F&RM Journal FPA Main Site
ACCESSIBILITY

Opening proceedings at the FIA Guidance Theatre on Wednesday 29 May, Russ Timpson delivered an in-depth presentation on the transformative potential of parametric insurance and the increasing role of data-driven strategies in the fire safety industry.

He began by discussing the traditional drivers of change in fire safety, noting that unfortunately, major improvements often follow tragic events that result in significant loss of life, such as the Grenfell Tower fire. Timpson argued for a more proactive approach, saying “there must be a better way”. He noted that innovation and, crucially, financial incentives – particularly insurance costs – could be the key levers for advancing fire safety standards.

He explained that insurance premiums have risen sharply in the wake of high-profile incidents, making the cost of insurance a significant factor in building management and design decisions. The increased requirements for a golden thread of information, however should now provide a comprehensive digital record of building safety information.

As the sector moves beyond basic code compliance towards higher levels of resilience and redundancy in building design, this growing need for robust fire safety data collection and management, can be used to leverage substantial savings in operational expenses and insurance premiums over a building’s lifecycle through the emergence of parametric insurance.

Unlike traditional insurance, which pays out after a loss is assessed, parametric insurance uses real-time data from building management systems (BMS), digital twins, and other smart technologies to set premiums and trigger payouts based on predefined parameters (such as system failures or environmental conditions). Timpson explained that this model rewards buildings that can provide high-quality, real-time data, potentially lowering insurance costs for those who invest in advanced monitoring and management systems.

He elaborated on the technological advancements enabling this shift, including the proliferation of internet-connected devices, the development of digital twins (virtual models of physical buildings), and the application of artificial intelligence to aggregate and analyse data. These innovations not only support more accurate risk assessment and insurance pricing but also enhance overall fire safety by enabling predictive maintenance and rapid response to emerging risks.

By having the tools and procedures in place to collect this data, it will also allow regulators and fire and rescue services to access, check, and monitor buildings in real time, further ensuring high levels of fire safety are maintained.

Timpson urged those with responsibility for buildings to prepare for this data-driven future by conducting gap analyses of their current information management practices, migrating to integrated digital systems, and engaging proactively with insurers to understand the requirements for parametric insurance. He predicted that while these changes are currently most relevant to large, complex buildings, the approach will eventually become standard across the industry.

In closing, Timpson reiterated that the adoption of parametric insurance and comprehensive data strategies represents a major opportunity to improve fire safety, reduce costs, and drive industry-wide change. He encouraged fire safety managers and building operators to begin strategic planning now to stay ahead of these developments, saying: “A good fire strategy with relevant available fire status data will save you money”.

sooner or later the courts will start making judgments if you are not performing to the level of the new standards - Dr Gavin Dunn

Dr Gavin Dunn

Taking the stage at a packed Compliance Theatre, Dr Gavin Dunn, Chief Executive of the Fire Protection Association delivered a comprehensive overview of the sweeping regulatory changes currently transforming fire risk assessment and competency requirements.

He began by emphasising that these changes represent the most significant overhaul of regulations in the sector since World War II, affecting a wide range of professionals – from fire engineers and risk assessors to construction managers and property managers. Dr Dunn stressed that no one should assume their role is unaffected, as the “current regulatory changes happening are going to affect everyone in the sector”. New regulations will impact all aspects of fire safety work.

The catalyst for these changes was the Grenfell Tower tragedy, which exposed critical failings in fire safety practices and prompted a robust regulatory response. The subsequent public inquiry produced 58 recommendations, all of which the government has accepted and is now implementing. Dr Dunn explained that this has led to a flurry of regulatory activity, including 11 major consultations currently underway.

A key legislative development is the Building Safety Act, which introduced the Building Safety Regulator, new gateway processes for high-rise and high-risk buildings, and, crucially, new duty-holder requirements. These require building owners and contractors to appoint competent persons for fire risk assessments and to provide adequate resources for them to perform their duties. The responsibility for ensuring competency is now embedded in contracts and cascades down the supply chain, fundamentally changing how services are procured and delivered.

