Fire Aware sets out cultural change aims in plain terms

by Featured NewsIndustry CommentSafety

Cultural change across sectors is Fire Aware’s focus

Fire Aware has published commentary calling for cultural change across multiple sectors it describes as vulnerable to fire risk.

The organisation is focusing on property and construction, plus hospitality, healthcare, the public sector and retail.

Fire Aware CEO Gavin Skelly said: “Fire Aware crosses the boundaries of sectors that have responsibilities for end-user safety.

“This is not just about construction companies.

“We are working with any organisation that wants to show the public that they are responsible and are committing to only delivering the safest outcome for their staff, clients and customers.”

Sectors highlighted for responsibility in buildings

Skelly cited sectors with particular responsibilities for people who work and move about in their buildings, including hospitality covering bars, restaurants and hotels.

Healthcare was also identified as a focus, with reference to protecting vulnerable and elderly people, including those who are ill or cannot look after themselves in the event of a real fire.

Skelly added: “Working in this industry is a vocation, not a job, and should be treated as such.

“All parts of the supply chain across multiple sectors should work with the same vocational approach, not just those who are qualified to do so.

“The legislation being introduced is robust and also quite complex.

“The guidance and support we offer will help navigate the relevant parts for our members and for anyone else wishing to tap onto this knowledge and intelligence.”

Charters and a moral code of conduct

Fire Aware described its work as focusing on the moral responsibility of those working in the fire safety supply chain, including designers, developers, asset owners, managers and other stakeholders.

It said it aims to change the culture of the built environment sector by introducing a moral code of conduct via a series of charters intended to influence how member companies behave in upholding their duty of care.

Fire Aware described itself as a recognised membership body serving the built environment and related sectors with an aim to work and trade responsibly to best practice standards in the interests of general public safety.

KiddeFenwal launches 35-2X Series Gas Ignition Controls for 230 VAC

by Featured NewsGas DetectionSafety

Gas ignition controls for 230 VAC applications

KiddeFenwal has introduced its 35-2X Series, a line of direct spark Gas Ignition controls for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) in and serving European and Asia-Pacific markets.

The company described the series as gas ignition and safety modules supporting 230 VAC applications.

The 35-2X Series is being offered via the Fenwal Controls brand, which the company said has served OEMs since 1935.

Rekha Agrawal said: “KiddeFenwal continues to bring new critical control solutions to market, meeting the evolving needs of OEMs and their range of customers worldwide.

“From increasing product complexity to rising energy prices, we deeply understand the challenges in this key space and are planning several innovations over the months to come specifically designed to meet such issues head on.”

Modules and application areas

The press release from the company listed three inaugural modules in the 35-2X Series: the 35-20 Direct Spark Ignition (DSI) Control without blower, 35-21 DSI Control with inducer blower and 35-23 DSI Control with intermittent pilot.

The modules are available in configurations described as specific to applications in HVAC, agriculture, pool heating, commercial cooking and other sectors.

All modules are described as providing high energy spark output for gas ignition.

The modules include an enhanced LED readout for diagnostics and status reporting.

They also include a programmable dry contact (alarm) output for indicating a lock out condition.

Certifications and approvals

KiddeFenwal stated that the 35-2X Series is globally certified, meeting CE EN298:2022, AS 4625-2008 and BSI approvals for installations in Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Asian markets.

The company described the launch as part of its planned expansion in the safety controls space across Europe, Asia and Australia.

The 35-2X Series is being offered through the Fenwal Controls brand.

Safe Dubai forum set for 13 February at Grand Hyatt Dubai

by EventsFeatured NewsMiddle East - Breaking NewsMiddle East - EventsSafety

Safe Dubai 2026 forum details

Encardio Rite will host the 2026 edition of Safe Dubai on 13 February 2026 at the Grand Hyatt, Dubai.

The company said the one-day forum will bring together senior industry experts to examine emerging trends and challenges and how monitoring data is being used to reduce risk, plan interventions more effectively and make stronger lifecycle decisions.

Keynote and discussion themes

Professor Kenichi Soga, from University of California, Berkeley, is scheduled to deliver the keynote address.

Arushi Bhalla, Managing Director, Encardio Rite Group of Companies, said: “Smart construction has progressed from data collection to predictive and intelligence-driven asset management.

“Today’s challenge is not access to data, but the ability to interpret it in a way that improves safety, performance, and lifecycle outcomes.

“Safe Dubai 2026 provides a platform to examine how infrastructure intelligence is being applied across complex, real-world projects.”

The announcement also referenced a McKinsey report estimating global construction industry inefficiencies at US$1.6 trillion annually, linked to limited visibility and fragmented insights.

Interested industry professionals can register via the event website.

MHCLG consults on fire protection rules for telecoms work in buildings

by ConstructionFeatured NewsPassiveSafety

MHCLG: Fire protection and building control dispensations

A government consultation proposes streamlined building control procedures for certain telecommunications work while retaining fire protection requirements.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has opened a consultation on dispensations covering drilling holes through internal fire-resisting walls for fibre optic cabling and work to mobile communications masts.

