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

2. Mandating fire suppression systems

This chapter presents the analysis of responses to Q1 to Q4 and Q10. Please refer to the consultation paper for more details, and Appendix D for a list of consultation questions.

• Q1 to Q4 explore the proposals set out in Section 2.1 of the consultation paper. These consider mandating active fire suppression systems in conversions of traditional buildings to use as hotel accommodation.
• Q10 concerns the proposal in Section 2.3 of the paper to amend the scope of application of mandatory standard 2.15, ‘Automatic Fire Suppression Systems,’ to low risk extensions and conversions to flats, maisonettes, or social housing dwellings.

Fire suppression in conversions of traditional buildings to hotels

The Scottish Government identified two options to support the implementation of Recommendation 4 of the FAI. The recommendation is being considered as intended to apply to either all future conversions of traditional buildings into hotels or focused on future conversions of traditional buildings to hotel use with complex and interlinked factors that present a high risk to occupants.

The two proposed options presented in the consultation were:

• Option 1: Mandate active fire suppression for conversion of traditional buildings to hotel accommodation; or
• Option 2: Update the NDTH with performance / risk-based guidance.

The consultation paper set out the scope of the proposal, special risks to be addressed, such as linked cavities or voids, current building regulations about conversions of traditional buildings, and the role of Automatic Fire Suppression Systems.

Q1. Which of the above two options is your preferred approach? Please select only one answer and provide your reasoning in the box below.

Almost two thirds (63%) of those answering Q1 preferred Option 1, with over a third (37%) choosing Option 2. Support for Option 1 was higher among organisations (72%), while individuals preferred Option 2 (83%).

Almost five in six respondents left an open comment to explain their choice. Comments giving reasons for supporting Option 1 were most prevalent, followed by reasons for supporting Option 2, then additional considerations. For ease of reading, themes relating to each Option are presented together.

Comments on Option 1

Many respondents expressed support for Option 1, mandating active fire suppression when converting a traditional building to hotel accommodation. A range of reasons were given, including, in order of prevalence:

• It would aid in clarity, consistency, and certainty of approach, making it easier to assess building layouts and construction type, for instance.
• It can compensate for a range of issues such as deficiencies in means of escape, hidden voids, and the spread of fire and smoke.
• Guidance should set out minimum standards, and this option would achieve that.

Other comments included that this approach could be limited to certain buildings and set out in guidance, such as mandating suppression in larger, higher-risk buildings only, or where it is the appropriate solution.

Achieving standards when converting traditional buildings was noted to be challenging, for instance, because certain risks may only be discovered when a fire breaks out. Therefore, a blanket approach was felt to enhance effective fire safety in such buildings.

“It gives consistency in approach. Also, may compensate for hidden failings in buildings.” – North Lanarkshire Council

Disadvantages of Option 1 were set out by some respondents. These included that it could: create technical challenges requiring careful introduction; have unforeseen consequences such as projects becoming unviable resulting in exemptions being required; be an inflexible and unduly prescriptive solution.

Comments on Option 2

Reasons for supporting Option 2, setting out a performance/risk-based approach with strengthened guidance, were given by several respondents. These centred on Option 2 being a more flexible or holistic approach, where appropriate solutions could be adopted for each building. Two respondents used similar wording to suggest that this Option reinforced the role of design professionals, whereas Option 1 was more product-led, i.e., considering the materials and systems which could be used for fire suppression.

Suggestions for guidance included:

• How to evaluate risks when deciding which building materials, fire prevention practices, emergency evacuation plans and fire-resistant construction to use.
• Starting with a competent Fire Risk Assessment that considers the use of the building and its specific features and characteristics.
• Clarity on when suppression should be installed and any exemptions.
• The risk of external fire spread, particularly in buildings using combustible façade materials.
• The compromised fire performance of potentially deteriorated materials present throughout older buildings.
• Interlinked voids which may assist the undetected movement of fire in a building.
• Guidance on fire response and evacuation.

