Proposals to dispense with building control procedural requirements for the drilling of holes for fibre-optic cabling have been met with concern by the Fire Protection Association (FPA).
In its response to the government proposal, Improving proportionality and safety outcomes in building control: telecommunications work, the FPA voiced member concerns that penetrations through fire-resisting construction are already poorly managed and inadequately reinstated, suggesting that further relaxation of oversight could increase risk.
‘Two separate issues’
It said that “building control procedural requirements and the drilling of holes for anything, including fibre-optic cabling, are two separate issues. The procedural requirements ought to guarantee the fire safety protection measures are compliant. If they are not, then they are the wrong requirements.”
The government’s proposal seeks to “streamline the building control procedural requirements”, specifically for fibre-optic cabling and mobile masts. And while the FPA says it recognises the intention to improve proportionality, it claims the issue stems not from excessive regulation, but from a lack of assurance that work is competently completed.
Cabling concerns
A key concern raised was the lack of reliable information available to installers. “In many buildings, accurate and up-to-date ‘as-built’ drawings are not readily available, making it difficult for installers or Responsible Persons to confirm whether a wall is fire-resisting or to verify its original level of protection,” said the FPA.
This uncertainty can result in breaches being left inadequately sealed and remaining undetected for long periods.
The FPA also warned that reducing notification or approval requirements could render unsafe works invisible to enforcing authorities. “There is a very clear risk of works being permitted under dispensations that allow them to become invisible to enforcing authorities,” the response stated.
It argues that any proportionate approach must focus on competence, assurance and traceability, and ultimately, weakening procedural processes without robust alternatives would be unjustified.
