Swift Fire Compliance releases damper guide on remedial works

by Building ManagementFeatured NewsPassiveSafety

Damper remedial guidance for building compliance

Swift Fire Compliance has published a free guide explaining fire damper testing, maintenance and remedial works for existing buildings.

The company says the guide responds to updated standards introduced under the Building Safety Act 2022 and focuses on legal obligations linked to fire and smoke control dampers.

Industry data referenced in the source material indicates that 70% of fire dampers fail initial inspections across the UK.

Fire dampers form part of fire compartmentation systems and close automatically to slow the spread of fire and smoke through ventilation ductwork while maintaining escape routes.

Regular inspection and testing are required under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRFSO) at least every 12 months.

More frequent inspection may be required in higher risk environments.

Guide focuses on remedial work and inspection records

Swift Fire Compliance explains that the publication Beyond the Function Test: Fire & Smoke Damper Remedials Made Clear concentrates on remedial works and compliance recovery in existing buildings.

The guide follows the company’s Ultimate Guide to Fire & Smoke Dampers 2025 and concentrates on practical steps that duty holders can take when defects or compliance gaps are identified.

Content includes legal compliance requirements under the RRFSO alongside guidance related to BS 9999 and DW145.

The guide also explains how to identify common fire damper defects, how remedial actions may be addressed and how remedial compliance reports can be interpreted.

Guidance is also provided on maintaining records so duty holders remain prepared for regulatory audits.

Challenges around installation and maintenance records

Gary Nicholls, Managing Director of Swift Fire Compliance, said: “The industry is continually adapting to changes in legislation; the biggest challenge lies in a lack of initial installation and maintenance records, which are now required by law.

“Fire and smoke control dampers might be hidden from view, but in the event of a fire, they are the difference between safety and catastrophe.

“As statutory guidance continued to evolve, responsible parties must ensure effective inspection, testing and remediation to ensure buildings are truly safe and compliant.”

The guide is available for download from Swift Fire Compliance.

Fire safety debate grows as more states allow single staircases

by EvacuationFeatured NewsSafety

Fire safety staircase rules change in several US states

Several US states have changed building codes to allow some apartment buildings taller than three storeys to be built with a single staircase, replacing long-standing requirements for at least two staircases in most buildings above that height.

The New York Times reported that proponents say the change can reduce development costs by removing the need for a second stair and reducing the space required for common areas such as hallways between staircases, allowing buildings to be developed on smaller lots.

Stephen Smith, the executive director of the Center for Building in North America, said: “We’re seeing single-stair buildings on what were otherwise unbuildable small lots.”

“Allowing more cities to do this will help meet demand for housing,” Smith said.

Where the code changes have been adopted and studied

The article said Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Texas and Tennessee have approved code changes in the past two years allowing just one stairway, and Washington State is set to join them in July.

California, Hawaii, New York, Minnesota, Oregon and Virginia are conducting studies exploring the same change.

Colorado now allows a single staircase in buildings up to five storeys in Denver and 10 other cities with more than 100,000 residents, and Governor Jared Polis said: “We wanted lower costs, smaller footprints, more natural light.”

“It just allows for much more flexibility,” Polis said.

In Washington State, single staircases will be allowed in buildings up to six storeys, and State Senator Jesse Salomon said: “Single stairway is one significant avenue to promote infill – that’s the motivation.”

Fire service concerns and safety evidence cited in the report

Tom Pitschneider, the fire marshal in Shakopee, Minnesota, said there are “challenges in firefighter response to a single stair.”

“As we’re going up the same way as the residents are trying to escape, we need working space,” Pitschneider said.

“With a single stair, everybody’s working the same space, so you don’t have a way to take people out,” he said.

Alex Horowitz, the director of housing policy at the Pew Charitable Trusts, said design features such as sprinklers and fire-resistant materials have made apartment buildings built after World War II safer.

Horowitz said Pew examined 468 deaths between 2012 and 2024 in apartment buildings in New York City where fires had broken out, with three in buildings with a single staircase, and the study found those deaths were not caused by having fewer available staircases.

“A one-stair building has faster egress times because it has a smaller floor plate,” Horowitz said.

“Everyone is closer to the stair,” he said.

“And there are so many fewer residents to evacuate,” Horowitz added.

Pitschneider said safety concerns become more serious in rural areas where fire response times are longer or where fewer firefighting resources are available.

