Highlights to 1 May 2026 (12-week rolling period)

*Across all categories, 323 Gateway 2 decisions were made by the Building Safety Regulator in the 12 weeks to 1 May, with a 71% approval rate. 62% of all decisions across all categories related to London cases

*New applications representing 12,426 residential units were received and applications representing 17,046 housing units determined, of which 12,299 were approvals. There are currently 36,984 units in live cases

*73% of decisions (ie 24 out of 33) made by the Innovation Unit in the last 12 weeks were approvals with 14 of those approvals in London (representing a 100% approval rate in the capital), which also reflects the ongoing work focused around complex cases. All time Innovation Unit approvals now stand at 33, with a median approval time of 22 weeks

*Following the introduction of the Building Safety Regulator’s External Remediation Improvement Plan in the past month, 20 legacy remediation applications from 2024 now remain, which is down from 42 at the beginning of 2026. A further 12 applications are on track to be determined in mid-May

*Operational enhancements and intensive application refinement have seen remediation approval rates already approaching the minimum 65% target for 2026

New-build approvals rise

New-build applications continue to move through the Innovation Unit with a growing number of decisions and a rising approval rate.

The Building Safety Regulator continues to work closely with industry on consistency as it seeks to reduce the number of complex cases in the system. The Innovation Unit is currently managing 143 live applications (representing 27,900 units).

Progress on external remediation

External remediation-driven guidance was published in the past month alongside improved feedback and support provided to applicants. Further resources and support will be introduced this year.

The Building Safety Regulator also continues to work closely with the sector to help applicants improve the quality of applications. Data shows that applications submitted in 2026 are progressing through the system much more rapidly than earlier applications. The average approval time was 25 weeks in a rolling 12-week period, which reflects the older 2024-2025 applications now being concluded.

Capital accounts for 62% of recent decisions

London decisions continue to be the majority of all closed cases. Over the past 12 weeks, 62% of all decisions across all Gateway 2 categories were for projects located in the capital. During this period, 383 applications were closed in the capital, with 437 new applications received.

Currently, 64% of all live Innovation Unit applications are based in London, representing 57% of the overall residential units that the Innovation Unit is handling. The total number of live London applications across all categories is 849.

Assessments in four weeks

Across all three major categories – new-build, remediation and refurbishment – the median time from a case being issued to a supplier to a full assessment being returned is just four weeks under the Building Safety Regulator’s batching process.

*254 new-build cases have been issued through batching, with 43 decisions (of the 87 returned to date) reached at a median time of nine weeks from issue to supplier to decision. This includes the time required for the Building Safety Regulator to consider the assessment and make a decision

*408 remediation cases have been issued, with 33 decisions (of the 140 returned) at a median time of ten weeks

*For refurbishment, 758 cases have been issued to the batching process so far. 82 decisions (of the 321 returned) have also been reached at a median time of eleven weeks

The data shows that batching is proving effective in speeding up early assessment and decision-making. As rejections are often early decisions, the Building Safety Regulator therefore sees a relatively high proportion of rejections from the batching process. This is expected to drop and approach the steady-state shown in the rolling 12-week numbers as more batching applications flow through to reach approval.

The batching process scales capacity by bundling applications to specialised external suppliers for accelerated assessment, with the Building Safety Regulator maintaining full regulatory oversight.

Long-term and transitional cases

The Building Safety Regulator has reduced the number of legacy, long-term cases to eight. These have significant technical challenges and have been managed as ‘complex cases’ since February.

This is where account managers work closely with applicants to try to achieve a successful outcome. These are no longer reflected in the Innovation Unit data as they’re being reported on separately.

Transitional cases have risen to 43 after the Building Safety Regulator was required to accept HRB projects previously being managed by Assent Building Control, which ceased trading in late 2025.

Significantly faster decision times

Charlie Pugsley, acting CEO of the Building Safety Regulator, said: “We are continuing to see positive improvements in the number of approvals for both new-build and existing building remediation cases, as well as significantly faster decision times. This includes positive results within our Innovation Unit from working closely with applicants to resolve complex technical challenges and then seeing a growing number of decisions and rising approval rates.”

Pugsley continued: “We are also making important improvements following the recent introduction of our External Remediation Improvement Plan. 12 of the remaining 20 legacy applications received in 2024 are set to have decisions made by mid-May, which will see this cohort of applications reduced to single figures.”

