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

By raising the standards of responsible behaviour among all those practitioners working in the supply chain, and in doing so helping to support technical knowledge wherever possible, we – in unison with our partners and members – can make a difference when it comes to delivering the cultural change in the construction industry demanded by Dame Judith Hackitt in 2018.

Dame Judith’s Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety found the existing Building Regulations and fire safety regime were “not fit for purpose” and driven by a culture of cutting corners to complete projects quickly and cheaply rather than focusing on the core aspects of quality and safety.

The Independent Review concluded that changes to the regulatory regime would help, but on their own would not be sufficient unless we can move the culture away from one of doing the minimum required for compliance to one of taking ownership and assuming responsibility for delivering a safe system throughout the lifecycle of any given building.

Cultural change

At the outset, it would be opportune to examine what we mean by the term ‘cultural change’. Culture is defined as ‘how we do things around here’. In other words, it’s how a group of people think, feel and behave. Indeed, the behaviour and actions of Fire Aware’s own members are the cornerstones of our philosophy.

Only by standing by these behaviours across everything we do can we truly recognise the moral responsibility and Duty of Care we hold as responsible individuals in the fire safety industry.

My own experiences tell a story. Some local and newly occupied flats playing host to many families and individuals – and on which construction began in late 2016 with completion post-Grenfell in 2018 – were suddenly (and once again) shrouded in scaffolding. My prediction, and one that turned out to be correct, was that the solid-state cavity barriers in the external walls had been left out.

This stopped me in my tracks. How much warning and loss of life does it take to make the point about proper fire safety systems implementation and, therefore, prevention? I decided there and then to follow Dame Judith Hackitt’s words. In short: ‘Don’t wait. Do something.’

On a personal level, I started to create what’s now Fire Aware: a growing body of members and like-minded individuals who want to make sure the process is absolutely right. The principles of Fire Aware apply to all sectors of relevance, and this includes those operating across industries beyond fire safety with an inherent responsibility to protect people and the buildings they inhabit. These sectors include – but are not limited to – healthcare (where, of course, vulnerable people are involved), hospitality and the leisure sector (ie hotels, restaurants and bars), as well as stadiums and retail where people congregate for different reasons.

Building Safety Regulator

On 27 January, the Building Safety Regulator left the Health and Safety Executive to become a standalone executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

The Building Safety Regulator has also stepped in with its own call for cultural change: “Much more progress needs to be made if we are to change the mindset and behaviours of industry, in other words ‘industry culture’, and drive up the safety and standards of buildings to prevent future tragedies from occurring, while also restoring public trust.”

Legislation, mainly in the form of the Building Safety Act 2022 and its requirements, has added weight, but also some confusion as supply chains seek to understand and meet the demands within.

The Building Safety Act established three gateways at key stages in design and construction. Gateway 2 applies before building works start and applications must demonstrate to the Building Safety Regulator how the design proposals comply with Building Regulations requirements.

During 2025, the construction industry faced significant backlogs in the Gateway 2 system, which were stalling several hundred higher-risk building projects at a time. Since then, the new Innovation Unit has speeded up applications and started to clear the backlog.

The call by Fire Aware cuts across sectors and extends beyond construction and allied industries. We’ve asked for change and now we are seeing it in action, albeit that it’s demanding and challenging for many. Beyond that, we also offer a series of charters for the various groups of members and a Code of Conduct, which helps guide us all through the requirements being rightly demanded and expected of those working in the built environment domain.

Responsibility in the mix

The thread of cultural change resides with those meeting their Duty of Care. Fire safety is a vocation. It’s a way of thinking that comes with responsibility and a requirement to consider the safety of people.

This cultural way of working resides with all those practising in the fire safety supply chain including designers, developers, asset owners, managers and other key stakeholders.

We understand the need for competence, but when dealing with an industry upon which members of the public rely to keep them safe, there has to be more than that. There has to be a demonstrated commitment to safety. As is true of a number of other sectors and professions, the fire sector harbours a wide array of duty holders, but they all share one common requirement: primarily, they exist to keep the public safe.

We are appealing to the fire safety industry (and those with responsibility for making key decisions) to think about their moral duty from the outset of any project. Thanks to the feedback we receive from our members, we know that the industry is keen to make this work. We believe in going above and beyond legislation, minimum standards and test regimes.

We’re witnessing a growing interest in our organisation and what it stands for. Membership is developing quickly and those joining our ranks all want to adhere to Best Practice. We’re seeking to shift the culture of the built environment sector both morally and technically. We believe in setting standards. Members of the Fire Aware community are taking a stand.

For example, Julian Day (managing director of certified Fire Aware member 3B Fire Consultancy, which is part of the Plus Group of companies) expressed the view of many members when he said: “We want to do things the right way and for the right reasons. We’ve been an advocate of Fire Aware since its inception and continue to embrace its ethos.”

