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

Appendix C: Quantitative Analysis

The consultation included 24 closed questions which asked respondents for their views on a Proposed Review of Fire Safety Topics. This appendix details the responses to these questions.

Not all respondents answered every question. Some may not have answered as they hold no strong view on the question, or it may not relate to their area of knowledge or expertise. Where those who did not answer the closed questions expressed a view in their open comments, this has been noted in the qualitative analysis.

To allow comparisons across sub-groups, the tables below present the results of the closed questions based on those who answered each question.

For clarity, each closed question shows:

• The percentage of respondents from the total sample of 40 respondents who selected each response (grey row).
• The number and percentage response among those who answered each question, broken down by individual and organisation responses (rows including and under “All answering”).

Please note that the row percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Q1. Which of the above two options is your preferred approach?

Option 1 - Mandate active fire suppression to all traditional buildings converted to hotel use.

Option 2 – Update the Non-domestic Technical Handbook with additional performance/risk-based guidance.

Please select only one answer and provide your reasoning in the box below.

Q2. In the context of Option 1, do you consider the term ‘hotel’ needs to be defined?

Q3. If either mandating AFSS or providing guidance on risk-based alternative approaches, do you consider there is a need to define the size and/or complexity of the building being converted? Please provide your reasoning in the box below.

Q4. Are there any further comments or observations you wish to make on the topic of provision of AFSS on conversion of traditional buldings to hotels or on the options set out? If yes, please add comments below and any background or evidence you consider useful.

Q5. We propose that the wording of paragraph 2.4 of schedule 5 of the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 does not require to be amended. Do you agree or disagree? Please provide your reasoning in the box below.

Q7. Although planned for review it is proposed that the principles set out in current HES guidance remains suitable guidance for special risks which existing hotels and similar premises may pose through the presence of hidden cavities or voids, varying standards of workmanship, age, and the variance from current standards (Recommendation 5 of the Cameron House FAI). Do you agree or disagree? Please provide your reasoning in the box below.

Q8. We propose to change the guidance in the Non-domestic Technical Handbook to recommend cavity barriers at 10m or 20m centres above fire resisting ceilings depending on the European classification for reaction to fire (A-F) of the surface exposed in the cavity. This provision would not apply to small floor or roof cavities above a fire resisting ceiling that extends throughout the building or compartment up to a maximum of 30 m in any direction. Do you agree or disagree? Please provide your reasoning in the box below.

Q9. It is proposed that the additional guidance indicated in option 2 of question 1 (clause 2.1.9 of the consultation), on identifying risk and implementing proportionate mitigating measures, be included within clause 2.0.7 (alternative approaches) and clause 2.15.7 (Conversion of traditional buildings to hotel use) of the Non-domestic Technical Handbook to strengthen and add to existing guidance. Do you agree or disagree? Please provide your reasoning in the box below.

Q10. It is proposed to amend standard 2.15 and/or guidance to recognise the current Direction for low risk extensions and conversions to flats, maisonettes and social housing dwellings. Do you agree or disagree? Please provide your reasoning in the box below.

Q12. The expert panel proposes the existing guidance is fit for purpose and requires not further action in this context. Do you agree or disagree? Please provide your reasoning in the box below. If you disagree or strongly disagree, please provide any suggestions below on how the current standard could be improved.

Q13. The guidance provided in BS 5266-1 is considered to provide sufficient illumination to assist in escape at low level and satisfy the mandatory standard. Low level way finding systems may be used to supplement protected or emergency lighting and can be considered on a case by case basis as part of the fire risk assessment. It is proposed that this key message is strengthened in existing fire safety guidance. Do you agree or disagree? Please provide your reasoning in the box below. If you disagree or strongly disagree, please provide any suggestions below on how the current standard could be improved.

Q14. The expert panel proposes revision of guidance in standard 2.10 to remove the need for a separate and fire resisting escape route lighting circuit. Do you agree or not agree? Please provide any suggestions on how the current guidance could be improved.

Q15. It is proposed to insert new guidance clause 2.14.10 External Premises Information as detailed. Do you agree or disagree? Please provide your reasoning in the box below. If you disagree or strongly disagree, please provide any suggestions below on how the current standard could be improved.

Q16. It is proposed to amend the wording in 2.7.1 as detailed. Do you agree or disagree? Please provide your reasoning in the box below. If you disagree or strongly disagree, please provide any suggestions below on how the current standard could be improved.

Q17. It is proposed to amend Regulation 8(4) to align with England (and Wales?) on these two exemptions. Do you agree or disagree? Please provide your reasoning in the box below. If you disagree or strongly disagree, please provide any suggestions below on how the current standard could be improved.

Q18. It is proposed to amend the wording in clause 2.9.8 as detailed. Do you agree or disagree? Please provide your reasoning in the box below. If you disagree or strongly disagree, please provide any suggestions below on how the current standard could be improved.

Q19. To avoid conflicting information and recognise current practice, it is proposed to remove the guidance in Annex 2.B of the NDTH and cite SHTM 81 Part 1 for new build. Do you agree or disagree? Please provide your reasoning in the box below. If you disagree or strongly disagree, please provide any suggestions below on how the current standard could be improved.

Q20. It is also being considered to cite SHTM 81 Part 2 and 3. Do you agree or disagree? Please provide your reasoning in the box below. If you disagree or strongly disagree, please provide any suggestions below on how the current standard could be improved.

Q21. It is proposed to cite BS 13637. Do you agree or disagree? Please provide your reasoning in the box below. If you disagree or strongly disagree, please provide any suggestions below on how the current standard could be improved.

Q22. Do you have experience of issues affecting development which you consider have arisen from application of current fire safety standards set under building regulations?

Q26. Are there any proposals in this consultation which you consider to impact or have implications on equality groups? Please provide any comments below. If selecting yes, please specify which of the proposals you refer to and why you believe specific groups will be impacted.

Q27. Do you think that any of the proposals in this consultation have any financial, regulatory or resource implications for you and/or your business (if applicable)? Choose from the following options: - Please give us your views

Q28. Do you think that any of the proposals in this consultation would lead to, for example, increased costs and/or impact island communities significantly different from its effect on other communities (if applicable). Please provide any comments below. If selecting yes, please specify which of the proposals you refer to and why you believe financial, regulatory or resource implications will be impacted.

Q29. Do you agree with the proposal for amended regulations, standards and guidance to come into force early 2026? Please provide information on why you agree or disagree or if you consider other actions need to be considered.