Dr Dunn explained that the definition of competency is becoming much more granular and role-specific, saying that this represented a “fundamentally different approach to how they’re assessing competency”. Professionals must now demonstrate up-to-date knowledge, skills, and experience relevant to the specific type of building and assessment.

Highlighting the fact that the government intends to regulate the fire risk assessment profession, mandating third-party certification and ongoing competency validation, including periodic requalification and revalidation, he noted that this will require “a very different way of working, with legal penalties for those practising that do not meet those requirements”. With only part of the market currently certified he expects that there will be “a whole lot of people who will need to get certified when the date is announced.”

Dr Dunn outlined, two new British Standards were introduced in August 2025 to support this shift - namely BS 9792, the Code of Practice for fire risk assessment in housing, and BS 8674, which sets out the competency framework for individuals conducting fire risk assessments. He described these as “the key documents for reference when you go about getting qualified and certified as a fire risk assessor in the future”.

He explained that BS 9792 replaces part of the previous PAS 79 standard for housing, while BS 8674 defines the levels of competency required depending on the complexity and risk profile of the building. He noted that these standards are already in effect and are being referenced in contracts and procurement processes.

Looking ahead, Dr Dunn highlighted that the government has confirmed its intent to legislate for mandatory competency and certification, with a public consultation on the details running until 18 June. He expects to see legislation introduced in 2025, with full mandatory certification requirements potentially coming into force by 2028-2029. However, he cautioned that professionals should not wait for the legal deadline, as the new standards already carry weight in law and are being used as benchmarks in court and by regulators.

He strongly advised fire risk assessors and those commissioning assessments to begin aligning with the new standards and pursuing relevant qualifications and certifications now, because as he explains “sooner or later the courts will start making judgments if you are not performing to the level of the new standards.”

Dr Gavin Dunn speaking at the Fire Safety Event 2026

We must move forward from simply compliance to confidence in performance. This will build trust in the buildings and the homes in the future. - Richard Glover

Richard Glover

Later on Day Two on the Fire Safety Leaders’ Summit stage, the FPA’s Director of Testing and Inspection Services, Richard Glover, led a session centred on the complex and evolving fire safety challenges associated with Modern Methods of Construction (MMC). He was joined by Agnieszka Melling-Sawicka, Associate Director at PartB and Simon Ince, Programme Manager at UL Solutions.

Glover noted that as the industry shifts from traditional, on-site, labour-intensive building techniques to more innovative, factory-based approaches such as volumetric, panelised, and hybrid systems, it represents “not just a construction shift, it’s a shift on how fire safety risk needs to be understood and managed.”

The panellists all agreed that while MMC offers benefits like improved quality, consistency, and productivity, it also introduces new materials, interfaces, and construction sequences that complicate fire safety assessment.

A major theme was the persistent gap between design intent and execution. Even when products are correctly specified and tested at the design stage, changes and unforeseen conditions during construction can undermine fire safety. Melling-Sawicka noted problems found on site, including “incorrectly installed fire stopping, compromised compartmentation, hidden voids and fire spread paths, and unclear structural fire behaviour”.

Melling-Sawicka gave an example case where glazing systems, though properly specified and tested, failed to account for differences in site conditions, leading to late-stage modifications and increased costs. The panel agreed that this example underscores the need for better communication and collaboration among designers, manufacturers, and contractors from the earliest project stages.

The limitations of traditional product-level fire testing were also discussed. While individual components may have strong evidence of fire performance, their behaviour as part of a complete system can differ significantly. Glover noted that the critical areas for fire safety in MMC builds are around the “interfaces, penetrations and junctions, installation and sequencing, and is not typically around individual products.”

The panellists then went on to share further real-world examples where systems composed of individually tested components failed at the interfaces or junctions when tested as a whole, revealing weaknesses not apparent in isolated product tests. These examples highlight the necessity for system-level testing and assessment to ensure actual fire performance matches expectations, with Ince explaining that this is often the result of “innovation without the checks and balances of third-party certification.”

