Fire Safety

Annual Report
2020: A year of challenges and change
A report from IFSEC Global & FIREX International
 Contents
Foreword by Ian Moore, CEO of the Fire Industry Association (FIA)
Chapter 1: Coronavirus and the fire safety sector....................................................... 4-5
Chapter 2: A year of legislative change? ...........................................................................6-8
Chapter 3: The Grenfell Inquiry continues..........................................................................9-10
Chapter 4: Fire safety and sprinklers in schools................................................................
11-12
Chapter 5: Firestopping – Getting it right for the future..................................................13-15
Chapter 6: News and prosecutions round-up...................................................................
16-17
Chapter 7: Top influencers in fire safety...............................................................................
18

2

Introduction
It has been an unpredictable and a somewhat turbulent
year for us all. Broadly speaking, our year has been shaped
by three key themes: COVID-19, which has affected how
we work; Brexit, which has the potential to change who
we work with, and the Grenfell Tower tragedy that clearly
indicates the work that we need to do to make us safe.
With three monumental topics simultaneously impacting
the fire industry, there is much debate over what this
means for the industry in the short, medium and long
term. However, there has been a growing sense of
appreciation on the importance and value of the work
trade associations do to support their members, the wider
industry and the public through these tough challenges. If
nothing else, COVID-19 has brought communities around
the world closer together and more willing to tackle shared
problems. In a sense this is no different from the work of
trade associations, where members (who may compete in
business) join forces to dedicate their time and energy to
improve the industry they work in and solve
shared problems.
Trade associations can be more than a hub where
members work together. For instance, at the Fire Industry
Association (FIA) we have dedicated our time, energy and
resources to proactively help our members. Concise and
relevant information is crucial to help businesses navigate
through uncertain times; consequently, we have set up and
maintained multiple live update pages on our website on
COVID-19, Brexit and Grenfell. These pages have provided
relevant and crucial news for the industry, covering key
topics such as: the key worker status for fire professionals,
our work lobbying government on the UKCA Mark and our
announcement that we are providing a building safety
portal – initially for External Wall Survey (EWS)-1 forms.
Our Annual Report looked back at the last year at the
FIA, the key theme within it was ‘with adversity comes
innovation’. As we look back on 2020, we have observed a
fair share of adversity, yet we were encouraged to see an
even greater deal of innovation.
The FIA’s COVID-19 report found that, in spite of the
pandemic, training remained a fundamental part of our
3
Foreword by
Ian Moore
CEO of the Fire Industry
Association (FIA)
work. We are proud to have migrated our training and
examinations online and, by doing so, we have continued
to provide our industry-leading programmes throughout
these difficult times. This means that, while working from
home, fire industry staff have been able to make full use of
their time and learn new skills that our industry desperately
needs. The recommendations of the Hackitt report, and
all those from the subsequent Competency Steering
Group, indicate Level 3 qualifications are the minimum
needed to work in fire safety and that they ensure all our
professionals carry out their duties competently.
2020 provided more positive news beyond the industry’s
seamless adaptation to online training. Great progress has
been made – and is still being made – in changing existing
legislation for fire safety and in bringing in new legislation.
Through consulting with the government on the Fire Safety
Bill, Building Safety Bill and the Home Office Fire Safety
Consultation, we are confident that these changes will
significantly improve fire safety across the country and, in
doing so, reduce the chance of tragedies such as Grenfell
happening again.
Alongside the close collaboration with government, the
FIA has established a number of Special Interest Groups
(SIGs), the most recent being on Premises Information
Boxes and Emergency Evacuation Systems. These SIGs
are another clear example of where the fire industry
community has come together to collaborate in 2020.
SIGs have also been used to great effect in bringing the
fire industry together on Brexit and have allowed us to
effectively communicate the needs of our members
and the wider industry to government, the most recent
example being the work on the UKCA marking.
As 2020 has clearly shown, the fire industry is stronger
than ever. When faced with three substantial challenges
we have pulled together to keep moving forwards. The FIA
is extremely proud to have provided the platform for this
widescale collaboration and we look forward to meeting
future challenges together.
Coronavirus and the fire
safety sector
The coronavirus pandemic dominated 2020, of that there was required, “additional control measures” were put in place
is little doubt. Organisations and individuals across the alongside the appropriate levels of PPE and social distancing.
world were affected as governments brought in social
distancing and lockdown measures in an attempt to curb
the spread of COVID-19 – with varying levels of success.
At the time of writing, the UK is in the middle of its third
lockdown, and time will only tell if the world ever gets back
to some form of pre-pandemic normality.

