Focus on performance, not prescription

We don't design innovative products to fulfil standards; we design them to perform. Standards are merely a means to demonstrate such performance and, ultimately, to prove that products function effectively.

Yet the UK's Approved Document B is a purely prescriptive route to compliance with the Building Regulations, even though the regulations are performance-based. The introduction to Approved Document B, Volume I: Dwellings, says: "compliance with the guidance … does not provide a guarantee of compliance with the requirements of the regulations because the approved documents cannot cater for all circumstances, variations and innovations".

It goes on to say that those responsible need to consider "whether following the guidance … is likely to meet those requirements in the particular circumstances of their case", and notes "that there may be other ways to comply with the requirements than the methods described in an approved document".

In my experience, the problem is that the approved document is perceived as making de facto legal prescriptions, while the Building Regulations' 5 functional requirements for fire safety are largely ignored.

As an article in Forensic Engineering in May 2019 reminds us, though: "A key feature of the system of functional requirements is that it allows (and even requires) the application of prescriptive rules to be moderated by common sense and engineering understanding."

So it is important to remember that, while Approved Document B offers one route to compliance, we may exclude new developments, improvements and innovation by continuing to follow its guidance, rather than independently assessing the performance of new products that could allow buildings to meet the regulations' functional requirements. We need a culture change so we do not focus merely on ticking boxes but also on ensuring competence and accountability.

A sprinkler is just one form of suppression. However, when a system that is not a sprinkler is proposed it is automatically deemed less credible because only sprinklers are mentioned in Approved Document B – even though the Building Regulations do not specifically cite them and simply require automatic fire suppression.

In recent years, there has also been progressive adoption of BS 9991 as alternative guidance on the use of fire safety systems in residential buildings. Although BS 9991 is, again, only guidance – among several means of meeting the Building Regulations' 5 functional fire safety requirements – many see it as yet another prescriptive document from which they cannot deviate, regardless of the objective.

This shows that the means of ensuring a building's compliance with the regulations have unintendedly become prescriptive, where following guidance is incorrectly assumed to equate to diligence. This causes 2 problems.

First is that all other features designed to ensure the safety of the specific building and occupant, which should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, are put to one side. Second, it inherently discriminates against innovation, as new products and practices are not yet established and therefore not coded in standard documents.

British Standard 0, A standard for standards explains that "provisions are expressed in terms of performance rather than design or descriptive characteristics", and if these principles had been followed effectively there would not be a number of standards covering very similar applications, such as BS 9251 for residential sprinklers and BS 8458 for residential water mist.

Instead there would be a broader, performance-based standard for any residential fire suppression system – a standard that would automatically include and promote innovative measures because there would be an established way to evaluate their performance rather than their mode of construction.

The testing process for non-standardised products is specified as part of the current building and fire safety regulatory regime through Building Regulation 7: the party carrying out building works has to demonstrate that an innovative product fulfils the regulatory requirements, and is fit for purpose when its performance is independently certified by a UKAS-accredited third-party laboratory.

However, the non-standardised route is rarely taken because of the prevalence of prescriptive guidance. There is, therefore, no culture – and little expectation – in the UK for laboratories to assume responsibility for certifying systems that do not fall squarely within the requirements of a particular standard. As manufacturers of an innovative domestic water mist suppression system, we have been told more than once by the BRE, the accredited laboratory, that our product cannot be certified because it is out of scope of a published standard.

Still, we engage with all stakeholders and gatekeepers willing to scrutinise our system, and we have run all available third-party tests to establish its efficacy and performance. The Plumis Automist Smartscan has been independently tested by Warringtonfire to confirm that it meets the performance requirements of BS 8458: 2015, as validated by the BSI verification certificate 71258. This is what, in practice, the UK's independent certification culture has permitted us to show, and it is still short of a third-party certification.

The International Building Code, the International Residential Code and standards published by the US National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) – the equivalent of the UK's Building Regulations and BSI standards – are very specific in preferring products certified by recognised laboratories. Yet the NFPA does not publish product standards; this function is completely devolved to the certification laboratories that draft their own standards and then test products against them to verify performance.

Certification laboratories have so much autonomy that they can develop a test method specifically for a new product to scrutinise its performance. Additionally, an innovative product can span several standards but only be covered by certain requirements from each. It demands a high level of skill to apply requirements selectively to such products, but allows for certification of products that may be out of scope for existing standards.

This is a costly, lengthy and complex process with no guarantee of a positive outcome for the manufacturer. However, it is a realistic option for innovative products – one that the UK lacks. It also means a competent stakeholder takes accountability for being the product's third-party endorser or technical underwriter. The result is a public list of products, certified by an independent organisation for their specific applications.

This is the process Plumis is currently undergoing in the US with global safety certification company UL, formerly Underwriters Laboratories.

The placement of the new Building Safety Regulator under the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is also an innovative approach to the problem, because it requires that the building owner must demonstrate that their building is not a risk to life safety in line with the executive's principles.

Those responsible for the safety of the building will thus be obliged to think specifically about a building and its occupants with a view to meeting the functional performance requirements, which is the purpose of the fire risk assessment. This will be a strong incentive to use first principles to demonstrate compliance instead of box-ticking. It will then be possible to evidence fire safety by use of alternative measures, regardless of whether they are standardised or not.

We need our fire protection standards, products and systems to keep pace with the rapidly changing world. It is to be hoped that this new way of doing things signals a shift to a more enlightened approach. This should at last create a culture that allows tailored certification for innovative products in the UK – to the benefit of all.

Related competencies include: Fire safety, Legal/regulatory compliance