It’s an acknowledgement, at last, that the fire exposure has changed, but while a stronger structure may stand for longer, that does nothing to stop a fire from spreading in the first place. That’s the issue the industry needs to question and answer.

Cars are bigger than they were a generation ago. Heavier with plastics and combustible materials, the modern car burns hotter and faster. This isn’t a discussion solely about electric vehicles, either. The old assumption that a car park fire would be limited to between one and three vehicles is no longer sound.

Modern fire loads mean that, once a fire takes hold, it’s far more likely the fire will spread to neighbouring vehicles. With more adjacent vehicles, that fire can keep spreading. As such, the window for intervention is narrowing.

This is where the proposal for an increase in fire resistance falls short. A more resilient structure is a worthwhile objective as it protects against building collapse and affords the Emergency Services more time to operate. However, if the fire can spread and the scale of that fire means firefighters cannot stop it, what will the extra time realise in terms of gain? It doesn’t address the fundamental challenge: ‘How do we stop the fire from spreading in the first place?’

Recent research commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive under the heading ‘Real Fires: Open-Sided Car Parks’ confirms what Fire and Rescue Services have been saying for some time now. Car park fires today develop faster, involve more vehicles and place greater demands on built environment structures than the scenarios for which our regulations were originally written. The blaze at the Luton Airport car park in 2023 and the Kings Dock car park fire in Liverpool at the end of 2017 are prime examples of the impact of spreading fires.

Not all equal

Perhaps an element missing in the discussion is that not all open-sided car parks are equal. A slightly odd thing to say, but some car parks form part of critical infrastructure or local community assets. If they’re lost or damaged such that their use is restricted, this in turn exerts an impact on other services.

Consider the aforementioned Terminal Car Park 2 fire at Luton Airport. People talk about the scale of the event: the damage in terms of the number of cars lost and the costs involved to rebuild the structure. However, the discussion focused around the impact on the airport due to lost revenue, trade and general disruption to passengers is missing.

Some commentators may view this as being outside of the scope of regulatory guidance. Others may read it as an indication that these impacts are limited. Many will be stunned to learn that the figure reproduced in the Annual Accounts of Luton Airport detailing insurance recoveries for business interruption due to the fire and the additional cost of working stands at a substantial £49 million. That’s not for the car park rebuild or the cars damaged. This is the impact on the business.

That’s not the end of the story, either, as the sum mentioned doesn’t include the entire timeframe through until the reopening of the rebuilt car park.

The fire at Addenbrooke’s Hospital car park in Cambridge on 13 December last year illustrates this potential infrastructure impact. Caused by a mechanical fault in a diesel vehicle, the blaze spread to 12 vehicles and forced the partial closure of Car Park 1, leaving 77 spaces out of use well into 2026 at what is one of the UK’s major hospital sites.

The fire itself was limited in scope, but required firefighters from several counties to attend to support the local Fire and Rescue Service in suppressing the blaze. It’s a telling example of how, in the absence of early suppression, even a relatively modest vehicle fire can serve to exert larger impacts and lasting consequences.

Case is clear

The case for early intervention is clear. Blocking fires from spreading using barriers may be an effective strategy for limiting those fires to a manageable number of cars, although car park users may dislike the solution.

A fire suppressed in its early stages, before it has the chance to spread beyond the vehicle of origin, avoids all of those consequences. Automatic fire suppression systems such as fire sprinklers have proven to do precisely that. Evidence from protected car parks in the UK highlights fires being contained at an early stage, which is in stark contrast to unprotected facilities where fire episodes have escalated rapidly and caused structural damage.

Increasing structural fire resistance isn’t the wrong answer, but it most certainly is the answer to an entirely different question. It leaves the question of what to do with the fire spread itself to be considered by the designers.

If we’re serious about tackling the growing fire risk in car parks, we need measures that address fire spread directly and consider the relative importance of these car parks to our infrastructure and local services. Fire sprinklers should be a fundamental element of that conversation and of any updated regulatory guidance.

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

In August 2019, fire tore through the building (a timber-framed, unsprinklered extra care facility housing 132 apartments for elderly and disabled residents). Thankfully, no lives were lost thanks to a swift evacuation procedure, but more than 150 residents at the complex lost their homes and, with them, their independence and sense of community.

An application has now been lodged with Cheshire East Council by developer Avantage. The documentation outlines plans for an extra care building that would replace the original complex and play host to 75 apartments, with design work undertaken by Cassidy & Ashton. The site has stood empty since the fire.

The replacement proposal is smaller in scale than the building it replaces: three storeys in a U-shape with a mixture of one and two-bedroom apartments, communal lounges, a dining area, a well-being suite and other shared facilities. It will be brick built with timber-effect cladding.

The application document includes a 30-page fire strategy confirming that sprinklers will be installed throughout. In fact, those sprinklers are part of the thinking for a ‘defend in place’-style approach for this building.

Lessons learned

The provision of sprinklers is genuinely good news, and a sign that the lessons of 2019 have shaped this design, but the Business Sprinkler Alliance believes it’s worth being clear about why sprinklers are proposed for this particular building. They are there because the owner has chosen to include them and not because they’re required by regulatory guidance.

