Passive fire protection does not last forever

The word “passive” can create a dangerous impression. It suggests that once fire protection has been installed, it can be left alone.

In reality, passive fire precautions have a life after installation. They may be damaged by later services, disturbed during maintenance, affected by moisture or movement, concealed by finishes, or simply deteriorate with age. Their continued performance depends upon information, inspection and timely intervention.

A 2026 CROSS-UK report describes a healthcare building where a spray-applied fire protection material had become brittle and cracked. The material, understood to have had a 25-year lifespan, was reportedly around 20 years beyond that period. Its condition created uncertainty about the fire resistance of compartment walls and led to the need for significant remedial work.

The case is notable not because one older product deteriorated, but because it exposes a wider weakness in lifecycle planning.

Fire doors are visible and used every day. Fire alarms announce faults and receive regular testing. By contrast, cavity barriers, structural protection and firestopping may be hidden above ceilings, behind linings or inside risers. Their condition can remain unknown until intrusive work, refurbishment or a specialist survey reveals a problem.

The original specification should therefore answer more than the immediate compliance question. How long is the system expected to remain effective? How will it be inspected? Can it be accessed without major disruption? What signs of deterioration should be expected? Who will hold that information, and how will the eventual repair or replacement be funded?

If those questions have no practical answer, a technically compliant design may be creating a substantial future management burden.

Handover information is crucial. A building owner cannot manage the service life of a product that has not been accurately identified. Generic statements such as “firestopping provided” are rarely enough. Records should establish what was installed, where it was installed, the evidence supporting its performance, any inspection or maintenance requirements, and the limitations that future contractors must respect.

The fire risk assessment also has a role. It should not attempt to certify concealed construction from a visual inspection, but it should identify uncertainty and recommend proportionate investigation where the building type, age, condition or available records give cause for concern. Higher-risk and vulnerable occupancies may justify a more structured programme of compartmentation surveys.

CROSS Report 1453 recommends that design life, accessibility, inspection and replacement requirements are addressed in both design and building management (https://www.cross-safety.org/uk/safety-information/cross-safety-report/fire-resisting-coating-reaches-end-life-1453).

Passive fire protection does not need daily human operation. That does not make it permanent. If a safety system is expected to protect a building for decades, its ageing must be treated as a foreseeable condition, not an unexpected defect.

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.