IFSJ Exclusive: Rethinking fire prevention in high-risk sites, with viAct

by Breaking NewsConstructionFire DetectionSafety

viAct examines the limits of reactive fire protection, fire prevention and argues for continuous monitoring of fire precursors across complex worksites

Industrial fires are often treated as sudden events.

In practice, they are usually the final outcome of conditions that have been developing for hours or days.

Across heavy industry, fire safety has traditionally relied on response mechanisms.

Alarms, suppression systems and evacuation procedures are designed to activate once smoke or heat reaches a defined threshold.

These systems remain essential for compliance and life safety, but they are triggered late in the sequence of events.

From viAct’s perspective, this reactive model leaves a gap between hazard formation and ignition.

Recent incidents have illustrated how quickly that gap can close.

The November 2025 fire in a high-rise housing and renovation complex in Hong Kong spread rapidly through combustible bamboo scaffolding and construction mesh materials.

Once ignition occurred, the speed of fire spread left little margin for intervention.

In environments such as construction, logistics, manufacturing and energy, viAct argues that fire safety effectiveness depends less on response speed and more on how early risk conditions are identified.

Why Traditional Fire Safety Still Leaves a Gap

Industrial workplaces remain among the higher-risk environments for fire.

According to a recent survey of workplace fires, industrial premises accounted for 24.85 percent of all workplace fires in the UK in 2024–25.

The National Safety Council reports that in the United States, fire departments respond to a fire incident every 23 seconds.

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) estimated an average of 4,300 construction fires each year, resulting in around 62 civilian injuries, five civilian fatalities and property damage worth $375 million.

Many established fire safety measures, including periodic inspections, manual audits and alarm-based detection systems, are designed to respond once defined thresholds are reached.

As a result, they primarily capture lagging indicators, recording events after ignition has occurred.

Earlier conditions that can contribute to ignition, such as gradual temperature increases, smouldering equipment, undetected gas leaks or the accumulation of combustible dust, may fall outside routine reporting and monitoring processes.

These conditions are often addressed informally or remain undocumented, despite their potential role in later incidents.

This interval between the presence of a hazard and the onset of a fire represents an area where additional monitoring and analysis methods are increasingly being explored.

Real-time fire intelligence in practice

Advances in computer vision, sensor integration and edge analytics now allow risk conditions to be monitored continuously rather than intermittently.

In practical terms, this can involve identifying unsafe states such as blocked fire exits, combustible materials positioned near heat sources, sparks in restricted zones or early smoke particles that fall below alarm thresholds.

By analysing visual data, air quality, temperature change and historical patterns together, fire risk can be treated as a dynamic condition rather than a binary event.

Manufacturing plants have used machine vision systems to alert supervisors when debris blocks heat vents hours before temperatures reach critical levels.

Large logistics hubs have deployed particle-level smoke analytics to identify smouldering pallets long before sprinklers activate.

“Real-time fire intelligence isn’t about replacing fire marshals or safety officers — it’s about expanding their field of vision,” says Gary Ng, CEO of viAct. “When hidden thermal build-up or risky worker routines surface early, safety teams can intervene before danger turns irrecoverable.”

From detection to foresight

In complex industrial environments, risk is rarely static.

Equipment heats gradually, layouts shift and temporary works introduce new ignition sources.

When data from cameras, sensors, maintenance logs and environmental conditions is analysed together, patterns can emerge that are difficult to detect through manual checks alone.

A motor running slightly hotter than its baseline or debris repeatedly accumulating near a vent may appear insignificant in isolation, but can become more meaningful when tracked over time.

viAct views this as a shift from detection to foresight.

A complementary approach

Real-time fire intelligence does not remove responsibility from duty holders.

It also does not replace alarms, suppression systems or trained personnel.

It requires governance, defined thresholds and integration with existing safety management systems.

Industrial sites are becoming larger, denser and more automated, so continuous monitoring approaches are gaining attention as a way to supplement scheduled checks and conventional detection.

From viAct’s perspective, established protections and continuous risk awareness can work together to support earlier intervention.

Fires are sometimes preceded by signals that can be detected, but identifying them in time depends on what is monitored, how consistently it is tracked and how findings are acted on.

Rethinking joint systems: Siderise breaks down fire performance at the slab edge

by Breaking NewsConstructionPassiveSafety

Siderise explains the performance differences between one-part and two-part perimeter joint systems to help project teams assess the most robust option for curtain wall applications

Robust compartmentation, supported by an appropriate perimeter fire seal solution, is essential to the passive fire protection of glazed façade systems – and is legally mandated in many regions worldwide.

To prevent vertical fire spread, firestops installed at the slab edge extend the fire resistance of the compartment floor to the rear of the façade.

These solutions typically fall into two main types: one-part dry fit systems and two-part pack-and spray systems.

Two-part pack-and-spray systems

Traditional approaches to firestopping at the facade / floor slab interface require the installation to be carried out in two separate stages.

The first step involves manually compressing generic mineral wool safing insulation material (typically 25 and 33 % compression) before installing it within the movement gap at the perimeter construction joint.

The second step involves applying a wet compound such as mastic, spray ablative or fire-rated silicone over the top of the insulation to create a smoke- and weather-resistant seal once cured.

One-part dry-fit systems

These systems feature factory engineered pre-compressed stone wool Lamella insulation with foil facings applied to the cut surfaces of the fibres to retain the ‘built-in pre-compression’ firmly in place and assist with uniformity of product density.

