This will be the first dedicated Emergency Lighting qualification offered by the FIA, providing learners with a formally recognised outcome on successful completion. Moving to FireQual accreditation ensures the course meets nationally recognised assessment and quality standards, strengthening confidence in both the training and the competence of those who complete it.

The introduction of a Level 3 FireQual qualification reflects the continued professionalisation of fire industry training. By combining structured learning with an independent examination, the updated Emergency Lighting course demonstrates how industry training standards are evolving to meet increasing expectations around competence, compliance and accountability.

The qualification also aligns with the BAFE Emergency Lighting Scheme, duly supporting organisations and individuals working within third party certification frameworks.

All Emergency Lighting courses delivered from 2026 onwards will follow the new Level 3 FireQual format.

*For additional information on this course and the full range of FIA training opportunities visit www.fia.uk.com/training/training-course-browser.html

Gateway 2 determinations continue to rise, with 347 decisions across all application types in the 12 weeks to 22 December (totalling 727 since 29 September 2025).

The final quarter of 2025 will see the highest number of decisions since the Building Safety Regulator commenced operations, with a likely total of more than 700 by 31 December compared to just over 200 in Q1. That represents a potential 250%-plus increase.

The number of live applications of all categories now shows a downward trend, reducing from 1,219 to 1,158 over the past 12 weeks.

69% of all decisions across all categories during December related to London cases, making it 503 decisions since 29 September in the capital: the highest number of determinations in London since the Building Safety Regulator began operations.

Recently, the Building Safety Regulator also published guidance on staged applications and the criteria for validating, approving or rejecting applications. 

These updates are part of the improvements being made to ensure applications can be processed more efficiently and to support industry in submitting high-quality Building Control applications.

Innovation Unit progress

The Innovation Unit – itself a dedicated team of registered building inspectors, technical engineers and regulatory leads – has made three approvals to date within 12 weeks, with another four approvals expected by 31 December.  

For cases which are over 12 weeks, but are likely to be approved if further information is supplied, the Building Safety Regulator is adopting a pragmatic approach. Account managers have been assigned to liaise closely with the applicants to give these cases the best opportunity to progress.

The Innovation Unit is currently managing 102 live new build applications representing 24,624 units.

Times to validate and reject any incomplete applications are also much quicker than under the previous model, which enables applicants to quickly address issues and resubmit.

Resolving historical cases

54 complex historic applications submitted under the previous model have been closed since 29 September, with 30 of these recent decisions relating to London cases. Another four cases are likely to be decided by 31 December.

The Building Safety Regulator’s operational team’s direct engagement with applicants and regulatory partners, along with addressing individual ‘blockers’. is resulting in these historic complex cases being closed at a significant rate.

Remaining legacy applications are the Building Safety Regulator’s key focus in the New Year with face-to-face meetings continuing with regulatory partners and applicants in January. This is part of a pragmatic approach towards dealing with complex or contested applications rather than these cases being rejected without any intervention.

The Building Safety Regulator is also continuing to implement its batching process launched in September. This new pilot process scales capacity by bundling applications to specialised engineering services suppliers for accelerated assessment with a regulatory lead officer providing oversight and remaining the decision-maker.

New remediation cases

Open remediation cases have held steady, with 82 decisions made since 29 September and 83 new cases received. 280 lives cases are now being processed.

The Building Safety Regulator’s focus is on closing older applications, which typically don’t have sufficient detail for a decision and so require significant liaison with applicants to move to a successful conclusion.

In parallel, the Building Safety Regulator is also prioritising higher-risk projects and those with funding constraints. Several remediation cases are now in the batching process and progressing more quickly than with the previous model.

Established momentum

Charlie Pugsley, CEO of the Building Safety Regulator, commented: “The immediate and positive results we saw from our pilot operational changes are now firmly established across the Building Safety Regulator and show a clear path to continued success. We have made the most determinations in our operating history, cleared significant numbers of our complex historic cases by engaging with applicants, as well as publishing guidance on staged applications and continuing to build upon the work of our Innovation Unit.”

Pugsley continued: “Across the Building Safety Regulator, and we believe within the industry, there’s now a confidence we can continue to make more decisions at an increasing pace through our new processes and by engaging appropriately with applicants. Rightly, we continue to remain cautiously optimistic as we know the pace of improvements must continue into 2026 and beyond.”  

