In the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire, façade fire risk assessment has come under intense scrutiny, yet key misconceptions remain. Frameworks like PAS 9980 are often misunderstood as compliance checklists, rather than the risk-based methodologies they are intended to be.

As construction practices, material choices and workmanship vary across building eras, assessing external wall systems requires a more nuanced, evidence-led approach. In this interview, Global HSE’s Andrew Cooper, Andreas Marais and Keith Plowman explore the realities of façade assessments, the limits of desktop reviews, and the need for proportionate, integrated solutions that balance safety, practicality and asset value.

How do construction eras and misunderstandings of materials and PAS 9980 shape façade fire‑risk assessments?

Keith Plowman: Buildings tend to fall into two main categories. You have pre-2000 era buildings, which are generally built quite well. Then you get buildings from around 2000 until the Grenfell era. Some are good but we do come across some shockers.

Andrew Cooper: Another issue is the misconception that risk is binary: combustible equals replace, non-combustible equals safe. It isn’t that simple. The understanding of PAS 9980 is also an issue. It is a risk methodology, not a materials checklist. You can have all the right materials, but workmanship is often the key issue that undermines the integrity of the structure.

What misconceptions do clients commonly have when instructing a façade fire risk assessment?

Andreas Marais: A lot of people see PAS 9980 as a compliance document, which it’s not. People have a Fire Risk Appraisal of External Walls (FRAEW) done to identify faults in their building, but that’s not what the document is there for. The methodology behind it is well adaptable into a different process which would then give you the outcome that they are looking for.

AC: Clients also often assume that a desktop review will suffice and height alone determines risk, which isn’t true. They often think that an EWS1 form is the same as an FRAEW and the outcome is simple and is a pass-fail result.

An FRAEW is a robust risk assessment of the existing state of the building and its underlying issues. It’s showing what was built, and then it should identify proportionate deliverable solutions.

Why is a desktop review rarely enough for complex buildings?

KP: We have a relatively new building. The documentation is fantastic and managed through a system that will feed into the future ‘golden thread’ of information.

What we don’t have is robust photographic evidence of how those materials were installed. The drawings can show they’ve got cavity barriers in the right place, and they are the right materials, but that doesn’t consider how it was fitted.      

So sometimes you do need to have that intrusive investigation, even if it’s a much smaller scope than you would do without the documentation just to prove that what you find is on the site.

AC: It’s like having the “Rolls-Royce” of document management systems and detailed records from the original build, but if you’ve not backed it up with photographic evidence, you’ve always got that uncertainty.

What does a robust intrusive FRAEW involve?

KP: If you’re instructed to undertake an FRAEW on a building that had little or no documentation, you need to strike a balance between not stripping every single façade off the building to see exactly what’s there. You would need to target key locations but make sure you target enough areas to obtain a representative sample.

In terms of putting a number on that, the bigger and more complex the building the more openings you would look to make on that façade system to understand what’s going on behind the surface.

AC: Whatever we do has to be defensible and hypothesis led. It means that clients and third parties can have confidence in the approach.

Typical inspection locations might include slab edges, window heads, and sills. The inspection strategy must reflect the actual construction type. The aim is to get the maximum value for the client while causing the least disruption or damage to the building.

Crucially, we’ve got to identify the insulation, membranes, sheathing boards and other concealed type. Remediation strategies will be very different for a concrete frame building compared with a timber frame structure, for example.

AC: Now we have a black and white approach — maximum intervention, replace everything or make it non-combustible. Instead, it should be maximum risk reduction against a practical background. The other thing is that it is very rarely a single solution. It’s typically a combination of measures, tailored to the building and the specific risks involved.

Another important consideration is that it’s not only about life safety. It’s also about asset value. How do we maintain value in the asset? How do we maximise that? How do we help the client realise that value further down the line and protect the building and their investment?

Where does façade remediation intersect with fire strategy, compartmentation, structural constraints and building performance?