Despite this, and other similar blazes in extra care facilities, the fire safety guidance still hasn’t changed for these types of buildings.

Beechmere remains an unusual Case Study precisely because it sits in a regulatory grey area. It’s specialised housing destined to be marketed to older, often less mobile residents, yet because it doesn’t meet the legal definition of a Care Home, it falls outside the recent changes to Approved Document B that have made sprinklers mandatory in new Care Home developments.

It would also remain outside of the recent 2026 consultation on Approved Document B, only requiring additional detection systems.

Subsequent to the 2019 fire, Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service called for sprinklers to be fitted across care facilities of this kind. Approved Document B guidance, however, only requires generic fire protection measures for buildings like Beechmere, not sprinklers specifically. The two are not the same thing. The gap between them is exactly where this latest development sits.

The Business Sprinkler Alliance has made this argument before and, what’s more, will keep on making it. Vulnerability does not stop at the threshold or change because of a name. A resident of an extra care scheme may well face challenges in terms of mobility, age or their ability to evacuate quickly in a fire. Classification should not be the deciding factor in whether a building receives the protection that could save lives.

Regulatory gap

Iain Cox, chair of the Business Sprinkler Alliance, stated: “It’s encouraging to see sprinklers integrated into the proposals for the Beechmere replacement facility from the start, and credit to the developer for that, but this building is still going up in a regulatory gap that we've been highlighting for years. Extra care housing is not legally required to have sprinklers, only generic fire protection. Beechmere showed precisely what can go wrong without them. It shouldn’t take individual developers doing the right thing voluntarily for that risk to be addressed. It should be a requirement.”

The Beechmere site is finally moving towards redevelopment, but until extra care housing is brought within scope of sprinkler requirements, the vulnerability will remain and we will continue to question why there’s a difference.

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

The publication of BS 9792:2025 Fire Risk Assessment – Housing – Code of Practice represents an important development for those who undertake, commission or act upon housing fire risk assessments.

The British Standard succeeds PAS 79-2:2020, but it’s more than a change of designation. It’s a substantial reworking of the earlier document, providing a revised structure, clearer treatment of different types of fire risk assessment and updated example documentation for recording and communicating findings.

Importantly, it also places greater emphasis on the evacuation needs of residents, including those who may require assistance to do so.

BS 9792 applies to fire risk assessments in houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), purpose-built and converted blocks of flats and maisonettes, specialised housing (including supported and sheltered housing), student accommodation falling within the relevant housing categories and common areas in mixed-use buildings that provide access to residential premises.

The British Standard doesn’t apply to private single-household dwellings, short-term lets, residential Care Homes or wholly non-domestic premises. Nor does it replace a specialist fire risk appraisal of external wall construction undertaken in accordance with PAS 9980.

More than a standard form

One of the most important aspects of BS 9792 is its support for a structured and consistent assessment without reducing the process to the completion of a checklist.

Checklists and standardised forms can provide useful prompts and help to ensure that important matters are not overlooked. However, a competent fire risk assessment requires much more. The assessor must understand the building’s construction, occupancy, fire safety strategy and management arrangements, as well as the characteristics and evacuation needs of the people who live there.

Professional judgement is central to the whole process. That judgement must be evidence-based, clearly explained and properly recorded. It must also be exercised within the risk assessor’s competence.

This is particularly important when deciding what remedial measures are reasonably required. Generic recommendations, applied without sufficient regard to the circumstances of the building, can divert attention and resources away from the matters presenting the greatest risk. A proportionate assessment should identify what’s significant, explain why it’s significant and recommend measures appropriate to the building and its residents.

BS 9792 provides a framework within which those judgements can be reached and communicated more consistently. It cannot – and should not – remove the need for competent interpretation.

Competence and professional judgement

BS 9792 is complemented by BS 8674:2025 Built Environment – Framework for Competence of Individual Fire Risk Assessors – Code of Practice. The two British Standards perform different, but related functions.

BS 9792 addresses how housing fire risk assessments should be undertaken and recorded. BS 8674 provides a framework for assessing whether an individual has the competence required to undertake general fire risk assessments of an appropriate level of complexity.

This distinction matters. Possessing a template or following a documented methodology does not, by itself, make someone competent to assess every type of residential building. Assessors must recognise the limits of their own capability and obtain specialist assistance where the building, its external walls, its fire safety systems or its occupants present issues beyond their competence.

Responding to a changing landscape

The need for informed professional judgement will only increase as residential buildings, construction methods and fire safety technologies continue to evolve. Existing buildings may also have been altered repeatedly, leaving incomplete records or creating uncertainty about the performance of compartmentation and other fire safety measures.

A fire risk assessment is generally non-invasive. The assessor must therefore distinguish between what has been observed, what documentary evidence demonstrates, what has reasonably been inferred and what remains uncertain. Where significant uncertainty cannot be resolved through the assessment process, the appropriate response may be to recommend further investigation by a suitably competent specialist.