“We would suggest such guidance is provided with its own independent guidance clause rather than within clause 2.0.7 as proposed. We consider this will provide more gravitas to the requirement for suppression rather than being located within an introductory ‘scene setting’ part of the guidance. Section 6 Energy takes this approach by setting out requirements for conversions within its own specific clause to standard 6.2. Furthermore, the guidance for section 6 conversion was changed in 2023 and calls for evidence to support the approach taken that justifies the approach to compliance with the standards. We believe this call for evidence should be included in the guidance on suppression in traditional build hotels.” - City of Edinburgh Council

Disadvantages of Option 2 were raised by some. These included: safety concerns if conversions inadvertently resulted in special risks; increased insurance premiums if fires did occur; regulatory burden due to the need for interpretation of requirements or building warrant process; increasing the frequency of third-party consultations via Section 34; or that Option 2 did not offer sufficient practical solutions, particularly for firestopping cavities.

“We believe that a strengthening of guidance will be used by some as an attempt to engineer fire sprinklers out of the design for a building when this is frequently not appropriate and does not afford the same degree of protection against fires as other risk based alternatives. As Sheriff Thomas McCartney said in his determination into the deaths [at Cameron House]: "Given the potential added fire protection provided by an active fire suppression system, if such installation was said to be impossible or impractical in specific premises, it may be that such premises are simply not suitable as hotel accommodation." - British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association

Aspects to consider

Multiple considerations were raised by several, including, in order of prevalence:

• Comments from some on using fire sprinkler systems in suppression systems, such as mitigating challenges when protecting traditional conversions from fires, being cautious about over-relying on this approach, and recognising their limitations.
• More details on expectations being required in the Handbook guidance, with a few calling for a definition of ‘historic’ and ‘traditional’.
• The need to avoid ‘one size fits all’ approaches, for instance, exempting conversions of small traditional buildings to hotel accommodation.
• Ensuring decisions are taken to protect the cultural significance of buildings, including the layout and design of the building, current and past uses, materials used and the associations people have with it.
• More research is required to understand the suitability of using water mist sprinkler systems in traditional buildings, particularly those where construction may not meet modern standards. Respondents noted that the use of water mist may need to be part of an engineered solution rather than as part of the Handbook guidance.
• Extending the Chartered Institute of Building / Royal Institute of British Architects’ ‘A Guide to Safety Critical Elements in Building Construction’ to include safety critical equipment life-cycle performance standards for functionality, availability, reliability, survivability and interactivity. Comments suggested that these standards should form an integral component of Bow-tie barriers layer of protection^[3] to reduce risks to the As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) Level for higher risk buildings.
• The need to consider occupant behaviours during evacuations.
• A few highlighted concerns with the cost-benefit analysis presented in the consultation document (see Q27).

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

The consultation document states that if legislation is required to mandate recommendation 4 of the FAI, a definition of ‘hotel’ may be required. Alternatively, a prescriptive limit may be introduced based on size, such as the number of bedrooms.

There was widespread support for defining the term ‘hotel’, with 89% of those answering either strongly agreeing (54%) or agreeing (35%). Just over half (55%) of organisations strongly agreed, with local authorities being most supportive (67% strongly agreed).

Four in five respondents left an open comment. The most prevalent themes were that building type should be considered when defining ‘hotel’, specific considerations, and the need for clear guidance. For ease of reading, this section is structured firstly by addressing comments regarding how hotel should be defined, followed by other themes.

Ways to define a hotel

Three themes emerged about how a hotel might be defined. In order of prevalence, these were to consider building type in any definition, consider occupancy-based factors, and define hotel based on risk.

Many respondents highlighted different types of buildings used for accommodation that should be considered. Respondents suggested buildings similar to hotels that they felt could be included in Option 1, or called for further work to determine how fire safety requirements would apply to those buildings. These included guest houses, serviced apartments or self-catering units, bed and breakfasts, boarding houses, student accommodation, motels, bothies and boutique hotels. One respondent called for clarification about how short-term lets and rental accommodation should be treated.

“There is value in considering whether other similar properties could also benefit from clearer definitions in the context of mandatory standards, i.e. student accommodation, serviced apartments, Airbnb's, short-term lets, etc.” – LABSS (Local Authority Building Standards Scotland)

Some suggested basing the definition on occupancy levels or the number of rooms. Views included that occupancy levels are a factor in fire safety, particularly in means of escape, or that the definition should be based on occupancy rather than the number of bedrooms, because rooms can be occupied by more than one person.