In conclusion, Pugsley noted: “We all remain fully committed to supporting the pace of essential construction, while upholding the critical safety standards in place to keep thousands of people safe in both new and existing homes.”

*Building Control Approval Application Data to 22 December 2025

It emerges that 1,338 relevant buildings (ie 71.7%) are expected to be remediated within the next five years. Of the 2,641 buildings identified as having life-critical fire safety defects since June 2017, 932 have been remediated (or are completed awaiting a new building works assessment).

The Regulator of Social Housing will continue to monitor the performance of social landlords in remediating 11 metre-plus buildings and the progress they are making against their plans.

Will Perry, director of strategy at the Regulator of Social Housing, said: “Ensuring tenants are safe in their homes must be the first priority for all landlords. We will continue to scrutinise the sector through inspection, engagement and monitoring to make sure it identifies risks and carries out any necessary remediation work promptly.”

The data referred to in this latest publication were reported in the Q2 2025-2026 survey, which ran from 23 September to 21 October, with data being reported as at 30 September this year.

Most relevant buildings reported (84.4% of them, in fact) have been assessed to have no outstanding or historic external wall system-related life-critical fire safety defects in any building works assessment since 14 June 2017.

Landlords reported that work had already started (or is otherwise now complete) on 21.3% (ie 397) of all affected buildings.

Life-critical fire safety defects are defined as defects, shrinkages, faults or other failings in a building that give rise to fire safety risks identified by a fire risk appraisal of external wall construction or a fire risk assessment (or equivalent) undertaken to industry standards.

The Government is committed to delivering on the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Panel’s Phase 2 report recommendations concerning fire engineers, strengthening public safety by building a highly skilled and sustainable profession exhibiting high standards of professional accountability.

The Authoritative Statement of the Fire Engineers Advisory Panel (itself established in April this year to provide advice to Government on the fire engineering profession) is a response to the Inquiry’s call for an authoritative statement of the knowledge and skills to be expected of a competent fire engineer as part of the overarching recommendation that fire engineering should become a regulated profession.

Aside from this primary aim, the Fire Engineers Advisory Panel was also asked to look at the wider context of the fire engineering profession, including education, the role and its responsibilities, behaviours, experience and skills.

The accompanying next steps statement sets out how central Government will implement both the recommendations of the Inquiry and the advice of the Fire Engineers Advisory Panel, the members of which include Professor Luke Bisby FRSE FREng (from the University of Edinburgh) and Dr Barbara Lane CEng FREng FRSE from consultancy Arup’s global fire safety practice, who served as an expert witness for the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

Current state of affairs

The Grenfell Tower fire exposed profound and systemic failures across the building safety system, including widespread gaps in professional competence, ethical behaviours and oversight. The Inquiry showed how unclear responsibilities, inconsistent standards and weak assurance allowed unsafe practices to take hold and left residents unprotected. These shortcomings not only led to a catastrophic loss of life, but also significant societal harm and costs.

Within that landscape, the Inquiry drew attention to certain high-risk professions, fire engineering among them. The discipline “lacks a coherent educational foundation and clear, consistent requirements” for entry to the profession. There’s no single recognised pathway, and although some programmes exist and some engineers choose to become Chartered, accredited programmes, structured education and wider capacity building remain “limited and uneven”. This leads to significant variation in the qualifications and skills of those practising as fire engineers, with “insufficient emphasis” on the ethical practice fundamental to ensuring life safety.

These gaps, and the over-specialisation in siloed technical areas, are “undermining the development of a competent workforce” capable of supporting an effective regulatory system in what’s now a complex and rapidly changing built environment.

Professional practice is similarly fragmented. Fire engineering principles and the role of a fire engineer are often poorly understood or undervalued within multidisciplinary teams, leading to the marginalisation of fire engineering input. Ethical standards and expectations of professional conduct are inconsistently defined and monitored, while the variety of education and competence means that engineering principles and guidance are sometimes not applied effectively to real-life situations.

As a result, “confidence in the profession is poor” and capacity remains too low. This will not meet current or future needs, places vulnerable individuals and the wider public at risk and undermines people’s rights to safe housing.

