Consultation outcome

Final consultation response - Amendments to Approved Document B: Sprinklers in care homes, and the removal of national classes

Updated 2 September 2024

1. This is a final response to the Sprinklers in care homes, removal of national classes, and staircases in residential buildings consultation that was published on 23 December 2022. It deals with proposals for removing the National Classes and introducing sprinklers into care homes.

2. It follows-on from an earlier response to the same consultation which set out the government’s position on Second Staircases in tall buildings. Together, these two responses conclude the government’s overall response to the consultation.

3. In 2018, the previous government instigated a technical review of the fire safety guidance to the building regulations within Approved Document B.

4. As part of this technical review, the Department for Levelling up, Housing and Local Communities (DLUHC) (as it was then named) conducted a public consultation on sprinklers in care homes, removal of National Classes, and staircases in residential buildings.

5. This consultation sought views on proposals to amend Approved Document B to:

a. recommend sprinklers in new care homes, regardless of building height;
b. remove the national classification system for construction products (BS 476 series) - including Class 0 – and require all relevant construction products to be tested to the British Standard version of the European Standard;
c. introduce a threshold whereby residential buildings above 30 metres in height should be designed and built with 2 staircases;
d. launch a call for evidence on revisions to paragraphs 10.6 and 10.7 of Approved Document B covering materials and products used in the construction of external walls.

6. This document examines the government’s response to the proposals concerning the inclusion of sprinklers in care homes and the removal of national classes, which were specific parts of the consultation.

7. The consultation complied with the duty on the Secretary of State in section 14(3) of the Building Act 1984 to consult the Building Safety Regulator and other bodies representative of the interests concerned on proposed changes to the substantive requirements in the Building Regulations.

8. There were 285 responses to the consultation, 113 (39.7%) of which were received from individuals and 166 (58.2%) from organisation representatives and 6 (2.1%) did not declare either way.

Summary of responses

Overview

9. This government’s response is structured around the questions set out in the consultation document. Each section includes a quantitative analysis of the responses, and a summary qualitative analysis of the views and comments submitted for each consultation question. The question numbers used in this response are consistent with the question numbers on the survey form.

10. It should be noted that none of the questions in the consultation received a 100% response. Any percentage given in the tables and text in this response is a percentage of the replies of those who answered the particular question and where responses could be coded into “yes/no/don’t know” out of the possible 285 respondents for consistency, unless stated otherwise.

11. The percentages are based on the full sample, with some of the findings summarised based on targeted analysis of responses from key stakeholders.

12. The percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Some responses have not been included in the responses as they were not written in a format where we could identify clearly the response provided.

Sprinkler provision in new care homes (Question 4-12)

13. Responses suggest that there is broad agreement that sprinkler protection should be provided to new care homes of any height.

Question 4 - Do you agree that sprinklers protection should be extended to new care homes of any height? [Agree/Disagree]

1. 184 (64%) of respondents said “agree”
2. 34 (12%) said “disagree”
3. 67 (24%) did not answer

Question 5 - Alternatively, would you agree with the proposal if it included a 10-bed threshold? [Agree/Disagree]

1. 92 (32%) of respondents said “agree”
2. 107 (38%) said “disagree”
3. 86 (30%) did not answer

Question 6 - We welcome views on whether there are any exemptions you would include, what they are, and your evidence supporting their exclusion.

14. 121 (42.5%) responses provided. 63 (22.1%) specifically indicated no exceptions. Remaining responses suggested exclusions including the following:

a. Single story buildings, providing there are multiple/direct escape routes.
b. Single story buildings with sub-compartmentation.
c. Smaller care premises with risk assessment-based approach suggested.

15. Many respondents highlighted the importance of taking staff to occupant ratios into consideration. Several expressed the view that management levels should be considered when determining appropriate fire provisions and that this should be clearly set out in the fire strategy.

16. One respondent highlighted that smaller buildings would have decreasing gains from the use of sprinklers due to the collateral damage and because cost effectiveness grows with size of the building. They suggest that alternative technologies such as electronically controlled mist systems might be considered for smaller properties.

Question 7 - Do you agree that Approved Document B should remove the current allowances when sprinklers are provided? [Agree/Disagree]

1. 123 (43%) of respondents said “agree”
2. 78 (27%) said “disagree”
3. 84 (30%) did not answer

Question 8 - Which allowances do you think should be provided and what evidence do you have to support your view?