Designed and tested to provide a robust fire and hot smoke seal in the perimeter void between the facade and compartment floor, without the need for a topical wet sealant, they are installed in a single-fix with further manual compression of 20% for a tight fit and to accommodate movement.

Unlike the wet seal of two-part systems, one-part dry-fit firestops can be ordered pre-cut to suit the cavity width and can be supplied as part of a complete system package from a single manufacturer with spandrel insulation, mullion and transom fire protection, plus ancillary components.

In addition, these parts are often tested together in multiple test scenarios, and third-party certified as an advanced perimeter fire containment system for a more holistic approach to passive fire protection in the spandrel zone.

Each of these approaches results in different characteristics when it comes to fire performance and resilience, installation accuracy and efficiency, and repeatability and inspection.

1. Firestop resilience, durability and fire performance

Non-combustible mineral wool firestops must be durable enough to maintain their form and fit, even when subjected to façade and floor slab movement caused by environmental loads.

The safing insulation component of two-part firestop systems typically comprises standard mineral wool insulation with horizontally oriented fibres, which run parallel to the floor slab when installed.

While this 90° or transverse alignment offers stability, continual exposure to building / façade movement makes the material more susceptible to degradation along its length, resulting in the fibre structure breaking down.

This means that the ability of the safing material to recover from repeated compression cycles in-service is reduced.

This can lead to the firestop no longer maintaining the compression fit, increasing the risk of a gap forming between the product and the facade over time.

Should this occur, the perimeter seal could fail prematurely, resulting in loss of compartmentation.

Furthermore, to ensure that two-part wet-seal systems comply with the criteria of any third-party approvals or listings published by the sealant manufacturer, the safing insulation product should always be the same as that used which was in the certified tested system.

Using substitution products risks undermining the specified fire resistance performance.

Meanwhile, one-part firestops with a stone wool Lamella composition, such as ours, comprise vertically oriented fibres that run perpendicular to the substrate when installed.

Products with a vertical fibre orientation are highly compressible and flexible laterally (across their width), which enables them to not only overcome challenges presented by curved and inclined facades, but accommodate the dynamic movement of the curtain wall or floor slab.

Due to the unique structure of Siderise Lamella firestops they are able to maintain their ability to recover throughout their design life, as demonstrated through extensive age and movement cycling testing.

This means that the seal is continuously maintained throughout the lifetime of the building and for the required fire resistance period in the event of a fire.

When exposed to fire, the foil facing is designed to delaminate from the stone wool Lamella core, allowing the built-in pre-compression to be released.

This enables the product to expand and maintain its compression fit and integrity, even under the greater thermal stresses caused by the fire load that leads to facade and floor slab deflection.

Both system types can be tested to UL 2079 for air leakage, determined as the L-rating, to simulate smoke movement through compartmentation in buildings.

Leakage testing can assist authorities in determining the suitability of firestopping systems for the protection of floor openings and smoke barriers for the purpose of restricting the movement of smoke in accordance with the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) 101 Life Safety Code.

The difference between two-part spray and pack systems and one part dry-fit systems is that the latter does not rely on a wet seal to provide an adequate L rating

2. Application conditions, consistency and installation efficiency

The wet seal compound in two-part systems is sensitive to moisture and temperature dependent during application and curing.

It must be applied in dry conditions and controlled environments – which can be a challenge during hot seasons or locations with frequent rainfall– otherwise adhesion, curing, design life and product integrity may be adversely affected.

In most cases, the maximum application temperature is typically limited to 104°F (40°C) as high heat can cause rapid skinning or premature curing, making tooling difficult and reducing adhesion.

Similarly, exposure to rain, running or standing water, or high humidity can lead to washout or uneven curing.

Storage conditions for wet seal firestop compounds are just as important as application conditions because they directly affect product performance and shelf life.

Most manufacturers typically require sealants to be stored between 40 and 80°F (5 and 25 °C), which in turn requires onsite air-conditioned storage facilities in regions prone to inclement weather.

Improper storage can reduce workability if the sealant has thickened, shorten open time and curing consistency, and compromise the fire rating performance due to chemical degradation.

Since wet sealants rely on direct contact with the substrate, surfaces must be clean, dry, and free of dust, grease, oil or other contaminants.

Dust or debris creates a barrier that can weaken bonding and lead to gaps or peeling over time, while contaminated surfaces can cause voids or uneven curing.

Furthermore, the wet-film thickness must be applied consistently to achieve the required dry-film thickness as thickness variation due to human error can risk compromising the slab edge fire seal.

Wet spray firestop systems require specialist equipment such as pumps, mixers and nozzles.

Transporting and setting up heavy spray rigs on high-rise sites can be time-consuming while tight slab edge zones often lack room for bulky equipment, especially when façade works are concurrent.

In addition to having to wait for the right application conditions, the ‘curing’ and overspray clean up time also needs to be accounted for in the project schedule.

The flashing used to close off the spandrel zone from sight cannot be installed until after the installation has been approved, which means site operatives cannot immediately proceed with adjacent works, thus potentially holding up the build program.

This installer-driven and weather dependent approach can make it challenging to achieve a replicable level of quality across whole buildings of multiple stories, creating bottlenecks, especially when inspections are required before concealment.

In contrast, one-part dry-fit firestops are not weather or temperature sensitive and do not require any specialist application equipment and surface preparation of the substrate.

There are no curing times, wet or dry-film thickness complications or complex compression calculations.

Their straightforward installation approach, including a standardised compression percentage, can streamline the installation process and help reduce the risk of human error.

They also provide greater freedom for the installer in areas where access to the firestop zone is difficult after the facade is installed.