The proposals focus on work to existing buildings, including existing higher-risk buildings, and also seek views on approval routes for fibre optic work in buildings outside the higher-risk regime.

The consultation document describes the higher-risk building control regime introduced in October 2023 and defines higher-risk buildings as buildings containing at least 2 residential units, care homes and hospitals that meet the 18 metre or seven storey height threshold.

How the higher-risk process would change

The consultation outlines that the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) is the sole building control authority for higher-risk building work in England.

For fibre optic cabling in existing higher-risk buildings, the proposal is to dispense with procedural requirements linked to gateway two, requirements during construction and gateway three, so work could proceed without applications to, or approval from, the BSR.

A condition under consideration is written notification to the BSR once the work is completed, alongside retaining a handover of accessible digital information covering how the work complies with parts B, F, L and O of Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 2010.

For fibre optic cabling in existing buildings outside the higher-risk regime, the proposal is to dispense with procedural requirements related to giving a building control notice or submitting full plans, with a completion notification to the relevant building control authority also under consideration.

For mobile communications masts on existing higher-risk buildings, the proposal is to dispense with gateway two and construction-stage procedural requirements, while retaining gateway three checks including the need to apply for, and obtain, a completion certificate from the BSR.

Across the proposals, conditions under consideration include limits on hole size, fire-stopping requirements, product safety standards, time limits between start and completion and requirements for relevant qualifications, with the Principal Contractor identified as the party responsible for ensuring conditions are met.

Consultation dates and response route

The consultation runs from 27 January to 24 March 2026 and invites evidence and views on scope, conditions, enforcement and whether competent person schemes could be appropriate in future for the types of work covered.

Responses can be submitted via an online survey or by emailing buildingregulationsconsultation@communities.gov.uk, with respondents asked to confirm whether they are replying as an individual or on behalf of an organisation and to include contact details.

NFPA explains how 2026 NEC draft changes can be traced and reviewed

by Associations and OrganisationsFeatured NewsSafety

NEC changes and where to research them

A new NFPA video explains how to research why changes were made in the 2026 National Electrical Code (NEC).

The video features Corey Hannahs, Master Electrician and Senior Electrical Specialist at the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), who demonstrates how users can access draft documents, committee statements and public input records to understand the reasoning behind specific revisions.

He explains that the 2026 NEC was issued last fall and that the public input stage is already open for the 2029 NEC, reflecting the three-year development cycle used across NFPA codes and standards.

Using NFPA tools to compare first and second drafts

Hannahs demonstrates how to navigate the NFPA standards development process and the NEC document information webpage at nfpa.org/70 to view current and prior editions.

He shows how the first draft presents changes from the 2023 NEC, with additions and deletions clearly marked, and explains that users must log in with a free NFPA account to view the draft material.

Using section 110.16 as an example, he outlines how users can select individual revisions to view committee statements explaining the intent behind changes, along with associated public inputs.

He then moves to the second draft view, describing how it presents a refined version of the first draft language after public comments have been reviewed and additional revisions made.

Committee reasoning and public input behind revised wording

Hannahs explains that committee statements and public comments provide insight into how and why wording changes are made.

He highlights examples where language was adjusted to align with the NEC style manual and where revisions were introduced to clarify marking requirements and practical application.

He also points to changes in arc flash marking requirements, including an update to the timestamp label so it reflects the date when the arc flash risk assessment was completed rather than the date the label was applied, which he says provides clearer context for future system reviews and modifications.

He says the video is intended to help users independently investigate NEC changes, gain clarity on committee decisions and build a better understanding of how draft revisions develop into final code language.

Adapting to high-risk environments: FM’s approach to lithium-ion risk in mission-critical sites

by Featured NewsSafety

Adrian Oxley, Principal Engineer for Semiconductor/ Digital at FM discusses managing risks across unique environments and how to overcome challenges

To begin with, could you introduce yourself, your role and how your work relates to lithium-ion battery risk in mission-critical environments?

My name is Adrian Oxley and I am the Principal Engineer for Semiconductor/ Digital at FM.

I oversee the technical side of our book around data centres.

I am responsible for making sure that our resources, operating standards and the 2,213 field engineers that work throughout the globe have a strong understanding of the data centre industry.

I also have a link between our clients, the Chief Engineers group that I work in and our research department.

When our clients have technically challenges, we help to focus our research on the issue in order to offer mitigation strategies.

Additionally, I work in close collaboration with our underwriting side of the business to make sure that the engineers are providing relevant information.

What are the main causes of battery failure in data centres and telecom infrastructure, and how do these differ from risks seen in other sectors?

It doesn’t matter what industry you are focused on, whether that be data centres or the automotive industry, you need to be aware of the failures associated with lithium-ion batteries and how they can be categorised.

These categories range from manufacturing faults, mechanical damage and electrical abuse.

There are also typical external type events like electrical failures for short circuits and grounds etc.

They can all cause damage to the batteries and therefore risk putting them into thermal runaway.

How does early off-gas detection work in practice and what kind of indicators or thresholds are most relevant for operators to understand?

Off gas detection works when a lithium-ion cell starts to fail and goes into thermal runaway.