1. 11 (4%) responses indicated there should be no allowances
2. 9 (3%) indicated that all existing allowances should be maintained
3. 90 (32%) other responses provided. These vary significantly and include the following:

a. 30 (10.5%) responses specifically cited door closers and indicated that the current allowance for the omission of self-closing devices to bedroom fire door sets should be removed regardless of sprinkler provision.
b. Provide sprinklers regardless of the number of beds if wheelchair users and children are being accommodated.
c. Potentially consider against allowances permitted in BS 9991 for situations where sprinklers are installed.
d. One comment suggested an upper limit on the number of beds per protected area rather than saying may contain more than 10 beds.
e. One comment cited concerns with current allowances based on the effectiveness of management systems and adequate staffing aided by sprinklers. This comment advocated less reliance on human based elements and more on passive measures, i.e. closed doors, together with sprinkler provision.
f. Whilst a sprinkler system will supress a fire, it does not negate the creation of smoke and toxic gasses, therefore self-closing devices should be in place to contain within the room of origin.

Question 9 - Do you agree that Approved Document B should recommend sprinklers to the new BS 9251:2021 standard? [Agree/Disagree]

1. 178 (62%) of respondents said “agree”
2. 20 (7%) said “disagree”
3. 87 (31%) did not answer

Question 10 - If you disagree, what other standards would you suggest, and what is your evidence to support using the alternative standards?

These varied significantly and included the following:

1. Third party certification for sprinkler installations should be mandatory.
2. Called for consideration of mist-based fire suppression systems.
3. BS 9251 with duplicate water supplies and back-up power supplies made essential requirement for sprinklers in care homes.
4. Risk-assessment based approach rather than specific standard.
5. BS EN 12845 was specifically cited in 12 responses with most suggesting that BS EN 12845 might be more appropriate particularly when applied to larger care home premises.

Question 11 - Do you agree that there should be a transitional period of 6 months? [Agree/Disagree]

1. 127 (45%) of respondents said “agree”
2. 71 (25%) said “disagree”
3. 87 (30%) did not answer

Question 12 - If you disagree, how long should the transition period be?

17. 68 (21%) responses indicated specific periods. Of these, 40 (14%) indicated 6 months or less (including those indicating ‘immediately’ type responses). 28 indicated periods from 6 months to 5 years. At least 5 responses alluded to the need for clarity in relation to transition start dates and impact on concurrent/overlapping planning and construction activities.

Removal of national classifications (Question 13-18)

18. The consultation responses suggest that removal of reaction to fire is less contentious than removal of fire resistance national classification. This has also been overtly cited in at least one response which indicated the that change relating to fire resistance testing and classification is less straightforward than that for reaction to fire testing and classification.

Question 13 - Do you agree that the national classifications for reaction to fire should be removed from Approved Document B? [Agree/Disagree]

1. 205 (72%) of respondents “agree”
2. 52 (18%) said “disagree”
3. 28 (10%) did not answer

Question 14 - Do you agree that the national classifications for fire resistance should be removed from Approved Document B? [Agree/Disagree]

1. 173 (61%) of respondents said “agree”
2. 90 (32%) said “disagree”
3. 22 (8%) did not answer

Question 15 - If you disagree, what evidence can you provide that outlines why the national classifications are still required.

1. 170 (60%) respondents agreed with the removal of both reaction to fire and fire resistance national classifications from Approved Document B in their entirety
2. 51 (18%) respondents disagreed with the removal of both
3. 17 (6%) did not provide response to either question
4. 31 (11%) responded ‘agree’ to removal of reaction to fire and ‘disagree’ to removal of fire resistance. 1 responded ‘agree’ to removal of fire resistance and ‘disagree’ to removal of reaction to fire. (10 responded ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ to one question and did not answer the other question).
5. 100 (35%) responded and provided additional evidence. While some respondents did not distinguish between reaction to fire and fire resistance in their evidence response, many responses did; providing specific context and reasoning, on ‘why the national classifications are still required’.

19. Respondents cited disruption to the UK fire door manufacturing sector as a major contributing factor in disagreement with national classification removal. Time requirement and financial impact of testing are frequently cited factors.

20. Responses appeared to indicate a conditional acceptance of national classification removal.

21. Timber fire door related responses expressed concern that if the national classification using BS 476 is removed and replaced with BS EN 13501, expert assessment and third-party certification should be retained. Cited reasoning behind this involves EU classification based upon testing and EXAP (extended field of application) which allow little or no scope for expert assessment and third-party certification. The implication is that a narrower and more rigid classification approach would limit product range, availability and variety and require an onerous amount of testing for existing products. This also suggests potential loss in design flexibility.

