Scottish government calls for evidence to inform its fire safety review

In its response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report and its recommendations, the Scottish government has announced a major review of Section 2 (Fire) of the Technical Handbooks, starting with an industry stakeholder consultation that ultimately seeks to improve safety for the design and construction of all domestic and non-domestic buildings.

The Building Standards Technical Handbooks explain how to achieve the requirements set out in the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 and Section 2 (Fire) is the Scottish equivalent of Approved Document B in England.

As the consultation explains, when the Scottish government made a commitment to take forward the findings from the Grenfell Tower inquiry to improve building and fire safety in Scotland, it additionally sought to further consult on the new Compliance Plan Approach (CPA) to evidencing compliance with building regulations, with a focus on high-risk building types. 

Consequently, in addition to exploring a wide range of fire safety matters that relate to the implementation of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 recommendations, the call for evidence will also look at the CPA and the role of the compliance plan manager. 

One of the purposes of the call for evidence is to use the responses submitted to set the agenda, the terms of reference and programme, and to identify what research may be needed to inform the technical review of Section 2 (Fire). 

On this, the Scottish government is looking for stakeholders to share their experiences, specifically around the challenges faced in meeting Scotland’s fire safety standards as well as offering their thoughts on any improvements that could be made to the content and communication of the standards and guidance. 

Previous public consultations have revealed strong public support for the CPA direction and elements of it, says the Scottish government. While the CPA will start when local authority building standards verifiers and the construction industry receive guidance, stakeholders have highlighted some areas that were not subject to the initial consultations through an early adopters scheme and engagement with the Building Standards Division. This is another element of the consultation.

The Scottish government is looking for industry views on some aspects of the CPA where it believes change is warranted and also whether there is any support or otherwise for the changes before the administration considers making any legislative amendments.

Industry stakeholders who are interested in responding to the consultation are invited to answer a list of questions that are linked to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report recommendations while also provide evidence or examples to support their views, contributions or comments (see box).

The fire safety matters covered by the questions include whether there are any aspects of fire safety guidance that require new guidance and/or clarification; compartmentation, external fire spread and the “stay put” strategy; the rate of fire spread and means of escape for vulnerable and disabled people; regulating the fire engineering profession; CPA procedural principles; and legislation.

When the consultation closes on 10 April, the Scottish government plans to analyse the responses and draw on the comments to inform its policy decisions and how it can improve the standards and processes set out in the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (as amended) and other published guidance.

Interested parties can respond here.

Consultation questions

1(a). Are there existing fire safety topics and guidance within the technical handbooks that should be reviewed?

1(b). What new fire safety topics should be included in the technical handbooks?

2(a). Are the current mandatory standards and supporting guidance robust, effective and clearly understood to deliver the intended safety outcomes?

2(b). Are the mandatory standards and supporting guidance consistently applied to deliver the intended safety outcomes?

2(c). Where should improvements be focussed when reviewing the mandatory standards and supporting guidance?

3(a). Provide comments on risks with compartmentation in retrofit work (conversions) and the mitigation of these which may impact a “stay put” approach.

3(b). Provide comments on risks with vertical fire spread on external walls breaching compartmentation which may impact a “stay put” approach.

4. Do you consider the current guidance on “evacuation on alert” and evacuation alert systems to be effective and up to date?

5(a). Do you consider current guidance on escape for vulnerable and disabled people to be effective and up to date?

5(b). Is the current guidance easy to understand and consistently applied?

5(c). What improvements or changes are needed in this area?

6(a). Is the current guidance for fire strategies and fire safety design summaries effective and up to date?

6(b). Is the current guidance easy to understand and consistently applied?

7(a). Do the fire safety working groups have suitable representation and inclusion from across industry and the wider fire sector?

7(b). Do the fire safety working groups communicate their findings effectively?

8. Do you have any views or comments on the regulating of the fire engineering profession?

9. Do you think there is a need for any other revisions of the technical handbooks and guidance (Section 2 Fire)?

10(a). Do you agree that the Compliance Plan Manager role requires duties and that corresponding offences should be set out in legislation?

10(b). Do you agree that local authority verifiers should be notified if the relevant person or their delegates do not act in accordance with the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 and the supporting secondary legislation?

11. Do you agree that non-domestic buildings with any storey at a height of more than 11m above the ground should be defined as a high-risk building?

12. Do you agree that enclosed shopping centres should be defined as a high-risk building?

13. Do you agree entertainment venues such as theatres, concert halls and arenas should be defined as a high-risk building?

14(a). Do you agree with the proposed minimum 12-week timescale for submission to a verifier of an Application for Compliance Plan in Principle for a high-risk building?

14(b). Do you agree that a verifier should only register a building warrant for a high-risk building after a Compliance Plan in Principle has been issued?

15. Should projects that request a site visit without first ensuring compliance through their own checks pay an extra, reasonable fee for inspection?

16. Do you agree that legislation is required to give full effect to the Compliance Plan Approach and role of the Compliance Plan Manager for high-risk buildings?