Dry-fit firestops can also be installed before the facade (including from the soffit).

3. Ease of inspection

With two-part systems, once the compound is applied, verifying the correct dry-film thickness, adhesion, and safing orientation and compression becomes difficult without destructive testing or a two-stage inspection.

Alternatively, when dry-fit, one part firestops are installed, visual inspections are sufficient.

The wrinkling of the foil makes it very easy to confirm if they have been installed correctly without disturbing the installation.

Their dry-fit application also makes it easier to judge bracket locations and distances, and tight jointing to ensure a continuation of the fire performance around the perimeter.

This can not only help to ensure a safer building but also reduce additional costs and lost time associated with remedial works.

Transparent protection

While traditional two-part firestop systems have been widely used in US construction, they often present challenges related to long-term durability, installation complexity, and inspection consistency.

In contrast, one-part firestop systems that have been engineered and tested to meet key standards such as ASTM E2307 and ASTM E2874 offer a reliable alternative.

By delivering uniform compression, accommodating façade movement, and enabling straightforward visual inspection, one-part dry-fix systems support code-compliant construction practices and help ensure consistent fire-resistance performance across every floor and project.

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

Promat wins four industry awards for structural steel fire protection campaign

by ConstructionFeatured NewsPassive

How Promat turned specification guidance into four awards

Promat has ended 2025 with four industry award wins linked to a structural steel campaign focused on testing standards and correct application of passive fire protection, according to the company.

The company said it received two Construction Marketing Awards, covering Best Mid-Range Budget Campaign and Best Go-To-Market.

Promat said the campaign work was delivered in collaboration with marketing and PR agency Lesniak Swann.

The company also said it took a gold award at The Drum B2B awards.

Campaign focus on testing and specification

Promat said its structural steel campaign highlighted the need for accurate specification backed by the correct level of testing.

The company said the work aimed to raise awareness of testing standards and correct application for structural steel protection.

Promat said wider industry attention has increased in recent years on effective fire protection for structural steel buildings, from design and specification through to installation and maintenance.

The company said this focus has highlighted potential knowledge gaps across the industry.

Promat said the campaign targeted architects, specifiers and installers, with attention on compliance with the Building Safety Act.

Guidance and technical comparison content

Promat said it published a guide to specifying passive fire protection for structural steel.

The company said it also produced a white paper on the effectiveness of using a board system against intumescent paint.

Promat said informative content was the key driver behind increased awareness of its passive fire protection systems for structural steel in the Drum Awards submission.

Individual recognition at ASFP awards

Promat said Product Manager Margherita Mullis won the Association for Specialist Fire Protection (ASFP) award for Rising Star of the Year.

The company said the award recognised Mullis’s work to extend the level of testing to support confident specification of Promat passive fire protection systems.

Promat said this included EN testing and classification.

Marketing lead comments on approach

Andy Mudie, Head of Marketing at Promat – Etex Building Performance, said: “To end the year with multiple award wins has been a fantastic recognition of the team’s hard work to publicise both the work that Promat do to support safer building design, but also to raise awareness of that across the construction industry.

“Taking an expertise-led approach, the aim of the marketing campaign is to add real value to those people who are looking for the depth of information the construction industry now demands at the specification and design stage.

“This is where our strength is as a manufacturer of passive fire protection – we know what works where, and what level of protection is needed.

“Through dedicated campaigns such as the structural steel campaign, we aim to raise awareness of best practice – and signpost what that looks like in practice.

“It is great to have seen this recognised.

“We are also hugely proud of Margherita and her win as the ASFP’s Rising Star for 2025.

“A passionate advocate for the highest standards in life critical safety, Margherita has been instrumental in developing product and service innovations that benefit Etex Building Performance, Promat, and the wider passive fire protection sector and it is great to see her passion for the industry celebrated this way.”

What this means for specification work

Architects and fire engineering consultants often rely on product evidence and test classification detail when selecting passive fire protection approaches for structural steel.

Promat’s campaign placed testing scope and specification accuracy at the centre of its messaging.

For specifiers and building services engineers, the guide and white paper referenced by the company provide material intended to support decisions at design stage.

Installers and fire-protection contractors can also be affected when product selection is tied to test-backed application requirements that need to be followed on site.

Standards and certification bodies may view the ASFP recognition as a marker of ongoing work around EN testing and classification that manufacturers use to support compliant specification.

CROSS-UK highlights collapse risks across a structure’s full life

by ConstructionFeatured NewsFire Engineering

A famous collapse that was not “technical”

CROSS-UK has published an editorial in Newsletter 79 dated Thursday 11 December 2025, reflecting on how structural failures shape engineering practice and public safety responsibilities.

The editorial was written by Glenn Bell, Director, CROSS-US.

Bell writes that many engineers experience an early-career realisation that mistakes can carry catastrophic consequences.

He links that awareness to his work investigating the Hyatt Regency Hotel walkways collapse in Kansas City, Missouri in 1981.

Hyatt Regency collapse framed as culture

Bell argues that the Hyatt failure is often presented as a single technical issue involving a change in the hanger rod arrangement.

He writes that this is an oversimplification, and that project conditions and culture were central to why the collapse happened.

Bell describes a fast-tracked delivery approach where construction began before design was complete.

He also writes that numerous design changes took place, two key structural engineering staff quit mid-design, the fabricator was overloaded and shop drawing review was rushed.

Missed checks and warning signs

Bell writes that two quality inspection firms were dismissed and not replaced.