Two respondents commented on using risk ratings to help define hotels, i.e. categorising hotels into low, medium and high risk, with more stringent controls for buildings with higher risk. Suggested fire risk factors inside buildings that could be considered under Option 1 included activities, occupancy levels and facilities, such as the location of cooking facilities.

Aspects to consider

Aspects to consider when defining a ‘hotel’ were noted by several respondents. These included that:

• The current definition is outdated and needs to be updated.
• A definition should be developed and agreed with stakeholders
• It should not be as specific as definitions in the Fire Precautions Act
• A mandate could be widened to other traditional conversions, not just hotels
• Building features, such as construction date, corridor length, number of storeys, and floor area, may need to be specified.
• One construction organisation suggested that any definition of ‘hotel’ should include the provision of overnight accommodation, the presence of dedicated staff, and specific operational facilities and services.

Clear guidance

Some respondents stressed the importance of clearly defining ‘hotel’ in any guidance. Clarity was felt necessary to avoid confusion for designers and verifiers, prevent ambiguity, allow effective guidance application, and ensure systems and measures are applied proportionately. One respondent felt the existing definition was already clear.

“Guidance should be clear and defined as to what is meant by the term ‘hotel ' and whether ‘hotel’ refers to premises where individual bedrooms are the unit of occupancy, or whether the definition extends to buildings which are being used as apart-hotels.” – SFRS (Scottish Fire and Rescue Service)

Clear definition will enhance regulation

Some felt a clear definition of ‘hotel’ could enhance compliance and regulation. Comments included that this would support a robust verification process, clarify which buildings needed to be adapted to meet regulations, reduce the potential for inconsistencies in regulation and compliance, and clarify the scope of adherence to any standard.

“A clear definition will remove the likelihood of inconsistent enforcement of standards and will provide clarity about which buildings are subject to the rules. Without a definition, it may be the case that developers… could misunderstand the intent due to the ambiguity and therefore avoid meeting the regulations.” - Astute Fire Engineering

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.

Of those answering 31% strongly agreed and 49% agreed (80% combined) with the need to define the size or complexity of the conversion, with the highest support among local authorities (100%). The remaining respondents were neutral (9%) or disagreed (11%).

Almost four in five respondents left an open comment to explain their answer. The most prevalent view was agreement with the need to define size or complexity, followed by comments on the size of buildings. A range of less commonly mentioned themes about complexity were identified, which are presented together below for ease of reading.

General agreement

Many respondents left broad comments agreeing that there is a need to define the size or complexity of the building being converted. Views included that this could be useful, promote clarity, assist national consistency, be more effective than risk-based approaches, and ensure that any requirements are proportionate.

“Guidance on types of buildings, types of materials, features, or uses could be helpful. However, traditional buildings are of many types and sizes and will have been adapted over their lives. Using a too simple typology could miss some of these characteristics.” – The National Trust for Scotland

Building size

A range of views about building size were expressed by several respondents. Opinions varied on whether small hotels should be included when considering the options. For instance, some felt small hotel conversions would be at lower risk of fire, while others felt the same or worse risks may exist, such as if there was only a single means of escape. Singular comments included that suppression systems were unnecessary for smaller buildings, that larger buildings had more risks, or that the size of the building would influence the type of system fitted, either BS 9251 or EN 12845, therefore the cost of installation in a smaller hotel would be less.

“For simpler, smaller buildings, it might not be cost-effective or necessary to mandate full active fire suppression. Instead, a risk-based alternative approach could be recommended, where the focus is on fire detection, occupant evacuation strategies, and passive fire safety features like fire-resistant materials.” - Astute Fire Engineering

Complexity

A few themes were evident around complexity, notably those relating to building features, internal features, and assessment and verification. Regarding building features, factors highlighted as worth considering included building height, means of escape, construction type and materials, history of alterations, heritage status, and cultural significance.

Some respondents recommended internal features to consider when addressing complexity. These included occupation density and mobility of occupants, occupant activity (e.g. sleeping, familiarity with layout), internal linings, wall/floor interfaces, hidden voids, large open spaces and ventilation systems.