Further, Pugsley noted: “Even more encouraging is the fact that our remediation approval rates are already approaching our minimum 65% target for the year, although we are not being complacent and recognise that people living in unremediated buildings want them to be fixed, safely and at pace.”

In conclusion, Pugsley stated: “We are working to accelerate our assessments, decisions and approvals, ensuring that industry can construct safe buildings so that thousands of residents see the essential safety improvements they deserve. We remain steadfastly committed to ensuring that accelerated decision-making must never come at the cost of building safety.”

*Building Control approval application data to 1 May 2026

The research behind it – published by Halliwell Fire Research on behalf of the Fire Protection Research Foundation – examines how mass timber buildings perform after a sprinkler-suppressed fire.

Stop and think about what that original headline was actually claiming. If a system that intervenes early, limits fire growth and controls structural damage is now being treated as a problem in itself, what would be proposed in its place?

The Fire and Rescue Service will attend, but they arrive later, when a fire is larger and the volumes of water they deploy are far greater. If the concern is water ingress into CLT connections, the answer is not fewer sprinklers. That path leads to more water, applied to a building far more seriously damaged by fire.

Jim Glockling, visiting professor at UCLAN and a respected voice in fire engineering, made exactly this point in response to the research on LinkedIn. The right comparison, he argued, is not sprinklers versus nothing. It’s the small, targeted volumes that sprinkler heads local to the fire put down very early, when the fire is still small, versus the quantities the Fire and Rescue Service might apply late in an event when the fire is bigger and may have spread.

On that basis, Glockling concluded: “To this end, I see fire sprinklers as an essential component of water damage reduction, not the problem. Quantities are small and known and easily recovered from.”

Moisture challenge

The moisture challenge that follows suppression is real and worth investigating seriously. Better post-fire drying protocols, connection detailing that reduces water trapping nd clearer assessment procedures are all productive directions.

These are design and management refinements, though. They sharpen how we use active fire protection. They don’t make the case against it.

There is, however, a much deeper issue in play here. If mass timber is sensitive enough to water that post-fire sprinkler discharge warrants this level of concern, what does that tell us about the water risks already present in these buildings which go unnoticed?

Plumbing and drainage failures, condensation within structural elements, roof and cladding water ingress, escape-of-water events: all carry no sprinkler activation, no incident report and no obvious trigger for investigation.

If water sensitivity in mass timber is the concern, that’s where the headlines should be directed, not at the systems protecting us from fire.

Environmental credentials

As the construction sector embraces mass timber for its environmental credentials and structural qualities, we must be honest about the additional layers of protection these buildings require. The use of combustible materials in innovative construction introduces fire risks that, if not addressed with equal care, can undermine all of the gains made in sustainability.

That balance can be struck, of course, but only when resilience is valued alongside the other objectives for which we are designing.

Sprinklers are not the problem, as this research reveals. They are part of the answer to a set of questions the mass timber sector is beginning to ask properly.

The question we should now be asking is not how we protect buildings from their own suppression systems. The focus should be on how to make the most of the active fire protection systems that need to be installed.

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

The course has been developed by Local Authority Building Control (LABC) in collaboration with fire engineering specialists at the University of Edinburgh, CROSS-UK, the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) and the Smoke Control Association, as well as fire engineering consultancies Design Fire Consultants, The Fire Surgery, OFR Consultants and PartB.

Delivered via eleven half-day virtual workshops, the new course covers a range of topics including an overview of BS 7974 (the British Standard that provides the framework for applying fire safety engineering principles), Computational Fluid Dynamics, PAS 8700 and modern methods of construction, structural fire engineering, smoke ventilation and clearance, accessible means of egress and working with existing buildings.

Continued emphasis

Lorna Stimpson, CEO of LABC, informed Fire Safety Matters: “There’s a continued emphasis on improving the competence of all construction professionals to drive up safety standards across the industry. This course has been put together to ensure that anyone interacting with fire engineering has the knowledge to confidently assess and challenge the information that’s given to them. We need the industry, and professionals within it, to reach a place whereby they can ensure safer outcomes for every person in every building.”

Originally launched in October, LABC has recently had the course accredited by the Chartered Institute of Building so that attendees gain a Level 6 certificate upon successful completion of the final assessment.

