Green exit sign
UK fire safety legislation requires that, where necessary, emergency routes and exits must be indicated with signs where the use of signs will aid evacuation.
In the event of a fire, a building must have adequate emergency escape routes and final exits that enable occupiers to effectively evacuate the building, leading them to a place of safety.
There are very few exceptions where escape route signage would not be necessary. However, to ensure such signage meets the basic criteria of aiding evacuation, the system design, along with type and location of signs must be given thought and consideration.
It is well recognised that building occupiers usually leave the premises by the same way that they enter — or at least by routes which are familiar to them. To ensure all means of escape are utilised when required, a well-planned signage system needs to provide information on all the escape routes and emergency exits that are available.
BS 9999:2017 Fire Safety in the Design, Management and Use of Buildings. Code of Practice notes that “fire safety signs and signing systems form an integral part of the overall fire safety strategy of a building and are fundamental to the communication of good fire safety management information”.
More importantly, BS 9999 continues, “clearly visible and unambiguous signage is essential for speedy escape, particularly in buildings where many of the occupants might be unfamiliar with the building layout”.
There are requirements under UK fire safety legislation where necessary for emergency routes and exits to be “indicated” by signs. The phrase “where necessary” is important and indicates that the fire risk assessment completed for the premises will influence the signage system needs.
BS 5499-4:2019 Safety Signs. Code of Practice for Escape Route Signing explores this further and recommends that, before designing an escape route signage system, various factors need to be considered (in the risk assessment) including the:
Of interest, competency criteria for fire risk assessors notes that assessors should have “an awareness of the provisions for and maintenance of, evacuation signage” but does not expand on this further to stipulate if assessors are capable of designing a system.
Having determined the need for escape route signage, the responsible person must then determine who will design the system.
Where required, depending on the complexity of the signage system required, the responsible person may have to seek competent assistance either in-house or externally to undertake the task in accordance with Article 18 (or its equivalent) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Wherever responsibility for signage system design rests, there are several principles that should be taken into consideration at the planning stage, such as the following.
Taking the above into account, BS 5499-4 then makes recommendations as to several factors that need to be evaluated at the planning stage to meet the above principles. This includes:
The latter point is addressed further in BS 5499-4 as this will influence whether the escape route signage system is illuminated externally (eg by the emergency lighting system) or internally.
In respect of the sign design, BS 5499-4 states that “an escape route sign is a combination sign consisting of the emergency exit sign in BS EN ISO 7010 and should be accompanied by a supplementary safe condition direction arrow and supplementary text”.
However, it is worth noting that Health and Safety Executive guidance contained in L64 states that “if there are fire safety signs still in use which contain symbols or pictograms which conform to the requirements of BS 5499 “they will meet the requirements of the regulations, provided they continue to fulfil their purpose effectively”.
Position and zones of influence
Having determined signage requirements and design, the person responsible for the escape route signage system will need to consider the position of the signs, mounting height, and the necessary dimensions.
There are a number of basic rules to be followed when locating signs that are detailed in various documents, as follows.
In respect of the latter point, L64 states that signs are, in principle, to be installed at a suitable height and in a position appropriate to the line of sight, taking account of any obstacles and in a well-lit, easily accessible and visible location.
This is what is known as the signs’ “required zone of influence” which is defined in BS 5499-10 as the “space in which the safety message intended to be conveyed by a safety sign is effective”.
The zone of influence of any particular safety sign will be determined by the signs’ location, size and position. This may require a certain amount of calculation being undertaken in terms of viewing distances in particular of escape route signage. BS 5499-4 details how to achieve this.
In terms of mounting, the general requirements are that:
The use of escape route signage requires thought and consideration, particularly in terms of its need, the type of sign to be used, its location and effectiveness, and the ability of those close by to understand its meaning.
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 requires means of escape to be identified with escape route signs where necessary. The risk assessment will be the starting point for any signage requirement identification.
Regulation 5 of the Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996 requires employers to provide employees with suitable and sufficient instruction and training in the meaning of safety signs and the measures to be taken in connection with safety signs. This should be provided at induction and periodically thereafter.
Schedule 1 of the 1996 Regulations and accompanying guidance requires that signage must be cleaned, maintained, checked, repaired, and if necessary, replaced on a regular basis to ensure that they retain their intrinsic and/or functional qualities.
Contact us if you have any queries.
Fire exit door and fire extinguish equipment
Focus on fire door inspections and maintenance regimes has intensified recently following updates to fire safety regulations, especially in multi-occupied residential buildings. Fire doors are an essential passive fire protection measure that must perform as intended in the event of a fire so as to prevent the spread of fire and smoke.
However, they are often the most used and abused passive fire protection measure in a fire compartment. As such, it is essential that the organisation responsible for fire safety legislation has in place an appropriate inspection and maintenance regime.
