Advancing early-stage fire safety design: Why Global HSE Group created a Level 4 pathway

Global HSE Group outlines how its Level 4 Fire Safety Design qualification addresses gaps between regulatory guidance, drawings and what is built on site

Fire safety is most effective when embedded at the earliest stages of a project, yet it is often introduced late in the design process, leading to costly rework and compromised performance. Global HSE Group set out to address this through the creation of the Level 4 Fire Safety Design qualification, the first of its kind to embed regulatory and technical understanding at the design stage. Developed to meet UK regulations, it is now being adapted to align with the UAE Fire and Life Safety Code of Practice and other Middle Eastern standards.

In this discussion, Managing Director Andrew Cooper, Head of Technical and Training Chris Sharman, former West Yorkshire Fire Service Group Manager Nigel Craven, and Fire Safety Consultant Keith Plowman explain how the qualification was shaped, the gap is addresses, and how Global HSE’s dual role as both educator and practitioner informs its aim to raise competence through structured training and growing digital access across the region.

Was there a gap in the industry that prompted Global HSE to create the Level 4 Fire Safety Design qualification?

Chris: There were two main drivers. The first was a direct request from one of our tier one contractor clients, who wanted training for their design teams, especially the people doing design work on site. While we were developing that, we realised there was a wider structural gap in the qualification landscape.

A number of us at Global HSE had previously completed a Level 4 Diploma in fire safety management. To reach Level 4 you often have to divert into a different discipline and then come back, rather than progressing in a clear technical line. As we were building something for our client, we saw that gap and decided to create a qualification that would sit between the Level 3 technical awards and the Level 5 fire engineering route.

Andrew: Alongside that, we had eight years of experience working with tier one contractors, project teams, architects and designers where we kept encountering the same issues in fire safety design. There was a lack of formal competence in understanding regulatory requirements, fields of application, interpreting manufacturers data and test evidence, and understanding how components should work together as tested systems rather than ad hoc assemblies.

In the UK, Regulation 7 of the Building Regulations, which covers materials and workmanship, came up repeatedly. In around 90 per cent of finished buildings we reviewed under defective premises claims, the core weakness was either poor workmanship or inappropriate product selection. It was clear the people doing the work did not fully understand Regulation 7.

The Level 4 course is intended to close that gap. It focuses on selecting appropriate materials, understand supporting design information, and delivering workmanship that meets the functional requirements at completion.

We had also been offering a “fire scrutineer” service since around 2016, which is essentially a modern version of the old clerk of works. We were brought in to look at buildings during construction and found that many were not being built incorrectly in a legal sense, but they were being built poorly from a fire safety perspective.

How does early design integration prevent retrofits or compromises later during project delivery?

Andrew: A key aim is give people a roadmap. That means knowing where to find the right information, understanding system design and ensuring that products are selected and installed as tested systems, rather than individual components.

We developed the course from our experience of tier one projects where designers and contractors were pulling in components from multiple manufacturers without fully understanding how they behaved in combination.

Keith: The gap usually appears between what is drawn and what is built. On a computer, buildings  are perfect and it never rains. On site it is a completely different environment. Products are swapped, details are adjusted, and value engineering does not always take full account of the fire strategy.

Early integration is about ensuring that everyone involved has the right skills and training so that decisions they make along the way do not undermine the original design philosophy. That is really what early integration is about.

What are the main learning outcomes or skills that professionals gain from this qualification?

Nigel: The qualification is split into two units. The first is the knowledge component covering fire science, active and passive fire protection, and fire safety management. It also addresses routine testing responsibilities for people managing buildings. Finally, it considers fire risk in the built environment and touches on the fire risk assessment process.

The second unit is entirely practical. Learners must demonstrate that they can apply what they have learned. They complete two tabletop exercises using large plan drawings and produce a coherent fire safety design for a given scenario.

We talk them through the design guidance module by module. In the exercise they then have to prove they can interpret that guidance and apply that guidance correctly.

By the end, they are able to take a floor plan and decide where 30, 60 or 120 minute compartmentation is needed, where emergency lighting should go, which doors are fire doors and how to factor in doors when calculating occupancy. It is about moving from knowing the words in the guidance to being able to use it properly on a real layout.

How did UK regulations shape the course, and what changed for UAE code alignment?

Chris: The course is structured around UK regulatory guidance, but it translates well to the Gulf. Many Gulf states already blend British standards with NFPA material, and British influence remains strong.

Much of the testing still references BS and BS EN standards, which makes adaptation for the UAE Fire and Life Safety Code relatively straightforward.

Are there clear differences in how fire safety design is approached in the UK compared with the Middle East?

Chris: Where Approved Document B provides scope, Gulf regulations tend to specify exactly what must be done. This reflects experience with high-rise fires and results in particularly stringent requirements for tall buildings.

Andrew: The real weakness in both regions is not the codes themselves but the lack of knowledge at site level and at the final design stage. People making key decisions do not always understand the implications of material selection and system assembly. That is what we are trying to address with this qualification.

How does Global HSE’s education and site experience shape how the programme is delivered?

Andrew: We deliberately worked with awarding bodies and followed formal qualification requirements rather than delivering a simple CPD course. The aim was to create a recognised progression route, not just a certificate of attendance.

We wanted a qualification that sits properly in the UK framework and that gives learners a meaningful progression route, not just a certificate of attendance.

Keith: We are not just trainers. We are also installers, maintainers and consultants. If we have a topic that is heavily fire engineering focused, we can go to our fire engineers and ask, “How does this work in practice?”