Speaking about his experience of attending the course, Matt Canham (fire engineer at the Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service representing the NFCC) said: “I’ve been taken on a fire engineering journey based on competent and ethical practice. I have taken so much from this course that will inform how I carry out my regulatory role on a daily basis. It has given me the confidence and knowledge to ask those fundamental questions.”

Existing suite

This latest offering from LABC adds to its existing suite of award-winning training courses created specifically for the wider construction industry including ‘Safety at Sports Grounds and other Events’, ‘Building Regulation Compliance’, ‘Building Regulation Application’ and ‘Building Regulation Inspections’.

*The first CIOB Level 6 Certificate in Principles of Fire Engineering course starts on 6 May. A second course will begin on 8 October

**Further information is available online at www.labc.co.uk/events/level-6-ciob-certificate-fire-engineering-principles-2

***Additional detail concerning LABC can be accessed at www.labc.co.uk

In his most recent role as the CEO of the Institute of Learning, Adams strengthened governance arrangements, rebuilt organisational confidence and embedded a strong culture of Continuing Professional Development.

To date, Adams’ career has encompassed senior leadership roles at the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport, the Institute of Directors and the Civil Mediation Council, duly equipping him with a broad strategic perspective and a strong track record of organisational leadership.

Paul Stollard, chair of the IFE’s Board of Trustee Directors, said: “We are delighted to welcome Paul as our new CEO. With a wealth of experience gained by leading membership organisations and global professional bodies, he brings a deep understanding of how to support, represent and add value for members in an increasingly complex world.”

Stollard added: “Paul’s proven leadership, strategic insight and commitment to member engagement will be invaluable as we look to the future and continue to strengthen the IFE’s impact for members and the fire safety sector.”

Important role

Commenting on his appointment, Paul Adams observed: “The IFE plays a uniquely important role in advancing professional standards and public confidence in a field where the consequences of failure are profound. I’m honoured to be joining the organisation at what is such a pivotal time for fire safety on the global stage.”

Adams continued: “During my military service, I saw first-hand the devastating impact fire can have on people, families and communities. That experience has remained with me and underpins my commitment to the IFE’s mission.”

Going forward, Adams’ focus will be on strengthening the Institution’s impact by supporting and amplifying the expertise of its members, ensuring that the IFE continues to lead in setting standards, shaping policy and influencing the global fire safety agenda. “Together,” urged Adams, “we will build on the IFE’s strong heritage to enable fire professionals to shape a safer world.”

In conclusion, Adams explained: “I would like to thank Steve Hamm for his leadership in moving the organisation forward and for the strong platform he has created in relation to the next phase of the IFE’s development.”

Continued commitment

This appointment reflects the IFE’s continued commitment to creating a future world that’s safer from fire. Adams’ leadership will be instrumental as the Institution furthers its mission to empower members by continuously expanding their knowledge and experience, providing valuable opportunities and supporting their professional growth through their careers.

Adams formally joins the IFE on 18 May. Outgoing CEO Steve Hamm will move into the role of strategic advisor on a part-time basis, ensuring continuity by supporting Adams and assisting with a smooth leadership transition.

*Further information is available online at www.ife.org.uk

Free to enter, the Women in Fire Safety Awards shine a light on excellence, while in parallel helping to increase diversity and representation within the fire safety profession. This year’s winners will be revealed on 15 October during a gala ceremony to be held at the Mercure London Earl’s Court Hotel and wholly dedicated to celebrating excellence across the industry.

The Women in Fire Safety Awards will be co-located with the Women in Safety and Health Awards (organised by Western Business Media and Health and Safety Matters, a sister title of Fire Safety Matters), thereby bringing together professionals from across both of these key sectors for a night of recognition, connection and inspiration.

Award categories

This year’s Women Fire Safety Awards recognise excellence across a wide range of disciplines and categories as follows:

*Administrator of the Year

*Diversity Champion Award

*Excellence Award (Business)

*Excellence Award (Fire Consultant)

*Excellence Award (Fire Engineering)

*Excellence Award (Social Housing)

*Global Research Award

*Inclusive Company Award

*International Rising Star Award

*International Woman of the Year

*Rising Star Award

*Woman of the Year

Full criteria for all of the above categories can be viewed online.

*Entries for the Women in Fire Safety Awards are free. The deadline by which to submit any given entry is 31 July. Enter online NOW!