In addressing these challenges, the establishment of fire engineering as a regulated profession has to deliver clear outcomes for the safety of people and the built environment. These outcomes include:

*a system in which buildings are consistently safe for the people who live in, use and occupy them

*a resilient and competent workforce that operates ethically and is accountable for protection of life through the quality of its work

*viable and attractive education routes leading to sustainable careers

*a profession that values its duty to protect people and so earns and maintains the trust of the public

Central to this vision is ensuring that fire engineering solutions consistently protect everyone, including the most vulnerable. “This will depend on mechanisms such as enforceable standards for entry and practice, a nationally recognised competency framework, mandatory accreditation of education pathways and robust regulatory oversight of professional and ethical conduct.”

Future regulation

The Fire Engineers Advisory Panel supports the Government’s intention to regulate both the title and function of fire engineers. While further detail will be shaped through consultation, these elements should underpin the development of statutory regulation:

*In principle, a new protected title for fire engineers will be introduced, with legal restrictions on its use

*Again in principle, statutory regulation will define the functions and activities that can only be performed by an individual who’s registered and has met specific requirements. Fire engineers will hold formal responsibility for the development and stewardship of the fire safety strategy, with clear duties defined in regulation

A competent fire engineer needs strong technical knowledge and the ability to work across disciplines. This includes an understanding of core architectural and engineering principles: fire dynamics, prevention, human behaviour, building structures, systems and operations and fire-fighting needs alongside good analytical and communication skills.

They must understand the regulatory framework across the building lifecycle in order to interpret and apply requirements proportionately. Fire engineers should clearly explain and demonstrate how their fire safety strategy meets these requirements and engage stakeholders, such as other design disciplines, contractors, Building Control/standards bodies, Fire and Rescue Services, insurers and building users.

Structured process

The Fire Engineers Advisory Panel considers that this broad foundation of knowledge and skills is comparable to other engineering disciplines wherein it’s a two-part process to acquire the skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours necessary to be formally recognised as a competent engineer. It is the Fire Engineers Advisory Panel’s view that fire engineers should operate consistently on the same principles.

This means that, long-term, the development of a competent fire engineer will be a structured process that must involve (at least both of) formally accredited education and supervised professional experience. Entry into the profession should typically begin with the completion of a relevant accredited higher education programme, which provides foundational scientific and engineering knowledge alongside specific learning in fire engineering principles and practice. The Fire Engineers Advisory Panel recognises that confidence in new entrants to the profession depends on the quality, consistency and availability of UK education programmes.

On that note, the Fire Engineers Advisory Panel recognises that university education should remain the main route into the profession. However, well-designed alternatives, such as accredited apprenticeships, may be appropriate where they deliver outcomes equivalent to a fire engineering degree.

There must also be clear pathways for existing fire engineers to demonstrate competence and for qualified professionals from other disciplines to transition into the regulated fire engineering profession.

Comment from the IFE

The Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE) has commented: “Having actively contributed to the development of the policy paper, the IFE welcomes this important publication which provides much needed clarity.”

The IFE continued: “As the global body for fire engineers, the IFE recognises the significance of this statement in shaping Best Practice and supporting the safety of communities. We will now consider the document and review its content in light of our responsibilities as a professional engineering institution.”

In conclusion, the IFE noted: “Our commitment remains to uphold the highest standards of competence and ethics within the fire engineering profession, thereby ensuring that guidance and policy continue to reflect the needs of society and the built environment.”

*Read the Authoritative Statement and the policy paper focused on next steps for reform of the fire engineering profession

The proposals follow on from the first recommendation of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report, which was published in September 2024. The Inquiry Panel recommended that Government create a ‘single construction regulator’ to reduce fragmentation and complexity in the way the built environment is regulated.

The new regulator will help to ensure a well-functioning building system, which will support industry to build the homes this country needs. This will mean better outcomes for residents and building users, clarity and certainty for industry and investors and a fairer system that benefits those who prioritise safety and quality.

Samantha Dixon (Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Democracy) said: “The plans set out show how we are learning from the Grenfell Tower tragedy and what we are doing to improve the effectiveness, consistency and efficiency of the construction sector, in addition to what we’re doing to make sure people’s homes are safe and good quality.”