That practical insight feeds directly into the training and keeps it grounded in current practice, not just theory.

What feedback have organisations or learners shared after completing or trialling the qualification?

Andrew: We already have several hundred learners lined up in the UK for the Level 4 qualification, and we are in discussions with the Construction Leadership Council and hope to evolve these and establish further recognition and wider rollout throughout 2026.

Nigel: Our internal trial group found it demanding but appropriate for Level 4. One learner with a degree in civil engineering said it stretched his understanding which is exactly what we want at Level 4.

Will other programmes be digitised for the region, and how will this affect access and consistency?

Andrew: We are digitising the Level 4 course and others, but formal assessment requirements mean this must be done carefully.

Keith: We do not want a passive click-through course. Classroom interaction remains important, both for learners and assessors. Digital delivery will complement, not replace, that approach.

How might qualifications like this influence wider competence standards and career pathways?

Andrew: Yes. We have aligned the qualification with the existing competence frameworks in the UK. We have mirrored the competence requirements that have been set out nationally so that this course sits as part of a recognised pathway rather than a standalone product.

The idea is that someone with Level 3 technical qualifications can move into this Level 4 and through to higher-level fire engineering and management roles

Looking ahead, what role would you like to see Global HSE playing in advancing fire safety education and regulation across the Middle East?

Andrew: We see our role as both contributor and partner. We already support clients operating across the UK, Europe and the Middle East. Expanding this qualification regionally, supported by digital delivery, is a key growth area.

More broadly, we aim to take lessons from live projects, remediation work and new legislation and turn them into practical training. Our goal is to help professionals apply requirements consistently and competently across both the UK and the Middle East.

Our aim is to take lessons from live projects and remediation work and turn them into practical training that improves real-world outcomes. This helps professionals across the UK and the Middle East apply requirements in a consistent and competent way as building complexity and regulatory expectations continue to increase.

This was originally published in the January 2026 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

Built environment competence hub officially launches for industry professionals

Built environment professionals gain access to a new competence hub

The Built Environment Competence Hub officially launched on 19th January to provide industry professionals with immediate access to competence frameworks and standards.

The Fire Protection Association (FPA) confirmed the British Standards Institution (BSI) is managing the resource in collaboration with the Industry Competence Steering Group (ICSG).

The ICSG operates as a formal working group of the Industry Competence Committee (ICC).

The ICC is a statutory committee under the Building Safety Regulator (BSR).

This committee delivers competence-related functions specified within the Building Safety Act 2022.

The steering group was established to enable culture change across the built environment in relation to competency.

Resources and sector accessibility

The FPA stated that practical resources and insights from the BSI and the ICSG are now provided through the platform.

The platform aims to simplify the competence sector by making information accessible in a centralised space.

Knowledge and resources are tailored to specific industry roles and sectors following the live launch.

The system provides a cross-industry view of how roles and duty holders connect.

Eligible participants include those in design, construction and the manufacture of construction products.

Building management, trade bodies, education providers and regulators are also invited to join.

Registered users have access to newsletters, webinars, events and case studies.

The hub allows for direct engagement with industry voices within an active community – with newsletters, webinars, events and case studies – to support professional development.

Professionals can now access the full suite of resources and registration options through the official BSI website at https://competence.bsigroup.com/

AEI Cables highlights compliance focus for Category 3 fire performance cables

Compliance and cabling choices under the new regime

AEI Cables has said choosing the correct cabling under the new regulatory regime is critical for safety across the construction industry supply chain.

The company said it is receiving requests from customers for help staying within the legal framework of the Building Safety Act and its requirements as the new Building Safety Regulator starts to make enforcement for non-compliance.

Stuart Dover, general manager of AEI Cables, said: “This is a difficult time for the construction supply industry and those addressing the new legislation including electrical cabling requirements.

“We believe in using the correct and most relevant cabling to meet specific needs for all reasons of safety.

“We are happy to answer queries with our technical help as it may save a lot of time and effort and help our customers and others keep within the legal limits of the act.”

Cable categories and stated survival times

AEI Cables is highlighting Category 3 fire performance cables where relevant, describing them as designed to withstand heat and flames for up to 120 minutes to protect equipment and provide emergency power to assist firefighters.

It said these cables support critical safety circuits in tall buildings, office spaces, hospitals, shopping malls and stadia.

The company also linked these cables to systems including smoke and heat extraction systems, stating they support firefighting and evacuation in life safety scenarios.

Category 1 fire performance cables are described as providing 30 minutes of defence against flames and being used for emergency lighting.

Category 2 cables are described as providing 60 minutes of fire protection and being commonly used for alarm systems.

Product approvals and certifications referenced

AEI Cables said its Firetec Enhanced cabling has been approved and certified by LPCB to BS8519 (Annex B), Category 3 Control in addition to Category 2 Control.

It described BS8519 as a code of practice with six categories of cables, split into three power and three control categories covering survival times of 30, 60 or 120 minutes.

AEI Cables also said its products are supplied with approvals from independent bodies including BASEC and LPCB, and that it holds approvals from organisations including Lloyds, the MoD, Network Rail and LUL.

CROSS-UK examines ageing buildings, structural risk and battery safety considerations

Why battery safety belongs in every ageing building decision

Collaborative Reporting for Safer Structures UK (CROSS-UK) has published a Topic Paper on the ageing built environment in the UK, setting out how existing buildings and infrastructure can be managed, extended in life or repurposed.

The organisation said the paper explains how ageing assets create both challenges and opportunities once structures reach or pass their intended service life.