The Training Centre provides a focused learning environment alongside dedicated equipment for hands-on sessions, thereby ensuring that candidates gain the technical knowledge and real-world competence needed in the field.

This new space has been set up to reflect real installation and maintenance scenarios, covering key areas such as dry riser systems, hose reels and associated equipment and inspection, testing, and maintenance procedures aligned with current industry standards.

IFEDA’s aim is simple: to raise standards across the industry by delivering training that’s practical, relevant and immediately applicable on-site.

Importantly, this new Training Centre represents an important step forward in IFEDA’s continued commitment to supporting engineers, technicians and organisations alike with reliable and professional development opportunities.

IFEDA is looking forward to welcoming its first training delegates this month and working with industry professionals to build knowledge, confidence and competence across the fire safety systems domain.

*Further information is available online at www.ifeda.org

The new testing is conducted according to the sixth edition of ANSI/CAN/UL 9540A, the Standard for the Test Method for Evaluating Thermal Runaway Fire Propagation in Battery Energy Storage Systems. The updated method expands guidance for installation-level, large-scale fire testing, enabling UL Solutions to more closely replicate what happens when a fire starts inside an energy storage enclosure and how that fire might affect nearby equipment or buildings.

Thermal runaway is a battery failure condition in which overheating can cause the release of flammable gases and, in some cases, ignition. Understanding how this process unfolds at full installation scale is critical for evaluating the safety risks involved.

“Battery energy storage systems are being deployed at larger scales and closer to where people live and work,” said Wesley Kwok, vice-president and general manager of the Energy and Industrial Automation Group at UL Solutions. “This testing affords practising professionals the practical data they can use to evaluate site layouts, separation distances and fire protection strategies with greater confidence.”

Realistic installation conditions

During large-scale tests, UL Solutions intentionally initiates a fire within a BESS enclosure and observes how it develops under realistic installation conditions. The testing examines whether fire can spread between battery units, whether heat or flames could ignite nearby structures and how ventilation and gas release influence fire behaviour. It also evaluates how active and passive fire protection features perform when exposed to battery fires.

Test configurations are designed to mirror real installations, including outdoor containerised systems, indoor battery rooms and sites where multiple enclosures are grouped or stacked. Aligning test set-ups with actual layouts helps ensure results are practical and relevant.

The findings are documented in detailed reports that can be used by relevant authorities to evaluate installation proposals, review alternative design approaches permitted under current guidelines and assess whether manufacturer‑recommended clearances are appropriate. Battery energy storage system designers can use the same information to develop compliant and risk‑informed layouts, justify alternative designs and address permitting and relevant authority concerns early in the design process.

Fire and Rescue Services can also leverage the findings for hazard assessments, pre‑incident planning and response strategies.

Protecting firefighters and the public

“As communities expand their use of battery energy storage, we need to understand how these systems behave in a real emergency,” said Robert Sapien Jr, fire chief for the City of San José Fire Department.

He added: “Large-scale fire testing gives us the data we need to plan our response and protect both firefighters and the public. The insight gained is essential when it comes to adopting these systems safely.”

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

Among the standout findings outlined in the 20-page research report produced by the two organisations, 94% of decision-makers observes that proof of competence matters more than cost when selecting a fire safety provider, thereby challenging assumptions that procurement remains primarily price-led.

The research also finds that 79% rank independent auditing and certification among the strongest signals of trust, 83% recognise third party certification as a route towards demonstrating fire assessor competence and 81% note that certified providers are worth the additional cost required.

Taken together, the research findings suggest that buyers are increasingly looking beyond traditional trust signals such as reputation or relationships, placing greater weight on independently evidenced competence and assurance.

At the same time, the report points towards a potential perception gap within the wider market. While providers may often assume cost, familiarity or convenience remain dominant procurement drivers, the research findings suggest that buyers are increasingly influenced by accountability, reassurance and the ability to justify decisions under scrutiny.

Deeper shift

Jonathan Webster, head of marketing at the NSI, commented: “Much of the market may well recognise expectations are changing, but this research suggests the shift may be deeper than many realise. Buyers are placing an increasing weight on competence that can be evidenced, not simply competence they have to accept on trust.”

The NSI-BAFE report also highlights rising scrutiny around fire safety decision-making more broadly, with 79% of research respondents expecting investment in fire safety to increase over the next five years.