AC: The fundamental thing is that a façade solution can’t be done in isolation without the fire strategy. The fire strategy must be a fundamental driver of the outcomes FRAEW as well as findings.

The FRAEW and solutions proposed in relation to any façade remediation should align with the strategy assumptions, as well as with structural constraints, MEP systems and the long-term durability of the building. But it also needs to tie into what we’re going to use the building for in the future. What we don’t want is a poorly integrated approach that creates further problems down the line, and we’ve come across that quite a bit.

How do you manage façade remediation on occupied buildings while minimising disruption?

AM: That would be a building specific case in each instance, but you could sequence your work to different levels or areas. It’s always going to be disruptive in a way, but everyone will endure the same level of disruption. There will be the obvious things of noise and things like that, but there are some things that you can mitigate.

AC: It’s all about the planning, pre[1]engagement, strong communication with the client and residents or tenants about how we’re going to approach and minimise guest disruption.

Achieving a clear plan always relies on strong collaboration with the client, and when that partnership is in place, the process runs smoothly. Challenges tend to arise when communication, planning or expectations aren’t fully aligned, which is why early clarity is so important.

Where is façade risk assessment heading over the next three to five years?

AM: Something that is lacking is where an FRA will be done on a building. They might identify some cladding there that they say ‘I’m not sure so let’s prompt an FRAEW’ which is the usual route to an FRAEW but then it’s never really fed back.

Essentially, you’ll have two documents living alongside each other. What the Single Building Assessment (SBA) in Scotland has done is combined them to become a single source of key information on that building.

AC: I think there’ll be a great scrutiny of assessor competence and lower tolerance for uncertainty, stronger audit expectations, more digital traceability and increased emphasis on proportionality. We can see that with the confusion now in relation to buildings that fall either tolerable or medium.

Competence has become one of the defining issues in modern fire engineering and façade safety. As regulatory expectations rise across the UK and internationally, the sector is under increasing pressure to demonstrate not just compliance, but consistent and defensible decision-making across design, construction and occupation.

In many cases, failures in fire performance are not driven by design intent, but by gaps in understanding, product selection and workmanship during delivery. This has shifted the focus from simply meeting standards to ensuring those standards are properly interpreted and applied in practice.

Training and competency development therefore sit at the heart of effective consultancy, shaping how projects are delivered and how organisations build internal capability.

Not just consultancy, at Global HSE Group, everything we do is about improving standards of work and competency across the industry. We place structured learning at the centre of our approach as a way to support consistent standards across projects. We focus strongly on raising those standards through the Level 4 Fire Safety Design qualification, which supports professionals working in complex and high-risk environments. Further programmes will follow as we build on this foundation. On the façade side, our team in the UK has developed a high level of competency and that expertise creates clear opportunities to share knowledge into other markets.

Competency is no longer a background requirement. It is critical for building safety outcomes. The Building Safety Act, PAS 9980 and the Scottish Single Building Assessment framework have placed façade performance under close scrutiny. In Scotland, the introduction of the Single Building Assessment process has reinforced the need for consistent methodology, clear documentation and defensible professional judgement.

Current industry demand reflects this focus, as we are heavily engaged in single building assessments and Fire Risk Appraisal of External Walls (FRAEWs). One ambition is to recruit within the region so that capability grows locally as well as through visiting teams, allowing us to blend regional presence with targeted support. Where travel makes sense we can bring our specialists into the Middle East and where regional talent is available we want to build capacity on the ground so the flow of expertise runs in both directions.

Façades have become a major part of our workload because of legislative change and rising expectations across the UK construction and housing sectors and our teams now deliver FRAEWs in line with the Building Safety Act and Single Building Assessments within the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024. Demand continues to increase and we see that trend extending across the next three to five years as building owners look for consistent and reliable guidance.

We currently lead many of these programmes Nationally, from London to Scotland, and plan to expand our team as the volume of projects grows, supported by professional indemnity cover for assessment, design and remediation activities that enables us to manage full façade lifecycles. The insights from these projects carry direct relevance for other regions, including the UAE, where façade performance and cladding issues feature as part of a wider set of sector concerns.