According to CROSS-UK, the document is based on confidential reports from engineers, asset managers and construction professionals, supported by references to anonymised CROSS Safety Reports.

The Topic Paper describes how older structures may suffer from material degradation, incomplete documentation and historic design approaches that do not align with current expectations.

CROSS-UK frames the publication as guidance for policymakers, regulators, insurers, asset owners, facilities managers and construction professionals responsible for the safety and future use of ageing buildings and other structures.

The paper states that leaving ageing assets unassessed is not an acceptable option and argues for decisions that take safety, sustainability and economic outcomes into account.

Asset knowledge, deterioration and inspection

CROSS-UK places asset knowledge at the centre of decision-making for ageing structures and highlights reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) as an example where incomplete records delayed action.

The Topic Paper notes that many older buildings lack accurate as-built information, have been altered without proper recording or contain materials that were not fully understood at the time of construction.

The report explains that this can leave owners unaware of critical elements and increase uncertainty when problems emerge.

CROSS-UK outlines how steel, concrete, masonry and timber each degrade over time, and how these processes interact with changing conditions such as climate impacts, heavier vehicles, new fire loads and system obsolescence.

The Topic Paper references failures including the Pipers Row car park, the gable collapse at Northwich Station and the Morandi Bridge to illustrate the outcomes of unmanaged deterioration.

CROSS-UK calls for structured inspection and maintenance regimes that combine scheduled and risk-based approaches and give targeted access to hidden or safety-critical components.

According to the paper, examples such as half-joint bridge failures, corroded tendons and concealed steelwork demonstrate how inaccessible details have driven catastrophic collapses.

CROSS-UK argues that maintenance must be treated as a core safety responsibility rather than a discretionary cost that can be reduced when budgets tighten.

Reuse, constraints and changing fire and battery safety risks

The Topic Paper sets out a case for reuse and repurposing as part of a lower carbon built environment, stating that retaining and adapting existing structures can reduce embodied emissions and support resource efficiency.

CROSS-UK explains that safe adaptation requires robust assessment, intrusive investigation where needed and careful review of load paths, fire safety measures and regulatory compliance when a building’s use changes.

The paper warns that poorly planned retrofit measures, such as some insulation approaches, have led to moisture problems and damage in existing structures.

CROSS-UK notes that constraints such as skills shortages, incomplete records, funding pressures and regulatory complexity can limit reuse options or push decisions towards unnecessary demolition.

The Topic Paper also refers to evolving risks, including new fire loads and obsolescent systems, and links to its separate Topic Paper on lithium-ion batteries for those addressing fire and battery safety in buildings that predate current technologies.

According to CROSS-UK, extending the life of structures requires experienced engineering judgement when applying modern standards to historic construction, with decisions based on risk, tolerable performance and the specific context of each asset.

The organisation concludes that collaboration, competence and long-term planning are needed if ageing structures are to be retained safely rather than removed by default.

How ageing asset guidance affects safety and engineering practice

The CROSS-UK Topic Paper has direct implications for asset owners and managers who oversee estates containing older buildings and infrastructure.

For these groups, the emphasis on structured inspection, record-keeping and maintenance describes practical steps that can reduce unplanned failures and support decisions on whether to retain, adapt or deconstruct structures.

Facilities managers in commercial, industrial and public sectors can use the paper’s focus on hidden components and access needs to frame inspection regimes and plan intrusive investigations where safety-critical elements are concealed.

Fire engineering consultants, architects and building services engineers gain a consolidated view of how ageing materials, changing fire loads and retrofit measures interact in older buildings, including references to separate guidance on lithium-ion battery risks.

Regulators and policymakers can draw on the discussion of RAAC, documented failures and maintenance backlogs when considering where to focus oversight, funding and future standards for existing stock.

The Topic Paper also highlights the need for skilled inspection and assessment, which is relevant for structural engineers and surveyors involved in appraising older structures for continued use, conversion or demolition.

Apollo Fire outlines how CPD and UKAS rules reshape fire safety responsibilities

As CPD becomes central to competence under BS 5839-1:2025, Apollo Fire explores how new FRA rules and UKAS certification reshape professional responsibility

Competence in fire safety has always been central to protecting lives and ensuring compliance.

What is shifting now is the way competence is defined, assessed and legally recognised.

Recent updates to BS 5839-1:2025 and changes to Fire Risk Assessment (FRA) legislation from the Home Office and MHCLG are placing greater emphasis on demonstrable qualifications, continuous learning and independent certification.

The revised standard now acknowledges Continuing Professional Development (CPD) as part of what it means to remain competent, while new rules require FRAs to be delivered by UKAS-certified providers.

These developments set a new baseline for those designing, maintaining or assessing fire detection and alarm systems, with consequences for how businesses manage compliance.

As an accredited Apollo Partner and BAFE SP205-certified body, Veritas brings practical insight into what these changes mean in practice and how organisations can prepare to meet them.

Competence and CPD

BS 5839-1:2025 now links competence to ongoing learning.

The standard describes a competent person as: “a person, suitably trained and qualified by knowledge and practical experience, and provided with the necessary instructions, to enable the required task(s) to be carried out correctly.” It adds: “Maintenance of competence is likely to require continuing professional development.”

This shift moves CPD from desirable to expected.

It sits alongside the long-standing requirement that system design and related tasks must be undertaken by a competent person who accepts responsibility for the work.

Apollo’s pocket guide reinforces that designs should be signed off by a competent person and based on an FRA carried out by someone demonstrably qualified.

Why CPD matters

The reason is straightforward: fire safety evolves with new technology, standards and risks.

