Challenges in Fire Safety Code Compliance

I receive the email newsletter from the HSE/Building Safety Regulator, and in the latest one, there are videos from Philip White, the Chief Inspector of Building Safety. He talks through the Gateway 2 process and some of the challenges the BSR has been facing. Until watching these videos, I had the view that the BSR was under-resourced and struggling to cope with the volume of applications, and possibly rejecting submissions on minor issues to buy themselves time. While Philip White acknowledged that the BSR has had challenges, I now don't think it is all down to them. He explained that some applications have been rejected because they lacked the detail required to assess the design. This struck a chord with me. The industry has been saying it needs more clarity from the BSR about what’s required for a Gateway 2 submission. All that is needed is information to demonstrate compliance with all relevant standards and, in particular, provide evidence that the building will be safe, especially in terms of fire strategy. Listening to the reasons for rejection, it seems that in some cases, the missing detail is fundamental compliance information. This has made me reflect on our current procurement processes. I believe it can make it difficult to define specifications early in the design. Commercial pressures during tendering can delay key decisions that are needed for the BSR to be confident the design is compliant. A simple example is typically sprinkler design or fire stopping is left to subcontractors and the detail is rarely know until the start on site. It also exposed a potential skills gap in the industry. Many design teams are unfamiliar with what a truly comprehensive Gateway 2 submission looks like. There’s often a lack of appreciation for what needs to be included. For example, assessing fire safety requires every wall, partition, and fire barrier to be specified rather than merely a performance specification.1 From watching the videos, it’s clear the BSR is under pressure to process Gateway 2 applications efficiently, but they can only do so when the information provided is sufficiently detailed. If the industry wants faster approvals, it needs to submit complete and coordinated information. If you’re unsure what’s required, just look at RIBA Plan of Work Stage 4, it sets it out clearly. The problem, in my view, is that many applications barely meet Stage 3. Designers aren’t used to producing fully detailed and specified packages before work starts on site, information that’s often only finalised deep into Stage 5. So I wonder: is the real issue not the BSR, but the industry itself? Designers may lack the knowledge and confidence to produce what’s needed, and procurement models make early delivery of this information incredibly difficult. I’d be really interested to hear others’ views on this.

There's a growing push to allow apartment buildings up to six stories to be built with only one exit stair. But what are the implications of this for fire safety? When a building has just a single exit stair, the entire means of egress becomes susceptible to a single point of failure. During a fire, that stairway is critical—not only for occupants evacuating but also for first responders trying to access the building. Imagine firefighters trying to ascend to fight a fire while occupants are simultaneously trying to descend. It poses unique challenges for effective emergency response and for the safety of both residents and firefighters. Relying on multiple systems to function perfectly—like sprinklers, alarms, and fire-rated construction—puts considerable emphasis on system maintenance. Yet, many localities face staffing shortages, making annual inspections challenging. This is particularly concerning when we consider that 70% of fire departments across the U.S. are staffed by volunteers with limited capacity to cover increasing responsibilities. If we aren’t inspecting these systems regularly, can we really ensure the same level of safety that the building had at construction? Furthermore, current fire codes do not mandate annual inspections of multifamily dwellings. While the State of California has legislation requiring the annual inspection of these occupancies, it is unclear if similar mandates exist in other states. This lack of uniformity in inspection requirements further complicates efforts to ensure fire safety across all jurisdictions. The discussion on this issue, as highlighted in NFPA's Fire & Life Safety Ecosystem, shows how code compliance, government responsibility, and emergency preparedness are all interconnected. We must maintain the standards that uphold life safety, and we should pursue housing innovation in a way that does not compromise fire protection principles. A comprehensive community risk assessment is important to evaluate fire department capabilities, especially when considering changes like allowing single exit stair buildings. Such an assessment helps determine if fire departments have the resources, equipment, and personnel needed to respond effectively to increased risks. Understanding these capabilities is essential to ensure that emergency preparedness aligns with the potential hazards posed by these buildings. Ensuring these measures are in place helps protect not only the residents but also the first responders. 👉 Click here to read the report from the National Fire Protection Association. (2024). One stair, two perspectives: Single exit stair symposium. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association. https://lnkd.in/gdemT8cK #FireSafety #CommunityRiskReduction #SingleExitStair #BuildingCodes #FireMarshal