Addressing this challenge at scale requires more than project-level intervention. It depends on structured, accessible pathways for developing competence across the workforce.

Developing the Global Academy

Our training division, Global Academy, began as an internal vehicle to give our staff a clear route to the competency levels we expect across every division and over time we recognised the scale of the need for structured learning at Level 2 and Level 3, along with formal qualifications that match real roles in the field. In response, we are extending Global Academy into Level 2 pathways and establishing Global Skills Academy as part of our learning ecosystem.

The aim is to develop multi-skilled people across the fire sector trades, with joiners, technicians, passive fire specialists and fire door practitioners gaining a broader set of abilities rather than working within narrow task bands. Many individuals currently work in isolation from adjacent trades, and qualification frameworks often fail to reflect the realities of modern passive fire installation or inspection.

As buildings become more complex and regulatory scrutiny continues to increase, competence is no longer a supporting function. It is the critical link between design intent and real-world performance.

The industry’s challenge is no longer defining standards, but ensuring they are consistently understood, applied and upheld in practice. Raising that baseline of competence across design, construction and inspection will ultimately determine how effectively those standards translate into safer buildings.

Fire safety is most effective when embedded at the earliest stages of a project, yet it is often introduced late in the design process, leading to costly rework and compromised performance. Global HSE Group set out to address this through the creation of the Level 4 Fire Safety Design qualification, the first of its kind to embed regulatory and technical understanding at the design stage.

In this discussion, Managing Director Andrew Cooper, Head of Technical and Training Chris Sharman, former West Yorkshire Fire Service Group Manager Nigel Craven, and Fire Safety Consultant Keith Plowman explain how the qualification was formed, the gap it addresses, and how Global HSE Group’s dual role as both educator and practitioner informs its aim to raise competence through structured training and growing digital access across the region.

Was there a gap in the industry that prompted Global HSE Group to create the Level 4 Fire Safety Design qualification?

Chris: There were two main drivers. The first was a direct request from one of our tier one contractor clients, who wanted training for their design teams, especially the people doing design work on site. While we were developing that, we realised there was a wider structural gap in the qualification landscape. A number of us at Global HSE Group had previously completed a Level 4 Diploma in fire safety management. To reach Level 4 you often must divert into a different discipline and then come back, rather than progressing in a clear technical line. As we were building something for our client, we saw that gap and decided to create a qualification that would sit between the Level 3 technical awards and the Level 5 fire engineering route.

Andrew: Alongside that, we had eight years of experience working with tier one contractors, project teams, architects and designers where we kept encountering the same issues in fire safety design. There was a lack of formal competence in understanding regulatory requirements, fields of application, interpreting manufacturers’ data and test evidence, and understanding how components should work together as tested systems rather than ad hoc assemblies.

In the UK, Regulation 7 of the Building Regulations, which covers materials and workmanship, came up repeatedly. In around 90 per cent of finished buildings we reviewed under defective premises claims, the core weakness was either poor workmanship or inappropriate product selection. It was clear the people doing the work did not fully understand Regulation 7.

The Level 4 course is intended to close that gap. It focuses on selecting appropriate materials, understand supporting design information, and delivering workmanship that meets the functional requirements at completion.

We had also been offering a “fire scrutineer” service since around 2016, which is essentially a modern version of the old clerk of works. We were brought in to look at buildings during construction and found that many were not being built incorrectly in a legal sense, but they were being built poorly from a fire safety perspective.

How does early design integration prevent retrofits or compromises later during project delivery?

Andrew: A key aim is to give people a roadmap. That means knowing where to find the right information, understanding system design and ensuring that products are selected and installed as tested systems, rather than individual components. We developed the course from our experience of tier one projects where designers and contractors were pulling in components from multiple manufacturers without fully understanding how they behaved in combination.

Keith: The gap usually appears between what is drawn and what is built. On a computer, buildings are perfect and it never rains. On site it is a completely different environment.

Products are swapped, details are adjusted, and value engineering does not always take full account of the fire strategy.

