A fire risk assessment can be impressively detailed and still fail to answer the most important question: how safe is the building?
Recording deficiencies is relatively straightforward. Understanding their significance, considering the precautions already present and determining what should reasonably be done about them requires something more.
The distinction matters because fire risk assessment is not simply an exercise in identifying departures from guidance.
A missing sign, an unsuitable door, a compromised fire-resisting enclosure and an inadequate evacuation strategy may all warrant attention. However, their significance cannot be determined solely by recording their existence. The consequences depend upon the building, its occupants, the circumstances in which fire might develop and the effectiveness of other precautions.
A defect that is relatively minor in one building may be critical in another.
Yet there is an understandable tendency for assessments to become increasingly comprehensive inventories of observations, often accompanied by extensive photographic records and lengthy action plans. Such information can be valuable, particularly where it provides evidence of conditions or assists those responsible for implementing improvements.
The difficulty arises when the quantity of recorded information begins to substitute for an evaluation of risk.
A long list of recommendations does not necessarily demonstrate that the assessor has understood the building. Nor does identifying every conceivable deficiency establish that the most significant risks have been recognised.
The publication of BS 9792:2025 provides an opportunity to reflect upon the purpose and quality of fire risk assessment. The central task remains the evaluation of fire risk and the identification of appropriate precautions, rather than the mechanical application of a checklist.
This requires professional judgement.
For example, identifying a deficiency in compartmentation is only the beginning. Its significance may depend upon the fire strategy, the likely development of a fire, the occupants' ability to respond, the available means of escape and the extent to which other measures mitigate the consequences.
Similarly, recommendations should be proportionate to the risks identified. Prioritisation should reflect the significance of those risks, rather than simply the ease with which particular deficiencies can be described.
None of this diminishes the importance of thorough inspection or accurate reporting. Indeed, a sound assessment depends upon both. However, observation and evaluation are different activities, and the latter is what gives the former meaning.
The most useful fire risk assessments communicate not only what is wrong, but why it matters, what should be done and how urgently.
A good fire risk assessment should leave the responsible person better informed about risk, not simply better informed about defects.
Pyrology Insight provides commentary on contemporary fire safety topics. It is intended to stimulate professional discussion and should not be relied upon as project-specific advice.