Dixon continued: “The case for reform is strong. One regulator across the entire construction system will be better able to review evidence, identify risks, issues and opportunities and support action with enforcement where it’s necessary.”

Further, Dixon observed: “Alongside the prospectus that we’ve published, we have also launched a consultation which seeks views on the plans from across the construction sector. This will inform final plans, while a full response to the consultation will set out more detail on regulatory reform. This is set to be published in the summer of 2026.”

Starting point for reform

Interim chief construction advisor Thouria Istephan explained: “This prospectus is the starting point for reform, which delivers on the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Panel’s call for systemic change. The creation of a single construction regulator will replace a fragmented system with one that prioritises safety, accountability and clarity, integrating the oversight of buildings, products and professions.

It’s about protecting lives, rebuilding trust and fostering a culture wherein responsibility, accountability and quality come first.”

Andy Roe, executive chair of the Building Safety Regulator, commented: “The journey towards a single construction regulator is a decisive and important step forward in strengthening building safety. Over the past few months, we’ve worked hard to speed up the application processes within the Building Safety Regulator for new high-rise residential buildings and we’re already seeing positive changes.”

Roe went on to state: “The Building Safety Regulator’s role will evolve as we move to a new body, and in longer time towards the single construction regulator, through a carefully managed transition. Throughout this process, we will continue our commitment to collaboration and delivering a regulatory system that keeps residents safe, while supporting essential construction.”

The consultation will be open until 20 March 2026. The MHCLG encourages responses from all individuals and organisations interested in the built environment.

This announcement comes as the Government publishes the next quarterly progress report on the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. As part of that, the Government has also published the Authoritative Statement of the Fire Engineers Advisory Panel on next steps for reform of the fire engineering profession​ in addition to the results of the Building Safety Regulator’s initial review of the definition of higher-risk buildings and plans for an ongoing review.

The term ‘serviced apartment’ is commonly used to refer to longer term occupancy, while ‘aparthotels’ is typically used for shorter term occupancy, although as those terms are not formally defined, this can vary significantly.

Fire safety guidance documents for blocks of flats typically expect long-term occupancy with a resulting familiarity with the building. Short-term occupancy would be closer to hotel usage, although hotel bedrooms don’t usually include the cooking facilities that would often be present in serviced apartments and aparthotels. Hotels usually provide meals in a communal location, while very often that’s not the case for serviced apartments and aparthotels.

Also, fire regulations often treat buildings that contain ‘dwellings’ somewhat differently from buildings that don’t. The definition of what counts as a ‘dwelling’ can be complex, but the duration of occupancy is typically one of the more important factors. An apartment that’s rented out by the day is unlikely to be classified as a ‘dwelling’, whereas one that’s rented for a year is more likely to meet the criteria. Duration of rental can potentially affect the regulations that apply to the building.

Regulation 5 of the Building Regulations includes various scenarios that would be classified as a ‘material change of use’, including any changes to the number of dwellings or turning the building into an hotel. As a result, converting any existing building to serviced apartments or an aparthotel would likely be classified as a ‘material change of use’, which would require full compliance with the functional requirements of the Building Regulations. The ‘non-worsening’ criteria that often applies when working on existing buildings would not apply.

Additionally, the growing trend of converting redundant city centre offices into aparthotels or flats supports urban regeneration. but raises significant fire safety concerns as conversions can be complex and, if not carried out competently, may fall short of purpose-built residential standards.

This emerging trend has raised significant concerns among fire engineers, fire risk assessors and operational Fire and Rescue Services, as well as regulatory bodies. The core issue? Are serviced apartments and aparthotels treated as blocks of flats, hotel rooms or a hybrid of the two? The answer has far-reaching implications for fire strategy, regulatory compliance and life safety.

Key issues to consider

Evacuation Strategy: ‘Stay Put’ versus Simultaneous Evacuation

Traditionally, blocks of flats are designed with a ‘Stay Put’ strategy in mind based on the assumption that each unit is a self-contained fire compartment and occupants are familiar with the escape routes and fire procedures.

The fire precautions included in blocks of flats support that approach and can vary depending on factors such as building height, but typically include fire compartmentation measures, sprinklers, smoke ventilation in corridors and separate fire alarms within each flat. The fire strategy is usually not reliant on management presence within the building to co-ordinate the early response to any fire.