BS 5839-1:2025 makes clear that competence is not a one-off achievement but an ongoing obligation.

Apollo has called this a milestone because it embeds CPD into everyday practice rather than leaving it as an optional extra.

For practitioners, it means structured learning routes that keep pace with the standard and evidence that training has taken place.

From design to cause-and-effect programming, competence must be demonstrable and current.

The pocket guide’s emphasis on accurate documentation at handover underlines the case for refreshing knowledge through CPD across a system’s lifecycle.

New FRA rules

Under new Home Office and MHCLG rules, FRAs must now be carried out by a UKAS-certified body.

At present, this requires compliance with the BAFE SP205 scheme.

SP205 mandates that works are audited, and authors undergo peer review to confirm CPD, DBS checks and Professional Indemnity insurance.

These requirements build on the framework of the Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order, in force since 2006.

The Order places duties on those in control of premises to assess and reduce risks, plan for containment and ensure safe escape.

Fire alarm designs must be risk-based, assessments kept under review, and findings properly recorded.

Risks of non-certification

FRAs carried out outside third-party certification lose statutory legal defence.

If a report is later judged inadequate by an enforcing authority, the responsible person cannot rely on the provider.

The rules also warn against credentials below UKAS level.

Non-UKAS trade body memberships may now be deemed insufficient to meet the threshold of competence, a position recognised by magistrates and coroners.

The clear message is that only UKAS-backed certification provides legal assurance.

BAFE SP205 explained

SP205 provides assurance at both company and individual level.

Organisations offering FRA services are independently audited, while assessors are peer-reviewed to prove CPD, probity and insurance cover.

This mirrors BS 5839-1:2025’s approach to competence: knowledge must be current and backed by governance.

Because SP205 is tied to UKAS certification, using a certified provider directly meets the Home Office and MHCLG requirement.

Dutyholders can therefore show their process is not just robust in practice but defensible in law.

CPD support

Apollo supports the sector’s learning needs through fortnightly CPD sessions and on-demand webinars covering technical subjects and practical application.

The updated BS 5839-1:2025 pocket guide also provides a concise reference for site-level decisions.

It addresses categories of protection, detector selection and spacing, call point placement, audibility, visual alarms, cabling and documentation.

For those with design or maintenance duties, it ensures alignment with the standard in day-to-day practice.

What businesses should do now

Organisations should first review how competence is evidenced.

Roles linked to system design should align with BS 5839-1:2025’s requirement that a competent person signs the design certificate.

Competence must be maintained through CPD, with records kept alongside drawings, certificates and log books.

Next, review your approach to Fire Risk Assessments.

Future FRAs must be commissioned from UKAS-certified providers, currently achieved through SP205.

Confirm that assessors are named, peer-reviewed and insured.

If you use providers with only non-UKAS memberships, change course quickly.

Finally, use Apollo’s CPD programme and pocket guide to brief teams on technical points of BS 5839-1:2025.

Whether dealing with audibility in sleeping accommodation, detector spacing in corridors, or fire-resistant cabling, these resources anchor compliance in practical detail.

The wider framework remains unchanged.

The Fire Safety Order has long required competent assessment, training and accurate records.

What has shifted is the clarity around how competence is proven.

With BS 5839-1:2025 tying it to CPD, and UKAS certification setting the benchmark for FRAs, the route to defensible compliance is now far clearer.

This was originally published in the November 2025 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

Certification survey from UKTC reports transparency gaps in UK fire market

UKTC survey reveals trust gaps in certification

United Kingdom Testing & Certification Ltd. (UKTC) has released a whitepaper stating that many UK fire safety professionals are dissatisfied with existing third-party certification schemes and are calling for more transparent processes eight years after the Grenfell Tower fire.

The company reported that 60% of surveyed professionals had experienced issues with their current certification providers.

According to UKTC, 82% of respondents said they wanted greater transparency in certification processes.

The survey, carried out among fire safety event attendees in 2024, captured comments describing some legacy schemes as having “inconsistent positions”, a “lack of transparency” and delivering a “poor value for money service”.

UKTC noted that 75% of respondents said they judge certification body credibility mainly on United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) accreditation status and regulatory compliance.

Andrew Hutchison, Operations Director at UKTC, said: “Despite the proliferation of third-party certification schemes, the sector still suffers from dangerous opacity.

“Field of Application reports, classification reports and test data are routinely withheld from the public, forcing specifiers and contractors to make critical safety decisions in the dark.”

UKTC ensure links certification to the Golden Thread

In response to the survey findings, UKTC has introduced UKTC ensure as a new third-party certification scheme.

The company said this scheme has been designed explicitly around the principles of the Golden Thread framework set out in Dame Judith Hackitt’s Building a Safer Future report.

UKTC added that the programme is backed by UKAS accreditation under ISO 17065 so that every performance claim can be traced and each certificate can be verified.

The firm stated that UKTC ensure publishes all supporting documentation, including Field of Application reports and classification reports.

The scheme also provides real-time updates with version control, a secure digital vault that acts as a single source of truth for certification documents and product marking that uses QR codes to give access to performance data.

According to UKTC, the scheme accepts both British (BS) and European (EN) test evidence, as well as Extended Field of Application Reports.

The company said this approach reduces barriers to joining the scheme and creates a more open route to certification and independent verification of product performance.

Industry reports call for honest product claims

The whitepaper states that change in the product and certification market is described as non-negotiable.

It cites the Paul Morrell OBE & Anneliese Day KC Report, which sets expectations for manufacturers and conformity assessment bodies.