Early integration is about ensuring that everyone involved has the right skills and training so that decisions they make along the way do not undermine the original design philosophy. That is really what early integration is about.

What are the main learning outcomes or skills that professionals gain from this qualification?

Nigel: The qualification is split into two units. The first is the knowledge component covering fire science, active and passive fire protection, and fire safety management. It also addresses routine testing responsibilities for people managing buildings. Finally, it considers fire risk in the built environment and touches on the fire risk assessment process.

The second unit is entirely practical. Learners must demonstrate that they can apply what they have learned. They complete two tabletop exercises using large plan drawings and produce a coherent fire safety design for a given scenario.

We talk them through the design guidance module by module. In the exercise they then have to prove they can interpret and apply that guidance correctly.

By the end, they can take a floor plan and decide where 30, 60 or 120 minute compartmentation is needed, where emergency lighting should go, which doors are fire doors and how to factor in doors when calculating occupancy. It is about moving from knowing the words in the guidance to being able to use it properly on a real layout.

How did UK regulations shape the course and what changed for UAE code alignment?

Chris: The course is structured around UK regulatory guidance, but it translates well to the Gulf. Many Gulf states already blend British standards with NFPA material, and British influence remains strong.

Much of the testing still references BS and BS EN standards, which makes adaptation for the UAE Fire and Life Safety Code relatively straightforward.

Are there clear differences in how fire safety design is approached in the UK compared with the Middle East?

Andrew: We deliberately worked with awarding bodies and followed formal qualification requirements rather than delivering a simple CPD course. The aim was to create a recognised progression route, not just a certificate of attendance.

We wanted a qualification that sits properly in the UK framework and that gives learners a meaningful progression route, not just a certificate of attendance.

Keith: We are not just trainers. We are also installers, maintainers and consultants. If we have a topic that is heavily fire engineering focused, we can go to our fire engineers and ask, “How does this work in practice?”

That practical insight feeds directly into the training and keeps it grounded in current practice, not just theory.

What feedback have organisations or learners shared after completing or trialling the qualification?

Andrew: We already have several hundred learners lined up in the UK for the Level 4 qualification, and we are in discussions with the Construction Leadership Council and hope to evolve these and establish further recognition and wider rollout throughout 2026.

Nigel: Our internal trial group found it demanding but appropriate for Level 4. One learner with a degree in civil engineering said it stretched his understanding which is exactly what we want at Level 4.

Will other programmes be digitised for the region and how will this affect access and consistency?

Andrew: We are digitising the Level 4 course and others, but formal assessment requirements mean this must be done carefully.

Keith: We do not want a passive click-through course. Classroom interaction remains important, both for learners and assessors. Digital delivery will complement, not replace, that approach.

How might qualifications like this influence wider competence standards and career pathways?

Andrew: Yes. We have aligned the qualification with the existing competence frameworks in the UK. We have mirrored the competence requirements that have been set out nationally so that this course sits as part of a recognised pathway rather than a standalone product.

The idea is that someone with Level 3 technical qualifications can move into this Level 4 and through to higher-level fire engineering and management roles.

Across housing, infrastructure and commercial projects, fire safety design is moving closer to the starting point of a scheme. Taller structures, complex façades and new uses for space have raised expectations on how fire strategy, materials and construction quality come together. The central question is whether decisions taken on paper will still protect people when they are translated into real buildings.

Fire safety at design stage once sat with a small circle of specialists. Today it involves digital design teams, coordinators, site managers and supervisors who must turn drawings into built details. That wider involvement increases the need for shared competence and clear understanding of how codes, standards and product test evidence apply in practice.

Designing for whole-building performance

Early integration of fire safety design allows teams to plan compartmentation, evacuation, detection and structural resilience as a joined-up set of measures. When fire strategy, product selection and installation methodology are considered together, it becomes easier to maintain performance through design changes and refurbishments. Digital tools now place strategies and calculations alongside BIM models and asset data, supporting clearer handover information for operators and regulators.