“The model works in a St. Paul, where they’re running multiple engines and they’re putting 12, 15, 18 firefighters on scene in that first 10 minutes,” Pitschneider said.

“What we’re not comfortable with is that model going to our outstate, smaller cities that are bringing three, four firefighters in that first 10 minutes of the firefight,” he said.

ASFP working group outlines next steps for External Envelope guidance

by Associations and OrganisationsBreaking NewsPassiveSafety

External envelope work begins with TG14 first meeting

The first meeting of TG14 – ‘Passive Fire Protection and the External Envelope’ brought together specialists from multiple disciplines, according to a blog post by Paul McSoley shared by the Association for Specialist Fire Protection (ASFP).

Participants included designers and engineers, facade experts, penetration seals, cavity barrier and fixing specialists, plus testing, certification and installation representatives.

The day opened with a call from Mike Ward, who said the next logical step towards industry-wide competence in passive fire protection sits within the void between the faced and the building structure.

Discussion centred on definitions, typologies and testing interfaces

Following work on the ASFP Green Book – fire doors and the ASFP Clear Book – fire resistant glazing, Hannah Mansell told the group that facades are a natural area to simplify and that a similar approach should be applied to external systems as the Design Guide for internal passive fire protection nears completion.

The discussion was framed around how a facade should be defined and what passive fire protection means in that context.

Mansell said: “While I recognise I am not a facade expert, part of my objective for the first session was to break down facades into typologies.

“For example, is the facade external to the building structure, or is it recessed within it?

“If so, what are the next natural steps in identifying the principles of each one?

“To go even further, how many common approaches of facade are there in each location, and how do we determine the approaches for how passive fire protection is applied from a cavity barrier, a door, a window or even a flue discharge?

“What about the wall junctions from the internal compartments that separate room space, and what type of building safety risks could they contain?”

McSoley wrote that the ASFP Purple Book – fire-resisting partitions approach to internal substrates may provide comparators for the work on external substrates.

He wrote that passive fire protection systems are either applied as a weight to the wall substrate or supported from the slab, with installation usually specific to partition-type systems or rigid structures.

He added that the difference with external walls is that they become a non-standard supporting construction, and that testing and determining interfaces will be a key part of TG14’s work.

Next meeting to compile feedback and map facade types

McSoley wrote that the group’s next steps will involve breaking system types down and applying the colour book approach to external substrates.

He added that the next meeting should be better placed to compile feedback from the day and identify facade types and common interface principles that form a whole system.

New BESA certification scheme targets ventilation hygiene compliance under Building Safety Act

by Building ManagementFeatured NewsSafetyTraining

Compliance pathway launched for ventilation hygiene contractors

The Building Engineering Services Association (BESA) has launched VHR Air, a certification pathway for ventilation hygiene contractors to demonstrate professional and technical competence and compliance in line with the Building Safety Act.

BESA said the process was created by its certification scheme, the Ventilation Hygiene Register (VHR), and is based on its industry standard TR19.

The scheme is described as a third party verified and auditable route for demonstrating competence, compliance and best practice in ventilation hygiene services for air systems.

The launch includes a new ‘air work type’ intended to reflect the Act’s principles, including competence assurance, transparency, traceability and the need for a transparent ‘golden thread’ of information.

What VHR Air verifies and why it was created

BESA linked the launch to continued regulatory focus on building safety, indoor air quality and system performance following the introduction of the Act in 2022.

The Association also said demand for specialised ventilation hygiene services had increased, which it connected to awareness of fire and health risks from poorly maintained ventilation systems.

Chris Major, BESA’s head of compliance, said: “Ventilation hygiene plays a vital role in maintaining good indoor air quality and building performance.

“Duty holders must be able to evidence that this work has been carried out by competent, compliant contractors and in line with recognised industry standards.”

Major added: “Compliance with TR19 is increasingly important for those enforcing the legislation and for the insurance industry, so having fully trained operatives is crucial for contractors working in this area.”

TR19 was first developed by BESA in 1998 and has been updated since, with the standard’s guiding principle described as achieving a defined, measurable level of cleanliness intended to improve safety and comfort in buildings.

The VHR Air work type is designed for contractors delivering ventilation hygiene work to general ventilation systems and is intended to independently verify that work is carried out in line with recognised standards including TR19 Air, that individuals undertaking and supervising work are competent for the scope delivered, and that documentation and reporting support building safety and compliance obligations.