This is a more defensible approach than presenting assumptions as established facts or recommending extensive work simply because adequate information wasn’t available.

Supporting accountability

The introduction of BS 9792 also forms part of the wider evolution of fire and building safety following the Grenfell Tower fire. In England and Wales, amendments to fire safety legislation have increased expectations around the recording and communication of fire safety information, while the Building Safety Act 2022 has introduced further duties for parts of the residential sector in England. Scotland and Northern Ireland, of course, operate under their own legislative frameworks.

BS 9792 doesn’t replace these statutory duties and following a British Standard does not automatically establish legal compliance. It does, however, offer a recognised framework for undertaking and recording assessments systematically, supporting better decision-making and helping duty holders to demonstrate how significant findings and recommendations have been reached.

Ultimately, the value of BS 9792 resides not simply in its replacement of PAS 79-2. Its greater contribution is the encouragement of better-reasoned, better-recorded and more building-specific fire risk assessments.

Used by competent practitioners and supported by clients who understand that a meaningful assessment requires sufficient information, access and professional time, it should contribute towards greater consistency and accountability.

More importantly, BS 9792 should help to ensure that attention remains focused on the measures that genuinely improve the safety of residents.

Dr Peter Wilkinson CEng CFIFireE is Fire Engineering Advisor to the Institution of Fire Engineers (www.ife.org.uk)

As an organisation, the IFSM is committed to upholding the highest standards in fire safety and professional development. Reflecting that desire, the IFSM Awards are designed to celebrate the dedication, expertise and innovation of the organisation’s members and, indeed, the wider fire safety community.

By recognising exceptional contributions, the IFSM aims to inspire progress, elevate industry standards and highlight the crucial role fire safety professionals play in protecting lives and property on a daily basis.

The shortlist of nominees for the IFSM Awards 2026 is as follows:

Fire Safety Manager of the Year

*Andy Pope

*Ben Duggan

*Janis Gillespie

*Shane Moore

*Stephen Lakin

Young Fire Professional of the Year

*Ben Smith

*Millie White

*Oliver Hamblett

*Owen Gillard

*Ryan Hipperson

Fire Safety Company of the Year

*Clear Risk Management

*Fire Safe Global Ltd

*Fire Safety & Compliance Ltd

*Global HSE Group

*SGD Fire Protection Ltd

Fire Safety Project of the Year

*AstraZeneca UK Ltd 

*Global HSE Group

*Checkmate Fire Solutions Ltd

*Tesco plc

*The Fire Protection Association

Fire Safety Professional of the Year

*Andrew Morrison

*Caden O’Leary

*Colin Todd MBE

*Lee Thorne

*Shaun Davidson

Fire Safety Team of the Year

*Checkmate Fire Solutions

*Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust

*Manchester Airport

*Torus62 Ltd

*University of Cambridge

Accredited Course of the Year

*Compliance (Air and Water) Limited

*Fike Safety Technology

*Global HSE Group

*Tall Building Fire Safety Network  

*The Fire Protection Association

Special recognition

In addition to these nominated awards, the IFSM will also present several special recognition awards – including the Chairman’s Award and the Lifetime Achievement Award – to honour its members who’ve made an exceptional and lasting impact on the fire safety industry.

Headline Sponsor for the IFSM Awards 2026 is VTS Fire. Additional sponsors of the event include the Vulcan Fire Training Company, The Fire Protection Association, Norseal, Consort, Axion, AFC Fire and Fike.

The IFSM Awards 2026 begin at 4.00 pm following the conclusion of the organisation’s Technical Meeting. Jon Briggs (renowned broadcaster and the original voice of Siri) will serve as the host. There’s going to be a three-course meal and plenty of entertainment including singers and a stand-up comedian.

*Individual tickets are priced at £50 per person, with tables of ten costing £450. Book your tickets online at www.ifsm.org.uk

Running from 9.45 am until 4.00 pm (with registration commencing at 9.00 am) and sponsored by the Society of Lighting and Lighting (itself part of the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers), conference covers a wide range of topics relevant to emergency lighting. These include the following:

9.50 am-10.10 am

The Risk of Being in the Dark: Human Behaviour, Safe Escape Routes and the Reality of Sudden Darkness

When environments are suddenly plunged into darkness, reduced visibility, disorientation and stress significantly affect movement and decision-making, often challenging assumptions of how people believe they will respond.

Luminaire positioning, glare control and light distribution play a critical role in visibility, while modern behaviours such as the use of smart phone torches can introduce glare, disrupt visual adaptation and serve to reduce the effectiveness of emergency lighting.

This session will demonstrate how key design decisions, including increased illuminance at fire points and other points of emphasis, changes of direction and hazard areas are rooted in supporting real human behaviour under stress rather than theoretical compliance.

10.10 am-10.30 am

Emergency Lighting in High-Occupancy and 24/7 Environments

Emergency lighting in high-occupancy and continuously operated environments such as airports, transport hubs, large public buildings and care settings is presented with a unique array of design challenges. In many of these spaces, evacuation isn’t always immediate or practical, while lighting must support both safe movement and controlled occupancy.

