Building regulations - proposed review of fire safety topics: analysis of responses

Executive Summary

A public consultation on a proposed review of fire safety topics ran between 13 December 2024 and 7 March 2025. Across 29 questions, of which 24 contained a quantitative element, the consultation sought views on various aspects of fire safety regulations and addressed the two recommendations directed at the Scottish Government made by the Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) report into the Cameron House Hotel fire.

In total, 40 consultation responses were received, with six from individuals and 34 from organisations. This report provides an analysis of these consultation responses.

Scope of consultation topics

The consultation set out proposals across six topics:

• Mandating fire suppression for future conversions of historic buildings to be used as hotel accommodation;
• Amending the current scope of application of standard 2.15 on fire suppression systems to lower risk alterations and extensions and conversions;
• Managing risk from the presence of hidden cavities or voids, varying standards of workmanships, age in older, traditional premises;
• Mandating non-combustible external wall cladding systems in new build hotels, boarding houses and hostels with a storey over 11 m in height;
• Several miscellaneous fire safety issues; and
• A call for evidence on three further topics.

Mandating fire suppression

Over six in ten respondents (63%) preferred Option 1, to mandate active fire suppression for conversion of traditional buildings to hotel accommodation, compared to 37% supporting Option 2, a performance/risk-based approach with strengthened guidance. A range of perceived advantages or drawbacks with each approach was given, along with suggestions for how the guidance could be strengthened or aspects to consider. Reasons for supporting Option 1 included that it would aid clarity of approach and that it would lend itself to setting minimum standards, whereas Option 2 was supported as it was felt to be more flexible with the most appropriate systems adopted for each building. Other factors raised by respondents included ensuring there are adequate protections and safeguards in safety approaches, and challenges with retrofitting historic buildings to required standards.

Widespread support was evident for defining the term ‘hotel’, with 89% of those answering strongly agreeing (54%) or agreeing (35%). Open comments suggested how this could be done or factors to consider, along with the need for clear guidance, which some felt could enhance regulation. Equally well supported was a need to define the size and complexity of the building to help consider which buildings should use active fire suppression systems (AFSS); of those answering, 31% strongly agreed and 49% agreed. Varying views were expressed over whether small buildings should be required to have AFSS.

Seven in ten (70%) of those answering supported amending the scope of mandatory standard 2.15 to not include the requirement to low risk extensions and conversions to flats, maisonettes, or social housing dwellings to require use of AFSS. However, caveats included that mandating AFSS could be inappropriate for some buildings or have implications for guidance.

Hidden cavities, voids, workmanship age and variation from standards

High levels of support (83%) were given for retaining the existing wording of paragraph 2.4 of schedule 5, though some suggested amendments or felt the term ‘reasonably practicable’ should be defined further. Suggested changes to the publication ‘Fire safety guidance for existing premises with sleeping accommodation’ (2022) included emphasising the need to address risks, or comments on cavities and voids or on workmanship and ageing materials.

Around two thirds of those answering (64%) strongly agreed or agreed that the principles set out in the current Historic Environment Scotland guidance remain suitable guidance for special risks posed by existing hotels and similar premises. However, some felt no change was needed or felt there was a need to review the guidance, for instance, to ensure it provided clarity for the workforce. A few called for stakeholder engagement as part of this.

Proposed revisions to the Non-domestic Technical Handbook (NDTH) to recommend cavity barriers for certain buildings were supported by two thirds of those answering (67%), notably to promote public safety. Some called for more clarity or work in this area.

Four fifths (84%) of those answering supported the additional guidance indicated in option 2 of Q1 on identifying risk and implementing proportionate mitigating measures, with a range of benefits identified in open comments. Many suggested areas the guidance should address, such as practical solutions, cross-referencing with policies, addressing skills and expertise of the workforce and enforcement issues. Some called for further work to clarify aspects of this guidance.

Extending the ban of combustible external wall cladding systems to hotels,hostels and boarding houses

Many respondents supported extending the ban of combustible external wall cladding to hotels, boarding houses and hostels in relevant buildings, with risks and risk mitigations highlighted. Suggestions included extending the ban to all sleeping accommodations or high-risk buildings, locating guidance together, and adopting a risk-based approach following a full fire risk appraisal. Calls were made to wait for the research findings to help shape policy and for more clarity in the guidance.