22. Respondents repeatedly highlighted issues relating to improper installation and maintenance of fire doors and fire-resistant materials, i.e. regardless of BS or EN, any certified door or fire-resistant product is ineffective if not properly installed and maintained. This speaks for continued or increased support for UKAS accredited inspection/certification schemes.

23. At least one non-fire door manufacturing group provided a response that, in terms of reaction to fire classification, the vast majority of their products are already covered within the scope of existing EN product standards and have been tested to EN standards as part of CE marking requirements.

24. Three respondents cited specific benefits related to national classification removal:

a. ‘There would of course be the need to re-test some doors, particularly timber doors, but this would, in the long term, be offset by the fact that the European standard creates a common technical language and provides access to a wider market’.
b. ‘Marketplaces are increasingly global, and the concept of global standards is an important step in providing certainty and clarity in those marketplaces.
c. ‘As mentioned, there would be a lot of re-testing, particularly timber doors, but this would, in the long term, be beneficial as the European standard puts us on a level playing field with the EU and we don’t want duplication or complexity where its already a very technical industry’.

Question 16 - Do you agree that there should be a transitional period of twelve months? [Agree/Disagree]

1. 116 (41%) of respondents said “agree”
2. 143 (50%) said “disagree”
3. 26 (9%) did not answer

Question 17 - If you disagree, how long should the transition period be and what is your evidence to support a longer or shorter transition period?

25. Transition period related responses greatly vary from ‘none’ to 10 years. Of 102 (36%) responses containing specific suggestion, 33 (12%) respondents indicated six months or less and 69 (24%) indicated a 2 to 10-year period. Respondents calling for a longer transition period most typically cited doubt that testing capacity currently available in the UK would be adequate to carry out the scope of testing required and that booking, testing and reporting times are arduously protracted.

Question 18 - Please outline any concerns you have about the withdrawal of the national classification with regards to fire resistance including potential impacts, such as on the fire door industry.

26. 21 (7%) indicated no concerns and at least 91 (32%) articulated specific concerns. Of those articulating specific concerns, at least 40 (14%) focussed on testing facility availability, time required for testing procedures and financial impact of testing. 23 (8%) specifically raised concerns relating to lack of flexibility under EXAP, loss of expert assessment and loss of third-party product/process certification. A wide range of issues shaped the concerns of respondents:

a. Transition related impacts being disproportionately greater for smaller fire door and ironmongery manufacturers.
b. Need for clarity in relation to fire performance of roof coverings/systems.
c. Need for clarity in relation to cavity barrier fire resistance classification and testing methods/configurations.
d. Clarity as to how national classification removal will affect other guidance such as BS 9999 standard and fire engineering.
e. Clarity as to impact on insurance industry/insurer standards which reference and rely upon BS 476.
f. Clarity at what stage and in what manner changes will impact ongoing planning work and construction projects.
g. National classification test evidence recognition when dealing with legacy projects designed under previous versions of Approved Part B.

Summary of Paragraph 10.6 and 10.7 – call for evidence (Questions 26-27)

Question 26: Do you agree further consideration is needed to clarify the paragraph?

1. 150 (53%) of respondents said “agree”
   
2. 48 (17%) said “disagree”
   
3. 87 (31%) did not answer

Question 27: If you agree, please outline what materials would you cover in the paragraphs and what is your evidence to support this?

27. The main themes from the responses were:

a. Consolidation of Guidance: Respondents suggested that guidance relating to fire resistance, external surfaces, and reaction to fire requirements for materials and products be consolidated into one section, determined by the building’s measurement relating to storey levels above ground.
b. Clarity of Applicability: Respondents suggested that the wording should be amended to make it clear that the provisions apply to buildings with a storey more than 11m above ground but not more than 18m.
c. Presentational Aids: A diagram and/or a flow chart would be helpful according to some respondents.
d. Exclusions: Respondents asked for clarity on the position of all other components, such as membranes, fixings, adhesives, cavity trays, weep holes, and sheathing boards.
e. Delete Paragraph 10.6 from ADB Volume 1: Some respondents suggested that this paragraph, which only applies to buildings outside of the scope of Volume 1, should be removed to avoid confusion.
f. Terminology: Many respondents observed that the paragraph and linked paragraphs suffer from vague wording such as ‘similar’, ‘etc.’, and respondents strongly react against the continuation of the use of ‘filler,’ which at best can be described as being ambiguous.
g. Extent of Applicability: Some respondents consider that para. 10.7 should be applied to residential buildings of all heights up to 18m, and others consider that it should be applied to residential buildings under 11m that have a higher risk occupancy.

