Passive fire protection is finally receiving the attention it deserves across Jersey and Guernsey.
For years, many buildings across the Channel Islands were built, altered, extended or refurbished in ways that did not fully consider modern passive fire protection standards. In many cases, this was not deliberate neglect. Standards have evolved, guidance has improved, expectations have changed, and the industry now understands far more about compartmentation, fire stopping, fire doors and structural fire protection than it did decades ago.
The result is that many buildings now contain passive fire protection defects.
That is not controversial. It is reality.
However, what matters now is how those defects are identified, prioritised and remediated.
Increasingly, we are seeing clients receive passive fire surveys where almost everything within the building is presented as defective, urgent, or a life safety risk.
The difficulty is not that defects are being found. In many cases, there are genuine issues that do need to be addressed.
The difficulty is that clients are often left with long lists of expensive remedial works, little practical prioritisation, and limited explanation of what is legally required, what is best practice, and what is simply a desirable improvement.
That distinction matters.
Passive fire protection can be expensive. Very expensive.
It is not unusual for remediation packages to reach six figures, particularly in larger residential, care, hospitality or commercial buildings. Good passive fire protection is specialist work. It should be done properly, by competent people, using appropriate tested systems and recorded correctly.
But that does not mean every gap, crack, historic oddity or non-perfect detail needs a five-figure response by Friday.
There are competent passive fire installers operating in the Channel Islands, and many provide valuable services. Properly installed passive fire protection is essential, and this article is not intended to criticise the need for specialist installers.
However, clients should think carefully about the structure of installer-led surveys.
There is an obvious commercial tension where the same organisation:
• Surveys the building
• Identifies the defects
• Decides the scope of works
• Prices the remediation
• Carries out the installation
• Provides the final sign-off
That does not automatically mean the advice is wrong.
But it does mean the client should understand the arrangement.
If the person telling you what is wrong is also the person quoting to fix it, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether the advice has been independently reviewed.
This is especially important where the proposed works are extensive, disruptive or financially significant.
Before committing to major passive fire works, clients should ask themselves a simple question:
How much reassurance do we want?
Some clients may be comfortable relying on the installer’s own survey, installation records and completion certificate.
Others may want an independent review before works begin, during the works, or after completion.
There is no single answer for every building, but the larger the cost, the higher the risk, and the more vulnerable the occupants, the stronger the argument for independent oversight.
If a care home, hotel, block of flats or public building is being asked to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds on passive fire works, it is entirely reasonable to obtain a second opinion before committing.
That second opinion may confirm the works are necessary.
It may refine the scope.
It may help prioritise the most important items first.
It may identify that some items are best practice improvements rather than immediate life safety defects.
Either way, the client is better informed.
One of the most important parts of any good fire safety review is separating actions into clear categories.
These are matters required by law, fire certificate conditions, statutory notices, or clear life safety risk.
These items should be treated seriously and prioritised.
These are matters aligned with recognised guidance, British Standards, benchmark expectations or good fire safety practice.
They may not always be immediate legal requirements, but they often represent sensible and defensible improvements.
These are recommendations that may improve resilience, property protection, management confidence or future compliance.
They may still be worthwhile, but they should not be presented as urgent legal requirements unless there is a clear basis for doing so.
This distinction is often missing.
And when it is missing, fire safety becomes a smoke screen.
Clients hear the words “life safety risk” and understandably panic. They may then feel pressured into committing to major expenditure without fully understanding whether the works are legally required, proportionate, or appropriately prioritised.
That is not good risk management.
This is the part some people may not want to say out loud.
Many buildings in Jersey and Guernsey are not aligned with modern UK fire safety expectations.
That does not mean they are all dangerous.
It means they were built, altered or managed under different standards, different levels of understanding, and different regulatory expectations.
The Channel Islands are now catching up. That is a good thing.
But trying to bring every building up to current UK benchmark standards overnight is not realistic. Clients do not have endless budgets. Contractors do not have unlimited capacity. The market does not have unlimited skilled labour. And not every defect carries the same level of risk.
