Getting it right from the start: Glenn Hutchins outlines how Quelfire supports early fire safety integration
Iain Hoey
Share this content
Glenn Hutchins, Technical Client Relations Manager at Quelfire, explains why early engagement in firestopping is more urgent than ever
With the Building Safety Regulator now rejecting three in four Gateway 2 applications – many due to basic design and information failings – early engagement is no longer just best practice; it’s becoming essential.
Glenn Hutchins, Technical Client Relations Manager at Quelfire, speaks to International Fire and Safety Journal about why firestopping must be built into project planning from the start.
Drawing on Quelfire’s experience supporting early-stage design input, Hutchins discusses how better collaboration, clarity of roles and competent detailing could help reverse current delays, ease Gateway 2 approvals and improve overall safety outcomes.
Can you start by telling us about your role at Quelfire and how it connects with early-stage project design?
As Technical Client Relations Manager at Quelfire, my role sits within the technical team and focuses on direct engagement with clients and design teams.
My role involves direct interaction with customers and clients, assisting with daily technical queries and, more importantly, engaging early in project development.
Quelfire offers complimentary technical support to design teams at the project’s inception, helping them design buildings that incorporate available tested solutions.
This early engagement includes initial meetings with the design team to discuss processes, advise on the information we require and explain what we can provide in return.
Once we’ve identified specific details applicable to the project, I remain available for further meetings to address queries, advise on incorporating these details into the design and provide ongoing support.
What kinds of firestopping challenges do you see when you’re brought into projects early and how do these differ when engagement happens too late?
When we’re involved early, we generally don’t encounter significant challenges.
Even if specific information isn’t available at the outset, we can work with established principles that pave the way for identifying and applying tested details later.
There’s no stage that’s too early for our involvement.
Conversely, late engagement presents considerable challenges.
If the building design is finalised without considering firestopping of services, applying tested solutions becomes difficult.
For instance, if wall and floor constructions, ceiling heights and opening sizes are already determined with minimal opportunity for adjustment, it may be challenging or even impossible to apply a tested detail.
This situation forces the project team to either proceed without compliance or rework the design, both of which are avoidable with earlier consideration of firestopping.
Why do you think fire safety is still being pushed down the design timeline, despite the risks and regulations in place?
A major factor is the lack of priority given to detailed design at early stages.
For firestopping to be addressed properly, you need coordination across disciplines – MEP, structural, architectural – and that often isn’t built into the early project scope.
It’s not that people don’t care about fire safety.
It’s just that it hasn’t been budgeted for or included in the initial programme.
Clients often don’t allocate enough resources and time to the early design phase.
This lack of allocation means that MEP designers and architects can’t dedicate sufficient manpower and time to delve into the details and identify necessary elements.
To prevent fire safety from being sidelined, more resources need to be allocated to the early stages of design.
What does early engagement actually involve in practice and who needs to be part of that conversation from the start?
Early engagement involves designing the building around available tested solutions.
This means ensuring that all systems – substrates, MEP services and others – have corresponding test evidence.
Builders’ work openings, ceiling heights and similar elements must be appropriately sized and set out to allow for the application of tested solutions.
Equally important is ensuring that these designs are practical to implement on-site.
The conversation should include everyone in the design team: architects, MEP designers, structural designers and others.
Additionally, input from manufacturers of all involved systems is crucial – this includes firestopping product manufacturers like us, MEP service system manufacturers, wall or floor system manufacturers, damper manufacturers and more.
The BSR has said most Gateway 2 applications are still being rejected – what’s going wrong?
The BSR expects applicants to present their designs confidently, demonstrating understanding and providing clear justifications.
To improve submission quality, a detailed schedule of firestopping throughout the project is necessary.
This includes clarity on each firestop, the tested details applied and the supporting test evidence.
Designing buildings around tested solutions and clearly scheduling these specifics can significantly enhance the quality of firestopping design.
Providing demonstrable evidence for each proposed solution makes the submission more robust and less open to dispute.
How can manufacturers like Quelfire help the industry make early engagement standard practice?
Continuous education is key.
At Quelfire, we offer free CPDs and early engagement presentations to educate design teams, with additional project-specific support from our technical team.
For design teams and main contractors aiming to standardise their processes, investing time and committing to implementing these practices on projects is essential.