Day continued: “We provide a comprehensive range of consultancy services to help ensure the safety and compliance of buildings with fire safety regulations. Specialising in consultation services for fire protection and risk assessment within the sector, we sometimes simply spend time helping to guide clients or those who need assistance.”

He concluded: “Ultimately, we want to keep people safe and make sure that our clients are on the right side of the law at the same time. We’re proud to be associated with Fire Aware.”

Visible moral position

The visible moral position of member companies can also be performance tested, ensuring the services they provide are in line with their moral undertakings. Underperformance can be monitored by the Fire Aware organisation and agreed action taken in the event of consistent disregard for the safety of those who inhabit the buildings we create and manage.

All members must abide by and comply with the law and regulations that are relevant within their specialism in addition to the Fire Aware Code of Conduct.

Supporting the Code, Fire Aware’s series of charters apply to main contractors, property developers, building management, designers, local councils, specialist contractors and sub-contractors.

The Fire Aware Charter conditions don’t seek to override any legal obligations as imposed by those of sector-specific professions. The charters ask the member business to consider the safety of the end user and to go above and beyond minimum standards in order to promote an enthusiasm within the member business that identifies itself as one that cares.

Further, Fire Aware’s members provide training courses relating to fire safety and management relevant for designers, main contractors, domestic trades, material suppliers, building management, hotel and leisure operators, commercial and private landlords and local authorities.

Fire Aware is a recognised membership body serving the built environment and related sectors with a common aim of working responsibly to Best Practice standards in the interests of the safety of the general public.

We’re asking any organisation considering how to improve their moral and technical standards of operation in the built environment to reach out to us for more information and become involved on the road to cultural change.

Gavin Skelly is CEO of Fire Aware (www.fireaware.org)

*Created in 2019 to heighten awareness of fire safety responsibilities in the built environment, Fire Aware comprises membership groups encompassing local authorities, private developers, asset owners, designers, main contractors, sub-contractors, manufacturers, suppliers, landlords and building operators

Sometimes referred to as retained firefighters, on-call firefighters are typically employed in other jobs and respond to incidents when alerted. They commit to remaining within a few minutes of their local Fire Station for a set number of hours each week so that they can respond to emergencies when called upon to do so. The on-call duty system covers around 90% of the UK landmass and provides the backbone of fire cover in rural and lower-risk areas.

Drawing on data collected from Fire and Rescue Services all over the UK, responses from over 1,600 on-call firefighters, Case Studies from each of the four nations and comparisons with international and other UK sectors, the study explored whether the on-call duty system remains fit for purpose. While attention and action are needed to address increasing pressures, on-call firefighters are absolutely vital for keeping communities safe.

However, dwindling numbers, persistent recruitment and retention difficulties and training requirements predominantly designed around full-time standards are serving to undermine long-term resilience.

The report sets out a spectrum of options for change, ranging from incremental local improvement through to fundamental sector-wide reform.

Acting on recommendations

Having commissioned the review with the support of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the NFCC has welcomed its findings and already embarked on work designed to take forward the recommendations, particularly so those that fall directly within its remit.

The NFCC will also work closely with Fire and Rescue Services to better understand what’s viable for them to deliver locally, all the while recognising that lasting change must balance national co-ordination with local context, governance and resourcing.

Phil Garrigan OBE KFSM, chair of the NFCC, said:  “The on‑call duty system has served communities across the UK for generations, made possible by the commitment, skill and professionalism of on‑call firefighters who balance public service with their own lives beyond the Fire Station. It remains a cost‑effective and community‑rooted model of fire cover.”

Garrigan continued: “The findings of this study are clear about the pressures the system now faces, and also about the need for co‑ordinated action. Our focus must be on working alongside Fire and Rescue Services, Government, representative bodies and on‑call firefighters themselves, recognising their unique contribution so that the system continues to protect the public it serves.”

Reflections of reality

Steve Healey, the NFCC’s national on-call lead and Deputy Chief Fire Officer for the Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service, stated: “I want to thank every firefighter, leader and stakeholder who contributed to this research. Their honesty has shaped a study that reflects the reality of on-call work today, particularly so in rural areas.”

In conclusion, Healey observed: “There is no single fix and meaningful progress will take time, but it’s very much the case that the evidence base for change is now stronger than it has ever been.”

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

In the six-page publication’s introduction, Fire Sector Confederation chair John Spencer notes that the organisation has taken up its place as “the principal representative, convening and governance body across the UK’s fire and building safety landscape” and boasts an “emerging Parliamentary influence” with the successful reset of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fire and Rescue being an important step forward.

Further, Spencer states: “There are challenges ahead and the Trustees are well aware of the need to build a more secure and recurring funding base. However, the partnerships now being agreed with leading organisations in the sector and the many constructive conversations underway give us real confidence that the funding model will evolve to reflect the value the Confederation delivers. In addition, we are also looking to expand and broaden the base of Trustees.”

Detailed appraisal

Steve McGuirk CBE QFSM DL, executive director of the Fire Sector Confederation, delivers and extensive and detailed report that frames the document.