Article 17 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 requires (where necessary) that the responsible person must ensure that “any facilities, equipment and devices provided in respect of the premises under this Order […] are subject to a suitable system of maintenance and are maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.”
With reference to Article 17, guidance from the National Fire Chiefs Council notes that this Article will apply to fire doors and as such should be “subject to a suitable system of maintenance: they must be regularly checked and properly maintained (including inspection and testing by a competent person, as necessary) at suitable intervals and any faults found rectified as quickly as possible.”
Best practice in the form of BS8214: Timber-based Fire Door Assemblies. Code of Practice, notes that fire doors do deteriorate since they are used in locations along pedestrian transit routes where they might be subject to significant damage or normal wear and tear due to repeated operation and abuse.
BS8214 states that “it is important, therefore, for inspection, maintenance and repair of any damage to be undertaken on a regular basis if the required fire resistance is to be maintained.”
Determining needs
Having set out the legal and best practice requirements, the responsible person will need to determine how best to achieve compliance. Factors to consider will include:
When considering the above, there can be various influences on the decision-making process. These will include:
Clearly, to develop an inspection and maintenance regime, it is important to have an understanding of the fire doors within scope. Development of an inventory or asset register would be beneficial and can include:
The organisation should develop an appropriate document that clearly sets out the requirements of any inspection and maintenance regime. This could form part of an overall fire safety policy in smaller organisations or be a separate (ratified) “protocol” in larger organisations.
Perhaps the most problematic requirement is to determine the type and frequency of inspections. The organisation may decide to follow guidance such as that contained in BS9999: Fire Safety in the Design, Management and Use of Buildings. Code of Practice. This publication recommends the following.
If outsourcing, due diligence should be undertaken to seek assurance that prospective contractors have the necessary competency, for example through membership of appropriate professional bodies and validation to inspect to relevant standards (such as BM Trada Q mark or LPCB LPS 1197).
If undertaking in-house, there are a number of courses available that an organisation may wish to consider, depending on the inspection regime to be implemented (eg FDIS).
It is recognised that some minor works can be undertaken in-house without compromising the fire doors’ performance but other more intrusive works should be undertaken by appropriate competent persons/organisations who are validated to certify that the fire door will still meet its designed and tested performance specification.
Finally, it is important that all testing, inspection and maintenance activities are recorded and made available to relevant stakeholders.
In smaller organisations this could be as simple as having a spreadsheet but in larger organisations there are various off-the-shelf software packages that can be utilised.
To retain their operational integrity, fire door sets or assemblies must be tested, inspected and maintained to a standard and level that is commensurate with the premises’ fire risk profile and fire evacuation strategy.
Developing an appropriate regime will require consideration of various factors and will be subject to a number of influences.
The organisation may be asked to provide proof of its regime to enforcing authorities and other stakeholders.
As part of this, the organisation will need to provide proof of the regime that is in place, including the necessary competency of those given responsibility to implement the inspection and maintenance regime.
Contact us if you have any queries.
If your business handles electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) — whether you’re a manufacturer, distributor, importer, or recycler — then it’s time to prepare for a significant regulatory shift.
From November 2025, the long-standing Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2013 (WEEE 2013) will be replaced by a modernised framework: the Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations (EEE Regulations).
Here’s what you need to know, and how your business can stay ahead of the curve.
🔄 Why the Change?
The current WEEE 2013 regulations have been in place for over a decade, and while they’ve served a purpose in reducing electronic waste, the landscape has changed dramatically. We now face:
The new EEE Regulations aim to better reflect today’s market and environmental priorities — shifting from just managing waste to designing out waste altogether.
🧾 What’s Changing?
✅ 1. Clearer Definitions of EEE
The new regulations will provide updated and expanded definitions of what counts as EEE — including smart devices, disposable e-cigarettes, batteries-included items, and solar-powered tech.
✅ 2. Wider Producer Responsibility
Producers and importers will face:
✅ 3. Focus on Repair, Reuse & Design
EEE producers will be expected to:
✅ 4. Online Marketplaces Included
The new EEE rules will hold online platforms accountable for ensuring sellers on their sites are compliant — closing a major loophole from the WEEE regime.
📅 What Should You Be Doing Now?
Even though the EEE regulations don’t formally begin until November 2025, you should start preparing now:
🔍 Audit Your Products
📊 Review Your Supply Chain
📝Update Internal Processes
🧠 Final Thoughts
The move from WEEE 2013 to the new EEE Regulations isn’t just a change in name — it’s a shift in mindset.
The emphasis is now on sustainability, circularity, and accountability. Businesses that adapt early will not only stay compliant but also build trust with customers and demonstrate genuine environmental responsibility.
Contact us for further information.
ISO 45001 is the global standard for managing health and safety in the workplace. It helps organisations of all sizes create safer, healthier environments by identifying risks, reducing hazards, and involving everyone — from leadership to frontline workers.
This isn’t just about ticking boxes. It’s about protecting people, improving wellbeing, and building a positive safety culture that benefits your business and your team.