External walls and façades remain a focus. Experience with cladding remediation, single building assessments and external wall appraisals has shown how quickly performance can deteriorate when system thinking is missing. Dedicated façade assessment programmes, linked to legislation and insurance expectations, are now part of many owners’ response to that risk.

Competence, systems and long-term protection

These pressures point back to people and systems. Structured qualifications in fire safety design give practitioners a way to build technical understanding that bridges code familiarity and full fire engineering. Consultancy teams that combine training, design advice and on-site inspection can then support clients from concept stage through to occupation.

High-performance systems also matter in buildings where the consequences of failure are severe. Composite barriers that combine fire, impact and blast resistance are used to protect substations, tunnels, plant rooms and evacuation routes.

Global HSE Group contributes to all these areas, from design-stage competence and façade assessment to licensed installation of engineered fire and blast systems. Their work within this report reflects a wider shift toward building safety design that is integrated, evidence based and focused on whole-building performance throughout the life of an asset.

Market direction and growing demand: plans that pass the test

Urban growth, larger warehouses, taller residential buildings and battery energy storage sites are pushing fire safety design earlier in the project lifecycle. Demand is rising for services that combine code consulting, performance-based engineering, façade and external wall appraisal and design stage competence training. This market report for IFSJ reviews market values and forecasts for design and engineering services, links them to wider spending on protection systems and maintenance, and summarises the strengths, challenges and recent developments shaping investment decisions.

Fire safety design sits within a larger spend on engineering, installation and ongoing inspection. According to Growth Market Reports, the global fire protection engineering service market was estimated at USD 6.8 billion in 2024 and is forecast to reach about USD 12.9 billion by 2033. On the products side, Fortune Business Insights values the global fire protection system market at USD 68.90 billion in 2024 with a projection of USD 111.38 billion by 2032, while Grand View Research estimates USD 88.945 billion in 2024 and USD 130.369 billion by 2030, reflecting different scope and categorisation.

Service revenue is larger: Global Market Insights puts fire and life safety protection services at USD 148.5 billion in 2024, rising to USD 232.5 billion by 2034.

Strengths of the current design approach

Fire safety design is anchored in codified requirements, giving clients a clear basis for specification, review and approval for owners, insurers and regulators. Model codes and standards such as the International Fire Code and NFPA documents support repeatable design approaches across warehouses, healthcare, transport infrastructure and high rise residential.

Digital delivery is another strength. Fire strategies, evacuation modelling and smoke control calculations are increasingly produced in formats that integrate with building information modelling (BIM), enabling coordinated design changes across the supply chain.

Consultancies that combine engineering with inspection and installation oversight can reduce gaps between intent and delivery, supported by approved schemes and third-party certification. Demand is broadened by risk areas, including battery energy storage and data centres where compartmentation, detection and suppression design must align with site operations.

Capacity, complexity and coordination challenges

Capacity remains a constraint. NFPA Journal has reported rising demand for fire protection engineers and ongoing shortages, which can lengthen design review times and increase fee pressure. Workforce strain extends to installation and maintenance trades, where the NFPA’s Industry Trends Survey found many respondents citing a lack of qualified candidates as a leading challenge. Jurisdictional variation also complicates delivery. Projects that span states or countries may face different material test standards, acceptance processes and documentation rules, which raises coordination effort. On complex buildings, modelling quality and assumptions are scrutinised closely by authorities and insurers, increasing the need for peer review and traceable inputs.

Finally, data handover from design to operations is often incomplete, which weakens commissioning, maintenance planning and retrofit decisions, especially for external wall systems and smoke control.

Evolving standards and regulatory expectations

Code and standards updates are widening the design brief. The International Code Council’s 2024 International Fire Code covers energy storage and lithium-ion battery hazards alongside prevention and protection rules. NFPA guidance on NFPA 855 links energy storage design to enforceable code provisions, raising attention on spacing, protection features and responder access. In the UK, BSI published BS 9991:2024 for residential buildings, adding material for housing teams.