The group then went on to discuss the regulatory response to these challenges, particularly the introduction of the PAS 8700 framework. This aims to clarify roles and responsibilities throughout the MMC process and encourages early, evidence-based design and testing, with an emphasis on the importance of digital records, traceability, and third-party certification. All three speakers saw the framework as a positive step, providing a structured, quality-assurance-based approach that assigns clear accountability to principal designers, MMC consultants, and contractors. Ince described the PAS as a “quality assurance document”, and explained that this should drive more rigorous due diligence and encourage the use of system-level evidence rather than relying solely on component certification. He explained that “if I was put my name to something, I’d make sure I had evidence that supported the design theory and performance theory about it, because that way I’m protected.”

The panel also agreed that while PAS 8700 and similar initiatives are voluntary, their adoption is likely to become a de facto standard for best practice, especially as the industry and regulators increasingly demand robust, system-based fire safety evidence.

In summing up, Glover explained that “we must shift our thinking from simply products and components to the more holistic system thinking”. The discussion concluded with a call for a shift from compliance-focused thinking to a performance-based approach, where confidence in MMC fire safety is built on empirical evidence and holistic system assessment. Ongoing collaboration, early engagement, and a willingness to challenge assumptions were identified as key to improving fire safety outcomes in the rapidly evolving MMC landscape, with Glover concluding: “We must move forward from simply compliance to confidence in performance. This will build trust in the buildings and the homes in the future.”

From left to right: Simon Ince, Agnieszka Melling-Sawicka, and Richard Glover

Day three highlights

The final day of FSE 2026 saw building compliance service provider Ventro Group discuss innovation arising from the changing fire safety landscape. Led by Ventro’s Compliance and Technical Director, Steven Wilson, the talk considered the evolution of fire safety standards, including a notable increase in scrutiny and accountability, following the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire.

Under the terms of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA), the duties of Responsible Persons have become considerably stricter, with enforcement now applying to individuals, not just organisations. Wilson also noted a market shift from paper-based fire safety management to digital traceability and greater compliance requirements, made possible through the golden thread of information.

It also sees a move away from reactive fire safety compliance and towards proactive risk-led innovation supported by evidence: “Ten years ago, much of fire safety management was purely paper-based. It was reactive, and it was often revisited only when something went wrong.”

Wilson added that the change in attitudes had largely been driven by the residents themselves, with today’s clients expecting more from service providers, including greater compliance visibility and less reliance on assumptions. 

“They want transparency, they expect reliability, they expect fewer false alarms, and they want minimal disruption during any of the works,” he said.

Differing expectations and the need for greater digital oversight mean that there should now exist real-time records of building safety, with applications now available for fire door and compartment tracking. This new model of inspection involves evidence gathering and allows for tracking, verification, and maintenance records to prove compliance.

Alongside the evolution in safety standards are technological advancements and an increasing adoption of next-generation materials. For instance, from traditional timber fire door cores to the introduction of composite doors, hybrid timber doors, and steel doors to improve fire performance and durability. It has also enabled manufacturers to address traditional fire stopping challenges through innovations such as cavity inspection cameras, digital compartmentation mapping, and cloud-based fire stopping registers.

As Wilson explained: “The Building Safety Act has changed expectations dramatically, and the focus is now not just on compliance, but on providing compliance continuously.”

This is where Building Information Modelling (BIM) and the golden thread really matter, he adds, as the technology now exists to ensure the maintenance of accurate building records, from installation specifications to product certification and maintenance histories, inspection evidence, and change management records.

This is especially critical in the case of high-rise and high-risk buildings.

“The future of building safety is definitely digital,” Wilson stated. “It’s definitely evidence-led and data-driven, and BIM is no longer just a design tool. It’s becoming the foundation of compliance itself.”

The issue isn’t just that prosecutions exist, it’s that they’re happening in a system where the standard is still being determined - Peter Thomas

Peter Thomas

On the Fire Safety Leaders Summit stage, Peter Thomas, Fractional CRO/Commercial Partner at Signal, discussed the complexities of criminal prosecutions for fire risk assessors (FRAs) in light of increased scrutiny around fire safety standards and compliance.