The report is quoted as stating: “It is for product manufacturers to develop products that do the job expected of them, and to market them honestly, making no false claims; it is for Conformity Assessment Bodies to test and assess those products against defined specifications, impartially and independently.”

UKTC positioned UKTC ensure as a response to concerns raised after the Grenfell Tower fire about how products are tested, assessed and described.

Hutchison added: “The lessons of Grenfell and subsequent inquiries cannot be ignored.

“Too often, critical voices and concerns were missed or dismissed, which cannot continue.

“Real change is long overdue, and change starts with transparent certification.”

Digital evidence and standards shaping new approach

UKTC explained that it was acquired by the SOCOTEC Group earlier in 2025.

The company said the new scheme reflects a wider move toward digital, accessible and version-controlled evidence frameworks referenced in government reports and British Standards.

The whitepaper links the UKTC ensure model to the approach set out in BS 8644-1:2022 for managing fire safety information across a product’s lifecycle.

According to UKTC, the secure digital vault and real-time updates are intended to keep performance data current for those who specify, install and maintain products.

The firm stated that QR code product marking is aimed at giving users direct access to certification evidence at the point of use.

Matthew Marriott, CEO of SOCOTEC UK and Ireland, said: “The release of this whitepaper highlights several concerning shortcomings in the third-party certification market at present.

“There’s a clear requirement for radical change, and we look forward to seeing UKTC ensure have a real positive change on the sector.”

How transparent certification data affects practice

Fire engineering consultants and risk assessors could use the survey findings and the UKTC ensure model when reviewing the reliability of test evidence that underpins their designs and recommendations.

System installers and fire-protection contractors may treat the full publication of Field of Application and classification reports as a practical way to see the exact scope and limits of tested performance before selecting products.

Architects and building services engineers could draw on the digital vault and version-controlled documentation when assembling and maintaining the Golden Thread of fire safety information across a project lifecycle.

Procurement officers and facility managers may use UKAS-backed certification records, accessible via QR codes, to check that installed products still match their certified performance claims during maintenance or refurbishment work.

Standards and certification bodies can reference the whitepaper’s feedback and its alignment with BS 8644-1:2022 when reviewing how their own schemes handle transparency, data access and the publication of supporting reports.

Building safety discussions bridge design and firefighter experience

Bridging design and real-world building safety discussed at Sertus event

More than 100 professionals attended Sertus Live 2: Smoke Control in Action at the Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service Training and Development Academy in Aintree.

The event, organised by UK smoke ventilation manufacturer Sertus, focused on the ongoing challenge of aligning design intent with real-world firefighter experience.

Attendees included specialists in fire safety, mechanical and electrical (M&E) engineering, architecture and building services.

Live smoke control demonstrations, continuing professional development (CPD) sessions and panel discussions explored how system performance translates into firefighter safety.

The highlight of the day was a keynote address from Dame Judith Hackitt DBE FREng, who led the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety following the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

Her address, titled “Building Safety: Changing Thinking and Culture,” called for an industry-wide shift towards competence, accountability and collaboration across the entire building lifecycle.

Dame Judith Hackitt DBE FREng said: “Real change doesn’t come from legislation alone – it comes from mindset.

“Every part of the supply chain has a responsibility to design, specify, and deliver with safety at its heart.

“Events like Sertus Live 2 help turn that principle into practice.”

The demonstrations showed how theoretical compliance can fall short if systems are not integrated, particularly in how smoke control impacts firefighter safety during incidents.

An environment built for realism and learning

Sertus Live 2 took place at the Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service Training and Development Academy, a national centre supporting the National Resilience Assurance Team (NRAT), the UK International Search and Rescue Team (UKISAR) and secondary Fire Control.

The facility allows firefighters to train for complex high-rise and urban scenarios under realistic fire and smoke conditions.

Sertus supplied smoke ventilation systems used in the academy’s construction to simulate authentic airflow and smoke movement in controlled environments.

Phil Byrne, Area Manager at Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service, said: “What’s designed on paper doesn’t always work in the heat of an incident.

“Sertus Live 2 gave people a unique chance to see that reality, to talk openly, and to start closing the gap between design and operational effectiveness.

“That dialogue is essential if we’re serious about safer buildings.”

Building competence through connection

The event featured CPD sessions led by Sertus on “The Future of Smoke Control Shafts” and by Quelfire on “Passive Fire Protection for Service Penetrations.”

Presentations highlighted the interdependence of active and passive fire systems in protecting life and property.

A closing fireside panel encouraged participants to discuss how design, manufacturing, regulation and operational firefighting could align more closely.

Shane White, Managing Director at Sertus, said: “Our mission is simple – to safeguard lives and property through unequivocally compliant, expertly engineered smoke control products.

“Sertus Live brings that mission to life.

“By connecting manufacturers, contractors, consultants, and firefighters, we’re not just talking about compliance – we’re building competence and changing culture.”

Fraser Ruthven, Marketing Manager at Sertus, added: “Hearing the firefighter perspective first-hand was eye-opening for many attendees.

“It’s not about pointing fingers; it’s about recognising where systems fail in real-world use and working together to fix it.

“That honesty and collaboration are what Sertus Live is all about.”

Driving collaboration and raising standards

Now in its second edition, Sertus Live has become a recognised forum for industry-wide knowledge sharing and practical engagement.

Sertus confirmed that further events in the series are already planned to continue fostering open dialogue and shared learning between technical and operational disciplines.

The company said its goal remains to strengthen building safety through integrated design, effective specification and continuous professional development.