How BESA frames the scheme for contractors and clients

Major said: “The Act has fundamentally changed expectations around competence and accountability.

“VHR Air is a practical mechanism for contractors to provide evidence that their ventilation hygiene work meets those expectations, while giving clients and duty holders greater confidence and assurance.”

BESA said the scheme offers contractors third party validation that can strengthen procurement submissions, satisfy insurance requirements and reduce risk through improved audit trails.

It also said clients and duty-holders who specify a VHR Air approved contractor can have confidence that ventilation hygiene work aligns with recognised best practice and contributes to safer, healthier buildings.

Ian Gregory, managing director of IAQ Services and chair of BESA’s Ventilation Hygiene Group, said VHR Air was an excellent way for companies of all sizes to prove their credentials.

Gregory added: “This is the latest step in improving the professionalism of our sector and shows that we take our wider building safety responsibilities very seriously.

“It is crucial that clients can differentiate between those firms who have taken the trouble to invest in their people and processes so they can meet the highest standards, and those who are prepared to ignore their obligations to building occupants.

“A third-party scheme like this should provide them with all the reassurance they need when looking to specify properly qualified specialists.”

Rachel Davidson, BESA’s director of specialist knowledge, said: “The Building Safety Act is about accountability and assurance not additional bureaucracy.

“Industry led certification schemes, built on recognised standards, give contractors a practical way to evidence both individual competence elements and organisational capability, while providing clients and duty holders with confidence that the work is being carried out safely and consistently.

“VHR Air provides a timely, clear and auditable route to compliance at a point where awareness is improving and expectations across the sector are rising”.

BESA said VHR Air was built on the established VHR Grease scheme and that evidence gathered through VHR Air would support ongoing dialogue with the Building Safety Regulator as the industry responds to changes in regulation.

VdS joins Euralarm as associate member in Extinguishing, Fire, Security and Services

by Featured NewsFire DetectionSafetyTraining

Euralarm adds VdS as associate member

Euralarm has welcomed VdS as a new associate member in Zug, Switzerland, in March 2026.

VdS will become a member of its Extinguishing, Fire, Security and Services Sections.

VdS services and areas of work

VdS described its work as covering fire protection, security, cyber security and natural hazard prevention.

Its services include risk assessments, testing and certification, inspection services, information systems for natural hazards and a training programme.

The institute also publishes guidelines that it said set international safety and security standards.

How Euralarm described member benefits and section roles

Euralarm said companies joining the association gain insight into other European markets and opportunities, alongside access to EU policy expertise and connections with technical and political experts and potential business partners.

It added that membership enables organisations to gain expertise on standardisation and support and direct standardisation and legislative processes.

The association outlined its four sections as Extinguishing, Fire, Services and Security, with VdS joining all sections.

AEI Cables urges cabling beyond minimum safety requirements in modern buildings

by Featured NewsSafety

Safety and cabling selection in higher-risk buildings

AEI Cables has said cabling choices in modern buildings should meet and exceed minimum safety requirements where there is high risk to people and property.

In a press release, the company referred to recent legislation and guidance affecting electrical and fire safety, including the Building Safety Act 2022.

Stuart Dover, General Manager of AEI Cables, said: “Meeting the legislation and guidance can sometimes seem challenging but the systems powered by these cables – including smoke and heat extraction systems – assist fire services in firefighting and a safe evacuation in the case of life safety.

“This legislation and guidance should be the minimum criteria for relevance in buildings where vulnerable people move about will help firefighters trying to execute a safe evacuation.

“These areas present a higher risk in the event of a real fire and if in doubt those in the supply chain should seek advice. This may mean going beyond the minimum level of cabling to meet this category of relevance but may make all the difference in the event of fire.”

The Act defines higher-risk buildings as those at least 18 metres in height or at least seven storeys containing at least two residential units.

Category 3 Control guidance linked to evacuation and communications systems

AEI Cables also highlighted Category 3 Control fire performance cables identified under the revised British Standard BS8519: 2020 Code of Practice.

The cables are designed to reduce harmful smoke, toxic gases and flame spread in the event of a real fire.

Guidance for Category 3 Control fire performance cables applies to evacuation alarms for disabled occupants in care homes, emergency voice communications systems and voice alarm systems.

Relevant buildings include tall buildings, office spaces, hospitals, shopping malls and stadia.