The cells begin to off-gas and the off-gas is the product of a chemical reaction that happens within the cell.

Having the ability to detect something going very wrong early on within that cycle is a positive advantage because it allows you to react proactively once you realise the issue is there.

Off-gas detection is focused on very, very small quantities due to the off-gases being around 10 parts per million.

Where does water mist suppression fit into a layered response, and what features make it suited to technical environments with sensitive equipment?

Water mist is one of the tools in our toolbox.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to these systems but overall, water mist allows us to provide effective fire protection.

I think the key thing to get across is that a water mist system must be specified based on how it’s been tested and what it has been approved for.

If you put a water mist system into an environment that it has not been tested or designed for then it’s not going to do what it’s supposed to do.

This means that you have got to be very careful with water mist systems when it comes to the protection of lithium-ion batteries- certainly within a data centre environment, making it sure it has been approved for the application.

Can you explain how detection and suppression can support each other when integrated as a single mitigation strategy?

The detection system must be a part of an overall mitigation strategy because the system on its own is not really going to do anything for us- it won’t put the fire out; it is only able to tell us that there is a problem.

Ultimately, it is from using the signal from that detection system that we can react hopefully before a fire starts.

With off-gas detection for instance, using that signal to cut the power to the chargers for the battery or cut an electrical breaker to stop the power associated with those batteries is going to give us some benefit.

Effectively, we can use the signal from the detection system, whether that be off-gas or smoke detection, to trigger the water system into action.

Water will be released and the system will use the heat of the fire to let water out of the pipework in a pre-action system.

Are there challenges in retrofitting these systems into existing facilities or when aligning them with other safety controls?

The challenge of a data centre environment is that once the environment is operational, the opportunity to go in there and start fitting fire protection systems is very remote.

 An operator would typically not want to do this retrofit.

This is why it is really important to consider the fire protection strategy at the very early concept of a building.

At that point in time, we can design the system properly and take all the building parameters into consideration during the design.

Certainly, when we are looking at data centres we need to be considering things like high velocities of airflow as this can have a significant impact on the detection system.

If there is a high volume of air flowing through the hot or cold containment this can impact the system operation.

You need to consider if it is feasible to fit a water-based system, such as a sprinkler system, into an existing system.

Yes, it is feasible, but it is also very expensive and challenge.

All of these factors need to be taken in consideration.

Operators are far better off incorporating detection systems into the overall design from a very early stage.

It is very difficult to link existing detection systems because they are designed to be holistic.

Are there any common misunderstandings about lithium-ion risk management in mission-critical sites that you think need clarification?

A lot of the time, people talk about the fire hazard associated with lithium-ion- which is a well-known phenomenon.

The data centre industry especially has seen several recent incidents.

In Korea, there was a government wide shut down for a number of days after a lithium-ion battery system was removed from a data system.

There was also a significant incident Singapore which involved an explosion that caused a substantial amount of damage.

I think this is a factor that is underestimated within the industry because many people do not realise that we’re not dealing with a fire hazard- but an explosion hazard, too.

Therefore, I believe that as part and parcel of the strategy of introducing lithium-ion batteries into data centres, additional factors need to be taken into consideration, such as the location of the batteries, the size of the room associated with it and how the room might react to an explosion.

These are all important things that we look at as FM when evaluating a battery system.

How do you see battery technology, regulatory expectations or infrastructure design influencing this topic over the next few years?

I think the industry is really at a crossroads now.

Previously, everyone worked to the UL Standards when it came to getting batteries certified, but we are now seeing the authorities having more influence.

This means that the people who give the occupation certificates to data centres are turning around and saying the tests they have previously done are not sufficient anymore in proving that the system is not going to cause a significant fire or even an explosion.

Really, the way they are coming as it is because firefighters are going into buildings and facing potential injury because of the high-risk environment[AO1.1], potentially caused by the fire and explosion risk present.

A lot of the authorities having jurisdiction now are asking for large scale fire tests to actually prove the performance of the batteries in a real-life scenario.

This uptake in desire for large scale fire testing is changing the regulatory landscape indefinitely.

Battery technology is changing simultaneously; we are seeing different technologies emerging within the industry and it is important to recognise that we cannot rule out that something worse than lithium-ion might be coming along.

Batteries are an important part of data centres, they’re not going to go away, but the application of them must be taken into consideration moving forward.

At FM, our responsibility is to help the industry navigate this moving forward.

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

From socket to skyline: The Ci Global technology aiming to prevent the next Grenfell-scale fire

by Breaking NewsMiddle East - Breaking NewsSafety

Anthony D. Parfitt – a Home Office approved safety systems innovator and founder of Ci Global – outlines how rising electrical loads in GCC buildings demand earlier fault detection before hazardous conditions develop

Electrical faults remain a leading cause of serious fires across the GCC – and around the world – intensified by high temperatures and rising electrical demand.

The question is no longer how fast we respond – but how early we prevent the fault that starts the fire.

In the GCC, summer temperatures regularly reach 45–50°C – which may be great for tourism and lifestyle, but the same extreme heat places real stress on electrical systems.

This continuous thermal-electrical load accelerates wear, especially in older or poorly maintained buildings.