He also describes warning signs during construction, including early signs of failure in a structural sunscreen wall and a portion of the atrium roof collapsing.

He writes that two independent rechecks of the atrium structure still failed to uncover the walkway problems.

Glenn Bell, Director, CROSS-US, said: “In short, the project was out of control, with many missed opportunities to catch and correct the conditions that ultimately caused the collapse.”

CROSS reporting and Surfside investigation

Bell describes CROSS as focused on confidential reporting of more frequent “lesser” failures and concerns, rather than catastrophic failures resulting in fatalities.

He writes that, by studying precursors, reporting can help prevent catastrophic failures.

Bell also writes that he is co-lead of the US National Institute of Standards and Technology’s investigation into the Champlain Towers South collapse in Surfside, Florida in June 2021, which he notes claimed 98 lives.

He writes that the investigation is tasked with determining likely technical causes, recommending improvements to building codes and standards and identifying research needed to enhance structural safety.

Recurring themes across failures

Bell writes that structures are vulnerable at every stage of their life, and that survival to date is no guarantee of future safety.

He states that, between 1978 and 1987, the US experienced nine catastrophic failures across building ages, from construction through to decades into service.

He writes that recurring themes include poor quality assurance and quality control, poorly defined responsibilities, lack of redundancy and unheeded warnings.

Readers can view the full article on CROSS-UK’s website.

SOCOTEC highlights construction fire safety advice on scaffold sheeting

by ConstructionFeatured NewsPassiveSafety

Construction covering materials guidance restated

SOCOTEC UK & Ireland has reminded construction firms of UK recommendations on temporary protective covering materials (TPCMs) used on construction sites.

The company said it has provided fire safety advice to construction sites for over 10 years, supporting compliance with the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 and insurer requirements.

SOCOTEC said the reminder follows increased attention on TPCMs and what it described as uncertainty within the industry.

Construction requirements for scaffold cladding

SOCOTEC referenced the Joint Code of Practice on the Protection from Fire of Construction Sites and Buildings Undergoing Renovation (JCoP) for recommendations on flexible materials used to clad scaffolding.

The guidance quoted by SOCOTEC states: “10.3 When flexible materials are used to clad scaffolding, these materials must conform to the requirements of LPS 1215: Requirements for the LPCB approval and listing for fire performance of containment net and sheet materials for external use on construction sites (ref 15) or Warringtonfire Certifire Technical Schedule 62, Reaction to fire performance requirements: materials used to clad scaffolding (ref 16).

“The material shall be manufactured in accordance with a quality assurance and certification programme, and the scaffolding covering material shall be approved by a third-party certification body accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service.

“The relevant approval mark shall be printed on the material”.

HSG168 advice on scaffold sheeting

SOCOTEC also cited Health and Safety Executive guidance in HSG168 on the use of fire-retardant scaffold sheeting where scaffolding forms part of the means of escape.

HSG168 states: “207 If the scaffold is intended as part of the means of escape the scaffold sheeting must be to a flame-retardant standard and you must carefully consider the extent of the sheeting.

“Do not use the sheeting to enclose scaffold stair towers or escape ladders (see Figure 7).

“This is to minimise smoke in the escape route and make fire and rescue service access easier.

“Flame-retardant sheeting is also recommended in other circumstances such as on a structure containing exposed timber or flammable insulation material or on an occupied building.

“An example of sheeting that satisfies flame-retardant criteria is that which complies with the Loss Prevention Standard LPS 1215 or equivalent, such as TS62: Technical Schedule 62: Reaction to fire performance requirements: materials used to clad scaffolding, CERTIFIRE product certification scheme.

“Products compliant with either standard will be marked with the relevant certification.

“If the sheeting is printed with an image or colour this may affect its compliance with the flame-retardant testing.”

SOCOTEC recommends reviewing materials in use

With the guidance in mind, SOCOTEC recommended that construction firms review any covering materials currently used on their sites.

The company said it provides Construction Fire Safety strategies for firms across the UK & Ireland, with a primary goal of practical solutions for fire safety problems that can be encountered on construction sites.

SOCOTEC said its website sets out information for organisations starting their own Construction Fire Safety Strategy.

The company added that its communication was provided for general information purposes and should not be treated as professional advice for specific project circumstances.

House of Lords Committee cites cladding delays risking 1.5 million homes target

by Breaking NewsConstructionSafety

Delays linked to cladding remediation

A cross-party House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee has warned the Government that Building Safety Regulator (BSR) approval delays are leaving residents in England waiting longer for dangerous cladding remediation, with higher costs for leaseholders.

The Committee published its report, The Building Safety Regulator: Building a better regulator, on Thursday 11 December 2025.

It said the delays have stretched beyond the regulator’s statutory timelines for building control decisions.

The Committee said it welcomed the increased scrutiny the BSR has brought to the design, construction and management of buildings in the interest of safety.

It also warned that delays could put the Government at risk of missing its target to build 1.5 million homes by 2029.

Findings on guidance and application quality

After hearing from witnesses including campaign groups, developers, housing associations and regulators working closely with the BSR, the Committee said the BSR has not given clear enough guidance on how applicants should demonstrate that buildings are safe.

It said many applications are being rejected or delayed because of basic errors.

It also said applicants are struggling to evidence how they are considering elements of fire safety and structural safety.

The Committee said this reflects poorly on the construction industry.

It also raised concerns that many construction products do not have relevant product standards, leaving them unregulated.

Inspector workforce and scope concerns

The Committee said difficulties in local authority funding and the introduction of regulation have contributed to an ageing workforce of building inspectors who are struggling to meet demand.