The focus is on when a ‘Stay Put’ or phased evacuation strategy may be appropriate, particularly so in environments such as assisted living and Care Homes where occupant vulnerability, familiarity and mobility must always be carefully considered. Design decisions should be driven by occupancy, risk profile and operational use, always ensuring that emergency lighting solutions reflect real building conditions rather than a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach.

10.30 am-10.45 am

Fire Risk Assessors’ Perspectives: Priorities, High-Risk Areas and Defining Escape Routes

Emergency lighting is often designed to meet standards, but then assessed against real building risk. Viewing systems through the lens of fire risk assessors reveals how escape routes, critical zones and lighting performance are interpreted in practice.

The focus is on how those risk assessors evaluate stairwells, primary escape routes and specific locations, and also how decisions are made around route definition, prioritisation and compliance.

Understanding this perspective provides key insight into how standards are applied, where they are effective and where further clarity or improvement may be required.

10.45 am-11.00 am

Q&A Panel

11.00 am-11.30 am

Networking break

11.30 am-11.50 am

Beyond the Commissioning Phase: Operational Excellence in Emergency Lighting

Emergency lighting doesn’t end at the commissioning stage. Long-term performance, verification and maintenance are essential for ensuring that systems continue to operate reliably when needed.

The focus is on how end users and maintenance teams can move beyond basic ‘pass or fail’-style testing towards structured and data-driven maintenance strategies, including automated testing, centralised monitoring and integration with modern facilities management systems.

Recent updates to BS 5266-1 reinforce the overriding need for periodic verification of light levels across the system lifecycle, ensuring that performance is maintained rather than assumed.

Emphasis is placed on maintaining verified light levels, robust inspection regimes and a clear and defensible compliance trail that, importantly, aligns system performance with legal and regulatory obligations.

11.50 am-12.10 pm

Standards, Regulations and What’s Coming Next

Emergency lighting is entering a period of significant regulatory and technical change. Updates to core standards, evolving fire safety legislation and new technologies are reshaping how systems are designed, specified and maintained.

The focus here is on the October 2025 update to BS 5266-1, key developments within BS EN IEC 60598-2-22 (including lithium-ion battery safety) and the growing role of Adaptive Emergency Escape Lighting Systems.

Understanding these changes is essential for maintaining compliance, while also supporting ‘Net Zero’ objectives and delivering safe and future-ready emergency lighting systems.

12.10 pm-12.30 pm

Q&A Panel

12.30 pm-1.45 pm

Networking lunch

1.45 pm-2.10 pm

Defining the ‘Responsible Person’

Social housing providers, local councils and residential landlords are responsible for life safety systems within multi-occupancy buildings, including flats, apartments and high-rise housing blocks. In these environments, emergency lighting is critical within stairwells, corridors and shared escape routes rather than within individual dwellings.

While design, installation and maintenance duties are often delegated to contractors and consultants, accountability remains with the designated ‘Responsible Person’. The focus is on what duty holders must understand, verify and challenge when managing emergency lighting across communal areas, particularly so where multiple stakeholders are involved.

Consideration is also given to how emergency lighting aligns with other life safety systems, including fire detection and alarm systems, and how consistent approaches may be applied across residential portfolios.

2.10 pm-2.30 pm

Compliance in Emergency Lighting: Making Sure it’s Right First Time

Achieving full compliance in emergency lighting begins at the design stage, not at commissioning. Decisions made early on in a project directly influence installation quality, system performance and any requirement for costly remedial work.

The focus is on aligning requirements across BS 7671, BS 5266-1 and BS EN 1838, while addressing real-world challenges encountered during installation and handover. Attention is given to co-ordination with other building services, ownership of space and priority of systems, ensuring that emergency lighting is integrated effectively and performs as intended under emergency conditions.

2.30 pm-2.50 pm

Q&A Panel

2.50 pm-3.20 pm

Networking break

3.20 pm-3.55 pm

Leadership Panel: The Future of ICEL and Emergency Lighting

Change in the emergency lighting domain is being driven by advances in technology, evolving regulation and increasing expectations around safety and sustainability. Here, senior industry leaders will explore the future direction of emergency lighting in the UK, including discussion around smart building integration, Artificial Intelligence-assisted systems, data-driven maintenance and the role of sustainability within life safety systems.

The discussion will provide ICEL with an opportunity to share emerging ideas and proposals, while at the same time inviting input from across the industry. Attendees will have the opportunity to contribute their suggestions, challenge current thinking and provide feedback that helps to inform and underpin ICEL’s future priorities and industry direction.

3.55 pm-4.00 pm

Closing statements

4.00 pm-5.00 pm

Networking and refreshments

*Register to attend the ICEL Emergency Lighting Conference 2026 by visiting the Lighting Industry Association’s website at www.thelia.org.uk

Gavin Skelly (pictured, right), CEO at Fire Aware, is focused squarely on the importance of working closely in the supply chains in the post-Grenfell era as the legal process in the aftermath of the June 2017 tragedy continues to its conclusion.