Building safety insight for design and operations professionals

The Sertus Live 2 event provided a rare live opportunity for professionals in fire safety design, mechanical and electrical engineering, and building services to see smoke control systems tested under realistic fire conditions.

For fire and rescue professionals, the demonstrations offered insight into how system performance affects operational safety during incidents.

Architects, engineers and consultants gained practical context for how smoke control design decisions influence firefighting strategy and occupant protection.

The inclusion of CPD sessions and direct dialogue with firefighters emphasised the value of aligning design competence with frontline experience.

Future events in the Sertus Live series are expected to continue supporting this integrated learning approach within the UK building safety framework.

Draft competence guidance sets framework for built environment organisations

Consultation opens on draft competence guide for organisations

The Fire Sector Confederation has confirmed the release of a draft guidance document setting out how organisations in the built environment should manage competence under the Building Safety Act 2022.

The publication, titled Managing Competence in the Built Environment: A Guide, was developed by the Industry Task and Finish Group (ITFG) in collaboration with the Industry Competence Committee (ICC) of the Building Safety Regulator.

It is now open for public consultation until 10 November 2025.

According to the Confederation, the document provides a high-level framework to help organisations design and evidence competence management systems that meet ICC principles.

It explains how companies can define, assess, and improve competence across all stages of the building lifecycle – from design and construction to occupation and ongoing management.

The guidance is described as a practical reference for creating proportionate arrangements to ensure individuals, teams and supply chains are demonstrably competent.

Framework built around 15 industry competence principles

The draft sets out fifteen principles agreed by the ICC that describe what organisations must do to plan, support and maintain competence over time.

These principles include establishing a clear scope of activities, setting competence criteria, managing recruitment and assessment processes, monitoring performance, addressing failures, and conducting regular audits and reviews.

They also cover specific responsibilities such as ensuring subcontractor capability, managing change, and maintaining accurate records of competence within a structured management system.

Each principle includes practical steps and diagnostic questions to help organisations apply the framework proportionately, whether operating as a major contractor or a small practice.

The guidance emphasises that competence must be actively managed rather than assumed, and that responsibility rests as much with organisational systems as with individual qualifications or experience.

The fifteen principles explained

  1. Purpose and scope: This principle requires organisations to define exactly what activities they undertake and the boundaries of their capability. It involves identifying relevant legal, regulatory and contractual obligations and ensuring that work remains within those limits. A clearly defined purpose and scope allows the organisation to understand where it is competent to act and where additional expertise or control may be needed.
  2. Establish competence criteria: Organisations must determine the knowledge, skills, experience and behaviours needed for each role. These criteria should be proportionate to the level of responsibility and risk associated with the task. Using recognised frameworks such as BS 8670-1 or PAS 8671–8673 helps ensure that competence standards are clear, consistent and aligned with industry expectations.
  3. Decide processes and methods: This principle focuses on designing structured and repeatable processes for planning, assessing and maintaining competence. Organisations should determine how competence will be evidenced and documented, integrating these arrangements into existing management systems where possible to ensure a consistent approach across all operations.
  4. Select and recruit staff: Recruitment and selection processes must be based on verified competence. Appointments should be made only when individuals meet the defined role requirements, supported by qualifications, references or professional registration. Induction and probationary reviews provide additional assurance that competence is demonstrated in practice.
  5. Determine workforce competence: Once staff are in post, their competence must be assessed through observation, evaluation and feedback. This step ensures that individuals are performing to the required standard and identifies any gaps in capability. Regular assessment helps organisations allocate resources effectively and maintain safe operations.
  6. Develop competence: Competence is not static and must be developed continuously. Training, mentoring and supervised practice should be used to build knowledge and strengthen professional judgement. Development programmes should focus on measurable improvement, ensuring that learning translates into competent behaviour in the workplace.
  7. Assign responsibilities: Work should only be allocated to people who have demonstrated competence for the specific task. Role boundaries and supervision levels must be clearly defined so that individuals understand what they are authorised to do. Effective task allocation prevents staff from working beyond their capability and supports safe decision-making.
  8. Monitor competence: Regular monitoring ensures that competence remains current as roles, technology and regulations evolve. Supervision, audits and performance reviews help identify where standards may be slipping or where further development is required. This continuous oversight maintains assurance that work is being carried out safely and correctly.
  9. Deal with failures: Organisations must have procedures for responding to competence-related failures or performance concerns. Investigations should establish whether shortcomings stem from individual capability, supervision, or systemic factors. Lessons learned from these events should be used to improve training, processes and management oversight.
  10. Manage assessors and managers: Those who evaluate or oversee competence must be competent themselves. Assessors, supervisors and managers need appropriate training and experience to make fair, evidence-based judgements. Regular calibration and review of their work help maintain consistency and reliability across the organisation.
  11. Manage sub-contractor competence: All subcontractors and suppliers must meet equivalent competence standards to those expected of direct employees. Organisations should verify their capability before engagement and monitor performance throughout the contract period. Clear contractual terms should specify competence requirements and audit rights.
  12. Manage information: Accurate and accessible information underpins all competence management activities. Organisations must maintain reliable records of assessments, qualifications and training. These records should be kept up to date, stored securely and used to inform workforce planning and continuous improvement.
  13. Manage change: Changes in legislation, technology, personnel or structure can alter competence needs. Organisations must assess the impact of these changes and update competence profiles, training plans and procedures accordingly. Managing change proactively ensures that capability keeps pace with new demands and risks.
  14. Audit: Auditing provides independent assurance that competence management systems are working effectively. Reviews should check compliance with internal policies, legal duties and best practice standards. Findings from audits must be recorded, acted upon and used to drive improvement.
  15. Review: Regular management reviews evaluate whether competence arrangements remain suitable and effective. Drawing on data from audits, incidents and staff feedback, reviews identify opportunities for refinement. This process supports continuous improvement and helps sustain a strong culture of competence across the organisation.