It said smaller works, such as bathroom renovations in high-rise buildings, are being subject to the scrutiny of the BSR’s multidisciplinary teams (MDTs).

The Committee linked that to pressure on MDT capacity.

It said a more streamlined approach is needed for smaller works.

Calls for BSR process changes

The Committee called on the BSR to give greater guidance to MDTs on how compliance with the Building Regulations should be evidenced and assessed to improve consistency.

It also called on the Government to remove smaller works from the BSR’s building control approval processes, or introduce a streamlined approval process for them.

The Committee said allocating the same MDTs to similar buildings or projects built by the same organisation could improve efficiency and consistency.

It also called on the Government to provide long-term funding for the training of new building and fire inspectors.

BSR response on processing times

The Building Safety Regulator said: “We recognise that building control applications have been taking too long to process.

“Since the Committee began its hearings in the summer, we have made significant changes to speed up decision making with a focus on new build and cladding remediation applications.

“These include a new Innovation Unit, batching processes, and the introduction of account managers to improve communication with applicants.

“These improvements are helping to increase industry confidence and, in the 12 weeks to 24 November, enabled construction to proceed on over 11,000 new homes.

“We also saw a 73% approval rate for new build decisions during that time, demonstrating that changes introduced are beginning to work.

“Making sure buildings with dangerous cladding are remediated quickly is also a priority and will be the focus of our new Remediation Enforcement Unit which will begin working on cases in the new year.

“The Committee’s recognition that BSR has successfully driven a ‘crucial cultural shift’ toward safer homes is a welcome endorsement of the new regime.

“We remain firmly committed to being a proportionate and enabling regulator that works alongside the construction sector to protect residents and deliver safe buildings in support of the government’s housing targets.”

Committee Chair comments on delays

Baroness Taylor of Bolton, Chair of the Committee, said: “The tragic loss of 72 lives at the Grenfell Tower fire laid bare the urgent need to reform building safety regulation in England, particularly for high-rise buildings.

“We welcome that the Government and the BSR are now acting to try and make practical improvements, but this will not address the anxiety and frustration that residents and companies have experienced.

“It does not improve safety to delay vital remediation and refurbishments, nor to deter the delivery of new housing in high-rise buildings.

“We expect to see further action from the Government and the BSR to ensure that construction projects in high-rise buildings can be brought forward more quickly, without compromising on vital safety improvements.”

What this means for approval teams and dutyholders

Delays linked to BSR approvals can affect fire engineers, building services engineers and design teams that need to evidence fire safety and structural safety decisions within building control submissions.

The Committee’s comments on basic application errors and missing evidence may lead dutyholders, principal designers and principal contractors to tighten internal checks before submissions, especially on how fire safety and structural safety have been considered.

Facilities managers and housing providers overseeing cladding remediation and refurbishment programmes may also see knock-on impacts where approvals sit on MDT caseloads for longer.

The Committee’s recommendations on removing smaller works from the BSR process, or streamlining approvals for them, could change how high-rise maintenance projects are planned and scheduled.

The call for long-term funding to train building and fire inspectors is directly relevant to enforcement capacity and the consistency of building control decisions.

Industry response from fire door manufacturer

Will Hunnam, Managing Director, Forza Doors, said: “The Lords committee is right to highlight delays created by the Building Safety Regulator.

“Excessive processing time is resulting in material project delays, the direct cost impact of these delays is ultimately rendering many projects economical unsustainable.

“Fire safety now has to be designed in from day one.

“When compliance and performance requirements are aligned early, projects move faster and deliver better outcomes.

“Delays disrupt that process and create uncertainty across the supply chain.

“Increased regulation is welcome, but only if it comes with clear guidance, proper resourcing and unwavering standards.

“Fire doors and passive protection are critical to keeping people safe and protecting asset value.

“The industry is ready to deliver.

“It now needs a regulator that can keep pace.”

Siderise curtain wall firestop system named Architectural Record Product of the Year

by Americas - Breaking NewsBreaking NewsConstructionSafety

Siderise system wins Architectural Record award

Siderise has announced that its CW-FS Firestop and CW-CB Cavity Barrier system has been named a 2025 Architectural Record Product of the Year in the Building Systems & Materials category.

The recognition comes from the New York based architecture and design publication Architectural Record, which highlighted innovation, performance integrity and contributions to the built environment.

The award relates to the CW-FS and CW-CB configuration for modern curtain wall façades and perimeter joints.

Siderise introduced the system to the US market in January 2025 after an extended programme of testing, research and refinement.

The company presents the solution as a passive fire protection option for projects that must accommodate façade movement and complex geometry at the slab edge.

Curtain wall firestopping engineered for movement

According to Siderise, the CW-FS and CW-CB combination is built around its Lamella vertical fibre stone wool construction.

This material arrangement is described as maintaining form, fit and fire performance as the façade and structure move over time.

The company sees this behaviour as especially important at the perimeter joint, where deflection and changes in joint width can be pronounced.

The system is intended for use with curtain wall assemblies where maintaining a reliable fire resisting seal under service movement is a design requirement.

Siderise states that the Lamella construction supports long term perimeter fire containment where traditional firestopping approaches may be challenged by movement.

Modular system and technical support package

The CW-FS Firestop and CW-CB Cavity Barrier system is offered as a modular solution to simplify specification and installation.

Siderise manufactures pre cut sections in a range of widths to tight tolerances for repetition in standard details.

The firm also supplies sheet material for adaptation on site when façade joints or cavity conditions fall outside typical configurations.