Skelly informed Fire Safety Matters: “We’ve all read the recommendations from the Public Inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire and the industry is acutely aware of what can happen when fire safety isn’t right. Let’s collaborate, make certain that we’re all doing our jobs to the highest standard and ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.”

Skelly continued: “The new legislation, including the Building Safety Act 2022, is quite complex and challenging for everyone involved, but it’s not insurmountable if we share issues and find solutions.”

According to Skelly: “There’s a need to commit to Best Practice beyond the legislation itself. Once a company or an individual does that then everything changes. We’re here to protect members of the public as they live and work in our towns and cities. They have a right to feel safe, and we all have a responsibility towards that safety. This is a vocation, not just another job.”

Code of Conduct

Further, Skelly has highlighted Fire Aware’s own Code of Conduct and charters, which make specific demands across all specialisms for all members who choose to join the organisation.

The charters don’t specifically request technical compliance in any particular area, but they do obligate the member company to understand its competence requirement’s for the work undertaken and to prove a consistent track record of these compliance benchmarks.

The charters ask the member business to consider (at all times) the safety of the end user and to go ‘above and beyond’ minimum standards in order to promote an enthusiasm within the member business to identify itself as an organisation that cares.

Fire Aware operates 17 charters in total including the Affiliate Charter, the Building Management Company Charter, the Commercial Landlords Charter, the Commercial Trades Charter and the Main Contractors Charter.

Cultural change

Dame Judith Hackitt – who led the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety – has, of course, called for cultural change through moral and ethical behaviours, supported by the Building Safety Regulator, which has been created to promote competence and higher standards.

Skelly firmly believes that all of those practitioners involved in the design, construction, management, maintenance and letting of buildings need to understand that they have an obligation to fire safety even if their business isn’t directly connected with fire specialisms.

For its part, Fire Aware continues to focus squarely on the moral responsibility of all those working in the fire safety supply chain including designers, developers, asset owners, managers and other key stakeholders.

The organisation aims to change the culture of the built environment sector with its moral Code of Conduct via the aforementioned series of charters designed to influence how member companies behave in upholding their Duty of Care.

Fire Aware is a recognised membership body serving the built environment and related sectors with a common aim of working and trading responsibly, all underpinned by Best Practice standards.

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

The Statutory Committee provides a formal way for the panel to share their views and experiences. This helps the BSR to understand the impact of its work and shapes the way it regulates HRBs.

Independent chair is a voluntary role and Kernick will serve in a personal capacity. She will lead the Residents’ Panel in providing independent advice and holding the BSR to account, helping to ensure that residents remain a fundamental part of the regulator’s work.

Kernick has worked with organisations in high-hazard industries for several decades now. This has afforded her extensive experience in terms of organisational culture, systemic change and the prevention of catastrophic events.

Importantly, Kernick was also a resident of Grenfell Tower between 2011 and 2014 and is the author of ‘Catastrophe and Systemic Change: Learning from the Grenfell Tower Fire and Other Disasters’.

At present, Kernick director of strategy and culture realisation at celebrated built environment consultancy Arup, where her work includes leading a global programme focused on safety culture.

Effective and proportionate

Charlie Pugsley, acting CEO at the BSR, stated: “Residents are central to the building safety regime. Their experiences are essential in terms of helping us to build a regulatory system that’s effective, proportionate and concentrates on the people it exists to protect.”

Pugsley added: “I’m delighted to welcome Gill as independent chair of the Residents’ Panel and look forward to working with her and the Residents’ Panel as its constituent members help to shape and improve our work.”

Commenting on the appointment, Gill Kernick observed: “Residents bring a unique understanding of building safety through their everyday lived experience. By bringing this knowledge and insight together with technical expertise, we can help to create safer homes.”

Kernick concluded: “The Residents’ Panel provides an important opportunity to ensure that residents’ voices and expertise can meaningfully inform, challenge and refine the building safety regime.”

Supported by Headline Sponsor Apollo Fire Detectors and boasting a record number of 254 entries this year, the Women in Fire Safety Awards celebrate the outstanding achievements of exceptional women working across the fire safety industry, recognising those individuals actively driving innovation, leadership and higher standards.

Tickets to attend the Women in Fire Safety Awards are limited. 50% of the available tickets have already been sold. Don’t miss out on this fantastic event. Book your tickets online NOW at https://womeninfiresafety.com/2026/en/page/book

Further information concerning the Women in Fire Safety Awards 2026 can be accessed online at www.womeninfiresafety.com

Women in Fire Safety Awards 2026: The Finalists

Administrator of the Year

*Chloe Jenson (Bellrock)

*Emma Russell (CHPK Group)

*Hayley Saint (The Portmarnock Group)

*Isla Moffat (OCS Fire Protection Solutions)

*Jaheda Begum (Peabody)

*Jennifer Clark (Jensen Hughes)

*Lucy Magee (Apollo Fire Detectors)

*Melinda Young (Eastern Builders Safety Group t/a EB Safety Group)

*Nicole Brooks (Dean Morris)

