Darren Brennan, Specification Director at Siderise, answers readers’ questions on passive fire protection under the Building Safety Act.
Siderise provided passive fire protection and drainage solutions for the Waterhouse Gardens development in Manchester (photo: Domis/Salboy).
How has the Gateways process changed the specification of passive fire protection systems in higher-risk buildings?
Product specification is being considered earlier in the design process. Historically, generic product descriptions were often used at concept design stage, and it wasn’t until technical design or even construction phase that a specific product or system would be identified. Now, due to increased focus on accountability and the higher level of detail and verification required for Gateway 2, specification is happening alongside the development of concept designs. This is positive as it means robust passive fire protection is built in from the initial design stages. However, it has required a shift in practice to ensure specifications are supported with the necessary project-specific product data, particularly where there are evidence gaps and bespoke fire testing is needed to demonstrate compliance.
What passive fire protection evidence should architects be gathering before submitting a Gateway 2 application?
Passive fire protection must be supported by clear, unambiguous and accessible performance data that is relevant to the intended application and verified with third-party accreditation. This is why we created digital Specification Packs, to consolidate all key evidence sources, such as test reports, third-party certifications and technical datasheets. These can be generic or created bespoke for a particular project, making it easier for specifiers to verify product performance and ensure that the documentation used in assessments is based on the most up-to-date information. Manufacturers should also be able to provide information on relevant test standards.
Why is system testing so important when specifying cavity barriers, fire stops and compartmentation solutions?
Passive fire protection must always be considered in context. Cavity barriers and firestops alone cannot compensate for poor overall façade performance. For example, in rainscreen systems, if the external cladding allows fire to spread rapidly, deforming or detaching, flames can bypass cavity barriers entirely. This reinforces the need for system-led façade design and testing. While largescale system tests, such as BS 8414-1, -2 and NFPA 285, offer insight into the combustibility (reaction to fire) and interaction of façade components, it is important to note that they do not assess the fire resistance of individual elements and cannot be used as evidence of cavity barrier compliance. Nonetheless, they remain important for understanding how materials, dimensions, and interfaces behave together under fire conditions.
What are the biggest fire safety challenges at façade interfaces and compartment lines?
Façades are complex systems and the interaction between cavity barriers and surrounding materials is critical. Test data is often limited to products in isolation, so selecting products with supplementary, application-specific testing is key. A further challenge is ensuring designs are correctly implemented on site. This is essential for Gateway 3 approval and long-term safety, as gaps in compartmentation can compromise performance. Early manufacturer involvement can help identify constructability risks and potential clashes, reduce late- stage changes, and ensure products are both suitable and cost-aligned. Feedback loops should be encouraged to relay information back to design teams so they can improve the practicality of future designs, ensuring continuous improvement and collaboration.
How should designers approach details that fall outside the scope of available fire test evidence?
Engage with a manufacturer’s technical engineer who can review your design and provide application and project-specific advice and support. They often have access to a huge array of product data, a library of test data, and real-life project experience to draw from. If this is done early in the design process there can be opportunities to conduct project-specific testing on bespoke details, further enhancing applications without delaying progress. This is something we facilitate regularly at our Innovation Centre completely free of charge to ensure there are no barriers to receiving this extra level of assurance.
What support should architects expect from manufacturers when demonstrating compliance and maintaining the golden thread?
Manufacturers should be able to provide a digital report of your recorded interactions with their team throughout design and construction, including everything from technical advice requests to CPD attendance, subcontractor site training and installation inspection reports. This data provides a golden thread of information, which can demonstrate due diligence and justify decisions which may affect future work to the building. They should also demonstrate organisational competency. Under the new regime, manufacturers effectively act as ‘designers’, as their information shapes the building. This requires robust processes, including CCPI certification, competency frameworks for staff, third-party product and training accreditation, and accurate project records.
For further information, please visit siderise.com