But how did the fire sector fare? Well, to echo Ian Moore’s
comments in the foreword, the industry adapted and
overcame many of the challenges to keep moving forward.
The importance of collaborative efforts was perhaps
never clearer than in March and April last year. As the UK
Government asked everyone except ‘key workers’ to stay
at home, the industry – led by the FIA and the National Fire
Chiefs Council (NFCC) – engaged politicians to ensure
that those in the fire safety sector were included as ‘key
workers’. By late March, James Brokenshire, Minister of
State for Security at the Home Office, had confirmed that
fire professionals could continue in their work, which is so
vital to preserving human life and to building safety.
Mr Brokenshire stated: “Security and fire safety personnel
can play a vital role at this time of national challenge.
People working in these sectors, who are essential to
national infrastructure, are ‘key workers’ for the purposes
of the Government’s guidance on COVID-19.” It was
also confirmed that those working on “vital fire safety
measures”, such as the installation and maintenance
of sprinklers, fire alarms and waking watch patrols,
constituted key workers.
While this was crucial for the sector, consideration also
had to be made for the safety of fire professionals - and
their families - so that they were able to continue their
work. The NFCC, among others, put together dedicated
advice pages, with all home safety checks and visits
adopting a risk-based approach. If COVID-19 symptoms
were present at a location where a fire risk assessment
Similar considerations were required for installers,
engineers and contractors. Social distancing measures
on site are often not realistic, but guidance from the
department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy
advised that the two-metre rule should be followed
wherever possible.
Reports showed that jobs for home security and alarms
witnessed a dramatic reduction in the early months of the
pandemic, though, fortunately, they rebounded quickly.
Indeed, the FIA’s annual report showed that over two-thirds
of respondents received either the same or more number
of enquiries for jobs in 2020, with accessibility to
premises made easier due to remote working and
lockdown measures.1
Experiences no doubt varied from job-to-job, with
engineers and installers interpreting the rules as best
they could. In an exclusive report for IFSEC Global, three
engineers offered their different views on the situation.
One noted that they were “yet to see any work teams
observing social distancing or wearing appropriate PPE”,

1
Fire Industry Association, FIA Annual Report 2020, www.fia.uk.com/news/fia-annual-report-2020-has-been-published.html

4
while another took a more cautious approach, such as As we will cover in the following chapter, fire safety
making sure they were never in the same room as remained on the agenda at government level and crucial
a customer. 2 steps were made towards improving standards and
legislative practices, particularly on building safety.
Ultimately, many worked on a case-by-case basis, Campaigners continued their efforts to ensure the
adhering as best they could to the rules while carrying cladding crisis was not forgotten about – culminating in
out vital, life-saving work. Operational changes off-site an extra £3.5billion being promised by the Government in
certainly occurred, with the FIA’s report highlighting that early 2021 – and industry professionals also saw 2020
41% of businesses were employing or prioritising remote as an opportunity to raise their own standards.
working where possible.
40% of companies said that they were prioritising
reskilling or upskilling their employees in the FIA’s Market
Conditions survey, as online learning opportunities from
associations and vendors became abundant throughout
2020. The FIA reported that it had seen over 1,000
delegates attend its online training sessions between
April and October, while another 2,500 professionals had
attended online CPD sessions.

In a year full of change, the fire sector collaborated and

evolved to overcome the challenges brought by the global
pandemic. As firefighters continue to support the NHS
in testing and vaccine operations, the importance of fire
safety professionals to life safety has perhaps never
been clearer.

“In a year full of change, the fire sector

collaborated and evolved to overcome the
challenges brought by the global pandemic.”

2
IFSEC Global, Rethinking best practice? The impact of COVID-19 on installers, engineers and contractors, www.ifsecglobal.com/security/impact-of-covid-19-on-installers-and-contractors/

5
A year of legislative
change? The Building
Safety Bill and Fire
Safety Bill

While many would argue that there is much still to be
done to improve building safety in the UK, 2020 did see
two major developments towards legislative change.
Both closely linked with the outcomes of reports into the
Grenfell Tower tragedy in 2017, the draft Building Safety
Bill and Fire Safety Bill were announced. At the time of
writing, both are undergoing reviews in parliament, though
key points related to fire safety are designed to bring about
the “biggest changes in building safety for a generation”,
according to the Government.
Building Safety Bill
The Draft Building Safety Bill was announced on 20th
July by Robert Jenrick MP, Secretary of State for Housing,
Communities and Local Government. The 334-page long
bill is in response to the findings of Dame Judith Hackitt’s
‘Building a Safer Future report’, originally published in
May 2018 following an independent review of building fire
safety and as a result of the Grenfell Tower disaster.
In the opening foreword, Mr Jenrick highlighted that the
reforms will bring forward “significant and fundamental
changes to building safety legislation,” with “wholesale
reform of the regulatory system” central to this process.
The Bill is designed to introduce greater clarity on
accountability and those responsible for managing safety
risks in high rise buildings. There will also be “tougher
sanctions” for those who fail in their responsibilities.
A new Building Safety Regulator will be key to all of this.
Housed in the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), it will be