Air conditioning is used almost continuously across the region, and it is also an electrical system that carries elevated fire risk when operating around the clock in a hot climate.

A region under extreme electrical stress

The GCC also has one of the world’s highest concentrations of mega-high-rise residential buildings.

While these feats of engineering are deeply impressive, they rely on complex electrical systems – longer cabling routes that create greater resistance and heat, heavier transformer and substation loads, and a much higher density of sockets and appliances, all drawing significant current.

The region has built some of the world’s most advanced and luxurious towers.

But even in these buildings, the basic risk remains the same: a single electrical fault in one apartment can still start a fire.

That’s why protection has to begin with prevention, not response.

Like every nation in the developed world, the GCC is also exposed to a steady influx of counterfeit or substandard electrical goods.

And it doesn’t matter how expensive or advanced the building is – the risk is identical the moment a resident plugs in a faulty device that can overheat and ignite.

All of this places the Gulf on the front line of electrical fire risk.

Yet the systems designed to protect us – alarms, detectors, sprinklers, evacuation routes – still only react once a fire has already started.

And by that point, it’s already too late; the damage has begun.

Across the GCC, Civil Defence teams are among the most well-funded, technologically advanced, and fastest responders in the world.

But even with world-class response, too much is still left to chance.

If we want fewer fires, fewer deaths, and fewer catastrophic building losses, one thing is clear:

We must stop treating electrical fires as inevitable – and start preventing them at their source.

The problem we still aren’t addressing

The fundamental design of the electrical socket has barely changed in over a century.

It continues to pass power blindly, without questioning what it is powering or whether conditions are safe, which is why electrical faults so often develop invisibly and are only noticed once smoke appears.

Most people assume a circuit breaker will prevent this, but it won’t.

Breakers trip on short circuits or extreme overcurrent, not on the slow, quiet overheating that causes most electrical fires.

As the 2017 Grenfell Tower tragedy in London exposed, a single faulty appliance can trigger devastation on a scale that no traditional system is built to withstand.

The UK Government’s public inquiry confirmed that a malfunction in a fridge-freezer was the source of the fire – a silent electrical fault buried out of sight.

Nothing in today’s standard building-safety stack – no smoke detector, alarm, or sprinkler – would have stopped that fridge-freezer from overheating and catching fire.

That is not a UK-only lesson.

It is a global one.

Why waiting for smoke is no longer acceptable

In most electrical fires, the first signs of danger are subtle: small temperature changes, increased current draw, persistent overloading, micro-arcs, or degrading components.

None of these will trigger a traditional detector.

Smoke alarms, heat sensors, and suppression systems have saved countless lives, but they all share the same flaw: they activate after the fire has begun – and they rely on human reaction to work.

By that stage, toxic smoke may fill a room within minutes, visibility can collapse to near zero, evacuation routes quickly become hazardous, and firefighters are forced to work blind as conditions worsen by the second.

Fire crews often enter burning buildings with little or no knowledge about where people are or how the fire is spreading.

Even the most skilled firefighters are constrained by the absence of real-time information.

This isn’t a criticism of those on the front line.

It’s a limitation of the systems they’re given.

The question we should be asking is simple: if electrical faults can be detected before a fire starts, why are we still relying on alarms after smoke appears?

The shift from reaction to prevention

Across the GCC, governments are investing billions into smart cities and next-generation safety systems.

Dubai’s ambition to become the world’s safest and smartest city, and Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 transformation, are not just economic programmes – they are signals.

Signals that the region is ready to adopt solutions that act before life-threatening danger takes hold.

That shift begins at the socket.

At Ci Global, we spent the last eight years asking a simple question: what if the socket itself could detect the earliest signs of electrical danger and stop a fire before it starts? This led to Ci Safe – an intelligent, prevention-first building-safety system built to stop a fire long before heat or smoke ever appears.

Ci Safe is a full-spectrum building-safety system that uses intelligent sensors, cloud AI for real-time building intelligence, and cloudless Intelligent Autonomy (IA) for local, instant action – even offline.

It prevents electrical fires by detecting overheating, arcing, load anomalies and other early-stage electrical risks long before a fire can start, and it also detects water and gas leaks and identifies mould-risk conditions.

If danger is detected, Ci Safe shuts off power locally and instantly.

This is the fire-prevention window – the brief but critical moment between a fault forming and a fire starting.

Most electrical fires begin here, and Ci Safe intervenes before they do.

Ci Safe isn’t a smart-home gadget.

It’s safety-critical building infrastructure that works alongside – not instead of – existing building or national safety systems.

It adds the preventive layer that traditional detection-only systems cannot provide.

A whole-building safety revolution

In large buildings and public infrastructure, Ci Safe forms part of a wider safety ecosystem:

  • Ci Sockets prevent electrical fires at the point of use
  • Ci Sensors detect water and gas leaks and can shut off valves remotely
  • Ci Inside embeds Ci Safe electrical-fire prevention into appliances, EV chargers, and other products
  • Ci Command & Control provides live digital-twin visibility for building managers and emergency services
  • Ci PathFinder uses laser guidance to show the fastest route to the fire and the safest way out – even in zero visibility
  • Ci Drone provides rapid rooftop-to-ground response and aerial insight at any height

Together, these layers of protection turn passive buildings into active protectors, delivering intelligent, autonomous prevention at every critical point of risk.