Certifications, categories and third-party approvals

AEI Cables also referenced its Firetec Enhanced cabling, which has been approved and certified by LPCB to BS8519 (Annex B), Category 3 Control, as well as Category 2 Control.

BS8519 sets out six cable categories, with three covering power cables and three covering control cables, each with survival times of 30, 60 or 120 minutes.

Products supplied by AEI Cables carry approvals from independent bodies including BASEC and LPCB.

The company also holds approvals from organisations including Lloyds, the MoD, Network Rail and LUL and states that it works to international standards around the world.

Breaching fire compartmentation: Does MHCLG’s fibre cabling consultation risk a free for all?

by Breaking NewsCommunicationsConstructionIFSJ ExclusivesPassiveSafety

Graham Oliphant, Managing Director of Harmony Fire’s consultancy business, examines MHCLG proposals on fibre cabling approvals and the fire compartmentation risks

A flurry of life safety consultations have been launched since the start of the year, including from the BSI, the Scottish Government and from The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).

It was one such consultation, from the MHCLG and published on 27 January, that particularly caught my eye, entitled ‘Improving proportionality and safety outcomes in building control: telecommunications work’.

In summary, this consultation seeks views from industry on proposals to streamline building control procedural requirements within higher risk building settings for the installation of fibre optic cabling and mobile masts.

In the case of fibre optic infrastructure, the open call also seeks feedback on potential building control approval changes for non-higher-risk buildings too.

The consultation considers ‘proposals to dispense with procedural requirements of building regulations for….building work related to the drilling of holes through internal fire-resisting walls for fibre optic cabling and work related to the installation and repair of mobile communications masts.

For these activities, the current building control procedural requirements may be unreasonable and disproportionate and can direct regulatory resources away from the types of building work that carry higher risk, such as new builds and remediation projects.’

Context in building control

The background to this consultation will be familiar to anyone in the housing sector since the introduction of the Building Safety Regulator (BSR).

We need not reopen the arguments going back and forth about the BSR’s role and impact on a sector that repeatedly and fatally has shown itself systemically incapable of consistently delivering safe buildings.

But this consultation makes it clear that greater pragmatism and proportionality may be required to facilitate wider and faster broadband roll out across the nation, as well as to support the BSR on its quest for consistent delivery to agreed service level agreements.

It’s reasonable to view fibre optic cables as a government test case for the BSR as it grapples with resourcing and talent challenges around the Gateway process set up post-Grenfell Tower disaster to ensure a mass casualty event can never happen again within our buildings.

Remediation work currently falls within the Gateway process and the backlog at the BSR continues to grow as work to make buildings safe for residents is regularly delayed beyond the 8-week Gateway 2 decision deadline.

The new leadership team at the BSR has indicated it’s actively looking at remediation activity with an announcement due imminently on a more streamlined process.

So why did this particular public consultation grab my attention? Well with unbelievable timing and coincidence, a colleague had just recently sent me an image with rolls of newly printed labels for a fire compartmentation project Harmony Fire is delivering in Scotland.

Staring out from the screen on my phone I’d just read ‘Fire Compartment Line – Do not alter, cut or breach this fire seal/compartment without permission.

Any damages must be reported and repaired immediately.’ We actually used this very image in our LinkedIn post highlighting the launch of the consultation.

The issue of maintaining fire compartmentation integrity is a constant challenge for everyone working in the life safety sector.

We have directly witnessed far too many egregious fire compartmentation breaches that render this front-line defence against the spread of smoke and fire ineffective and dangerous.

Compartmentation is a critical building safety feature, designed to slow the spread of fire and buy time for residents and emergency services to respond.

A combination of fire-resistant walls and ceilings, fire doors, fire stopping and cavity barriers all work together to create a sealed structure, and a failure in any one element dramatically escalates risk to life.

Training and site discipline 

Education and enforcement around fire compartmentation is not consistent and this is why Harmony Fire has worked in partnership with our customers to develop a new behavioural and cultural approach to the issue of fire compartmentation integrity.

Moving the discussion away from tick-box compliance to real-life failure consequences is our starting point.

Maintaining the integrity of ‘the box’ saves lives and it’s therefore everyone’s responsibility to be vigilant, and to protect and challenge, if necessary, any activities that could compromise the system.

An all-encompassing education programme on the importance of compartmentation delivered to the landlord, residents, building managers, maintenance teams, suppliers, subcontractors and anyone regularly visiting sites means more focused eyes and greater vigilance.