6
responsible for overseeing the “safety and performance of
all buildings”.
Mr Jenrick added: “Industry should also prepare for the
substantial changes that are coming. Many in the industry
have already been working to improve standards and have
shaped and influenced this Bill. Now they must accelerate
this work to improve industry-wide culture, competence
and compliance. The new Building Safety Regulator will
work closely with the industry to drive a change in culture
that prioritises residents and ensures their safety.”
The new Bill covers the wide-ranging changes to the
regulatory scheme for assessing and enforcing building
safety, including but not limited to:
• T he responsibilities of the Regulator and its general
functions (including those specific to high-risk buildings)
• T he role of the Building Advisory Committee, including
a Residents’ panel
• B uilding safety risks, including its meaning,
recommendations and advice – these include fire and
structural failures
• T he meaning of ‘higher-risk buildings’, accountable
persons, building safety managers and duties relating
to building safety risks and engagement with residents
• Building control authorities and building regulations
•  he new Homes Ombudsman scheme (designed to
T What does the Bill do for residents?
investigate and determine complaints from owners
or occupants)
The three broad functions of the building safety regulator
will be to:
• Implement the new, more stringent regulatory regime
for higher-risk buildings
• Oversee the safety and performance of all buildings
7
• A ssist and encourage competence among the built
environment industry, and registered building inspectors
A more stringent set of rules for high-rise residential
buildings will apply at the design, construction and
occupation stages. At each stage, the Bill is designed to
make it clear who is responsible for managing risk and
detail the requirements to move to the next stage – a
response to Dame Hackitt’s ‘golden thread’ of
information proposals.
The Accountable Person of a building(s) is required to
appoint a Building Safety Manager who must already have
experience in this role. The Building Safety Regulator may
veto this appointment if deemed necessary.
The Regulator will also be given new legal powers to
ensure compliance with the new measures, including
prosecuting those who fail to comply with building
regulations. For example, maximum sentences have been
extended from two years to 10 years for non-compliance
and from one year to 10 years for section 36 notices.
In addition, there are new provisions relating to
construction products, with a Construction Products
Regulator role to be established. In summary, the Bill
provides powers so that all construction products
marketed in the UK fall under a regulatory regime. Included
within this is the concept of a “safety critical product”,
giving the Regulator power to remove any product from
the market that presents a significant safety risk and to
prosecute any companies who flout the rules on
product safety.
Following the numerous complaints from Grenfell
residents that their concerns were not listened to before
the events of June 2017, the Bill is also making greater
provisions for improved communication. Building Safety
Managers will have to “listen and respond to residents’
concerns”, while occupants will also have access to safety
information regarding their building.
In addition, a panel of residents is set to be created to help
develop the work of the Building Safety Regulator.
Within the Bill, ministers are proposing that tenants may
have to pay a capped “building safety charge” if required by
the landlord, including for fire safety works. Any use of this
must include an explanation and be employed no more
than once in any three month period. The new charge will
be kept separate from the service charge bill so that such
instances can be better accounted for.
The Government has also highlighted that it will “continue
to engage with stakeholders” while the draft Bill is
under review to ensure leaseholders won’t have to pay
unaffordable costs for historic building repairs.
Fire Safety Bill
On the 19th March 2020, the Home Office introduced the
new Fire Safety Bill to improve the fire safety of buildings
in England and Wales and “ensure that people feel safe
in their homes, and a tragedy like the Grenfell Tower fire
never happens again”.
Set to amend the Fire Safety Order 2005, the Bill has been
designed to clarify who is accountable for reducing the
risk of fires – namely the duty-holder/building owner for
multi-occupied, residential buildings. They must manage
the risk of fire for:
• The structure and external walls of the building (e.g.
cladding, balconies and windows)
•  ntrance doors to individual flats that open into
E In his closing remarks to the House of Lords, Lord Stephen
communal areas
The Fire Safety Bill is also designed to provide a
foundation for secondary legislation, based upon the
recommendations made from the Grenfell Tower
Inquiry. Extra measures may include responsibility for lift
inspections, the reviewing of evacuation plans and fire
safety instructions to residents.
The Bill passed its first stage in September 2020, clearing
the Commons despite calls from politicians to make
adjustments to ensure the recommendations of the
Grenfell Tower inquiry’s first phase were implemented.
8
The Fire Safety Bill held its report stage in the House of
Lords for additional debate on Tuesday 17th November.
A range of topics were discussed, with the House asking
the Government to “think again on the building owner and
manager duties, public registers of fire risk assessments
and prevention of remediation costs being passed from
freeholders to tenants”. The three votes on proposed
amendments to the bill included:
• A n amendment to place various duties on owners
and managers of buildings containing two or
more domestic premises – it advised that the
recommendations made in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry
Phase 1 Report are implemented
•  nabling prospective and current renters, leaseholders
E
and owners to check the fire safety status of their home
by accessing a public register
• P reventing freeholders passing on remediation costs to
leaseholders and tenants through demands for one-off
payments or increases in service charges
No further changes to the wording of the Bill were
suggested during the third reading and, at the time of
writing, the Bill has been passed back to the Commons for
the considerations of the Lords’ amendments.
Greenhalgh, The Minister of State for the Ministry of
Housing, Communities and Local Government, said:
“The Bill represents a significant step towards delivering
meaningful change so that a tragedy like that at Grenfell
Tower can never happen again. The Government are, and
always have been, committed to implementing the Grenfell
Tower Inquiry phase 1 recommendations. The Fire Safety
Bill is the first legislative step in this process, and, as I have
stated before, we are committed to delivering the Grenfell
recommendations through regulations following the fire
safety consultation.”
Grenfell Tower inquiry
continues
Now three and a half years after the terrible tragedy that took
place at Grenfell Tower, where 72 people died, the inquiry into
the causes of the fire continues. Led by Sir Martin Moore-
Bick, the second phase of the inquiry commenced on 28th
January 2020 and is expected to take 18 months and involve
200,000 unseen documents. It has already been subject to
several disruptions due to the impact of the coronavirus.
While legislative change resulting from Dame Judith Hackitt’s
‘Building a Safer Future’ report and recommendations
from the Inquiry’s Phase 1 report is beginning to see some
progress on building safety, there is still much for the inquiry
to investigate. Here, we provide a month-by-month update on
the findings from Phase 2 during 2020.
January 2020
The Government published its response to the Grenfell
Tower Inquiry Phase 1 Report, with the London Fire Brigade
accepting the recommendations made. Phase 2 hearings
commenced on 28th January to review matters beyond
the night of the fire, including how the tower block became
covered in combustible cladding.
March
The inquiry heard that the architects chosen for the
project, Studio E, did not have experience of similar
projects, and that the firm was chosen without a
competitive procurement process or interview. Due to
UK lockdown measures resulting from the COVID-19
pandemic, the inquiry suspended proceedings.
In the same month, the UK Chancellor, Rishi Sunak,
announced a £1billion Building Safety Fund in the budget
to tackle the ongoing issue of unsafe materials on high-
rise residential buildings.
June
Following the third anniversary of the Grenfell Tower
disaster, the National Audit Office highlighted that removal
work of dangerous cladding was still outstanding across
over 300 buildings, and that the Government “has a long
way to go”. While the NAO noted that progress had been
made by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local
Government (MHCLG) in the social housing sector, the
pace continued to fall behind expectations, “particularly in
the private residential sector”.