Miscellaneous fire safety issues

Almost two thirds (65%) of those answering agreed or strongly agreed that existing guidance on lath and plaster materials is sufficient, while over four fifths (81%) considered existing guidance on low-level emergency lighting is sufficient. More mixed support was evident for removing the need for certain lighting circuits, though most prevalent was a neutral view (43%) or support for the proposal (34%), while 14% disagreed.

The proposal to require External Premises Information to be fitted on all new, converted or refurbished high-rise domestic buildings with any storey at a height of more than 18m above the ground was widely supported (89%). It was felt that this would provide helpful information to fire rescue services. Suggestions for how this could be implemented, such as how the plate should be displayed in buildings, were provided.

Proposed amended wording for clause 2.7.1 to clarify the intent of the ban on combustible materials for certain buildings was supported by over two thirds of those answering (68%), notably as it would provide more clarity. However, 9% disagreed, for reasons such as concerns about potential fire spread or the need for more clarification. Some identified factors to consider, such as using full-scale facade tests to mitigate risks and to emphasise limits on the use of combustible sheathing over 11m.

Alignment with England through amending Regulation 8(4) on extending the exemptions of components that form part of an external wall cladding system which achieve European Classification A1 or A2 to relevant buildings to include those related to components associated with a solar shading device and A1 fl or A2 fl-sf materials used in the top horizontal floor layer of a balcony, provided the entire layer has an imperforate substrate under it, was welcomed by almost two thirds of those answering (63%), though over a quarter (26%) neither agreed nor disagreed. Themes included that aligning with the UK was helpful, that exemptions should be limited, or highlighting risks or risk mitigations.

Amended wording proposed on exit width from rooms in non-domestic properties was supported by almost eight in ten of those answering (77%) as it was felt this would provide more clarity and enhance accessibility and safety. However, 6% disagreed and calls were made to include accurate figures given their importance during construction.

The two proposals to remove Annex 2.B of the NDTH and cite Scottish Health Technical Memorandum (SHTM) 81 Part 1 for new build hospitals, and to cite SHTM 81 Part 2 and 3, were each supported by 72% of those answering, mainly as this was felt to avoid confusion and improve guidance clarity. While 6% were opposed, 23% held a neutral view. On the first proposal, respondents raised factors to consider, such as the links between the two documents. A few called for clarity in guidance on the second.

Around three quarters of those answering (74%) supported the proposal to cite BS 13637. However, almost a quarter neither agreed nor disagreed (23%), and 3% were opposed. A range of factors to consider were identified by some respondents, such as the need for mandated checking and fail-safe devices, a flow chart to illustrate certain processes and that it should complement existing standards.

Call for evidence on current standards

Respondents supported the proposals to undertake further research and gather evidence on BS 476, battery energy storage systems (BESS) and on car parks, and electric vehicles, leaving a range of views. They also supported the proposal to remove the BS 476 standard, suggested risks and risk mitigations for BESS, and suggested a range of evidence or aspects to consider for car parks and electric vehicles.

Impact assessments

One in ten (9%) of those answering felt the proposals would impact equality groups while almost three quarters (73%) did not, and 18% were unsure. Comments included that the proposals would positively impact older, vulnerable or disabled people, for instance, as it would improve their ability to escape fires. Three in ten (30%) felt the proposals would impact businesses, while 39% felt they would not, and 30% were unsure. Potential impacts raised by respondents included those that could affect the workforce and increased costs to achieve compliance. Island communities could be impacted by the proposals, according to 24% of those answering, though 35% felt there would not be an impact, and 41% were unsure. Benefits to rural and remote areas, such as enhancing on-site fire safety, were raised, as were negative impacts, including increased costs and a lack of access to skills.

Proposed delivery programme

Over four fifths of those answering (84%) strongly agreed or agreed with the proposed enforcement date for any amended policy arising from the consultation, with 3% opposed and 13% unsure. Comments centred on the need for sufficient lead-in time and associated actions within the transition period, or that the date should be as soon as possible. One respondent felt the date should be set once any policy review had been undertaken.

Conclusion

There was majority support for many of the proposals presented in the consultation, with respondents also highlighting considerations they felt should be addressed if the proposals are implemented.