*Rosalie Pilkington (OFR Consultants Ltd)

*Rose Hartwell (Churches Fire & Security)

*Zoe Parsons (Hochiki Europe)

Diversity Champion Award

*Beverley Parkes (RP Fire)

*Everyone at Swift Fulfilment (Swift Fulfilment)

*Gavin Skelly (Fire Aware)

*Isaac Mutunga (Soliton Telmec Limited)

*Lesley Leach (Chubb Fire & Security)

*Lucy Mather (West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service)

*Sam Boylan (RiskFire Ltd)

*Sarah Forbes (Design Fire Consultants)

*The Whole Team at Fire Dynamics Group (Fire Dynamics Group)

Excellence Award (Business)

*Charlotte Manley (C-TEC)

*Chloe Barker (Coltraco Ultrasonics)

*Emma Jones (Axion Consultancy Limited)

*Jennifer Whalley (Warringtonfire)

*Jessica Mann (Infuse Marketing)

*Jo Sheehan (Future Group)

*Kelly Nock (Xact Consultancy and Training)

*Melanie Tudor (The Fire Surgery Ltd)

*Monica Y Daniel (Fire Safety Consult Ltd)

*Nicola John (Fire Door Maintenance Training and Development)

*Sam Boylan (RiskFire Ltd)

*Shannon Berry (Firesense Ltd)

Excellence Award (Fire Consultant)

*Ayushi Subedi (Jensen Hughes)

*Catherine Owen (PartB)

*Davinia Potterton (The DALA Group)

*Emily Woodley (PartB)

*Gemma Osborne (Metropolitan Police Service)

*Gemma Pawson (Fire Safe Scotland Ltd)

*Katrina Merritt (City Building Engineering Services)

*Kristie Sullivan (Warringtonfire)

*Samantha Weatherley (Stantec)

*Sarah James (Bellrock)

*Sian Wilkes (Certified Pro Installs Ltd)

Excellence Award (Fire Engineer)

*Alice Pike (Mott MacDonald)

*Amadea Picciau (Tenos Ltd)

*Diana Prostire (Fire Dynamics Group Ltd)

*Dr Shuyuan Lin (Axion Consultancy Limited)

*Lindsay Fox (Unicorn Fire & Safety Solutions Ltd)

*Mabel Higgins (MH Fire Safety Ltd)

*Maisie Gleeson (OFR Consultants Ltd)

*Naomi Fell (SFA Fire & Security)

*Naomi Hooper (Mott MacDonald)

*Rebekah Moore (OHEAP Fire & Security)

*Zhujun Zhang (CHPK Group)

*Zuzanna Bialkowska (Axion Consultancy Limited)

*Zuzanna Feliszek (PartB)

Excellence Award (Social Housing)

*Claire Charles (Tenos Ltd)

*Heather Langridge (Southern Housing)

*Kimberley Prebble (Orbit Housing)

*Megan Major (Shellen Security)

*Stevie Cox (Global HSE Group)

Global Research Award

*Dr Brittany Hollerbach (Center for Fire, Rescue and EMS Health Research, Part of NDRI-USA)

*Fiona Cornfield (The Fire Protection Association)

*Margaret S McNamee (Lund University)

Inclusive Company Award

*Anstey Horne

*Axion Consultancy Limited

*Certified Pro Installs Ltd

*Chubb Fire & Security (UK & Ireland)

*Design Fire Consultants Ltd

*Energia Group

*Hoare Lea

*Mott MacDonald

*OCS Fire Protection Solutions Installation Team

*Trigon Fire Safety

*Women Talking Fire CIC

International Rising Star Award

*Dr Emelie Lantz (Researcher and On-Call Firefighter)

*Gizelle Danine Jamero (Arup)

*Paula Murphy (Jensen Hughes)

International Woman of the Year

*Aedin Hassett (Browne Fire and Security)

*Amanda Kimball (Fire Protection Research Association/National Fire Protection Association)

*Anne Wijayasuriya (Joule Group)

*Ashley Vargas (Barnard College, Columbia University)

*Beschi Jeyakumar (Sherwin-Williams Pvt Ltd)

*Bruna Esposito (Ramtech)

*Christina Alexandropoulou (Philip Morris International)

*Paula Murphy (Jensen Hughes)

*Pilar Sancho (Elmdene International)

Rising Star Award

*Alina Erkulova (Trigon Fire Safety)

*Chloe Flowers (Isoler Ltd)

*Demi-Leigh Perry (Abel Alarm)

*Egle Siusiene (Apollo Fire Detectors)

*Lauren Postill (City Building Engineering Services)

*Millie Botley (Vimpex)

*Momoi Suda (Arup)

*Nicole Allan (Design Fire Consultants)

*Pragati Yarlagadda (Olympus Management)

*Sabrina Goodall (Balfour Beatty)

*Samantha Wootten (Trinity Fire & Security Systems)

*Sareh Akbarpoor (Stantec)

Woman of the Year

*Alona Fedotkina (Kilnbridge Fire Protection)

*Clare Clifft (Birmingham City Council)

*Ellen Gaisie (Airey Miller)

*Isabel Elswood (The Fire Protection Association)

*Julie Sharp (Isoler)

*Kate Swinburne (OFR Consultants Ltd)

*Lauren Paver (Triton Group)

*Roxy Palmer (Churches Fire & Security)

*Ruth Oliver (British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association)

*Stephanie Rampton (The Regency Group)

*Tracy Gregory (Premier Technical Services Group Fire Consultancy Division)

*Vicki Swaine (3Safety)

Lifetime Achievement Award

This prestigious award is chosen by our Judging Panel of key industry bodies and figureheads. It will be awarded on the night to an outstanding individual who has made a tremendous contribution to fire safety during their lifetime.