The report explores how buyers choose providers, what builds trust and how expectations around assurance and competence are shifting.

Other findings from the report include the following observations:

*93% of those fire safety decision-makers questioned say there’s a greater focus and action on fire safety than five years ago

*89% believe fire safety is now more of a strategic business priority

*79% expect monetary investment in fire safety to rise over the next five years

*39% anticipate a significant increase in investment

*97% note that certified providers bring clear benefits

*70% believe that certified providers offer a trusted solution

*69% of respondents observe that certification affords confidence in terms of risk to life being minimised

*Copies of the Fire Safety Buyers Report 2026: Understanding How Buyers Choose Trusted Fire Safety Service Providers are available by accessing the NSI’s website at https://www.nsi.org.uk/fire-safety-report/

This research is a key step forward in the PV Fire Intelligence Network’s mission to create a national conversation that will improve the safety of solar PV panels. The responses will help the network to establish reliable data on the causes and consequences of solar PV-related fires and recommend solutions to reduce the risk posed by them in the future.

The research covers topics including work practices, near misses and fire incidents:

*work practices: general installation and maintenance practices across the solar PV industry

*near misses: events that could have resulted in a fire, but were prevented before an incident occurred

*fire incidents: all solar PV-related fire incidents

The online questionnaire will be open until 30 June. Participants are invited to complete only the sections relevant to their expertise and experience. All responses will be treated as confidential to support open and honest input and to help ensure the findings deliver the greatest possible insight and value.

Participants can visit https://www.pvfin.org/ for more information and/or send an e-mail to [email protected]

Identifying the threats

Raman Chagger, principal consultant at the Building Research Establishment  and lead for the PV Fire Intelligence Network, explained: “The results from this questionnaire will enable us to identify the threats and corresponding Best Practice for the fast-evolving solar PV sector.”

Chagger added: “Ensuring safety in solar PV systems is essential if we’re going to encourage their adoption and, ultimately, make the successful transition to clean energy. Participation from industry professionals is essential to achieve this goal.”

The PV Fire Intelligence Network was established last October as a Steering Group of leading organisations to analyse the fire safety of solar PV systems. Solar PV and component manufacturers, fire experts and solar safety solution providers form the network. Members include the MCS Company, the Fire Industry Association, the CGM Group UK, Enphase Energy, IMO Precision Controls, PVStop, SolarEdge Technologies, ArcBox (a division of Viridian Solar) and Solar Energy UK.

Solar PV is a critical element of the UK’s green transition, increasing the need for up-to-date and reliable data on the fire risk posed by these systems to promote their take-up among homeowners, businesses and the public sector.

In the pages of ‘Addressing the Risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)’, the EAC also calls for the Government to adopt a stronger approach towards regulating PFAS to ensure that those who pollute waterways and soil pay for it to be cleaned up, establish a national fund for remediation and invest in technologies designed to destroy such chemicals safely.

PFAS are a family of more than 10,000 man-made substances. Due to their highly resistant qualities, they’re often used by the military and the Emergency Services, as well as in household products including frying pans. However, those same qualities mean that PFAS can accumulate in the environment and in people’s bodies for decades. Some research suggests they could be linked to serious health issues such as decreased fertility, developmental delays and certain cancers.

Restricting PFAS

The EAC warns that the risk of new PFAS substances emerging faster than they can be assessed leaves regulators “struggling to keep pace” with industry and can lead to banned substances being replaced by harmful alternatives.

Without group-based restrictions, the Government risks taking a “whack-a-mole” approach towards PFAS regulation, the Committee warns.

MPs state that the Government should adopt an essential-use approach towards regulating PFAS and prioritise rapidly restricting the use of PFAS in non-essential applications. It should bring forward restrictions on PFAS in non-essential consumer products such as food packaging, cookware and school uniforms, with a phased restriction from 2027.

They also warn that voluntary action on PFAS or self-regulation by industry are not sufficient to reduce PFAS emissions. They recommend the Government takes “preventative and precautionary action” to reduce PFAS exposure.

The EAC welcomes the Government’s action to set limits for PFAS in drinking water, but warns that “significant gaps” remain in terms of limiting exposure to PFAS through food and agriculture.