The sensible approach is phased, risk-based remediation.
That means identifying:
• The most serious life safety issues
• The buildings with the most vulnerable occupants
• The defects that compromise escape routes or compartmentation most significantly
• The works that can be done quickly and proportionately
• The works that need design, budgeting and staged implementation
This is how responsible fire safety improvement should work.
Not panic.
Not blanket recommendations.
Not six-figure scopes with no prioritisation.
Third-party accreditation for passive fire installers is important. It provides a recognised framework for competence, audit, training and quality control.
Clients should absolutely ask whether passive fire contractors are third-party accredited and what scheme they operate under.
However, clients should also understand what accreditation does and does not mean.
Some certification schemes allow an approved person to supervise a number of operatives under the company certification. In some cases, one approved person may be responsible for supervising multiple operatives across different works.
That raises a practical question:
Is that supervision genuinely happening on site?
In a small island environment, where contractor availability is limited and workloads can be high, clients should not simply assume that accreditation automatically means every operative on every job is being closely supervised.
It may be.
It may not be.
The client should ask.
Good questions include:
• Who is the approved person responsible for this project?
• How often will they attend site?
• Who will actually carry out the work?
• What training have the operatives received?
• What product systems will be used?
• Are those systems tested for the application proposed?
• Will installation records and photographs be provided?
• Will each penetration, seal or door set be clearly recorded?
• Will the final certificate be issued under a recognised third-party scheme?
• Is independent inspection recommended?
These are not awkward questions. They are sensible questions.
Competent contractors should be able to answer them clearly.
Jersey and Guernsey are not Wales, and the legal position here is different.
However, it would be naive to ignore the direction of travel across the wider British Isles. Building safety reform is moving toward greater accountability, clearer competence requirements, stronger duty-holder responsibilities and better records.
Wales is a useful example. The Building Safety (Wales) Act became law on 27 April 2026, and the Welsh Government describes its building safety programme as introducing a regime for multi-occupied residential buildings of any size containing two or more residential units.
The lesson for the Channel Islands is not that we should copy another jurisdiction overnight. We should not.
The lesson is that clients, managing agents, landlords and building owners need to start thinking differently about evidence.
Who inspected the building?
Who decided the scope of works?
Who installed the product?
Was it installed to a tested system?
Who signed it off?
Is there a clear record that can be relied upon in five or ten years’ time?
That is where independent advice becomes valuable. Not to create more work for the sake of it, but to help clients understand what is necessary, what is proportionate and what can be properly evidenced.
Independent review is not about blocking works.
It is about making sure the right works are done, in the right order, for the right reasons.
A good independent fire consultant can help the client understand:
• Whether the survey findings are technically sound
• Whether the proposed scope is proportionate
• Whether urgent life safety issues have been correctly identified
• Whether lower-risk items can be phased
• Whether the proposed products and systems are appropriate
• Whether the completed works have been adequately evidenced
• Whether the client is receiving value and meaningful reassurance
This protects the client.
It also protects the contractor, because a clear, agreed scope reduces disputes later.
Most importantly, it protects the people using the building.
Passive fire protection is important. Extremely important.
But it should not become a blank cheque.
Clients should not ignore genuine defects. That would be reckless.
However, nor should they be expected to accept every recommendation without understanding the basis for it.
Not every defect carries the same risk.
Not every historic issue needs to be fixed tomorrow.
And not every recommendation is automatically a legal requirement just because it appears in a fire safety report.
This is where clear advice matters.
Before committing to major works, clients should understand:
• What must be done because there is a clear legal, certificate or life safety requirement
• What should be done because it aligns with recognised guidance or good practice
• What would be beneficial but may be capable of being phased, planned or reviewed as part of wider improvement works
That distinction can be the difference between a sensible risk-based programme and a six-figure panic.
Passive fire protection is not just about filling holes, replacing doors or issuing certificates.
It is about understanding how a building behaves in fire, how people escape, how smoke moves, how compartments perform, and how risk is managed over time.
Good installers are essential.
But so is independent advice.
Especially when the person identifying the problem is also offering to sell the solution.