Whether you’re a small business or a large company, ISO 45001 is a practical tool that shows your commitment to doing things right — and keeping people safe.
Contact us for further information.
Due to their lack of maturity, experience and hazard awareness, young people may perceive risk differently to more practiced employees. There is also a raft of various regulatory instruments in place to limit young people’s exposure to specific physical, chemical and biological risks as they are at increased danger of harm from these. This article looks at the factors employers need to consider to instil safe behaviour among a young workforce.
A young person is defined in legislation as any person under the age of 18 who is not a child, i.e. someone who has not yet reached the minimum school leaving age of 16.
In terms of the health and safety of young workers, there are two primary considerations for employers when it comes to reviewing their risk assessment.
Lack of training and experience
Before a young person starts work, the employer’s risk assessment must take into account a young person’s lack of experience, training and awareness of risk as well as their immaturity.
Risk assessments need not be overly burdensome or bureaucratic, eg in an office or shop environment, the organisation’s generic risk assessment is likely to be sufficient and the control measures in place are likely to be familiar to young persons. However, in higher-risk environments, consideration needs to be given to how young people may be influenced or pressured into unsafe work practices by older colleagues or peers, how they may be curious and act unpredictably despite any instructions or training they may have been given to the contrary or how they may also deliberately violate rules and procedures, eg in feeling pressure to get a task done, they take shortcuts.
Appropriate control measures in these cases include:
Specific risks
In higher-risk environments, such as in assembly, industrial or construction sites, along with considerations of a young person’s lack of maturity and experience, specific risk factors also need to be reviewed and additional arrangements are likely to be required.
Exposure to physical hazards
Young persons have a physical immaturity and an increased risk of musculoskeletal damage as bones and supporting muscles are not fully developed until a person is approximately age 25. This means high levels or prolonged periods of exposure to vibration — particularly low-frequency whole-body vibration — should be avoided.
Young people may be less skilled in handling and moving techniques or in pacing their work tasks to match their capacity. Other jobs that require repetitive or forceful movements, particularly when in association with awkward posture and/or insufficient recovery time, should be given careful consideration. Manual handling of tools and equipment to assist with difficult handling tasks, introduction of task rotation and provision of sufficient rest breaks may be necessary.
Young people should not be permitted to use high-risk lifting machinery such as cranes, lifting accessories and construction site hoists, unless they have had the appropriate level of competence and training. As part of their training, they may use such equipment, providing they are adequately supervised. Adequate supervision should also be provided after training if a young person is considered not sufficiently mature.
The duty to carry out periodic, thorough examinations or inspections of lifting equipment or the planning and supervision of lifting operations, should not be placed on a young person but discharged by a competent adult employee.
Young persons should also not be permitted to use high-risk work equipment (such as abrasive wheels, circular saws, power presses and band saws), apart from during training which is adequately supervised.
The dose limit of ionising radiation should be set at a lower level than that for other employees — doses must not exceed 6mSv in any calendar year.
Exposure to chemical hazards
Many chemical agents can have adverse health effects on young people, although they are typically not considered to be at any greater risk than other employees and control measures currently in place to prevent employee exposure are likely to be sufficient for young people also. Safety data sheets will provide full details on specific agents.
However, a lack of perception of danger may prevent young people from recognising “invisible” or long-term health effects that may take many years to develop. For this reason, specific prohibitions are in place around agents such as lead and asbestos.
Young persons may not be involved with specific lead smelting and refining processes or in lead battery manufacturing process. Exposure to lead alkyls is particularly hazardous and its absorption into the body can produce a rapid toxic effect. Employers should ensure that adequate and proper safeguards are in force to protect the health of any young person employed on storage-tank cleaning work, which could potentially expose them to lead alkyls.
Younger people, if routinely exposed to asbestos fibres over time, are at greater risk of developing asbestos-related disease than older workers. This is due to the time it takes for the body to develop symptoms after exposure to asbestos. Similar concerns exist for exposure to silica dust in the construction industry leading to silicosis and other related lung diseases. Employers need to give information about the impact of these risks and the serious potential consequences of exposure to young people in their employment.
Exposure to biological hazards
The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens recommends that young people do not handle animals infected with biological agents assigned to hazard group 4, ie those that cause severe human disease, pose a serious risk to employees, are likely to spread to the community and that have no effective prophylaxis or treatment available.
Duties of young persons
In turn, employers should inform young persons of their legal responsibilities towards the employer. This means following any safety arrangements implemented for their protection, including attending training sessions and complying with control measures, not acting in a manner that adversely affects their own health and safety and/or the health and safety of anyone else and to report any perceived or real shortcomings in protection levels to their employer.
In conclusion, a key component in managing the health and safety of young persons is the ongoing communication of safety messages and the guidance of mentors/supervisors to reinforce the true level of risk among young people and improving their perceptions of risk through training.
Contact us for further information.