In addition to Apollo Fire Detectors, event sponsors include Arup, CHPK, Design Fire Consultants, Fire Protection Association, the Institute of Fire Safety Managers, Mott MacDonald, OFR Consultants Ltd, Security Systems and Alarms Inspection Board, The Fire Safety Event, WisuAlarm and Xact Consultancy and Training.

Book your tickets online NOW at https://womeninfiresafety.com/2026/en/page/book

On 20 April at Brighton Magistrates’ Court, Markandayar Gowrikaran (the person having control of the premises at 20A St James Street, Brighton BN2 1RF) pleaded guilty to offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Specifically, Gowrikaran admitted failing to take the general fire precautions required at the premises, which he operated as an HMO.

On 20 July when appearing at the same Magistrates’ Court, Gowrikaran was fined the sum of £3,875, which included the statutory victim surcharge. He was also ordered to pay £7,075.31 to East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service in respect of investigation time and costs.

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 places a legal duty on the ‘Responsible Person’ to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of relevant persons from fire. This includes carrying out (and regularly reviewing) a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment, implementing appropriate fire safety measures on-site, maintaining fire safety equipment, ensuring escape routes remain available and protected and providing suitable information and training where and when required.

Inspection process

Fire safety inspecting officers from the ESFRS first attended 20A St James Street on 14 February 2023 following concerns raised by the local authority regarding the storage of fireworks within the ground floor commercial premises.

During their inspection, officers identified a number of significant fire safety deficiencies affecting the HMO:

*the fire alarm control panel was displaying faults across multiple zones

*missing smoke detector heads

*a manual Call Point that wasn’t securely fixed

*the removal of a fire-resisting door protecting the means of escape

*combustible materials stored within communal escape routes and on the external fire escape

*a kitchen door opening on to the escape route that failed to fully self-close

*an inadequately protected electrical intake that was neither secured nor enclosed within suitable fire-resisting construction

These matters were then brought to Gowrikaran’s attention, together with the requirement to undertake and record a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment process.

Despite informal advice, the issuing of formal Enforcement Notices and a number of follow-up inspections, insufficient progress was made to remedy the deficiencies. Inspections carried out between February and December 2023 identified many of the same defects, with substantial remedial work not being undertaken until the early part of 2024.

Increased risk

Article 32(1)(a) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 makes it an offence for a ‘Responsible Person’ to fail to comply with the fire safety duties imposed by Articles 8 to 22 and Article 38 where that failure places one or more relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury in the event of a fire.

By failing to address all the identified deficiencies within a reasonable period, Gowrikaran exposed occupants to an increased risk in the event of a fire. Had a fire occurred within the kitchen or electrical intake, the absence of adequate fire precautions could have allowed fire and smoke to spread more rapidly.

In addition, combustible storage within the escape routes increased both the likelihood of fire development and the potential for the obstruction of occupants attempting to evacuate the premises on a safe basis.

Legal duty

Station manager (legal and enforcement) Jake Kaye said: “Those responsible for fire safety have a legal duty to carry out and record a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment. Effective fire safety management is essential to reduce the likelihood of fire occurring and to ensure that, should a fire happen, it can be detected quickly and occupants are able to escape safely. Escape routes must be kept clear and protected at all times.”

Kaye added: “We continue to find that many HMOs with shared communal areas don’t have a suitable fire risk assessment in place. This remains a significant concern. The fire risk assessment is fundamental to identifying the measures needed to protect residents.”

In conclusion, Kaye observed: “We hope this prosecution serves as a reminder that those responsible for fire safety must comply with their legal duties and with any enforcement action taken by the Fire Authority. Where they fail to do so and place people at risk, we will take appropriate enforcement action.”

George O’Reilly, assistant director of risk reduction, explained: “I would like to thank Brighton Magistrates’ Court for its careful consideration of this case, together with our legal team and fire safety officers for their professionalism and commitment throughout the investigation.”

O’Reilly added: “East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service has a statutory duty to enforce the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. We take that responsibility seriously and will continue to take proportionate enforcement action where failures to comply with fire safety legislation place people at risk of death or serious injury.”

Legislative changes

Legislative changes to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 brought forward through the Building Safety Act 2022 require all ‘Responsible Persons’ to carry out and record a fire risk assessment taking into account the risks from fire to all persons legally on or in the vicinity of the premises.