Building Safety Act context and proportional application

The Fire Sector Confederation explained that the document aligns with duties introduced under the Building Safety Act, which requires dutyholders and accountable persons to demonstrate capability and competence in fulfilling safety obligations.

The guidance outlines how these legal requirements can be translated into day-to-day organisational practices.

It introduces the Plan–Do–Check–Act (PDCA) model, a cycle commonly used in ISO 9001 and ISO 45001 management systems, to support continuous improvement in competence.

Large and complex organisations can integrate the guidance into existing certified management systems, while smaller businesses can adopt simpler proportionate arrangements such as defined role profiles, supervision processes and competence registers.

The guide also identifies supporting standards including BS 8670-1, PAS 8671-8673, and BS 8674, alongside relevant Health and Safety Executive publications and quality-management frameworks.

Review process, consultation and next steps

The consultation period will run until 10 November 2025.

A webinar on 30 October from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. will introduce the draft document and answer questions from stakeholders involved in competence management.

The session is open to all interested professionals and will provide an overview of the guidance’s objectives and structure.

Following consultation, the ITFG and ICC will review the feedback and complete a technical verification process before publishing the final version as an open-source document.

The Confederation said that once complete, the guide will provide a shared reference point for demonstrating organisational capability, supporting consistency and transparency across the built environment sector.

Relevance for fire and safety professionals

The guidance is directly applicable to fire safety officers, consultants, risk assessors, building owners and dutyholders responsible for demonstrating compliance with the Building Safety Act 2022.

It offers a clear model for defining competence standards within fire safety roles, recording professional development, and verifying supplier and subcontractor capability.

For those managing multi-disciplinary teams, the framework helps align recruitment, training and supervision practices with regulatory expectations.

It also provides practical templates and checklists that can assist in preparing evidence for regulators, clients or insurers.

Adopting the framework will allow organisations involved in fire design, construction and management to show that competence is both planned and maintained as part of a continuous assurance process.

What does the BSR’s building update mean?

The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) has released a building control GW2 update to 1 October 2025.

This update aims to demonstrate initial positive impacts on application processes for new high-rise residential buildings.

New build applications and housing units

BSR is currently progressing 152 live new build applications, representing 33,670 housing units across England.

An additional, 253 live remediation applications are also being processed, covering an estimated 22,304 housing units.

This comes amidst a steady rising pace of decisions, with determinations reaching an all-time high of 209 across all application types during August.

The newly established Innovation Unit (IU), a dedicated centralised resource is now managing 27 new build applications (6,192 housing units).

The IU is already demonstrating progress, with the majority of applications currently meeting or exceeding the 12-week service level agreement (SLA) for processing applications.

Average working days for key milestones are also currently performing better than targets.

An increased volume of cases

A new batching process was also launched during September 2025, acknowledging that the original Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) model was not effective for managing the volume of cases.

This new pilot process scales capacity by bundling applications to specialised engineering services suppliers for accelerated assessment.

The first mixed-category bundle of 26 cases was dispatched on 30 September.

Aside from recent changes, BSR’s priority over the remainder of the year is resolving 91 historic new build applications (which contain around 22,000 new housing units) submitted under the previous model.

BSR’s team is applying a bespoke plan to address individual ‘blockers’ within these cases, projecting the majority of historic cases will be closed by 31 December, with a final three expected to close in January 2026.

Chief Executive Officer, Building Safety Regulator, Charlie Pugsley’s statement

Charlie Pugsley, Chief Executive Officer of the Building Safety Regulator, said: “The regulator has been learning from the last two years, has listened to industry feedback and acted decisively through these substantial operational changes we are piloting, which have shown immediate, positive results.

“We have already seen early success with our Innovation Unit and are now deploying strategic capacity scaling, including the new batching system.

“However, we recognise there are ongoing challenges including national skills shortages and we are committed to use agile problem-solving to work constructively with the wider sector and industry applicants.

“Our focus on further improvements will support the pace of essential construction without compromising the essential safety standards required under the Building Safety Act 2022 to keep people safe in their homes.”

Building Safety Regulator announce October update: Summary

The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) has released a building control GW2 update to 1 October 2025.

Dangers of Overloading Electrical Sockets

Plugging too many devices into one plug socket might seem harmless, yet it poses a serious hazard in homes. 

Many of us have been tempted to cram an extra gadget into a multi-plug adaptor, but that ‘just one more’ could be one too many if it leads to an overloading electrical sockets. 

Overloaded sockets are a leading cause of home electrical fires

That means thousands of families suffer preventable fires due to something as simple as an overburdened outlet. 

This article explains what socket overloading means, why it’s dangerous, real examples of the risks, and practical tips to stay safe. 

Being aware of the dangers of overloading electrical sockets can help you protect your home and loved ones from a very real hazard.

What is Overloading Electrical Sockets?

what is overloading electrical sockets

Overloading electrical sockets means drawing more current through a socket than it is designed to handle. 

A standard wall socket in the UK is rated for about 13 amps of current at most. 

If you plug in appliances whose combined demand exceeds that limit, the socket and wiring can overheat. 

People often accidentally overload sockets by using multi-way adaptors or extension leads to connect multiple appliances to one socket. 

For example, running several high-wattage appliances, such as a heater, kettle, and hair dryer, from a single socket at the same time can quickly push the load beyond safe levels. 