However, serviced apartments and aparthotels challenge this model. When units are rented out by the day or week, occupants are transient and unfamiliar with the building (much like hotel guests). In such cases, a simultaneous evacuation strategy may be more appropriate, but this would require different design and management considerations (including enhanced detection and alarm systems, 24/7 staff presence and evacuation planning and clear signage and escape route management).

Alternatively, other evacuation strategy options could be used. One possibility that may be appropriate for some situations would be a hybrid approach whereby an initial smoke detector activation would trigger an alarm in the flat of fire origin before escalating to a full simultaneous evacuation if a heat detector activates in the flat, possibly in a key location such as in the entrance hall or near the flat entrance.

This would need careful consideration alongside the appropriate management response as well as any smoke control system in the common areas, which are typically designed for just one flat evacuating at a time. In any case, the use of sprinklers (or alternative automatic fire suppression systems) should be considered as part of the overall strategy.

Often, it would also be found that designing the building purely based on conventional hotel usage might not be appropriate because the apartments often cooking facilities, which would not normally be present in hotel bedrooms.

There would also likely be more flexibility in terms of how habitable spaces are used, while occupancy characteristics may differ from a hotel. If there are delays to the evacuation, it may be prudent to also apply the additional compartmentation and escape route protection measures typically used in apartments (possibly also with sprinklers in the apartments) to cover the more demanding scenario. Likewise, additional measures may be needed for occupants who require evacuation assistance. These additional measures would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

If the building includes a combination of short-term and long-term occupancy, this could create additional complexity. That would be particularly challenging if there are a combination of privately owned flats as well as aparthotel short-term rental flats within the same building. It’s unlikely to be feasible to use a combination of different evacuation strategies for the different occupancy areas, so whatever evacuation strategy is used would need to work for all areas. This may also create challenges with ownership and management responsibility.

Further, additional complexity can arise from ancillary accommodation. Many aparthotels and short-term ‘lets’ include roof terraces, gyms and shared lounge areas as part of their offer. Some fire strategies place multiple responsibilities on the security concierge, including the evacuation of these spaces in the event of a fire. This approach would typically require 24/7 staffing and a high level of training. Designers and engineers should ensure that any fire strategy relying on a managed approach is realistic in terms of the long-term financial and competence commitments required of those responsible for implementing it.

It should be emphasised that standard design guidance documents are based on standard types of buildings (referred to in Approved Document B as ‘common building situations’). Serviced apartments and aparthotels may, therefore, require bespoke fire strategies developed by a competent fire engineer who has taken into account all relevant factors.

Regulatory classification: Higher-risk building or not?

The classification of serviced apartments can also affect how they are regulated.

For example, in England, there are separate regulations that apply to Higher-Risk Buildings (HRBs). Those regulations apply to buildings that are over a certain height, but only if their occupancy contains at least two residential units, a care home or a hospital.

The term ‘residential units’ includes dwellings, student accommodation and other uses, but excludes hotels. As noted earlier, serviced apartments and aparthotels include some, but not all aspects of both dwellings and hotels. As such, at present it’s not clear whether they would be within the HRB occupancy definition, although presumably this may be clarified in future.

When designing a new building, or carrying out building works on an existing building, this distinction is critical for developers, designers, managers and regulators as it determines the level of oversight and the applicable safety standards. Building Regulations application for non-HRBs would go to the Local Authority or a Registered Building Control Approver (RBCA), whereas applications for HRBs would go to the Building Safety Regulator (BSR).

This also affects buildings in occupation as existing HRBs have to register with the BSR and ensure that there’s a Building Safety Case in place. Failure to do so could be a criminal offence. Disagreements or misunderstandings about whether a building occupancy is classified as ‘dwellings’ or an ‘hotel’ and, as a result, whether it meets the criteria for an HRB could have significant consequences.

Potentially, it would also mean that changes in usage of an existing building could alter the regulatory situation.

For example, if a tall aparthotel building that was initially only used for short-term rentals changes its approach so that two or more of the apartments are rented out on a long-term basis, to a point where they become classified as ‘dwellings’, this could mean that the building has then become an HRB, with the consequent legal implications.