February July
Lawyers from Arconic (cladding firm), Studio E The inquiry resumed on a limited attendance basis
(refurbishment architects), Rydon (refurbishment to ensure social distancing rules could be followed.
contractor), Harley Façades (subcontractor to Rydon), It heard that the main contractor for Grenfell Tower’s
Celotex (manufacturers of installation), alongside the refurbishment, Rydon, ignored concerns emailed to them
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea all make from Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management
statements. The Inquiry’s Chief Lawyer, Richard Millett Organisation that the cladding would be combustible.
QC, was highly critical of the witnesses for not taking The Government announced the publication of the draft
ownership of the mistakes that were made – the exception Building Safety Bill.
being the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea who
admitted that their building control body had made errors. August
Proceedings were suspended while the witnesses The inquiry heard a number of key developments:
involved demanded that any evidence given should not
be used to incriminate them. Permission was granted •  enior engineers did not raise the need for separate fire
S
for oral evidence from individuals to ensure that staff safety assessments for the cladding
did not refuse to give vital evidence in the proceedings.
Campaigners voiced their concerns about how this may • 
There was a lack of thought given to evacuating
impact later prosecutions. disabled residents

3
Read the Building a Safer Future: Proposals for reform of the building safety regulatory system report, here: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/building-a-safer-future-proposals-for-re-
form-of-the-building-safety-regulatory-system

9
• There was poor communication between Studio E and November
the Council As reported in The Guardian, the inquiry heard evidence
that the companies involved in manufacturing Grenfell
• The Rydon Contracts Manager admitted the firm had Tower’s cladding have “abused testing regimes…
‘overlooked’ a key document regarding fire hazards of deliberately misled customers about the performance
cladding materials of their products and circumvented regulations with
clever marketing”. Arconic, Celotex and Kingspan, which
•  ydon had pocketed £126,000 as a result of the switch
R made the cladding sheets, combustible foam insulation
to ACM and remaining insulation respectively, were all found
by lawyers to have either misled testers or ignored
September compliance which distorted the full-scale fire tests of
Ray Bailey, Director of Harley Facades, accused Celotex materials. The three companies “strongly dispute the
of misleading his firm about the fire safety of the claims”, and each appeared to blame each other as
Polyisocyanurate (PIR) foam rigid insulation boards that well as external factors such as the competency of the
were used for the refurbishment. Ben Bailey, Project construction professionals. Three executives of Arconic
Manager for the refurbishment, admitted he did not see refused to attend the inquiry.
documents relating to the fire performance of the Celotex
RS5000 panels used. He further admitted that he had
received no training in fire safety in the construction
of buildings, in building regulations or industry codes
of practice for design and installation of cladding and
windows. Nor had he any qualifications in these areas.
It was stated that the material differed from that on the
architect’s original specification, while issues were also
raised with its installation.

October
The inquiry heard several damning indictments of the
refurbishment process. Grenfell Tower’s landlord faced
official questions for the first time, during which it
was revealed that they held a secret meeting with the December
Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation The inquiry saw evidence that Kingspan technical staff
and contractor, Rydon, to cut costs. According to reports, had acknowledged internally that the company was selling
around £800,000 worth of savings were agreed upon in an its Kooltherm K15 foam insulation product – used on
offline meeting, with no minutes taken. Shortly afterwards, Grenfell Tower – as less flammable than it actually was.
Rydon agreed to drop landscaping works, cut window Executives at cladding firm, Arconic, cited a 51-year old
costs and switch the cladding from zinc to an French blocking statute as a reason to not attend the
inquiry. The inquiry was suspended on 9th December after
aluminium alternative.
an on-site individual tested positive for COVID-19 and to
The inquiry also heard that a Project Manager on the break for the Christmas period.
Grenfell refurbishment process has admitted ‘binning’ their The inquiry has since resumed on 8th February. Follow
related notebooks, noting they assumed everything was IFSEC Global’s timeline of events for the latest on the
already documented elsewhere. Phase 2 Inquiry. 4 

