UK manufacturer Dura Composites is urging the government and industry regulators to tighten and clarify fire safety regulations for decking and cladding materials used in high-rise buildings.

The company, which produces balcony walkways with some of the lowest carbon footprints globally, has submitted its concerns to the Building Safety Regulator, warning of inconsistencies and loopholes in current rules.

The call comes amid growing delays in the delivery of building safety remediation across the country, with the government unlikely to meet its target to complete or begin work on all affected buildings by July 2027.

Industry Confusion Over Fire Classifications

At the heart of Dura Composites’ concerns is what it describes as “confusion” over fire classification requirements for external materials used on buildings above 11 metres. While Approved Document B mandates that cladding must meet a fire rating of A2-s1,d0, it requires flooring materials to meet A2fl-s1.

In practice, however, the company says that many remedial designers are treating both product types the same and specifying the higher cladding rating for all components, unless an imperforate substrate is in place beneath the decking. This has led to uncertainty for manufacturers and specifiers alike.

Lee Cavalier, Decking & Cladding Manager at Dura Composites, said:

“A big factor behind delays to remediation work is the rules themselves — both in terms of clarity over what is required and how those standards are enforced. When manufacturers aren’t clear on the ratings required for their own products, it’s no surprise that awareness among developers and contractors is low.”

Concerns Over Testing and Enforcement

The company also raised alarm over inconsistencies in fire testing practices. In some instances, products are being tested without UKAS accreditation, in the wrong orientation, or in untested colours, all of which can affect performance under fire conditions.

In addition, some materials are reportedly being tested outside the UK under less stringent standards before being imported — a practice that may compromise the integrity of fire safety compliance, according to Dura.

The BS EN 13501 standard requires that all aspects of a product — including each colour variant and installation method — be tested and certified for the specific field of application.

Dura argues that without stronger enforcement, poorly tested or misrepresented products could be approved for use on high-risk buildings.

What Specifiers Should Check

Dura Composites has issued a checklist for construction professionals working on high-rise buildings. Specifiers are advised to ask:

  • Is the certificate from a UKAS-accredited provider?

  • Have all components of the product received individual fire ratings?

  • Does the fire certificate match the actual installation method and orientation?

  • Have all colour variations been tested and documented?

Failing to ensure these checks, the company warns, could leave developers liable for non-compliance and put building occupants at risk.

Delays at Gateway 2 Add to Remediation Challenges

The company’s intervention follows the Building Safety Regulator’s failure to meet its target to clear the backlog of Gateway 2 approvals by April 2025. These approvals are a mandatory step before construction can proceed on higher-risk buildings under the Building Safety Act.

Dura argues that while a robust approval process is essential, ongoing regulatory delays and inconsistent enforcement are contributing to the slowdown of crucial remediation work.

Call for Regulatory Reform

Dura Composites is encouraging other manufacturers to join its call for reform. The company is pressing for clearer guidance, mandatory UKAS testing for all high-rise materials, and better enforcement of existing standards.

With thousands of buildings still awaiting fire safety remediation, Dura says the government must act swiftly to clarify and enforce rules if it hopes to protect residents and meet its housing safety targets.