Compliance with laws and regulations can be complex. Much of it has to do with awareness, knowing that there is something to comply with. As a business owner, it is on you. In a recent round of inspections to do asset inventory and compliance, I found businesses with no functioning emergency lights, fire extinguishers that had not been checked monthly, not inspected in 2 years, and fire doors with non-device associated hold opens propping the doors open. An electrical contractor had 12 uncovered outlets and switches and an open panel, no railing on their mezzanine and the stairs to the mezzanine, and NO fire extinguishers. Found a facility with missing smoke detectors, and the lighting control panel not functioning so they flipped breakers every day to operate the lights. Some of this goes to uninformed owners, and some goes to understaffed City Fire Departments not doing commercial inspections annually. Either way, the condition of many of our commercial spaces is severely out of compliance, and even unsafe. Business owners need to be educated. You can imagine that if that is the compliance condition, what the physical condition due to lack of maintenance, is of their building assets. Business owners get into Triple Net Leases to save money on the monthly rent, having no idea that they have to maintain the assets (and what that really means), inspect and test Life Safety devices on their dime. All of that being said, what about compliance with Clean Building Performance Standards that have been enacted in multiple states? Building owners were notified, but have they informed the Triple Net Lease holders of the deadlines? The building owner is responsible to the State, but the lease says the tenant is financially responsible. In my experience, tenants are unaware. Owning a business is tough, owners are focussed on keeping the business going, they don't know about everything that needs to go on from a compliance perspective, and WHEN the City Fire Department does an inspection, they get hit heavy with non-compliance items. Since small business can not afford, nor do the need a full time Facilities Manager, they need to have a Facilities Consultant providing them guidance in these areas. Giving them a written Preventative Maintenance program for their specific assets, a list of compliance requirements, updates on new regulations like Clean Building Performance Standards. Helping them put out RFP/Qs for maintenance and inspection contracts, and selecting qualified contractors so they get what is in their best interests, not what is most profitable for the contractor.

Security + Life Safety: Why Early Coordination in Stairwells is Critical One of the most overlooked areas in building design is the stairwell, where security systems and life safety systems must work in tandem. Getting this wrong can lead to confusion during an emergency, code violations, or costly redesigns. Key coordination points include: *Card Readers & Door Hardware – ensuring secure access while maintaining free egress under fire alarm conditions. Per IBC 1008.1.9 and NFPA 101 (Life Safety Code) 7.2.1.6, electrified stairwell doors must allow free egress in an emergency. *Fail-Safe vs. Fail-Secure Operation – defining how locks behave when power or fire alarm is activated. NFPA 101 7.2.1.6.2 requires stairwell doors to automatically unlock in a fire alarm for occupant safety. *Fire Alarm Overrides – ensuring security hardware releases properly during an alarm. Integration must comply with NFPA 72 (National Fire Alarm & Signaling Code). *Intercoms & Area of Refuge Systems – tying security communication pathways into emergency response plans (NFPA 101 7.2.1.5). *Powering the Locks – most electrified locks are powered by the security system’s power supplies, not the fire alarm. In a fire alarm, fail-safe locks must release, ensuring doors unlock for safe occupant egress (IBC 1008.1.9.3, NFPA 101 7.2.1.6.2). Without early coordination, projects often run into scope gaps (security vs. fire responsibilities), conflicting code interpretations, or expensive last-minute fixes. The solution? Engage a professional security consultant early in design to align Division 28 (Security) with Division 21/28 (Fire Alarm) and Division 8 (Openings). This ensures compliance with IBC, NFPA 101, and NFPA 72, operational clarity, and—most importantly—the safety of occupants. If you are about to design or build a multi-floor building, strongly consider bringing on a security consultant/designer early to ensure the project is designed correctly, avoids costly rework, and protects both people and property. At the end of the day, a stairwell is more than just a fire-rated shaft; it’s a lifeline in an emergency. Ensuring that security and fire systems are aligned from the outset is crucial for building smarter, safer facilities. #Security #LifeSafety #Division28 #Division8 #FireAlarm #BuildingDesign #Coordination #IBC #NFPA101 #NFPA72 #SecurityConsulting

Good Folks! Barking & Dagenham are now staring down a £6m bill to retrofit two brand‑new council‑backed schemes because of fire safety flaws – including MISSING CAVITY BARRIERS and non‑compliant FIRE-STOPPING around service penetrations. These are not subtle edge‑cases at the margins of guidance; THESE ARE THE ALPHABET-PRIMER BASICS of life safety design that EVERY COMPETENT TEAM IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE HARD-WIRED into its processes. How – this far on from Grenfell, from the Hackitt Review, from endless “lessons learned” seminars – are buildings still being handed over with fundamental compartmentation and façade fire performance issues baked in, only to be “discovered” years later at enormous public cost? This is not just about one borough: Design sign‑off, product substitution and value engineering are still routinely allowed to erode the very measures that keep residents alive when fire breaks out. Good Folks, if missing cavity barriers and compromised fire‑stopping can still slip through on publicly backed schemes in 2026, what confidence should any resident have that the system is now “fixed”? At what point do we stop talking about “historic failings” and start calling this what it is: a continuing refusal to treat safety‑critical design elements as non‑negotiable? Oversight remains heavily weighted to paper compliance at gateway points, while constructed reality in the cavity, in the riser, and behind the plasterboard escapes critical scrutiny until something goes badly wrong. https://lnkd.in/eNTWwsqb