To support accurate specification, Siderise provides Digital Specification Packs that collate current technical datasheets, certifications, BIM objects and specification clauses.

Project teams can receive detailed technical submittals that align with particular building geometries and stated performance criteria.

Design stage guidance is available for architects, façade engineers and fire consultants working through curtain wall interface details.

The company also refers to site services delivered through the Siderise app, including training, benchmark constructions and installation inspections.

These tools are presented as a way of helping project teams align in service performance with the results achieved in laboratory testing.

Siderise comments on Architectural Record recognition

Brad Davis, Head of Commercial, Siderise North America, welcomed the Architectural Record Product of the Year award for the curtain wall system.

Brad Davis, Head of Commercial, Siderise North America, said: “We are honored to receive this recognition from Architectural Record,”

“The CW-FS and CW-CB system for curtain walling reflects our commitment to engineering passive fire protection solutions that are not only robust and resilient, but that support design teams with transparent, specification-ready information.

“This award reinforces the importance of providing movement-tolerant systems that safeguard perimeter fire containment over the entire design life of the building.”

Building safety duties overwhelm SMEs as BESA calls for clearer enforcement

by ConstructionFeatured NewsFire EngineeringResearchSafety

BESA survey flags pressures from building safety regime

The Building Engineering Services Association (BESA) has reported that many small construction firms feel overwhelmed by the Building Safety Act, based on new research presented at London Build Expo in London on 26 November 2025.

The association said its second annual survey of the sector showed that, although 88% of industry professionals are aware of the legislation, most small and micro-businesses view it as “overwhelming and daunting” and feel “left behind”.

BESA added that these businesses make up 99% of the construction sector and related professions, which it described as the “lifeblood” of the industry.

There was also evidence that many clients are still operating on a “business as usual” basis, with cost and speed often taking precedence over safety.

The survey findings were discussed during a panel session at the London Build Expo, which focused on enforcement, communication and training needs linked to the new regime.

Rachel Davidson, director of specialist knowledge at BESA, said: “This is critical because those companies are the lifeblood of the industry.

“There are also a lot of people who still think the legislation only applies to HRBs (higher risk buildings).”

Davidson said: “A lot of this comes back to leadership and culture.

“78% of companies tell us that this is important to them but fewer than half report having taken enough action.”

Calls for clearer enforcement and targeted building safety guidance

Davidson noted that building engineering contractors increasingly want consistent enforcement of the Building Safety Act.

She stated that many contractors believe some clients will continue to treat compliance as optional unless there are visible consequences for non-compliance.

BESA is expanding its guidance to show firms “what good looks like” within their particular part of the sector, Davidson explained.

The association is advising companies that they do not need to master every detail of the Act, but instead concentrate on the clauses that relate directly to their role and responsibilities.

Davidson said this approach is intended to help smaller firms identify where they have direct duties and where they need to coordinate with other dutyholders.

BESA has set up a Building Safety Hub to host this material, including a new guide aimed at Principal Contractors.

Communication challenges across a 2.6 million-strong workforce

Fellow panellist Hannah Carpenter, from the Building Safety Wiki, highlighted the scale of the communication task given that the sector employs around 2.6 million people.

She said that messages about the Building Regulations and building safety standards need to move beyond compliance alone and address behaviour and pride in work.

Hannah Carpenter, from the Building Safety Wiki, said: “We need to be innovative about how we communicate and appeal to personal values because that is going to be more effective than continually talking about regulation.

“But getting 2.6 million people to pull in the same direction is a huge challenge.

“We need to ask people why we are doing this [which is] to keep people safe and make sure the Grenfell tragedy cannot happen again.

“That means talking about ‘purpose’…people should want to make a difference.

“This can’t just be about ticking boxes.”

Carpenter argued that more use should be made of non-traditional communication channels, including partnerships with organisations such as HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC).

She said these bodies already have strong links to individuals and small construction businesses, which could help reach audiences that traditional industry channels do not.

The panel also heard that the industry’s average reading age is around 11, according to Hertfordshire Building Control Chief Executive Officer Gary Cass.

Cass said this creates additional barriers to spreading information about regulatory duties and good practice through text-heavy material.

Regulator progress and pressure on Building Control resources

Cass noted that there are signs of progress at the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) on planning approvals for higher risk buildings.

He said the new leadership team at the BSR has cut the average processing time at Gateway Two to 17 weeks, down from as high as 38 weeks earlier in 2025.

Cass added that the regulator has been “very honest” about its earlier backlogs and is now moving in what he described as a more positive direction.

However, he said the longer-term success of the new regime will depend on closer collaboration between industry and the regulator.

Gary Cass, Chief Executive Officer at Hertfordshire Building Control, said: “However, the industry needs more education about the Building Regulations.

“People need to be looking at compliance and focus on what is required in the regulations not guidance.

“Building Control Officers are regulators first and foremost but the industry used to rely on them to guide them through the process…and now it needs to be educated [about how the new process works].”

Cass said enforcement can be applied in a constructive way and does not always have to lead directly to legal action.

He also warned of a decline in the number of Building Control Officers (BCOs), which he said is creating a resource issue and reducing access to experienced inspectors.

How building safety pressures affect technical disciplines

The panel discussion concluded that more sector-specific training is needed so that different parts of the supply chain understand their duties under the Building Safety Act.

Speakers said that many of the firms that feel most overwhelmed are also those that deliver core technical services such as building engineering, installation and maintenance.

They added that these companies often sit at critical points in projects where design decisions, product choices and installation quality interact with regulatory requirements.