A few respondents commented on assessment and verification, such as guidance being helpful for both designers and verifiers when addressing complexity, or risk needing to be assessed by a qualified fire engineer. Other factors that could add to complexity, raised by a small number of respondents, included the travel distance for emergency services, fire load, overall risk and non-compliance with standards.

“Not all existing traditional buildings will bring the same challenges. As an example, buildings with a complex layout which has developed and been adapted over time, will likely present a higher potential risk to occupants in the event of a fire than buildings with a more straight-forward layout and adequate means of escape. The use of building height, as is already established in guidance could be one appropriate parameter. Consideration of the type of construction and perhaps how much this has been altered over time would be beneficial. For example, lath and plaster vs solid stone with modern linings. Not all traditional buildings are the same although the prevalence of certain materials is much greater in traditional buildings.” - OFR Consultants

Suggested approaches

Some respondents suggested how to approach the size and complexity of hotel conversions in the Options. Comments in addition to those described above included:

• Ensuring any proposals are accompanied by a comprehensive identification of risks with robust justification as to why fire suppression systems are not being used, and what additional mitigation would be provided in their absence (relating to Option 2).
• Initial analysis of existing building space to determine a suitable solution using a fire-engineered approach (for both Options).
• A decision-tree approach, for instance, active fire suppression systems are required due to an accumulation of factors rather than any one factor alone, or to help designers understand the hierarchy of regulatory requirements, such as life safety requirements overruling requirements for conservation.

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

Two thirds (67%) of those answering the closed question element of Q4 stated they had further comments and observations. A full data table is in Appendix C.

Seven in ten respondents then answered the open question element of Q4. The most prevalent themes raised were ensuring adequate protections, issues with retrofitting traditional buildings, and the need for guidance.

Ensure adequate protections

Many respondents raised concerns regarding adequate protections and safeguards in fire safety approaches. A range of views were expressed, including the need to adopt the most appropriate system for the building, to ensure specialist fire engineering expertise is obtained, avoiding loopholes, or to widen the scope to include other building types, such as in all traditional buildings being converted to sleeping accommodation, not just hotels. Other ways to achieve protections were mentioned by singular respondents, such as:

• Integrating Human and Organisational Factors engineering into the conceptual, design, construction, operation and maintenance lifecycles for higher risk buildings.
• Introducing the principle of Safety Critical Elements (SCEs)^[4] as part of the role of fire suppression systems.
• Early engagement with an appropriately qualified and experienced fire engineer, to provide high-level guidance on topics such as options for suppression systems, appropriate design standards, hazard classifications, water supply requirement (capacity, etc.), water supply options (reduced capacity, mains, etc).
• Suppression systems should not be the only acceptable solution; for instance, mist systems should be included and acceptable as an alternative.
• Extending the retrofitting of sprinklers beyond residential buildings to buildings used for accommodation, such as hotels, ideally across the whole property.
• To ensure appropriate skills and knowledge in the workforce to minimise the potential for future risks through good workmanship.

Issues with retrofitting

Some respondents highlighted issues with converting traditional and historic buildings that may impact the proposals. Comments included that:

• Existing hotel conversions should be considered, not just future conversions.
• Guidance should clarify that the preferred outcome is as near a compliant building as possible.
• Suppression systems can require dismantling of certain period features, and therefore, other solutions should be considered.
• Older properties are less fire-resistant.
• Sprinklers are better located in new builds.
• BS 9251 could be the installation standard for sprinklers in smaller premises.