By adopting the ‘hot works’ model used for those contractors working at height and using naked flames on buildings, a new permission-based authorisation system ensures that nobody is permitted to work in a way that could compromise fire compartmentation without prior approval and oversight.

The stickers of course represent the final ‘analogue’, but highly visible, stage of this new behavioural regime, reminding everyone of their joint responsibility for vigilance and urging action if something doesn’t look right.

Our vision to further evolve this regime with customers sees the increasing use of technology and digital accountability, through digitally locked BIM assets and a dedicated Permit to Breach (PTB) process incorporated into the existing Safe Systems of Work (SSoF) protocols.

Utilising PTBs underscores the high-risk nature of compartmentation breaches for our customers’ supply chains and wraps a robust legal framework around the compliant remediation of any work before a PTB can be closed and payments authorised.

The inescapable challenge that all parties to this conversation face is how to support sectors that bring services, like faster broadband, to communities that can drive prosperity, social mobility and productivity, while simultaneously protecting those same communities from the unintended consequences of policy decisions that may be a retrograde life safety step.

Compliance expectations remain

The consultation makes it clear that the drilling of holes in fire compartmentation to accommodate the installation of fibre optic cabling must still comply with requirements under the Building Regulations 2010 and for higher-risk buildings under Part 4 of the Building Safety Act 2022.

However, there is a significant risk that needs to be carefully discussed and considered around the optics of what this potential change may bring from a behavioural perspective.

Under the current legislative regime, anyone seeking to compromise fire compartmentation must submit an application via the BSR’s Gateway process.

This reflects the life safety significance of this activity and focuses applicants on the risks and the expected standards and quality of remedial activity required.

Today, we regularly see the consequences of people not adhering to these existing strict regulations, with genuine instances of compartmentation breaches within weeks of our own project completions.

In this context, we have serious concerns around the perception of a downgrade, or watering down, of the regulations associated with fibre optic cabling installation.

And let’s be clear in terms of behavioural response in a real-world application, the expectation of ‘mission creep’ is high.

If we can drill holes for fibre optic cabling, then surely there’s little difference for that coaxial or POE cable, right?

If it becomes a routine activity to drill holes in fire compartmentation and this is what people regularly witness up and down the country, do we not risk undermining all the hard work and the behavioural changes we have set in train to underscore the importance of fire compartmentation integrity?

Practical options and mitigations

The consultation process gives every audience the chance to have their say, and we should be grateful that views are being sought for this highly significant and consequential change.

But there are already measures and actions that can be taken today to make this less of a binary decision.

Across many of our compartmentation projects, we have introduced a simple future proofing measure that eliminates the need for future drilling.

By specifying firestop sleeves into our compartmentation designs, this provides a fully compliant and safe way for cables to be installed without the need for any additional interventions.

The greater adoption of asset-based technology solutions and existing safe working protocols linked to contractual payment terms offer an alternative vision.

Balancing demands, proportionality and appropriateness characterise this latest consultation process.

It’s vitally important that as many voices, from as many sides of this debate, are heard before the closing date on the 24 March.

This will ensure changes do not bring unintended consequences that ultimately set back resident life safety outcomes.

This move feels like a retrograde step and risks behavioural change in the wrong direction.

Let’s hope that diverse voices across the sector provide their own insights into how we can best balance the demand, while understanding our number one priority must remain focused on the safety and security of families relying on the absolute integrity of fire compartmentation.

BSR update shows 108 new build decisions over 12 weeks to 25 February

by Building ManagementConstructionFeatured NewsPassiveSafety

BSR Gateway 2 update and reporting changes

The Building Safety Regulator (BSR) has set out planned changes to how it reports progress on Gateway 2 applications, alongside updated volumes for decisions, invalidations and live cases in the 12-week rolling period to 25 February 2026.

The BSR said it has changed how it represents application progress by removing invalid applications from progress percentages, describing invalid applications as those lacking basic critical safety information and normally invalidated within around one week.

Percentages of withdrawn, rejections and approvals are now shown as a proportion of the total number of applications that passed validation.

Closed applications across all categories totalled 639 in the past 12 weeks, including 273 invalidations.

The number of live applications of all categories was reported as 1,212.

Across all Gateway 2 categories, 65% of closed applications were related to London cases, with 404 made in the capital over the past 12 weeks.