Where regulations allow, it may be more prudent to treat these buildings as HRBs due to the hybrid/dual nature of the occupancy. Alternatively, seeking a legal opinion on the situation for the specific building may also help in terms of clarifying the issues.

Fire risk assessments

Under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, dwellings are excluded from the scope of the fire risk assessment, while non-dwellings must be included in the assessment.

If serviced apartments/aparthotels are not dwellings then the fire risk assessment must legally cover the apartments themselves, not just the common areas. This has implications for the scope and depth of the fire risk assessment, the responsibilities of the ‘Responsible Person’ and enforcement and compliance.

If it’s not clear whether the serviced apartments/aparthotels are dwellings, this should be highlighted to the client. A conservative approach would be to include them within the fire risk assessment if that’s possible.

Implications for fire professionals

Fire engineers, assessors and firefighters should be alert to the following when encountering serviced apartments:

*Clarify the intended use and occupancy pattern during design and assessment stages of new buildings, changes to usage of existing buildings or for work on existing buildings. The Qualitative Design Review process is a good way of carrying this out. Ensure clients understand that any subsequent changes they make to that occupancy pattern might have significant consequences.

*Seek support from specialists if there are uncertainties relating to key issues that are outside of the fire engineer’s expertise (such as interpretations of legal definitions).

*Challenge assumptions about evacuation strategy. ‘Stay Put’ may not be suitable.

*Fire strategies relying on managed evacuation must reflect realistic staffing, training and financial commitments.

*Ensure fire risk assessments are legally compliant, particularly if the units are not classified as dwellings.

*Engage with developers and Building Control bodies early to determine the correct regulatory pathway.

*Basing designs purely on guidance for blocks of flats or hotel usage may not be appropriate. These types of buildings demand bespoke strategies developed by competent fire engineers.

Call to Action

Given the growing prevalence of serviced apartments and the confusion surrounding their classification, the Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE) and the Fire Industry Association (FIA) have published this short introductory guide to help practitioners navigate the regulatory landscape and ensure that fire safety strategies are appropriate, legal and effective. The IFE and the FIA would encourage further work to be undertaken on this complex issue.

Paul Trew is Technical Director at the IFE. Ian Bailey IEng MIFireE is Fire Engineer for CROSS-UK and Technical Advisor with the IFE. David Quinn is Director and Head of Fire Engineering for the UK and Ireland at BB7 Consulting (and Technical Panel Chair and member of the IFERG and IRP Panels). Jon Pagan is Head of Technical Operations at Kiwa IFC Group and Co-Chair of the IFE/FIA Façades Special Interest Group. Ian Moore is CEO of the FIA (www.ife.org.uk and www.fia.uk.com)

A fire on 5 November at an industrial building in Ramsgate required six fire crews and a bulk water carrier to bring under control. The site, home to plastics manufacturer Flambeau Europe, had already faced significant disruption earlier this year following a break-in that damaged power supplies and temporarily halted production.

The previous day, ten fire engines and 70 firefighters worked through the night to contain a major industrial fire in Greenwich. The fire at Vetraland Timber Merchants led to local road and tunnel closures as well as smoke warnings.

At the same time in Northern Ireland, a late-night blaze at a recycling facility in Belfast required more than 50 firefighters who were supported by eight appliances, an aerial platform, a water tanker and a command support unit. The incident involved a large amount of scrap metal and caused significant disruption.

Recent statistics

Across the last decade in England, industrial premises have been the setting for 19,761 primary fires, resulting in 1,071 casualties and 23 fatalities. This is the highest number of fatalities outside of residential settings, thereby underlining the vulnerability of these buildings and those within them.

Thankfully, no injuries were reported in the incidents mentioned. However, the scale of the response for the three fires was significant. These fires required the mobilisation of more than 150 firefighters and the deployment of extensive fire control assets. Industrial activity was halted, leading to disruption. While the Ramsgate site covered around 12,000 m², the fire was contained to approximately 2,000 m². Despite this, all three affected sites sustained serious damage. These events are a stark reminder of the consequences of failing to invest in proven fire protection systems.

Containing a fire at its earliest stage is the best way in which to limit damage and minimise costs as week as impacts. Sprinklers have been proven to contain, control or extinguish fires in 99% of cases when caused to operate. This rapid intervention allows the affected business to resume operations within hours, avoiding the wider economic and social costs.