The Committee is calling for the Government to set limits on the levels and types of PFAS permitted in food. While consumer products containing PFAS remain on the market, the Government should introduce interim limits and standardised labelling to inform consumers.

Remediation method

The Committee recommends that the Government applies the ‘polluter pays principle’, which sees those who cause pollution bearing the cost of cleaning it up to prevent ongoing and historic PFAS contamination. It should consult by March 2027 on establishing a national PFAS Remediation Fund.

As part of this Fund, the EAC recommends that the Government explores the implications of an emissions levy for PFAS to hold polluters responsible and also considers options for extending the polluter pays principle to products manufactured overseas and imported to the UK. Where no responsible party can be identified, it should provide dedicated central Government funding for local authorities to remediate.

Once remediated or removed from the environment, PFAS must still be destroyed. However, the UK’s current capacity to destroy PFAS is reliant on high-temperature incineration and only two hazardous waste incinerators in the UK are permitted to destroy PFAS.

The Committee therefore warns that the UK’s current incineration capacity is “insufficient”. It says that the Government should assess how much PFAS-containing waste it expects from future restrictions and whether the UK’s high-temperature incineration capacity is sufficient. It should also commit (within six months) to fund the R&D of destruction technologies that use alternatives to incineration.

Cost to the environment

Toby Perkins MP, chair of the EAC, commented: “From frying pans to fire extinguishers, PFAS are now central to everyday and some life-saving products. Nearly all of us will have some level of PFAS in our bodies. Evidence we heard throughout our inquiry process suggests that our dependence on PFAS has come with a cost to the environment and, perhaps, to human health as well.”

Perkins added: “The Government has already published a PFAS Action Plan. That’s an important step that the Committee welcomes, but it doesn’t go far enough. It appears to be a plan to eventually have a plan rather than a concrete set of commitments designed to reduce and remediate PFAS. We don’t need to panic, but we do need to take sensible precautions.”

The EAC report calls for the Government to phase out PFAS uses that are clearly non-essential, such as in kitchen equipment and school uniforms, and to take a precautionary approach to approving new PFAS. Rather than waiting for proof that a chemical is harmful before banning it, companies should need approval before they introduce a new PFAS substance.  

“The Government must also ensure that those who pollute with PFAS pay for the damage they cause,” explained Perkins. “It must consult on establishing a national PFAS Remediation Fund and explore options to truly hold polluters to account. Where no-one can be held accountable, local authorities must be given the funds they need to clean up.”

Perkins continued: “Other nations in Europe have already taken stronger steps to ban PFAS than we have here in the UK. We risk our citizens and environment continuing to have greater exposure than our European counterparts if we fail to catch up. The Government has all the information it needs to eradicate PFAS from the environment and deter future pollution. Waiting will only make the problem worse. Now is the time to act.”

Focused approach

Andy Spence, managing director of Britannia Fire, has responded to the EAC’s report. “I welcome the report,” urged Spence, “which reflects the thorough and focused approach taken by the EAC.”

Spence continued: “In June last year, I was invited to address the EAC in the House of Commons and provide an industry viewpoint on the challenges facing the fire safety industry in achieving a smooth transition away from PFAS firefighting foams. The MPs listened carefully to my concerns and have highlighted them within the report, in particular the issue of impending bottlenecks and rising costs for the disposal of PFAS foam waste, with only two approved PFAS incinerating facilities currently operational in the UK.”

Further, Spence noted: “I agree wholeheartedly with the findings that urgent action needs to be taken. The UK is lagging behind Europe in terms of restricting the use of PFAS. We haven’t kept pace and need to catch up.”

Continuing that them, Spence said: “We eagerly await the recommendations from the Health and Safety Executive following a six-month consultation process on proposed restrictions of PFAS in firefighting foam and hope that swift action to phase them out follows soon after.”

Although the phasing out of PFAS for some essential applications may be challenging, banning PFAS foams in fire extinguishers is, according to Spence, “an easy win”. There are PFAS-free foam alternatives already available as effective and affordable replacements. Responsible customers are already beginning to make the switch, which is bringing the issue of safe disposal of PFAS foams to the foreground.

Spence concluded: “The industry now needs firm commitment from Government and investment in innovations and technologies so that a swift PFAS phase-out and adequate, safe and economical disposal of foam can be achieved to help minimise the impact of these harmful chemicals on the environment and human health.”