BESA said its Building Safety Hub is intended to give these businesses practical guidance, examples of good practice and role-based breakdowns of responsibilities.

Why building safety compliance burdens matter for practitioners

The survey findings and panel comments are directly relevant to building services engineers, fire engineering consultants and system installers who are working under the Building Safety Act.

These groups operate in a sector where small and micro-businesses account for 99% of organisations, and many report that the legislation feels “overwhelming and daunting”.

For building engineering contractors and Principal Contractors, the focus on clear enforcement, role-specific duties and practical examples of “what good looks like” may shape how they organise projects and allocate responsibilities.

Building Control Officers, and those who work with them, face pressure from reduced staff numbers and the need to move from an advisory role to one centred on regulation and education.

Facility managers and clients commissioning work will encounter an environment where cost and speed are more likely to be challenged by contractors who are conscious of compliance obligations and enforcement risks.

How Sugarcrete turned sugarcane bagasse into four-hour fire resistance

by ConstructionFeatured NewsFire EngineeringPassiveProductsResearch

Sugarcrete sets new EI 240 benchmark

The University of East London (UEL) has reported that its Sugarcrete® low-carbon building material has achieved an EI 240 fire resistance rating in full-scale testing in Spain, supporting its use in high-risk and safety-critical building applications.

According to UEL, Sugarcrete is formed from sugarcane by-product bagasse combined with sand-mineral binders and is intended as an alternative to conventional bricks and concrete blocks.

The university stated that the material has an estimated carbon footprint around six times smaller than traditional clay brick while maintaining performance in use.

Sugarcrete was developed at UEL’s Sustainability Research Institute, where researchers have focused on combining lower embodied carbon with stringent safety outcomes.

UEL indicated that fire performance has been a central element of the development programme in order to move the material into more demanding settings.

Full-scale AFITI test conditions and results

UEL reported that recent trials at AFITI Laboratories in Spain exposed Sugarcrete walls to one of the construction sector’s more demanding standardised fire resistance tests.

During the test, the internal face of the Sugarcrete wall was subjected to temperatures of 1,100°C inside the kiln chamber.

The external face of the wall reportedly remained at 26°C throughout the trial.

The test was run for 240 minutes, with UEL confirming that the wall maintained its integrity for the full four-hour duration.

Independent assessors concluded that the system achieved an EI 240 classification under EN 13501-2:2023.

The EI 240 rating indicates that the construction prevented fire penetration and limited heat transfer for at least 240 minutes.

UEL stated that this outcome places Sugarcrete among the highest-performing materials in current use for sustained fire resistance.

Performance compared with existing wall systems

According to the university, Sugarcrete’s performance in the AFITI test outstripped that of standard clay brick and concrete block walls assessed under comparable conditions.

The results were also reported to be in line with specialist fire-partition systems designed for higher-risk environments.

UEL said this brings Sugarcrete into the same category as systems currently specified for installations where extended fire resistance is required.

The university added that the testing focused on both structural integrity and thermal insulation across the four-hour exposure.

The material maintained stability while holding the temperature differential between the exposed and unexposed faces of the wall.

Potential use in safety-critical applications

On the basis of the AFITI trial and independent assessment, UEL stated that Sugarcrete is now a viable candidate for a range of safety-critical applications.

The university highlighted potential use in industrial fire walls designed to separate high-hazard areas within facilities.

It also identified protected escape routes as a key area where long-duration fire resistance and controlled heat transfer are required.

Further potential applications include data centres, where thermal protection and compartmentation form part of wider resilience strategies.

UEL added that petrochemical environments are another target sector, given their reliance on robust fire-rated separation systems.

Low-carbon profile alongside fire performance

UEL noted that Sugarcrete had already drawn attention for its lower embodied carbon profile before the latest fire tests.

The university presented the new data as evidence that reducing embodied carbon does not have to come at the expense of fire resistance or durability in use.

It said that the combination of lower carbon footprint and high fire performance could give construction clients another option when assessing materials for high-risk settings.

Alan Chandler, co-creator of Sugarcrete and Associate at the Sustainability Research Institute, said: “This is a defining moment.

“To hold back fire at over 1,000 degrees for four hours proves Sugarcrete® is not only sustainable, but also safe and resilient enough for the most demanding environments.”

House of Lords examines Building Safety Regulator delays and housing targets

by ConstructionFeatured News

Lords committee to report on Building Safety Regulator

The House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee will publish its report on the Building Safety Regulator on Thursday 11 December, setting out findings and recommendations on building safety regulation in England and Wales.

The report follows an inquiry into how the regime created by the Building Safety Act 2022 is operating, with a particular focus on the performance of the Building Safety Regulator.

According to the committee, the report is expected to warn the Government that delays in the regulator’s approval processes are leaving residents waiting longer for remediation of dangerous cladding in unsafe buildings.

The committee also expects to highlight that those delays are increasing costs for leaseholders who are already facing charges linked to fire-safety defects and remedial work.

Peers are further expected to caution that current bottlenecks in approvals could put at risk the Government’s target to deliver 1.5 million new homes by 2029.

The report will sit alongside draft secondary legislation and broader Government activity on building safety, including changes to the structure and role of the regulator.

Draft regulations to establish new Building Safety Regulator body

In parallel with the committee’s inquiry, draft regulations made under the Levelling up and Regeneration Act 2023 set out plans to establish the Building Safety Regulator as a new body corporate, separate from the Health and Safety Executive.

