Context
A secondary school's campus had grown into several buildings of differing ages and complexity (an original teaching block, later extensions, new sixth-form blocks and a sports centre), and its fire risk assessment needed bringing up to date. Schools combine features that complicate fire safety: phased construction added over decades, high daytime occupancy by people of varying ages, out-of-hours community use, and a responsible person — often a business manager or trust — balancing safety against a tight budget and a fixed-term calendar.
The brief
The school needed an assessment that was accurate, current, and — above all — usable: a clear, prioritised list of what to do, in plain language, that a non-specialist responsible person could act on and evidence. They didn't need a long report that sat in a drawer; they needed to know what mattered most, what could wait, and what was already fine.
Our approach
Apex assessed the school under PAS 79-1:2020 and the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, reading the buildings against the expectations in Building Bulletin 100 and, where the design departed from simple guidance, the framework in BS 9999. Because the estate had grown in phases, particular attention went to the junctions between old and new construction — where compartmentation and fire-stopping most often break down — through compartmentation and fire door surveys of escape routes and separating walls.
The assessment found that a fire strategy was required for the site but had never been produced, so Apex wrote a retrospective fire strategy under BS 9999, giving the school a clear basis for how the buildings are designed to work in a fire.
The findings were written as a risk-ranked action list in plain English, separating the few things that needed prompt attention from the many that were acceptable or low priority — so the school could plan and budget rather than react. As an independent consultancy with no remediation arm, Apex's priorities reflected risk, not a follow-on sale.
Outcome
The school moved from an out-of-date assessment to a clear, prioritised plan its responsible person could own. The retrospective fire strategy was produced, a re-inspection schedule was set, and the school's management process for out-of-hours sports and community use was improved as part of the same programme.
What a duty holder can take from this
In schools and other phased estates, the risk usually hides at the joins — where one era of construction meets another and compartmentation or fire-stopping was never fully made good. A general assessment can miss this; targeted compartmentation and fire door checks find it. And for a non-specialist responsible person, the deliverable that actually improves safety is a prioritised, plain-English action list, not a long report — something that tells you what to do first, what can wait, and what's already fine.