Enormous strain

“Time and time again, we are seeing the enormous strain that industrial fires place on both businesses and the Emergency Services,” said Tom Roche, secretary of the Business Sprinkler Alliance. “These incidents don’t just destroy property and livelihoods. They tie-up life-saving resources for hours, cause environmental harm and disrupt communities. What’s particularly concerning is that many larger facilities are being bult today, with similar fire risks, but without sprinklers being fed into the design.”

These fires mirror a growing pattern across the UK where industrial and commercial premises, often packed with combustible materials or high-value machinery, lack even basic fire suppression systems.

By contrast, incidents in sprinkler-protected buildings tend to be quickly contained or extinguished before the fire can escalate. This limits damage, preserves business continuity and drastically reduces the strain on fire crews.

In the absence of sprinklers, every second counts. Every fire has the potential to become a major incident. As these three November fires show, the consequences go far beyond the building itself. Fires in unsprinklered buildings continue to use considerable resources and still pose a serious threat to business resilience, jobs and public safety.

*Further information is available online at www.business-sprinkler-alliance.org

The survey was sent to members of the CITB and the CSCS and ran from 17-31 October, in turn generating 473 responses from across the construction sector.

Responses emanated predominantly from site operatives (34%), site managers (27%) and senior managers (26%), with 39% working for large employers with over 250 employees.

While respondents to the survey overwhelmingly agreed that reporting suspected qualifications fraud is important and helps to protect safety on-site, they acknowledged gaps in understanding when it comes to the reporting process.

Qualifications fraud can be committed in several ways including:

*creating, buying or using fake certificates for regulated qualifications

*delivering ‘fast-track’ training, which leaves out important and necessary content

*helping learners cheat in tests by giving answers or taking a test on their behalf

Fraudulent qualifications can be used to obtain CSCS cards, allowing workers to access construction sites without the requisite skills. While this type of fraud can be spotted during training sessions, it can also be called out by workers on-site who can see the difference between a worker’s real-life skills and the qualifications they claim to possess.

Key survey findings

The majority of respondents (78%) don’t know the process for reporting suspected qualification fraud, with 45% saying they had some idea, but are not sure of the exact process. 33% stated that they don’t know how to report suspected qualifications fraud.

81% strongly agreed that it was important to report suspected qualifications fraud, while 85% said they felt comfortable (or very comfortable) raising concerns about suspected fraud in their workplace.

Respondents indicated that greater clarity around confidentiality would be a major driver in improving reporting rates.

Managers and responsible hiring managers have a vital role to play as these were the routes most commonly selected by respondents when asked to whom they would report suspected fraud.

The partners involved in the survey are now reminding construction sector employers and workers of three simple steps when concerns arise:

*use CSCS Smart Check via API, the app or the website to verify a card’s validity

*trust in professional judgement: if someone’s real-life skills don’t match their qualifications – even if the card is valid – then report suspected qualification fraud

*report concerns confidentially by e-mail to [email protected]

Anonymous reporting is available for those concerned about workplace relationships, while reports are investigated based on evidence, not on who made the report.

Clearer reporting channels

Emma Scott, director of vocational and technical qualifications delivery at Ofqual, said: “Construction workers recognise the importance of reporting suspected qualifications fraud, which is committed by a minority of individuals, but the evidence shows we need to make reporting channels clearer and emphasise that reports can be made confidentially.”

Scott added: “Tackling qualifications fraud requires organisations to work together with the ‘eyes and ears’ of those on construction sites. If someone’s real-life skills don’t match those on their card, they may have obtained it through qualifications fraud. Reporting this helps to protect everyone.”

Tim Balcon, CEO at the CITB, commented: “Genuine qualifications are fundamental for safety and standards across construction. This survey shows that workers understand why reporting matters, but we need to simplify the process and build confidence. At the CITB, we’re committed to supporting the industry in tackling qualifications fraud and protecting everyone on site.”