4
IFSEC Global, Grenfell Tower Fire: Latest updates and full timeline, www.ifsecglobal.com/grenfell-tower/

10
Fire safety, sprinklers and
schools – a worrying trend
Growing concerns were reported in 2020 regarding the
fire safety standards in schools across England. A study
from insurance firm Zurich Municipal revealed that 480
primary and secondary schools experienced fires in
2019 – a staggering average of 40 incidents every month.
The study also found that around two-thirds of the 1,000
schools inspected were rated with ‘poor’ for fire protection
measures.
Firefighters have been called to nearly 2,000 school blazes
in England alone in the last three years. Malfunctioning
appliances or equipment, faulty electrics, arson and
kitchen blazes are among the leading causes of school
fires. Larger fires in schools cost an average of £2.8 million
to repair, some costs have reached over £20 million.
Within the data from Zurich Municipal’s report, it was
revealed that only 2% of the 480 schools that experienced
fires had sprinkler protection in place. Official figures show
that only 15% of all new schools built and opened in the
UK since 2011 have been fitted with sprinklers. Whilst
sprinklers are compulsory in all new or major refurbished
11
school buildings in Scotland and Wales, this is not the
case in England.
In June, Boris Johnson pledged £1bn to fund a decade-
long school rebuilding and repair programme and then a
further £560m in early August. Based on large fires alone,
Zurich Municipal estimates that the repair cost for school
fires could hit £320 million over 10 years – a significant
portion of the Government’s stated investment. Zurich
Municipal wants the Government to ring-fence some of its
promised investment to improve the resilience of schools
with the highest risk of fire.
Tilden Watson, Head of Education at Zurich Municipal,
said: “With children’s education already severely impacted
by the COVID-19 pandemic, the last thing we need is
further disruption as a result of preventable school fires.
As insurers, we work closely with schools to help them
manage their fire risks but a simple solution such as the
installation of sprinklers could minimise the dangers from
the outset, avoiding months or even years of upheaval
while the repairs are being carried out. It also preserves of a school much easier. This not only minimises the
the community space, for which schools are often used disruption to a pupil’s education, but also the impact on their
out of hours.” family, the community and the wider education establishment.”

Andy Dark, Fire Brigades Union Assistant General
Secretary, added: “The poor standard of fire safety
provision in our schools is nothing short of a scandal.
A major feature of this failure to invest is the lack of
sprinklers. It makes clear and unchallengeable economic
sense to have sprinklers fitted; it has huge support
amongst teachers and parents and has universal
support amongst fire service professionals and the
wider fire community. It is impossible to imagine why the
Government has dragged its heels on this issue.
“Raising the level of fire protection and prevention in
schools ticks all the boxes: protecting the education of
students; protecting the community assets which the
school infrastructure provides; reducing the damage
caused by smoke and fire; and reducing the risks to both
school-users and the firefighters who are called upon to
extinguish the fires. It’s time for the government to stop
prevaricating. It’s time for MPs of all parties to press for
the government to urgently introduce the mandatory fitting
and retro-fitting of sprinklers in all schools.”
In October, two separate schools in Derbyshire alone
suffered from fires. The incidents led to the affected
councils stating their intent for sprinklers to be fitted in any
new or renovated schools in their areas. Derbyshire Fire
and Rescue Service said sprinklers can help control fires in
the early stages, helping to extinguish or contain a fire until
the arrival of fire crews.
The findings also led Zurich Municipal to launch a
parliamentary petition to urge MPs to change the law on
sprinklers in schools. 5
 “The poor standard of fire safety provision in
our schools is nothing short of a scandal. A
major feature of this failure to invest is the
lack of sprinklers."
Andy Dark, Fire Brigades Union Assistant General Secretary

In a separate piece of research, which collected data from

26,800 schools in England, it was revealed that schools
are almost “twice as likely” to suffer from a fire compared
to other types of commercial buildings.

Nick Coombe, Protection Vice Chair and Building Safety

Programme Lead for the National Fire Chiefs Council, said:
“The case for sprinklers is compelling. Of almost 1,000
fires over five years in buildings where sprinklers were
fitted, our research found they controlled or extinguished
blazes in 99% of cases. We want to see a greater inclusion
of Automatic Fire Suppression Systems (AFSS), including
sprinklers, across the built environment. Sprinklers can
dramatically reduce fire damage, making the reopening

5
You can sign the petition, here.

12
Firestopping – getting it
right for the future

Following the recommendations made by Dame Judith agenda early in any build project should be made a priority.
Hackitt in her review of fire safety and construction after Simon highlights that early engagement in fire safety
the Grenfell Tower disaster, fire safety in construction – across the entire project team is paramount, so that it’s
from design through to planning, building and occupation front of mind from the design stage, all the way through
– is undergoing a culture change to improve standards. the building and occupation processes.
One crucial part of a building’s fire prevention and
protection measures is that of firestopping: sealing holes For high risk buildings, the implementation of a new
made in fire compartment walls and floors by services’ Building Safety Regulator in the coming months should
penetrations passing through those fire resistant walls and encourage greater diligence to fire safety principles
floors. Ventilation, electrical and plumbing services are all throughout all stages of a building’s construction and
examples of systems that can cause breaches. refurbishment. They will decide whether the Accountable
Person has demonstrated that appropriate actions to
Simon Ince, Project Engineer at UL, examined the future mitigate fire and structural risks are being taken, as well as
of firestopping in a series of in-depth articles for IFSEC carrying out several other functions.
Global. Here, we summarise the key points, covering the
importance of getting the process right in future, including One area that can help improve quality and compliance
a nine-step guide for new build projects. is that of independent Third Party Certification (TPC) of
products, services and management systems. Simon
discusses this topic in some detail, which, in the absence
of regulation and stringent enforcement, is a useful
differentiator for those who purchase and then depend on
products or services to be fit for purpose. It also offers
strong support to the due diligence process for those
procuring firestopping products or services. While TPC
isn’t a guarantee, it does provide a very good assurance
of compliance or quality – the process should thoroughly
examine the ability of the manufacturer or service provider
to deliver a firestopping product or service consistently
and to a defined standard. 6

