Enabling the transition and recognition of this competent workforce is vital since the unintended consequence of any failed transition is that of having a statutory requirement that cannot be fulfilled.

Using UKAS accreditation and RQF certification ensures that all qualifications are externally verifiable. Likewise, having a framework approach founded on a consensus-based British Standard places the onus on the individual to demonstrate competence and, if they’re part of an organisation, upon their organisation to ensure not only that they are competent (or supervised while gaining experience), but also that they maintain their competence and behave professionally at all times.

Requiring support

Some fire risk assessors own their business. As such, maintaining competence and oversight of professional behaviour requires support. Again, the sector’s professional bodies – the Institution of Fire Engineers and the Institute of Fire Safety Managers (IFSM), for example – have systems in place that assist these individuals. There’s also the model Code of Conduct, which is part of BS 8674.

Additional sector support for many individual and organisational fire risk assessors is also provided to those who are members of the Fire Industry Association (FIA) or the Fire Protection Association.

Right now, one sector initiative is very much focused on developing – alongside Skills England – a dedicated fire risk assessor apprenticeship. New starters are needed in an industry where over 65% of practitioners are aged over 50. This is no easy task, but through the IFSM and the FIA it’s pleasing to note that energy and pathfinder organisations have been found who are able and willing to build this essential new workforce of youngers. The fervent hope is to launch a new scheme at some point this year.

Ultimately, initiating the policy of implementation and regulation will be dependent upon the actions of Government. The sector considers that the transitional process outlined above offers a practical way forward, being soundly based on a developed thought process using three defined levels of competence.

Evolved over several years in partnership with Government, UKAS and RQF Awarding Organisations, stakeholders and the sector, it’s very much the case that steady, progressive and continuous progress has been made. What’s more, the professional commitment to make this mandate a success remains undiminished.

Having a sensibly phased introduction represented in the consultation Scenario 3, rather than a sudden ‘all change’ approach that would seriously challenge the fundamental ‘self-assessment’ basis of the Fire Safety Order itself, would allow ‘Responsible Persons’ and fire risk assessors the time to successfully adapt.

Dennis Davis CBE QFSM CEng is a Member of the Fire Risk Assessor Sector Group

*Access the Fire Risk Assessors Profession consultation online. The consultation closes on 18 June. Responses can be delivered online, via e-mail or in writing to Fire Risk Assessor Consultation, Attn: National Resilience and Fire Safety Division, Fry Building, 2 Marsham Street, Westminster, London SW1P 4DF