A unique opportunity to lead the world

Few regions are better positioned than the GCC to adopt prevention-first safety at scale.

The UAE, for example, has already demonstrated leadership by integrating national fire-monitoring systems, investing in digital infrastructure, and prioritising life-safety standards.

Embedding prevention-first electrical-fire safety into this ecosystem is the next logical step – and one that could set a global benchmark.

The GCC can become the first region in the world to treat true electrical-fire prevention as a national standard.

A fire that never starts saves lives

We cannot stop every fire.

Human behaviour is unpredictable.

But we can stop most electrical fires – and give emergency crews the information they’ve been missing for decades.

Electrical fires are not an inevitable fact of life.

They happen when we fail to act early – at the socket, where intervention is most effective.

With intelligent, embedded prevention, buildings no longer wait for danger.

They guard against it.

And in a region growing as fast and as vertically as the GCC, that matters.

The safest city in the world will not be the one that responds fastest.

It will be the one where electrical fires rarely begin – and when they do, the response is immediate.

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

Building Safety Regulator outlines priorities as it becomes standalone body

by Breaking NewsIFSJ ExclusivesSafety

As the Building Safety Regulator becomes a standalone body, its leadership is promising faster decisions, clearer accountability and a renewed focus on remediation and professional competence

The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) has used its first media briefing following its transition to standalone status to outline its operational priorities for 2026, setting out progress on Gateway 2 approvals, acknowledging ongoing challenges in remediation and signalling forthcoming reforms across enforcement, guidance and professional competence.

Lord Andy Roe, Chair of the Building Safety Regulator, and Charlie Pugsley, the regulator’s Chief Executive, spoke in a one hour virtual session on 28 January, followed by a question and answer segment with national and trade press, including International Fire and Safety Journal.

Throughout the briefing, the regulator framed its new standalone status as a practical step designed to strengthen focus, accountability and delivery, rather than as a structural change for its own sake.

Standalone status and regulatory focus

The speakers said becoming an arm’s-length public body gives the regulator a clearer mandate to concentrate on the complex regulatory regime for higher-risk buildings, while improving transparency and accountability.

They argued that operating independently allows BSR to develop its own systems, publish performance data more clearly and strengthen engagement with industry, residents and professional bodies.

The transition was also positioned as an important milestone in the longer-term ambition of developing a Single Construction Regulator, although the speakers stressed that responsibility for that programme sits with government.

Moral purpose, proportionality and housing delivery

In outlining the regulator’s strategic direction, the speakers repeatedly returned to the lessons of the Grenfell Tower fire, describing it as a systemic failure across multiple institutions and disciplines.

They said this experience underpins the regulator’s focus on scrutinising the design and construction of higher-risk buildings, while also emphasising the importance of proportionality.

The briefing argued that building safety regulation must account for the wider housing system, warning that extended delays in housing delivery can create additional risks, particularly when people are pushed into temporary accommodation or poorly converted buildings.

The regulator presented its role as both challenger and enabler, seeking to raise standards while supporting the safe delivery of much-needed new homes.

Gateway 2: system reform and performance improvement

A central theme of the briefing was the regulator’s recent work to stabilise and improve Gateway 2 building control approvals.

The speakers said that when current leadership took office, the regulator was facing a backlog of 144 applications, representing more than 33,000 residential units, many of which had been stalled for extended periods.

They said this backlog has now been reduced to around 20 live cases, which are described as complex engineering discussions rather than administrative delays.

The briefing explained that a key operational shift has been the removal of the previous “local NDT model” in favour of a centralised approach, allowing BSR to retain direct control over specialist technical resources and regulatory decision-making.

This, combined with closer technical engagement with applicants, was presented as having significantly improved decision timelines. Typical approval times in London were said to have fallen from around 48 weeks to closer to 12 or 13 weeks, with similar performance now being seen nationally.

The speakers added that the regulator is no longer rigidly applying statutory service levels where additional technical discussion is judged necessary to reach safe and consistent outcomes.

Other changes highlighted included faster invalidation decisions, with incomplete applications now typically flagged within a week, compared with months under the previous system.

The regulator also described the introduction of account managers and technical consistency meetings, aimed at improving communication, reducing uncertainty and resolving complex design conflicts while maintaining regulatory independence.

Remaining Gateway 2 cases and decision limits

During the question and answer session, media attendees asked whether the remaining Gateway 2 cases could still remain unresolved for long periods.

The speakers said there is no fixed cut-off, but that rejections remain possible where agreement cannot be reached on fundamental safety or design principles.

They stressed that these applications are now subject to near-daily technical engagement, with direct dialogue between applicant specialists and regulator specialists, and framed this as an intensive problem-solving process rather than bureaucratic delay.

The regulator said its focus has shifted towards sustaining throughput as application volumes increase, while improving consistency and supporting safe innovation across complex developments.