There is also a need for the digitalisation of the

Image courtesy of UL construction sector from across the supply chain, argues
Simon. Regulation 38 of the Building Regulations requires
The future of firestopping that the fire safety information for a building be handed
With the UK predominantly using fire containment as a over to the responsible person. Historically, physical paper
strategy for protecting life in buildings, compartmentation files have been handed over – sometimes never to be
must be done correctly, so getting firestopping on the seen again. The new regulatory system will require this

6
For a full review on the importance of third party certification in firestopping, read: Simon Ince, Firestopping and third party certification, www.ifsecglobal.com/fire/firestopping-third-party-certification/

13
information to instead be submitted as a key dataset to and set out the specific design features that protect life
the regulator in a digital format, alongside clarity on the within those buildings.
evidence of the fitness of the products and systems that
have been installed. If the fire engineer is not retained for the entire project,
there can be subsequent variations from the original
Getting firestopping right that might compromise the fire strategy and functional
While improved communication is imperative, the requirements. In particular, problems may arise where the
processes put in place for achieving effective firestopping mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) engineers plan
systems must ultimately be fit for purpose. If firestopping their systems without consultation with the fire engineer.
is missing or poorly installed, compartmentation failure The sooner the MEP design identifies all the services and
can happen very quickly, involving areas outside the their specific types, the more the building design can be
compartment of fire origin and increasing the fire made to accommodate service openings that will allow for
damage suffered. ease of installation.

Simon offers a nine-point guide to achieving this aim in Step 3: A strong submission
newly constructed buildings, summarised below, while For RIBA Stage 4 technical design phase leading up to
also aligning with the proposed new Building Safety proposed Gateway Two, a full submission of detailed
Regulations and other current work around competence in plans to the Building Safety Regulator is required. These
the sector. 7 must have sufficient detail to demonstrate how building
regulations are being met and how the building safety
risks are being managed.
Step 1: Plan firestopping at the right time
Stage 2 in the Royal Institute of British Architecture (RIBA) The regulator will need to be satisfied that it meets
plan of works should be the point at which collaboration the necessary requirements to proceed to the next
takes place to deliver fire safety in the project – perhaps development stage, otherwise they will seek further
even earlier if the project is of smaller size. Without information from the client or reject an application
making fire safety a priority as part of the planning and outright. The regulator will also set the inspection
development stages, the likelihood increases that the regime at an appropriate level for the scheme, while the
requirements of installed fire safety will be overlooked Change Control strategy will need to demonstrate that
during the construction phase. the firestopping design will be carried out as described
and that if any changes occur, they will be controlled,
Step 2: Engage the right people evidenced and recorded.
The three Cs (competence, cooperation, and coordination)
must be displayed by the design team. The client’s It’s important not to mix manufacturers’ products to
appointed design team have a collective duty to deliver the form a complete system as they have often been tested
functional requirements for the project. The design team together. Third-party certificated products should be
must all take due regard of the fire strategy document used whenever possible. Evidence of workmanship and
and fire strategy plans for the building. These documents installation competence benchmarks should be included
underpin the fire safety principles applied to the building within the specification.

7
More detail for each point can be found here: Simon Ince, A guide to firestopping: Getting it right for the future, www.ifsecglobal.com/fire-protection/a-guide-to-firestopping/