It’s important to realise that even if an extension strip has four or six outlet holes, they all feed from one wall socket.

This means the overall limit is still 13 A in total. 

Having more sockets available on a strip does not increase the amount of power the wall supply can safely provide. 

The excess current drawn through by overloading electrical sockets produces heat in the wires, plug, and socket itself. 

Over time this heat can melt insulation, damage the outlet, or even start a fire.

Dangers of Overloading Electrical Sockets

overloading electrical sockets dangers

Overloading electrical sockets can have many serious dangers.

These can include:

Fires

The primary danger of an overloaded socket is the risk of fire. 

When a socket is overburdened, the electrical cables and components can get extremely hot. 

This overheating can melt plastic plugs, scorch socket covers, and ignite nearby materials. 

Worryingly, electrical fires often start hidden behind walls or around sockets, so you might not notice the problem until a fire has already taken hold. 

Once an electrical fire starts, it can spread quickly and release toxic smoke, endangering anyone inside.

Damaged Wiring

Even if a fire doesn’t break out immediately, excess heat will still damage your wiring and devices. 

The internal wiring of the socket or extension lead can become charred or lose its insulation due to the heat, making it unsafe for future use. 

Electric Shocks

Overloading electrical sockets may have melted components that expose live electrical parts.

This can create a risk of electric shock the next time someone touches or uses them. 

Sensitive electronics plugged into an overloaded socket can also be harmed.

The stress on the circuit might cause voltage fluctuations that shorten the life of appliances or even destroy them. 

Blown Fuses and Tripped Circuit Breakers

Additionally, repeatedly overloading electrical sockets may cause fuses to blow or circuit breakers to trip frequently. 

While these safety devices are meant to protect you, continually tripping the power can weaken a circuit breaker over time, potentially reducing its effectiveness. 

If a breaker or fuse ever fails to trip when it should, an overload can go unchecked and lead to wiring overheating to dangerous levels. 

Cost of Repairs

Beyond the immediate safety hazards, the aftermath of an electrical overload can be devastating financially, from repairing burnt wiring to replacing lost belongings if a fire destroys part of your home. 

How to Avoid Overloading Electrical Sockets

how to avoid overloading electrical sockets

Preventing overloading electrical sockets is straightforward with some simple precautions. 

Here are a few practical tips to avoid overloading your electrical sockets:

One Plug Per Socket When Possible

Stick to one appliance per wall socket, especially for high-power devices. 

High-wattage appliances like microwaves, washing machines, or space heaters should each have their own dedicated socket.

Don’t Daisy-chain Extensions

Never plug one extension lead into another, known as ‘daisy chaining’. 

Using a single multi-way extension strip is acceptable within its capacity, but linking extensions together greatly increases the risk of overload and fire.

Use the Right Type of Adaptor

If you need to plug in multiple low-power items, use a good-quality bar extension strip with a built-in fuse or surge protector. 

Avoid cube-shaped block adaptors that lack fuses as these can overheat more easily.

Know Your Limits

Check the rating of extension leads and adaptors and add up the amperage of all devices you’re connecting. 

Do not exceed the maximum current indicated. 

If in doubt, you can use a socket overload calculator to double-check that your planned combination of devices stays within safe limits. 

Remember that 13 amps is roughly equal to 3,000 watts at UK mains voltage, which is easily reached by just a couple of high-power appliances.

Unplug Devices When Not in Use

Disconnect appliances or chargers that you’re not actively using. 

This reduces unnecessary load on the socket and minimises the risk of overheating. 

It’s especially important to switch off and unplug items like portable heaters or phone chargers overnight or when you leave the house.

Uncoil Extension Reels Fully

If you use a coiled extension cable, always unwind it completely before use. 

A coiled power cable can act like a heating element and overheat if left bundled, even if you’re drawing what would normally be a safe amount of current.

Install More Outlets if Needed

If you find you’re constantly juggling plugs or relying on extension leads daily, consider having a qualified electrician install additional wall sockets in high-use areas. 

This permanent fix can eliminate the temptation to overload a single outlet.

Be Alert to Warning Signs

Training yourself to understand overloading warning signs is a must.

Stop using a socket immediately if you notice signs of overload such as plugs that feel hot, a smell of burning plastic, scorch marks around the socket, buzzing or crackling sounds, or fuses repeatedly blowing. 

These indicate a potentially dangerous issue that should be checked by an electrician right away.

Key Takeaways

Overloading electrical sockets is an easily avoided hazard once you understand the risks. 

It simply requires mindfulness about how many appliances are drawing power from a single socket. 

As we’ve seen, the consequences of ignoring socket limits range from melted plugs and power outages to catastrophic fires. 

The good news is that by spreading out your electrical devices, using proper extension leads wisely, and not pushing a socket beyond its capacity, you can keep your home safe. 

Regularly checking that sockets are cool to the touch and not surrounded by a tangle of adaptors is a simple habit that can prevent disasters. 

Remember that certain times of year or situations can put extra strain on your sockets. 

By respecting the limits of your plug sockets and following basic precautions, you ensure that the convenience of modern gadgets doesn’t come at the cost of your family’s safety. 

Take the time to educate everyone in your household about not overloading electrical sockets, so that safe practices are followed consistently. 

The minor inconvenience of using fewer gadgets at once or buying an extra extension lead is nothing compared to the major disruption of dealing with a house fire.

If you have any doubts or persistent electrical issues, it’s wise to consult a qualified electrician. 

It’s always better to be safe than sorry when it comes to electricity.