Remediation: current pressures and a promised plan

Remediation was consistently identified as the next major operational challenge.

The speakers acknowledged that remediation decisions remain slow, with current average timelines described as around 34 weeks. They cited the technical and practical complexity of remediation cases, including changes to proposed systems during assessment, as key contributing factors.

The regulator said it is currently managing a live remediation workload of around 280 cases, with new applications continuing to enter the system alongside legacy cases.

BSR leadership confirmed that a formal remediation improvement plan is expected to be published in the coming weeks, and that this will include clear targets, resourcing detail and operational reforms. They said the plan will be announced by government.

The briefing also confirmed that BSR has already moved away from the local NDT model in remediation, adopting a batched assessment approach under a regulatory lead, with the aim of reducing head-of-work and moving closer to statutory decision timeframes.

Enforcement and the role of regulatory intervention

Media attendees questioned the timeline for establishing the Remediation Enforcement Unit, which was announced around a year ago.

The speakers said the unit took time to become operational due to factors including recruitment, training lead times, duplication checks and skills shortages, but confirmed that it is now live.

They argued that enforcement must be intelligence-led, proportionate and used selectively, describing enforcement as one element within a wider regulatory toolkit that also includes guidance, informal intervention and site engagement.

While acknowledging the importance of visible enforcement action in serious cases, the regulator cautioned against focusing on enforcement numbers alone, saying meaningful cultural change across a large and complex sector depends on sustained engagement and clarity.

They also stated their belief that some dangerous buildings remain in use and said robust intervention would be necessary where risks remain unaddressed.

Gateway 3: managing risk and industry anxiety

Concerns were raised by media attendees about the risk of Gateway 3 becoming a new bottleneck.

In response, the speakers said the regulator is now focused on build phase oversight and inspection planning, aiming to reduce uncertainty ahead of final sign-off.

They outlined plans to use a combination of class two registered building inspectors, fire services and local authorities acting as agents, alongside direct BSR inspection capacity.

The regulator said communication through account managers is central to this approach, allowing earlier engagement with construction programmes and inspection expectations.

Industry bodies, including the Construction Leadership Council and Build UK, were credited with supporting guidance development for Gateway 3, with the regulator saying it intends to expand how guidance is published and explained as a standalone organisation.

Professional competence and emerging technical risks

The briefing also addressed the regulation of professional competence across the built environment.

The speakers said oversight of the building control profession is a core regulatory responsibility, and framed competence regulation as a way of improving accountability, consistency and safety outcomes.

They pointed to ongoing government work to implement the Grenfell Inquiry recommendation on regulating fire engineers, and said similar questions are being explored in relation to other life-critical disciplines, including structural engineering.

Questions about transfer slabs prompted confirmation that the regulator is aware of emerging concerns and is working with government and industry stakeholders. The speakers directed concerned parties to existing guidance and to seek professional advice where warning signs such as cracking are present.

More broadly, BSR described horizon scanning for emerging construction risks as a core regulatory function, alongside managing gateway approvals and overseeing safety in occupied buildings.

Single Construction Regulator: direction of travel

The question and answer session also addressed the future of a Single Construction Regulator.

The speakers reiterated that responsibility for timelines and scope sits with government, but said BSR is actively supporting this work.

They referenced an existing government prospectus setting out indicative timelines and stressed the importance of avoiding unintended consequences as regulatory systems evolve.

One speaker offered a personal view that many historic failures originate in subcontracting and site delivery, suggesting future regulatory reform may need to place greater emphasis on project management and site control functions, alongside design-stage scrutiny.

What comes next

The briefing positioned 2026 as a transition year for the regulator, with Gateway 2 stabilisation described as largely achieved, remediation reform identified as the next priority and Gateway 3 capacity planning already underway.

The publication of the remediation improvement plan in the coming weeks is expected to provide greater clarity on targets, resourcing and enforcement strategy, and will likely form the next major test of the regulator’s operational credibility.

Beyond this, the regulator signalled continued focus on competence development, guidance expansion, horizon scanning and digital communication, alongside its evolving role in shaping the future of construction regulation.

Taken together, the briefing presented a regulator seeking to move from early operational disruption towards a steadier regulatory footing, while openly acknowledging the scale of the challenge still facing building safety reform.

Relevance for fire and safety professionals

The regulator’s reported improvements to Gateway 2 timelines are directly relevant to fire and safety professionals involved in higher-risk building design, fire strategy development and compliance assurance, where programme certainty and early technical engagement remain critical.

The focus on Gateway 3 planning will shape how inspection, verification and final sign-off processes operate, with implications for fire service input, third-party inspection and dutyholder accountability.

The forthcoming remediation plan will be closely watched by fire and safety specialists, given its potential impact on risk reduction in occupied buildings, enforcement thresholds and resourcing priorities.

Finally, ongoing work on professional competence, regulatory guidance and emerging construction risks reinforces the central role of fire and safety expertise in preventing future systemic failures in the built environment.

How safe are our hotels from fire? Efectis Era Avrasya talks hidden building risks

by Featured NewsSafety

Fire safety consultancy Efectis Era Avrasya explains hotel risk controls across design, material choice, permitting and ongoing inspection for operators

To ensure fire safety in hotels and touristic buildings, it is firstly necessary to correctly define the concept of “fire safety”.