Remediation improvement plan due to be announced

A remediation improvement plan is set to be formally announced and introduced over the coming weeks.

The plan is intended to improve the efficiency, quality and timeliness of applications for remediation projects.

It will focus on strengthening BSR resource capacity, improving internal processes and supporting industry to submit higher quality applications.

The update reported 86 remediation decisions made since December 2025, including 41 in London, and 77 new cases received.

There were 279 live remediation cases being processed, representing 24,282 units.

The BSR said late 2025 and early 2026 remediation applications are averaging around 18 weeks, with complex older remediation cases taking longer for decisions.

It said it will publish specific remediation guidance in the coming weeks, alongside improved feedback and support for applicants.

New build decisions, legacy cases and Innovation Unit activity

Gateway 2 new build applications in the 12-week rolling period to 25 February recorded 108 decisions, with 82 new applications received.

New build applications representing 15,178 residential units were received, with decisions on 23,197 units issued, including 10,514 approvals.

There were 31,191 units in live cases.

Legacy cases reduced from 60 at the start of December to three normal applications, with a separate cohort of 18 applications with significant technical issues moved into a complex case category.

The BSR said approval rates of legacy cases continue to be 53%.

The BSR Innovation Unit (IU) made 27 decisions in the past 12 weeks, including 10 in London, and is currently managing 123 live new build applications representing 26,224 units, with 69 of those in the capital.

Eleven applications have been approved with a median approval time of 18 weeks.

For post-validation applications, 33% are approved and 33% rejected, with the remainder under active account management.

Charlie Pugsley, Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Building Safety Regulator, said: “We continue to see improvements to the numbers of decisions being made for new build applications, and the numbers of safe homes being made available for the future.

“We also continue to engage even more closely with applicants to help improve the quality of those applications and that continues to see tangible results that will make a real difference.

“However, we recognise that current determination times are falling short of our targets for remediation.

“Our Remediation improvement plan, which will be formally announced and rolled out operationally over the coming weeks, will represent a targeted package of focussed measures to reset the system.

“But speed can never come at the cost of safety, whether that be for new build or existing homes.

“Our goal continues to be to ensure that industry can construct safe buildings, and that residents can see the essential safety improvements they deserve without unnecessary delays.”

The update also described a batching pilot for bundling new build and remediation applications for accelerated assessment, stating that initial data indicates faster processing times than previous methods and that the model remains under evaluation.

New construction product PAS 2000 links Grenfell recommendations with UK reform

by ConstructionFeatured NewsSafety

Construction products PAS 2000 published by BSI

A new framework designed to strengthen product safety and support regulatory reform across the built environment sector has been published following a recommendation that came out of the Grenfell Inquiry.

BSI stated that PAS 2000, Construction products – Bringing safe products to market – Code of practice, sets a practical framework for construction product manufacturers to demonstrate they have taken reasonable steps to best ensure products placed on the market are safe for their intended use.

The code of practice was sponsored by the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS).

The PAS aligns with Recommendation 3.3 of the Morrell-Day Review which called for industry collaboration with BSI to produce guidance on the due diligence expected when placing a construction product on the market.

Link to Grenfell and construction product regulatory reform

The PAS was developed following recommendations in the Morrell-Day Testing for a Safer Future report and the Grenfell Tower Inquiry final report.

It also responds to the UK Government’s programme of construction product regulatory reform.

BSI said this included the launch of the Construction Product white paper on 25 February.

Ian Richardson, Sector Lead, BSI said: “This publication reflects our clear commitment to responding constructively to the findings of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry and Morrell-Day Review, and to supporting safety across the built environment.

“At a time of significant regulatory reform, PAS 2000 has been developed to support greater transparency, accountability and due diligence across the supply chain.

“By setting clear expectations and good practice, manufacturers and other economic operators should be empowered to embed robust product safety governance and align with evolving regulatory requirements.

“We encourage organizations across the built environment sector to engage with the standard and support its adoption.”

Launch event scheduled for 10 March

BSI said it will host a launch event on 10 March to explain the background to the development of PAS 2000 and outline the structure, content and practical benefits of the standard.

The event is also set to clarify how organisations can implement the framework and provide an opportunity for questions and industry engagement.

Speakers are due to include representatives from OPSS, the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and Dr Hywel Davies OBE as the technical author for PAS 2000.

The standard and its launch event are positioned as part of ongoing construction product regulatory reform work.