Jonathan O’Neill OBE on the challenges ahead for the fire safety sector
In May, IFSEC Global sat down with Managing Director of the Fire Protection Association, Jonathan O’Neill OBE, as he provided his thoughts on the major challenges ahead for the fire industry and his concerns over new building techniques.
Jonathan O'Neill OBE, Managing Director, Fire Protection Association
IFSEC Global (IG): Hi Jon, how’s the last 12 months been for the FPA?
Jonathan O’Neill OBE (JON): It’s been really busy to be honest. While we stopped training during the lockdowns for a while, we didn’t close down our labs which have been running throughout.
The testing we provide has gone from strength to strength in recent years. We’ve had the labs for a while – originally to carry out bespoke testing for the insurance industry or Ministry of Defence, but then started standards testing for sprinklers about four years ago due to demand, and after Grenfell we investigated the BS 8414 testing process (fire performance of external cladding systems). We now have four rigs to carry out UKAS accredited testing on, which has been busy ever since.
The FPA has recently expanded its testing capabilities at its labs, including new technology for compartmentation and door surveys
We then began residential water mist testing and were the first to achieve UKAS accreditation for that, and more recently, about nine months ago, we entered into an agreement with UL. We’re launching this officially at FIREX in May, but we’ve now had furnaces delivered to carry out testing on behalf of them.
There’s real value in the testing market for the industry as more innovative designs are coming out in both active and passive fire protection systems. We’ve got some real concerns regarding passive fire protection on modern methods of construction, such as with unprotected voids and cavity barriers. All the focus is going into competency, but there’s still a concern that the construction industry doesn’t really understand how firestopping and cavity barriers work – so we believe testing will be key now, and in the future.
It’s worth noting that training is now back on the agenda, too. There’s been a big change post-Grenfell as national qualifications are now becoming more important due to the competency requirements, so we’ve reassessed our own training to ensure they’re mapped and properly accredited. We were able to use COVID to review our offering and tailor it – there’s a huge demand at present for fire risk assessors, for instance, as well as courses around the Building Safety Bill from building control and facilities managers.
Since this interview was undertaken, the FPA has developed new technology for compartmentation and door surveys, as well as expanding its testing capabilities with a new material identification testing service to help identify the type of insulation material being used on a building.
IG: There’s a lot happening in the industry – what are the challenges that really stand out for you in the months ahead?
JON: We’ve seen horrors emerge from the Grenfell inquiry – from ministers, officials, manufacturers, and plenty of others. We’ve obviously got these two key pieces of legislation, as a result, and the Building Safety Bill could help transform the industry, but my concern is that we still don’t really have a feel for what any of it really looks like. There remain questions over how the new Building Safety Regulator system will work, as well as confusion surrounding the building control framework.
Not to mention we still haven’t had a Building Regulations review – despite Grenfell, modern methods of construction and combustible materials being introduced. The sustainability agenda, in particular, should be seen as a catalyst for change to the Building regs – I’ve lost count of the number of ‘green’ buildings that have caught fire, and there seems to be very little in the way of fire resistance in the structure. Fortunately we haven’t lost any lives yet in one of these fires, but the warning signs are there.
We’re putting some of the most vulnerable people in society at risk, yet we’re not thinking about the implications because a different agenda is being pushed. Large scale fire testing doesn’t happen anymore to give us the information required to understand how a fire will spread in the building – not to mention how the fire and rescue services tackle the fire and evacuate residents.
IG: During our panel discussion last year you highlighted how you felt there was a lack of knowledge of modern building practices and systems. Is this what you’re referring to?
JON: The system that was put on Grenfell Tower – and has been used elsewhere – was never designed for residential buildings. We’re importing new building techniques from other countries, but we’re not importing the fire protection systems in that they require. For instance, we’re using wood as a building material like in the US, but any building over two storeys in the States requires a fire sprinkler system to be put in – this is not the case here.
With the best will in the world, architects and designers possibly don’t see fire safety as their number one issue. Fire hasn’t been a huge concern for many years in the UK because the fire and rescue service has had tremendous success in bringing down the number of deaths through better education, smoke detectors in buildings and other initiatives. Fire therefore came off the political agenda for a while, and with new building techniques being brought in since, there are concerns that we haven’t thought ahead once these buildings become occupied, wear and tear sets into compartmentation systems. Do we really know how the building will react if there’s a potentially catastrophic fire 10-15 years later?
It seems crazy that five years after Grenfell, we still don’t have a change in the Building Regulations, we’re still importing inappropriate techniques, and we still don’t have a structure in place that is any different to pre-Grenfell.
The removal of the Building Safety Manager role as a statutory requirement from the Building Safety Bill has concerned many in the sector – what are your thoughts on it?
JON: You can get rid of job title, but you can’t remove the role and function. It’s a great headline to make it seem that leaseholders won’t have to be burdened with the cost, but someone ultimately still has to undertake this task.
It’s a role that’s been missing for some time, and landlords and responsible persons won’t be able to not have someone covering the role of the building safety manager.
A big concern is that there is still no certainty on what the legislative framework is going to look like, so the Government owe it to the leaseholder and resident community to explain what is actually happening and what the changes might mean for them.
We’re putting some of the most vulnerable people in society at risk, yet we’re not thinking about the implications because a different agenda is being pushed.
Find out more from the Fire Protection Association (FPA) >>