Sean Kearns, Group CEO of the CSCS, explained: “These findings reinforce the need to communicate how simple it is to check CSCS card validity and report concerns. We’ve made tools like the CSCS Smart Check API, app and website available for exactly this reason: to enable all CSCS Alliance cards to be checked and validated through a single ‘border control’-style process. If you suspect that a CSCS card is fraudulent, check it using Smart Check and report it via the app or [email protected]. When we all play our part, we protect the safety and reputation of the entire industry.”

The Building Safety Act 2022 established the BSR in England with a responsibility to facilitate improvement in the standard and safety of all buildings. To do this, the Act enabled the BSR to establish a BAC to provide advice to the former on any building functions, except those functions relating to the competence of individuals in the built environment industry and registered building inspectors.  

The BAC delivers its functions through a high-level steering group, which oversees a number of separate sub-groups focusing on specific areas of work within the BAC’s remit, such as new and emerging issues, trends and innovations across the built environment and advising the BSR on its engagement across the industry to inspire change.

Work is currently underway to transfer the Building Safety Regulator out of the Health and Safety Executive to the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government as a non-crown, non-departmental public body. This change will take effect during 2026.

Further information on this opportunity is available online: Building Advisory Committee Chair – Applicant Information Pack

Interested parties should e-mail their CV and covering statement of suitability as separate documents to [email protected] quoting ‘EOI – BAC Chair’ in the subject field.

Applications must be received by noon on 5 January 2026. Receipt of applications will be acknowledged by e-mail.

In more than one case, fire crews arrived to face a bank of valves, switches and levers: all vital for managing the fire protection systems in the building. The problem? No-one could immediately tell the firefighters which valves fed what.

After such incidents, it’s equally hard to determine how to isolate or reinstate the system safely. In that moment, we expect firefighters to be instant experts with an ability to decipher a complex and bespoke system under intense pressure and with no margin for error.

It reminded me of the airline safety briefing. You know the one: the one we glibly ignore as we’ve heard it all before. The difference is that, on a plane, the systems are largely standardised with similar set-ups. There’s also the well-trained air cabin crew to guide us if anything goes wrong.

In the built environment, every building can be wildly different, with their own unfamiliar controls, hidden valves and unlabelled systems. When fire strikes, there may not be anyone to guide the attending firefighters. These differences matter.

Seconds count

Who assists firefighters when they arrive on scene? Is a laminated plan in a wall-mounted box really enough? Are the key controls including the valves, pumps and utility isolations clearly marked and easy to understand?

If a sprinkler system needs to be shut down after a successful activation, will the Fire and Rescue Service crews know which valve to close? Even more importantly, are the building owners clear on what happens next when the Fire and Rescue Service hands the site back to them?

Many of you may be reading this and thinking about the debates on Secure Information Boxes. However, that debate covers residential settings alone. The same systems and information are needed in a wider range of buildings.

The systems that protect buildings and people are only as effective as our ability to operate them and to bring them back online swiftly post-use. These are not systems to be left to chance. They are fire safety systems and every hour they remain offline increases the risk.

Greater clarity

When it comes to active fire protection like sprinklers, preparation really does prevent poor performance. Building owners, facilities teams and fire safety managers should be asking themselves several key questions:

*If the system operates, can we direct the attending Fire and Rescue Service to that system?

*Have we made it clear where our water supplies and key isolation valves are located?

*Is it clear what systems protect what area?

*Is the system labelling clear and up-to-date?

*Do we know how and who will reinstate the system after a fire event?

*What precautions will be needed while the system is offline?

Planning for the predictable

Firefighters will always do their best in highly challenging situations, but the success of their work can be hugely aided by careful planning and clear direction. The ability to locate, operate and restore fire protection systems quickly can make the difference between an incident and a disaster.

It’s not someone else’s job. The duty to maintain operational fire protection systems resides with the ‘Responsible Person’. That includes understanding what those systems do, how they are controlled and how they are reinstated.

We need to treat the management of fire protection systems with the same respect we afford their installation in every building. Understand them before the emergency. Make sure critical controls are clearly identified. Have a post-incident plan ready for action.

Any building designed for safety should also be designed for clarity. When every second counts, there’s no room for uncertainty.

At the Business Sprinkler Alliance, we continue to advocate for a more informed and resilient approach towards fire safety. Protection isn’t just about installation. It’s also about understanding, maintenance and readiness. The best time to figure out your system is not when the alarms are sounding.

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