14
Step 4: Avoiding onsite design liability
Conducting the design stage with a cohesive approach in
RIBA Stage 4 reduces the risk of onsite design and install
and associated design liability risks. Any variations onsite
should be obvious due to the visibility of the detailed and
agreed design for the firestopping, which would then trigger
the processes outlined in the Change Control strategy to
verify that any change is evidenced as being fit for purpose.
All changes should have supporting evidence and records
made of the accountable persons.
Step 5: Firestopping quality control
Depending on the size of the project, it might be appropriate
to have mock-ups of the identified firestopping solutions
as designed and specified. Providing a controlled example
of how each of the firestops should be installed, with clear
instructions and product references, will allow for quality
assurance inspection by the installation team and any other
quality/regulatory audits.
Step 6: Work control
Work control, sequencing and quality control are
very important in getting firestopping correct. Many
simultaneous jobs are occurring on a building site and
unless these are sequenced correctly there is a real danger
of existing firestops being compromised.
A competent specialist contractor should be used for
firestopping work to prevent poorly installed firestops
which exist in many buildings. Each firestopping job should
be identified at the design stage and therefore a unique
reference number should be generated to identify the
specific penetration, its location and what design firestop
should be used, alongside pictures and records being taken
before, during and after as evidence.
Step 7: Quality checks
Regardless of the confirmation by the competent contractor
that the job has been done correctly, it must be checked
in a format that is transparent and sufficient for the size
15
and complexity of the site. A third-party independent quality
check is also recommended. The Steering Group on
Competence for Building a Safer Future recommends that a
new role of Independent Construction Assessor (ICA) be put
in place. The ICA appointed by the client will be responsible
for the independent assurance of the construction, thus
confirming that it matches the design brief.
Step 8: Handover
Under the new Building Safety Regulations, on completion
of the project the client will be required to provide the
key data set of information (an electronic/digital format is
advised) to the Building Safety Regulator, along with
updated ‘as built’ plans which reflect any agreed changes
from the Gateway Two submission. These will include
details of any changes made under the change control
strategy, plus a final version of the fire and emergency file.
The building safety regulator will make judgement as
to whether the provided information offers sufficient
evidence that the building complies with all requirements
for occupation. Key information related to fire and
structural safety submitted during the three Gateways will
form part of the golden thread of information, which
includes Regulation 38 information.
Step 9: Management in occupation
Armed with all relevant information, a competent building
safety manager should be in a position to arrange for
routine maintenance, inspection and replacement of
firestopping if required. In addition, they will have key
information relating to existing service routes and the
firestopping in place at compartment walls and floors,
enabling them to manage any work to the building that
may compromise existing firestopping.
The building safety manager – which some have proposed
should be changed to the ‘building safety coordinator’ –
must be competent and needs a comprehensive skill set.
News and prosecutions
Listed below you will find some of the most widely read
news stories and prosecutions to have been featured on
IFSEC Global’s fire safety hub across 2020 and early 2021.
Links to the full stories are provided on each section if you
would like to know more.
Bolton student flats fire
On the evening of Friday 15th November 2019, a major fire
broke out in a block of flats housing students from The
University of Bolton. 200 firefighters and 40 fire engines
tackled the blaze at The Cube, as the building is known,
while students were evacuated and crews rescued one
person using an aerial platform.
Fears over the safety of the cladding used on the building
were highlighted following a five-week investigation. While
the cladding was different from that of the aluminium
composite material (ACM) cladding used on Grenfell
Tower, Greater Manchester’s Mayor commented that the
material in question “raises issues that will have to
be addressed”.
Tom Roche, a fire safety engineer with over 25 years’
experience in the field, added that: “The high-pressure
laminate (HPL) cladding used on The Cube was clearly
combustible. The discussions around the height of the
building and whether it was within certain parameters of
the building regulations guidance may be important from
a technocratic perspective, but, to all those watching, the
end result was the same; the fire clearly spread up the
building. It did not matter whether it was 17m or 18m, it
failed to stop the fire from spreading across its external
surface, making both the property and its inhabitants
extremely vulnerable.”
According to the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue
Service, the evacuation procedures put in place following
the Grenfell Tower disaster may well have saved many
lives in Bolton.
Find out more.
Victoria Coach Station found with a ‘catalogue
of fire risks’
In February 2020, London’s Victoria Coach Station
was given a fire enforcement notice after fire experts
16
discovered a “catalogue of major fire risks”. Prior to these
investigations, London Fire Brigade had already filed a 10-
page report of concerns and recommendations in October
2019. The safety risks found at one of London’s busiest
transport hubs included:
• Holes in walls, which could cause a fire to spread
• Inadequate and broken sprinklers, which were out of use
for more than two years
•  nclear fire escape signage and notices, which could
U
mislead and confuse people, in the event of a fire
• No evidence that an evaluation of risks had
taken place
• Fire staircase from maintenance workshop used
for storage
The report highlighted that fire exit signs at the
station were of “mixed standards”, other signs were
“contradictory”, such as in the mobility lounge, and
there were several “degraded” signs in the maintenance
workshop.
It also referenced that no live or mock emergency
evacuation had taken place. A TFL spokesperson said the
last full evacuation exercise was undertaken on 4 October
2019, “with a partial evacuation exercise on 14
October 2019.”
Find out more.
High-rise fires continue to cause devastation
Concerns over high-rise building safety continued
throughout 2020 – and not just in the UK. Several major
incidents were reported, including at a 49-storey tower
in the city of Sharjah, just outside of Dubai. During the
evening of 5th May, firefighters fought the blaze for three
hours while tenants were evacuated, with the cause being
prescribed to a discarded cigarette butt or shisha coals.
In the following months, it has been reported that the
Abbco Tower – the building in question – was fitted
with cladding that had been banned in 2016 for high-rise
applications. Many older buildings were still fitted with this,
however, and as a result, another 150 buildings in the city
are now set to have their cladding replaced.
A few months later in October, a major fire was reported
at a high-rise apartment building in the city of Ulsan in
South Korea. Multiple floors of the 33-storey building were
engulfed and more than 80 people were hospitalised in the
incident.
Find out more about the Dubai fire.
Find out more about the incident in South Korea.
Prosecutions
Owners of Cameron House hotel apologise
‘unreservedly’ for role in 2017 fatal fire which
led to two deaths and £500,000 fine
A luxury Scottish hotel, Cameron House Resort, was fined
£500,000 for breaches of fire safety legislation following
a fatal fire in December 2017 and has now implemented a
suite of fire safety measures for its reopening, due in
late 2021.
The hotel owners pleaded guilty to two charges under the
Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 of failing to take the necessary
fire safety measures to ensure the safety of employees
and guests. These included having no proper procedures,
training and supervision for the disposal of ash and
embers from the hotel’s open fires, failing to keep a
cupboard free of combustibles, and failing to maintain and
empty metal bins used for the storage of fire and embers.
Find out more.
Hotel fined £45k for fire safety failings
A Stratford hotel and its owner were ordered to pay a total
of £45,000 for “serious and systemic” fire safety failures,
which put staff and guests at risk. Act Grange Ltd, which
runs The Baytree Hotel in Vicarage Lane, and the company’s
sole director, Falgun Patel, were sentenced at Southwark
Crown Court after pleading guilty to five breaches of the
17
Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Among the fire safety deficiencies were: no smoke
detection devices, numerous fire doors tied open, missing
or malfunctioning door closures, a first-floor external
emergency exit route being used for storage, and no
evidence of a fire risk assessment having taken place.
Find out more.
£670k fine for student block fire safety failings
After fire safety failings were found at a student
accommodation building in Leeds, the main contractor
was among three firms ordered to pay fines totalling
£670,000. Judge Mairs at Leeds Crown Court heard how
Trinity Halls on Woodhouse Street had only one available
fire escape, which was compromised due to combustible
materials, putting the 27 students who had moved in back
in September 2016 at serious risk.
In addition, there was little evidence of a suitable and
sufficient fire risk assessment having taken place, a failure
to provide an appropriate fire detection and alarm system
and a failure to provide an adequate number of fire escape
routes and exits.
Find out more.
£88k fine for fire safety failures in
Southend home
In April, the owner of a property in Westcliff, Southend
was fined £88,000 for a “string of failures” in the building,
including fire safety issues. According to local reports, the
prosecution involved freeholder Mr Arise, whose full name
was not provided by Southend Council, over 17 ‘failures of
management’ at the property. The council received reports
of antisocial behaviour “from, and associated with” the
house in multiple occupation, and undertook a site visit,
during which they discovered the property was in ‘poor
condition’.
A key problem among the various issues was the failure to
ensure all escape routes of the property were kept clear of
obstruction, with routes through the hallways and kitchen
both blocked.
Find out more.
IFSEC Global’s Influencers
in Fire Safety 2020