“Regarding the challenges of retrofitting sprinklers in small hotels and B&B accommodation, BAFSA acknowledges the clear benefits of using BS 9251 as the installation standard for smaller premises. Table 1 of BS 9251 already classifies Category 3 sprinkler systems as suitable for residential care premises housing more than ten residents, which suggests its suitability for similar small hospitality settings.” - British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association

Need for guidance

Some respondents suggested ways to strengthen guidance, including two who called for the Scottish Government to consider using a Ministerial direction to require existing hotel operators in traditional buildings to meet the same requirements as those for future hotel conversions. Other views presented by singular respondents included:

• Incorporating a multi-disciplinary approach within regulations to ensure collaboration to create practical and effective solutions.
• Changes in guidance being accompanied by appropriate technical evidence.
• To clarify if the Handbooks will be updated to explicitly support the installation of sprinklers in new and converted student accommodation.
• The need to outline the BS 9521 system as it is being used.
• To define ‘small roof’ or roof cavities within the NDTH, considered necessary to help determine compliance requirements.
• Suggested guidance topics: risk of external fire spread; compromised performance of deteriorated materials; interlinked voids, and fire response and evacuation.

Other issues

Multiple other points were made by respondents. A few felt cost factors should be addressed, for instance, highlighting that the cost of installing suppression systems might make a project unviable, or that water storage may be needed in rural areas due to water supply issues, which increases costs for the owner. One fire engineering organisation noted that water storage requirements could be reduced if other water sources are available, or the domestic water supply can be shared with the sprinkler system.

One felt more consideration was needed for guest actions, such as hotels providing smoke hoods for guests or requiring the host to point out fire escapes relative to the guest’s room and not relying solely on posters on the back of bedroom doors.

Amending the scope of application of mandatory standard 2.15 ‘Automatic Fire Suppression Systems’

Section 2.3 of the consultation paper presented proposals to amend the scope of application of mandatory standard 2.15, ‘Automatic Fire Suppression Systems,’ to low-risk extensions and conversions to flats, maisonettes, or social housing dwellings.

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 for your answer.

Among those who answered Q10, 28% strongly agreed and 42% agreed (70% in total) with the proposal; 11% disagreed and 19% were neutral. All individuals agreed, as did two thirds (64%) of organisations.

Over half of all respondents left a comment to explain their answer. A range of themes was evident, and despite the support at the closed question, the most prevalent theme was that the proposal may not work for some buildings.

Inappropriate for some buildings

Some respondents expressed the view that the application of standard 2.15 may not be suitable for certain buildings, such as low-risk flats and maisonettes with no existing suppression systems, and felt it could be disproportionate to expect this to be applied. Comments included that: further work was needed to clarify the scope of the proposal; holistic assessment of buildings was needed to clarify the level of fire protection measures required to support the change in occupancy; the exemptions should relate to suppression systems meeting BS 9251; and to consider comments provided during the targetted consultation exercise carried out with LABSS and the SFRS in 2024 on the draft Dispensation of Building Regulations (Automatic Fire Suppression Systems) (Scotland) Direction 2024 dispensation of building regulations.

Implications for guidance

Potential revisions to the guidance were highlighted by some respondents, including:

• Clarification of dispensations in the Technical Handbooks and ensuring a clearly worded mandatory standard and associated guidance.
• Further practical guidance on adhering to the standard, such as in the context of a specific building warrant application.
• Clarification if the regulation applies only to the works or if the entire premises is in scope.
• Setting out how the proposal to apply standard 2.15 relates to the guidance in standard 2.9, as there could be contradictions between the two, in that one may exempt the need for suppression while the other may indicate it is required.
• Addressing costs associated with improving existing structures during conversions.

General agreement

Agreement with the proposal was expressed by some respondents, such as it being an improvement, that it set reasonable requirements or that it was welcomed.

Other views

A few respondents disagreed with the proposal on the grounds that any traditional building could pose a fire risk or could result in lower standards of fire safety. One highlighted a concern whereby conversions may not require installation of suppression, but new builds would be required to do so, though did not comment further on this.

Two local authority organisations used similar wording to highlight a specific point about common escape routes:

“The conditions set for dwellings that use a common escape route do not appear to provide an equal level of protection to the common part of the building. A protected enclosure within the dwelling offers two door separation from the common escape route whereas I am unsure that a single medium duration flat entrance door provides the same level of protection to the common escape route (redundancy). Similarly, the provision of a ventilated protected lobby offers the escape route two door separation plus the benefit of ventilation for smoke dispersal and is therefore the strongest protection to the common escape route. Consideration should be given on whether all three options should be provided as a condition to dispensing with the requirement for suppression.” - City of Edinburgh Council