Sharing case studies from those who have faced prosecution in recent years, as well as legal experts in the field of fire safety, Thomas highlighted some of the key learnings that the relatively small profession of fire risk assessment can take note of.

Thomas explained that under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the Responsible Person (RP) has a duty of care to ensure the safety of their premises; however, recent cases have opened up new interpretations of this same law, with the duty of care extending to others who have “control, even limited control, over premises in safety-related matters”.

Thomas noted that some fire authorities could argue that an FRA who had control over the premises for fire safety would become an RP for that same premises when carrying out their assessment. Thomas adds that whilst this is not a “true reverse burden”, the shared bond between the FRA and RP meant that an FRA could also become partly responsible for ensuring that “all reasonable steps” had been taken and that due diligence was exercised. 

With no statute of limitations, the legal implications for FRAs are considerable, with Thomas adding that sometimes many years later, FRAs will be prosecuted and “may need to rely on evidence showing that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence when undertaking that process”.

He pointed out that, in court, the suitability and sufficiency of a fire risk assessment is only analysed when all the facts are known, prompting questions about the definition of “suitable and sufficient” and who determines this. Based on the outcomes of some recent cases, judges appeared to be inclined to be led by the fire and rescue service as experts in this field. 

The fire risk assessment is not just a static document but an ongoing process that is analysed according to the latest available information, Thomas stated. A process based on what information was requested, provided, missing, inspected, inaccessible, verified, not verified, and what action could be taken as a result. Together, they form the basis of the conclusions reached in the assessment that will later come under greater scrutiny in the courtroom.

They are rarely carried out under perfect conditions, and FRAs can find difficulty in obtaining accurate information from clients, with the potential also for misinformation. Thomas also noted that there was a lack of public awareness about ongoing prosecution, preventing open discussions to encourage learning.

“The issue isn’t just that prosecutions exist, it’s that they’re happening in a system where the standard is still being determined. We’ve seen greater standards this year, from our competence, the standards we’re still working on, the judgment is retrospective, and the visibility around enforcement is limited.”

He added: “The real question is whether the profession is prepared.”

Gateway compliance insights

Day Three also welcomed a panel discussion on gateway compliance insights and data-driven strategies for building control applications, featuring Sally Friswell, Director at Arup; Nikki Barrow, Building Safety Consultant for Anstey Horne; and Maz Ruth, Strategic Growth and Implementation Manager for Sureserve Compliance Fire. Introducing the panel members was Nicola Roberts, Head of Service at Siemens, who began by asking what the most common reasons were for gateway submission delays and resubmissions to the Building Safety Regulator (BSR).

Chartered fire engineer Friswell said that one key reason was the lack of comprehensive evidence and coordination between different design elements. She shared one example where the CFD and fire strategy were inconsistent, leading to confusion and rejection.

“Simply filing the [safety] code isn’t good enough anymore. You need to understand what the legislation is that you need to provide and what the basis of compliance is.”

Barrow noted that there were instances where the design information had been insufficiently developed, with a lack of information shown in their submissions. “Ultimately, it should be a case that all the designing is done by that point, and you are absolutely ready to put your wheels on the ground and start your build.”

Barrow also highlighted the need for documentation to be clearly organised within a structured repository or file, as opposed to a data dump.

Friswell added: “I think the term golden thread really underplays the complexity of what’s being asked.”

There is an assumption that it is very simple, but it requires different levels of skillset to bring that information together, she added. As the safety record for a building, the golden thread of information holds key data on what has been designed, what has been installed, what has been changed and why, and key maintenance information. In practice, this means that there is one accurate “single source of truth” that is non-conflicting, but raises questions about who is responsible for the information in the case of conflicting records.

In comparison, Friswell noted that a strong gateway application submission should demonstrate a “complete and coordinated design”.

“Every designer needs to be clear on what they need to comply with, and what they have done to achieve that, and they need to coordinate with each other.”

While such coordination is an iterative process, it does highlight current gaps and shortages in capacity and resources, with the panel acknowledging that it is going to time to rectify these issues.

MORE FEATURED ARTICLES

Looking at PEEPs
Evacuations and inclusion
Social responsibilities