The draft Building Safety Regulator (Establishment of New Body and Transfer of Functions etc.) Regulations 2026 provide that the new body will come into force on 27 January 2026.

Under the draft regulations, the Building Safety Regulator will have a chair appointed by the Secretary of State, between three and eight other appointed members, and a chief executive selected by the members with the Secretary of State’s approval.

The new organisation will be able to appoint its own staff, pay remuneration and pensions, and receive grants or loans from the Secretary of State, subject to conditions.

It will have power to charge for giving advice, conducting research or providing other services, and may also borrow for short term financial management or from the Secretary of State.

The regulations transfer building safety functions under the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Building Act 1984 from the Health and Safety Executive to the new body, and update a range of primary and secondary legislation to reflect the change.

Transitional provisions state that anything done by or in relation to the Health and Safety Executive in connection with transferred functions will be treated as done by or in relation to the Building Safety Regulator once the transfer takes effect.

The draft regulations also allow the regulator, until the end of 2026, to delegate functions to Health and Safety Executive staff or to staff seconded from government departments.

An explanatory note to the draft instrument states that no regulatory impact assessment has been prepared because no, or no substantial, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is expected.

Podcast commentary on Building Safety Regulator performance and independence

Episode 51 of The Construction Briefing podcast from Practical Law Construction examined the Building Safety Regulator’s performance and the implications of its move to independence.

In the episode, presenters Michelle Rousell and Yassir Mahmood discuss the collapse of Assent Building Compliance and related firms, which had been involved in tens of thousands of projects and employed dozens of registered building control approvers.

They note that some transitional high risk building projects which had benefitted from earlier provisions will now fall under the Building Safety Regulator’s control, adding to its workload.

Mahmood said: “Because first, it puts more work the way of the BSR, and we know they know they’re already struggling.

“And secondly, it puts more work on the plates of the limited number of registered building control approvers, who are already in short supply.

“So even if we assume that the ones that were working for Assent (and its subsidiaries) will find employment somewhere else, that won’t be immediate so there’ll be a problem there.”

The podcast records wider industry frustration about delays, with Mahmood highlighting a previous description of the regulator as “The regulatory fatberg in the sclerotic property pipeline which needs a good old flush”.

Rousell notes that the Building Safety Regulator is already working through a backlog of gateway 2 applications under the new regime, and that the collapse of major building control providers is unlikely to help that position. I5ad1905eca2111f0a5f6fa0d299e95…

Mahmood added that the Government has laid draft regulations before Parliament to move the Building Safety Regulator out of the Health and Safety Executive and establish it as an independent body corporate from 27 January 2026, with the ability to delegate functions back to Health and Safety Executive staff until the end of that year.

He said: “It does remain to be seen how that transition goes.

“Hopefully that’s enough and with that proviso, the change will go smoothly.

“We’ll have to wait and see.”

Concerns over charges, timing and further change

The Construction Briefing episode also highlights a Government consultation on what the Building Safety Regulator and local authority building control can charge for their building regulations functions. I5ad1905eca2111f0a5f6fa0d299e95…

Mahmood noted that, while he had not yet read the consultation in detail, it is likely to result in higher costs for applicants using the regulator and local authority building control services.

Rousell comments that increased fees could be seen as a way to fund a better resourced building control process, but might be difficult for developers already paying for a service that is perceived as underperforming.

Mahmood said: “I think it’s always difficult in any business to start charging people more when you’re underperforming and you don’t have satisfied customers, even if you do have a kind of captive market like the BSR does.”

He added that the changes could be presented as part of a wider plan to improve the system, with applicants asked to accept higher costs in the short term. 5…

Rousell also raises the question of timing, asking whether the industry needs further structural change at a point when it is still adjusting to the post Grenfell regime and the new high risk building procedures.

Mahmood replied that frequent change creates disruption in itself and that, after early difficulties with the regime, there is uncertainty over whether the next phase will deliver an improved outcome.

Next steps for oversight, remediation and housing delivery

The Lords report on the Building Safety Regulator is due to be published shortly before the draft establishment regulations come into force, providing Parliamentary scrutiny of both performance and structure.

Its findings on delays to approvals for remediation of dangerous cladding are likely to be read alongside the regulator’s own work to clear existing backlogs in high risk building applications.

The report’s comments on the impact of approval delays on the 1.5 million homes by 2029 target will also be of interest to housing developers, local authorities and Government departments overseeing delivery.

The move to an independent Building Safety Regulator body, with powers and duties set out in secondary legislation, will change how building safety functions are organised and governed in England and Wales.

Transitional arrangements, including the ability to delegate to Health and Safety Executive staff until the end of 2026, are designed to maintain continuity while the new body is established.

The combination of structural change, a forthcoming Lords report and ongoing consultations on building control charges means stakeholders will have several related developments to track over the coming year.

Practical implications for building control and safety work

Developers, building owners and leaseholder representatives will be directly affected by any findings that Building Safety Regulator approval delays are slowing cladding remediation or new housing projects.

Fire engineering consultants, architects and building services engineers working on high risk residential buildings will need to plan for the regulator’s current workload and any procedural changes arising from the Lords report and new regulations.

System installers, fire-protection contractors and electrical contractors may see project timetables adjusted if approval processes remain slow during the transition to an independent Building Safety Regulator body.

Local authority building control teams and private registered building control approvers will need to consider how the regulator’s structural change, additional workload and any new charging arrangements will interact with their own capacity.

Government departments and housing delivery agencies will have to align housing targets, remediation schemes and funding programmes with any revised expectations on approval timescales and regulatory resource.