Fire safety of a structure is a process that starts with the correct design of the building, continues with the correct material selection and the correct application of the selected material.

Afterwards, it should be supported by the correct implementation and control of issues such as building permit, utilisation permit and practice permit.

When we consider fire safety in terms of hotels, we can see that the main factors causing fires are lack of user care, lack of taking the necessary precautions in the kitchen, problems in electrical contacts, and delayed completion of maintenance-repair works.

In cases where the right fire safety designs are not implemented, fire tends to rapidly grow and become difficult to control.

Fire safety starts with design

Specialising in fire safety for 70 years, the fire consultancy team of Efectis creates a fire concept specific to the building in question, working on each building’s special requirements.

During architectural, electrical, and mechanical project preparation phase, the correct inclusion of passive and active fire safety measures in the design and the planning of the most appropriate evacuation for the people in a building play a vital role in the safety of life and property.

Choosing the right material for the right project is a must

When the material selection is not correct, even the best project cannot yield the right results for fire safety.

Incorrectly selected facade materials for instance, can ignite rapidly and cause the fire to spread vertically to the entire building facade in a very short time, inducing smoke and flames to spread into the building from the facade openings, regardless of the cause of the fire.

Therefore, the risk of material damage and loss of life is quite high in buildings where correct selection of facade material is not implemented.

These materials must prove their qualifications with test reports from accredited laboratories.

In the absence of relevant reports, it is essential for public health and safety that designers and contractors never use these materials on high buildings’ facades.

Changes made during use in a building may disregard fire safety

In the event that the purpose of use of building sections changes, the storage of materials is not suitable for the design, the building sections are illegally used or incorrect modifications are made, structures lose their fire resistance performance.

It is necessary for the experts to regularly inspect the building to determine whether it continues to be used in a way that is suitable for its intended use and does not threaten fire safety.

In summary the right project, the right material, the right application, inspection, and the right operation are the five essential steps of fire safety in hotels, as in all building types.

Building Safety Regulator becomes standalone body in Gateway 2 reform milestone

by ConstructionFeatured NewsHealth and SafetySafety

Gateway 2 framework and transition to standalone status

The Building Safety Regulator officially became a standalone organisation on 27 January 2026, marking a structural shift in the delivery of Gateway 2 building control oversight.

The Building Safety Regulator (BSR), previously part of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), transitioned to an arm’s-length public body under the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, paving the way for the creation of a single construction regulator as recommended by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

The regulator was established in 2021 following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, with full statutory powers introduced under the Building Safety Act 2022.

The move formalises a broader mandate that extends beyond high-rise buildings to include responsibility for safety standards across all buildings in England.

The transition follows what BSR described as an operational reset in its role as the building control authority for higher-risk buildings, supported by the introduction of its Innovation Unit and new efficiency measures.

These changes were positioned as part of efforts to improve operational delivery, target regulatory guidance and support competence development across the construction sector.

Regulatory mission, leadership and sector response

Lord Roe, Chair of BSR, said: “Today is a decisive and important step in strengthening building safety and a milestone that marks our evolution into a standalone regulator.

“While the creation of BSR in 2021 was a watershed moment, today is about looking forward to a single construction regulator that brings coherence to a once-fragmented system.

“We will know we are successful when residents acknowledge we have made the built environment safer.

“Today is about continuing to support homes being built safely while fulfilling our primary mission: ensuring we are all building better and living safer, together.”

Charlie Pugsley, Acting Chief Executive Officer of BSR, said: “Today is a significant new chapter for BSR, with a clear signal that while we must continue to focus on improving our operational delivery for both new build homes and occupied HRBs, our mandate extends far beyond high-rise oversight to a broader responsibility for safety and standards across buildings in England.

“By driving professional competence and refining regulatory guidance, we can ensure a holistic approach that spans from initial design through to lifelong building management.

“Our commitment to robust enforcement and cultural transformation serves a single, vital purpose in 2026 and beyond – restoring resident confidence and trust in the built environment.”

Samantha Dixon, Building Safety Minister, said: “Everyone deserves to live in a safe home and we are determined to deliver lasting change to make this a reality.

“The Building Safety Regulator sits at the heart of this mission, and today launching a new body is an important step in realising sector wide reform.

“I look forward to working with the new leadership team on our journey towards the Single Construction Regulator.”

Mark Reynolds, Executive Chair of Mace Group and Chair of the Construction Leadership Council, said: “Over the last twelve months we’ve seen a very tangible shift in how BSR has worked with the Construction Leadership Council and developers across the country, and the result has been a more effective process, enabling safer buildings to be commissioned and delivered faster.

“The UK needs confidence that the construction industry, the regulator and government are all working together to deliver new and safe housing at scale – and I believe this moment marks a major step forward on that journey.

“As an independent body and working under the leadership of Charlie and Andy I have no doubt we’ll see more positive progress during 2026.”

The transition formalises BSR’s independence and establishes its governance framework as the regulator works toward the development of a single construction regulator model.