In September, IFSEC Global announced its Global • Robert Thilthrope, Technical Manager, FIA
Influencers in Security and Fire Awards. With an
independent judging panel led by Grant Lecky (co-founder, • Luke Edwards, Director of Fire & Resilience, UK
Security Partners Forum), the initiative is designed to Home Office
celebrate some of the incredible work that individuals in
both sectors have achieved and identify the key players • Jon Pagan, Director of Fire Safety Engineering,
who are moving the security and fire safety International Fire Consultants
industries forward.
• Russ Timpson, CEO, Horizonscan
Due to the very different legislative and cultural
requirements of different countries and continents, the fire • Colin Todd, MBE, Managing Director, C.S. Todd &
safety category is focused on individuals within the UK. Associates Ltd
Nominations were encouraged from across the industry,
alongside the nominations from the three judges for 2020. • Thomas Roche, Senior Consultant, International Codes
The quantity and quality of entries was extremely high this and Standards, FM Global
year, with the winners revealed below.
• Derek Gotts, Managing Director, Supply Plus Limited
The judges
Ian Moore, CEO, Fire Industry Association (FIA) • Lorna Stimpson, LABC
Dennis Davis, Executive Officer for the Fire
Sector Federation • Sir Martin Moor-Bick, Lead Judge, Grenfell Tower
Crispin Francis, Head of Electronics, Security and Public Inquiry
Investigation Services, BRE Global
We’d also like to thank everyone who submitted a
The winners nomination and congratulate all those who were
•  tephen Greenhalgh, Minister of State, MHCLG, Fire
S nominated, whether they are named here or not. Both the
Minister, UK Home Office quality and quantity of entries was extremely high this
year. The awards showed the passion and commitment
• Dame Judith Hackitt, Chair, MAKE UK that so many of the professionals involved in security and
• Nick Coombe, MBE, Building Safety Programme Hackitt fire safety hold for their respective sectors.
Lead, NFCC
You can find out more about this year’s winners here.
• Michael Harper, Chair, Fire Sector Federation
• Chandru Dissanayeke, Director of Building Safety
Reform, MHCLG

• Sir Thomas Winsor, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, Fire &

Rescue Services

18
 www.ifsecglobal.com
www.ifsecglobal.com

THE
THE NUMBER
NUMBER ONE
ONE SOURCE
SOURCE OF
OF
ONLINE
ONLINE CONTENT
CONTENT FOR
FOR SECURITY
SECURITY
AND
AND FIRE
FIRE SAFETY
SAFETY PROFESSIONALS
PROFESSIONALS
IFSEC
IFSECGlobal
Globalisisthe
theleading
leadingprovider
providerof
ofnews,
news,exclusive
exclusivereports,
reports,
industry
industrythought
thoughtleadership,
leadership,webinars,
webinars,whitepapers
whitepapersand
andmore.
more.

••Video
Videosurveillance
surveillance
••Physical
Physicalsecurity
security
••Smart
Smartbuildings
buildings
••Access
Accesscontrol
control
Fire
Firealarms
alarms••
••Cyber
Cybersecurity
security
Fire
Firesprinklers
sprinklers••
••Drones
Drones
Regulatory
Regulatoryupdates
updates••
••IoT
IoT
Passive
Passivefire
fireprotection
protection••
••And
Andmore
more
And
Andmore
more••

Join
Jointhe
theIFSEC
IFSECGlobal
GlobalNewsletter
Newslettercommunity
community
and
and receive weekly industry news andupdates
receive weekly industry news and updates
to
tokeep
keepyou
youat
atthe
theforefront
forefrontof
ofthe
theindustry.
industry.
7854_IFS_GLO20_Advert
7854_IFS_GLO20_Advert

7854_IFS_GLO20_Advert_297x210mm.indd 1 01/06/2020 16:49

7854_IFS_GLO20_Advert_297x210mm.indd 1 01/06/2020 16:49