Posts in category: Passive

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.