28. Additional comments and observations were also made, including suggestions for clear practical guidance for the use of laminated glass, concerns over intumescent foam, and the need for obligatory product fire test reports. Some respondents who disagreed with the need for further consideration thought the paragraph is clear enough, while others objected to the issue as being too prescriptive and favoured a risk-assessed approach to enable flexible solutions.

Assessment of impacts (Question 28)

29. There were 99 (35%) respondents to Question 28, the main impacts raised by respondents are outlined below.

Question 28: Please provide any additional evidence on costs, risks and benefits which should be considered in an assessment of impacts in the following areas.

a) Sprinklers in Care Homes and in housing for vulnerable people, regardless of building height.

1. All multi-occupied residential buildings are considered higher risk due to the lack of control over occupancy.
2. Sprinklers are needed in all buildings above 11m when used as sleeping accommodation. This includes student accommodation, retirement apartments, and hotels.

b) Removing the National Classification (BS 476 series) from Approved Document B

1. The removal of classifications, thresholds, and EXAP’s in this standard will be detrimental to the industry. It will result in every design permutation needing to be tested, which could be costly.
2. The removal disproportionately impacts small or medium-sized fire door manufacturers, particularly those involved in bespoke work.
3. A detailed consultation with not only the door industry but also the door hardware industry is suggested, as any impact on the door industry will equally impact the hardware industry.
4. To avoid project-specific fire testing, consideration must be given to how assessments/engineering judgments can be made by suitably competent professionals.
5. There are cost and resource issues in terms of retesting for many products if the National Classifications for resistance to fire are removed in too short a time frame, and also for the purposes of the insurer developed standards.

Government response

Updated guidance in Approved Document B

National Classes

30. Currently Approved Document B operates a dual testing system referencing both the European Standards and National Classes (BS 476) series of tests for construction products relating to “reaction to fire” and “fire resistance”. Removing references to the National Classes (BS 476) from the Annex of Approved Document B will complete a move to the streamlined European standard in England.

31. We will be removing references to the National Classes (BS 476) from Approved Document B, leaving the European standard as the sole specification route. This will enhance fire protection by simplifying the specification routes within Approved Document B and utilising the more robust, periodically reviewed, and internationally recognised approach. A full transition to the European standard will enable government to use updated standards as compared with the current national ones which cannot be updated, thereby future proofing the building stock.

Sprinklers in care homes

32. We will be implementing the provision of sprinklers in care homes, while removing allowances associated with their provision. This will enhance fire protection in care home building types where residents are most vulnerable and can be reliant on others for their evacuation. Care homes are defined as an ‘institution’ within Approved Document B.

Paragraphs 10.6 and 10.7

33. In response to the feedback provided through the call for evidence, further work will be undertaken to revise the wording for this section of the guidance. Revised wording will be consulted on as part of the next phase of the technical review of Approved Document B in due course.

Implementation

34. We value the feedback received from respondents and acknowledge that updates to the Approved Document B guidance can have significant implications. It is customary for changes to building regulations to be accompanied by a transition period to provide clarity to building control bodies and those commissioning, designing and carrying out the building work. It also reduces the risk to developers being impacted by changes to requirements part way through the design and construction process.

35. The transitional arrangements for National Classes “Reaction to Fire” and the Provision of Sprinklers in care homes have been set to 6 months. The transitional arrangements recognise industry has already moved away from using National Classes for “Reaction to fire” tests and will also allow new care homes the time needed to redesign sprinklers into each new institution.

36. The transition arrangements for National Classes “Fire Resistance” will be 5 years, and will not come into force until 2029. This will give manufacturers a five-year transition period to move over to the European standard. When those 5 years have elapsed, all future products will have to be tested to the European standard. We anticipate this length of transition will allow Industry the necessary time to develop to develop standards to support the transition away from the national classes.

37. With these transitional arrangements, we will ensure that products which have already been tested to the BS 476 standard can continue to be used during the transition period and the necessary retesting can take place.