Regulatory role and standalone status

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) outlined the regulatory framework and operational changes following the transition to standalone status.

The HSE described the Building Safety Regulator as the national regulator responsible for improving the safety and standards of all buildings in England, established in 2021 following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, with full statutory powers introduced under the Building Safety Act 2022.

From 27 January 2026, BSR operates as a stand-alone executive non-departmental public body sponsored by MHCLG, with governance and accountability formalised while day-to-day regulatory activity continues.

The framework includes responsibility for regulating higher-risk residential buildings over 18 metres or seven storeys across design, construction and occupation through a three-stage gateway approval process.

BSR also acts as the building control authority for all higher-risk buildings, including hospitals and care homes, and oversees the performance of local authority and private sector building control bodies.

Charlie Pugsley, Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Building Safety Regulator, said: “This month marks a significant new chapter for BSR as a standalone body, with the knowledge that our new processes are driving improvements – evidenced by the fact we recently made the most decisions in our operating history.

“We are determined to build on this momentum by launching a Remediation Improvement Plan to tackle complex remediation cases and streamline resources.

“We will also be engaging even more closely with applicants to help improve the quality of new build HRB applications.

“By driving these improvements, we can ensure we keep essential construction projects being built, while upholding the critical safety standards that protect residents in both new and existing homes.”

Gateway 2 decisions and application volumes

The Building Safety Regulator published new building control approval data covering November 2025 to January 2026.

The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) recorded 698 Gateway 2 decisions across all application types in the 12 weeks to 24 January 2026.

Live applications across all categories totalled 1,159.

The final quarter of 2025 recorded 673 decisions by 31 December, compared with just over 200 in early 2025.

Across all Gateway 2 categories, 68% of decisions related to London cases, totalling 476 decisions in the capital since November.

In the 12 weeks to 24 January, 97 Gateway 2 new build applications received decisions and 99 new build applications were submitted.

New build applications represented 19,600 residential units.

Decisions were issued for 19,914 units, including 11,962 approvals.

Live cases represented 37,065 residential units.

Legacy, remediation and Innovation Unit performance

The update set out volumes and decision outcomes for legacy applications, remediation cases and the BSR Innovation Unit alongside new build activity.

Since November, 52 decisions were made on outstanding legacy cases inherited under the previous model, with 29 in London.

The approval rate for historic applications viable to receive a decision reached 87%.

The remaining 29 complex legacy cases were under assessment to determine whether continued resources were warranted or whether rejection and resubmission would be required.

Since 3 November 2025, 75 remediation decisions were issued and 73 new remediation cases were received.

Live remediation cases totalled 286, representing 24,949 units.

A batching pilot delivered 12 decisions, with a Remediation Improvement Plan scheduled to launch in the coming weeks to address application quality and streamline internal resources.

In the past 12 weeks, the BSR Innovation Unit (IU) recorded 39 decisions, with 27 in London.

The IU managed 111 live new build applications representing 25,226 units, including 61 in the capital.

Of cases progressing beyond validation, 30% were approved and 41% were rejected.

Initial validation failure rates reached 56%, linked to missing basic design information.

Industry reaction on Gateway 2 evidence and digital records

Rob Norton, UK Director at PlanRadar, said: “The BSR becoming a standalone body corporate is the final nail in the coffin for ‘analogue’ site management.

“For years, the industry has treated documentation as a post-script, something to be tidied up at the end of a project.

“Those days are over.

“An independent regulator, equipped with its own board and a dedicated enforcement mandate, isn’t going to accept a ring-binder full of blurred photos and missing signatures as proof of safety.

“The real challenge for Gateway 2 and 3 isn’t the regulations themselves, it’s the evidence.

“We are currently seeing a massive disconnect between on-site reality and regulatory reporting, which is the single biggest factor behind the Gateway delays currently stalling UK construction.

“If the BSR is to succeed in clearing these backlogs as an independent entity, it requires high-quality, tamper-proof digital data.

“Without a robust ‘Golden Thread,’ developers are essentially playing Russian Roulette with their completion certificates.

“This independence should be a wake-up call.

“The BSR now has the autonomy to set a higher bar for digital competence.

“We can’t expect to build the next generation of high-rise homes using the record-keeping standards of the 1990s.

“It’s time for the industry to stop viewing digital tools as an ‘extra’ and start seeing them as the only way to stay on the right side of an empowered regulator.”

Dr David Crosthwaite, chief economist at BCIS, said: “Data published by the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) in the past few months has spoken for itself.

“While more building control approval decisions are being made thanks to the new Innovation Unit, the speed of decision-making, specifically for remediation applications, must improve.

“Establishing the BSR as an independent organisation is certainly an important step toward unifying and simplifying how construction is regulated.

“It shows the industry is being listened to in the same way the BSR’s process adaptations did last year.

“That said, the BSR cannot afford to take its foot off the gas.

“Its new caseload is growing and construction’s residential market particularly would benefit from a slicker regulatory system sooner rather than later.

“Both private and public sector housing output has slowed and fewer approval holdups would go a long way to speed up project starts and the economic value they can deliver.”