“The last year has been a period of sustained and, in many respects, accelerating activity,” observes McGuirk, “as the Confederation has moved from the foundational work of establishing a new charity into the more demanding task of delivering real value, building genuine influence and securing its long-term future. The overall picture is positive.”

Embellishing that last point, McGuirk comments: “The Confederation is now a recognised and increasingly influential body across the fire and building safety landscape. It has developed credible relationships with key sector organisations, Government departments and parliamentarians. The Consultations Network remains one of its most distinctive and valued assets. Through the aforementioned All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fire and Rescue, the Confederation now has a genuine pathway into the heart of Government.”

The Confederation remains in a relatively stable short-term position of 18 months to two years, though long-term sustainability remains the major strategic challenge. Membership and grant income have allowed continued safe operation, while the organisation is now in a stronger position than at the point of transition. The final grant from the Fire Research and Training Trust has been received. The overarching aim is to establish a secure annual funding position targeting a range of £250,000 to £300,000 per annum. Achieving this goal would also enable a more sustainable footing for contracted personnel.

Priorities for 2026-2027

*Secure stable core funding arrangements

*Expand strategic partnerships across the fire chain

*Develop the knowledge networks and digital hub

*Progress the meetings tracker and stakeholder mapping

*Build on the relationship with the All-Party Parliamentary Group

*Co-ordinate strategically important consultations

*Launch the Fire Futures concept

*Strengthen governance, compliance and administrative capacity

*Demonstrate visible value to members, partners and founders

In terms of the Fire Futures concept, this centres on working with CROSS-UK to develop a coherent and forward-looking programme that addresses emerging threats (including climate change, new technologies, lithium-ion batteries, modern methods of construction and workforce challenges). There’s a broader fire research alliance meeting taking place at the University of Chester in June.

*Further information is available online at www.firesectorconfederation.co.uk

With strong visitor numbers throughout, the Trade Association’s stand at the NEC became a central hub for networking, collaboration and conversation, welcoming members, partners and industry professionals old and new.

Reflecting on the three days in Birmingham from 28-30 April, the FIA’s events manager Ryan Brassil said: “The Fire Safety Event 2026 was a fantastic opportunity to bring the industry together once again. We were incredibly proud of the FIA’s presence this year, from the level of engagement at our stand through to the success of the Guidance Theatre and the Newcomer of the Year competition.”

A standout feature of this year’s event was indeed the FIA’s Newcomer of the Year competition, which generated significant attention and discussion throughout the exhibition. The competition showcased the incredible talent, professionalism and enthusiasm of individuals entering the fire industry, duly highlighting the importance of supporting and developing future talent within the sector.

Emma Francioli, technical officer at the FIA, praised the commitment and professionalism shown throughout the competition. Francioli noted: “What stood out most throughout the competition was the level of care, focus and professionalism shown by every participant. Although early in their careers, the individuals involved approached each task with patience, diligence and real attention to detail. Competency matters when it comes to fire safety and it was genuinely encouraging to see such a strong understanding of the importance of working carefully, taking responsibility and making sure everything’s right.”

FIA Guidance Theatre

Alongside the competition, the FIA’s Guidance Theatre once again proved to be a key attraction during The Fire Safety Event, delivering a programme of expert-led sessions featuring a mix of FIA representatives, FIA Council members and industry experts from across the fire sector.

The Guidance Theatre afforded visitors valuable insight, practical guidance and informed discussion on many of the key issues currently shaping the fire sector.

Speaking about the success of the Guidance Theatre, Will Lloyd (head of technical at the FIA) observed: “The FIA’s Guidance Theatre once again delivered an excellent platform for sharing knowledge and practical guidance with the industry. The quality of speakers and the engagement from attendees throughout the event was exceptional. It was fantastic to see so many meaningful discussions taking place and such strong interest in the important topics affecting fire safety professionals today.”

Team effort

The FIA recognises the tremendous efforts of the entire FIA team, whose hard work and dedication behind the scenes helped to make The Fire Safety Event such a success. From planning and logistics to delivering activities across the stand, the theatre and the competition areas, the team worked tirelessly to ensure a memorable experience for everyone involved.

Ryan Brassil added: “It was brilliant to see so many people connecting, learning and sharing ideas. A huge thank you goes to everyone involved: our team, sponsors, speakers and visitors, all of whom helped to make it such a memorable few days.”

The FIA would also like to extend a sincere thank you to all sponsors, speakers, partners and supporters who contributed to this year’s edition of The Fire Safety Event and helped make it one of the most successful to date.

Nineteen Group – organiser of The Fire Safety Event – has issued compelling statistics underpinning this year’s iteration of the trade show. Across the three days in Birmingham, there were upwards of 13,000 attendees and 279 exhibiting businesses.

The Fire Safety Event 2027 runs at the NEC in Birmingham from 27-29 April.

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

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)