The requirements apply to all non-domestic premises, such as where people work, visit or stay, including workplaces and the non-domestic parts of multi-occupied residential buildings.

*Further support and information can be accessed on the East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service website at www.esfrs.org/fire-safety-legislation

In those instances where wildfires reach the urban fringe, the risk shifts from land and wildlife to homes, with firefighters facing extremely challenging incidents in which people have lost property and possessions as the flames reach residential areas.

According to the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC), the reality of the situation is that the risk is growing faster than the collective capacity to respond. Climate change, prolonged periods of extreme heat and changing land use are creating more frequent, larger and more complex wildfires. As such, the NFCC has commented: “We must ensure that investment is not only sustained, but also enhanced if we’re to keep pace with the risks now facing our communities.”

At present, a significant number of properties in Stourbridge in the West Midlands have been lost or severely damaged. Further properties in Sandwell, Stoke on Trent and Pershore are severely damaged.

Traumatic experience

Phil Garrigan, chair of the NFCC, stated: “Our thoughts are with those families and communities who’ve been affected by these devastating fires. Losing a home and/or treasured possessions or being forced to leave your community is a traumatic experience that can have a lasting impact.”

Garrigan continued: “We also recognise the extraordinary efforts of firefighters, Control Room teams and support staff who continue to work around the clock in extremely challenging conditions to protect life, property and the environment.”

Further, Garrigan explained: “Recent incidents have demonstrated how rapidly fires can spread and how the threat is evolving. Wildfires are no longer confined to remote rural areas. Increasingly, they’re threatening homes, businesses and critical infrastructure as they move from open land into urban and suburban communities.”

The NFCC welcomes the Government’s recognition of the escalating threat through recent investment in specialist wildfire capabilities and the Prime Minister’s decision to convene COBR in response to the current conditions. “The support and recognition of these risks is welcome and reflects the seriousness of the situation we are facing,” affirmed Garrigan.

New reality

Garrigan went on to comment: “Our new reality is that risk is growing faster than our collective capacity to respond. Climate change, prolonged periods of extreme heat and changing land use are creating more frequent, larger and more complex wildfires. We must ensure that investment is not only sustained, but enhanced if we are to keep pace with the risks facing our communities.”

While Garrigan agrees that it’s right to focus on the ‘here and now’, the NFCC is calling for a long-term wildfire strategy that reflects the changing nature of emergencies facing the UK. This would include continued investment in firefighters, specialist wildfire teams, training, equipment and national capabilities, including a dedicated aerial firefighting capability.

“The cost of preparedness will always be less than the cost of recovery,” said Garrigan. “We must act now to ensure Fire and Rescue Services have the resources required to protect communities from increasingly severe and complex wildfire events.”

The public also has a vital role to play. “Many wildfires are preventable,” outlined Garrigan. “At a time when firefighters are responding to multiple major incidents across the country, the most effective action anyone can take is to avoid activities that could ignite a fire.”

Shared responsibility

Garrigan observed: “We all have a shared responsibility to protect our communities. By making sensible choices and following local guidance, people can help to prevent further devastation, reduce pressure on the Emergency Services and keep firefighters available for those who need them most.”

In conclusion, Garrigan stated: “Every wildfire prevented is a home protected, a family spared the heartbreak of losing treasured possessions and firefighters freed to respond to other emergencies. Public vigilance and responsible behaviour are every bit as important as any piece of equipment in helping us to tackle this growing threat.”

The West Midlands Fire Service was alerted to a significant grass fire at Stourbridge Golf Course at around 1.30 pm on 13 August. At the height of the multi-agency response, which is continuing, upwards of 100 firefighters, 30 fire engines and no fewer than 11 specialist teams were at the scene.

Having spread rapidly, the devastating fire impacted 37 properties, 19 of which have been destroyed, while a further 18 have sustained substantial damage. The incident has covered an area of approximately 500 acres.

At this point in time, the cause of the fire isn’t known. Specialist fire investigators are working to establish the circumstances.

Macclesfield Forest wildfire

A major wildfire in Macclesfield Forest was officially declared closed shortly after 4.15 pm on 27 July following an extensive six-day firefighting operation involving Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service and partner agencies.

The incident began late afternoon on 21 July and saw firefighters tackle a large woodland and grass fire across difficult terrain in challenging conditions. At the fire’s peak, crews worked alongside Cheshire Police, United Utilities and forest volunteers to prevent the fire spreading further through the forest.

Throughout the incident, specialist wildfire firefighters used a range of equipment and tactics, including beaters, water backpacks, hose reel jets, thermal imaging cameras, drones and an all-terrain vehicle. United Utilities’ helicopter also played a crucial role, carrying out repeated water drops on affected areas from above.

Operational activity continued around the clock, with firefighters remaining on scene overnight each day to monitor the fire, identify hotspots and prevent flare-ups. Due to the remote location and difficult terrain, firefighting efforts required careful co-ordination and a sustained response over several days.

An investigation carried out during the incident identified a discarded disposable barbecue as the most probable cause of the fire.

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