That was always the intention.
PAS 9980 was introduced to move the industry away from blanket decisions and towards proportionality. Not every building with combustible materials was meant to be stripped back to its frame. The aim was to assess context, mitigation and consequence in the round.
Yet proportionality brings variability.
Two fire risk assessors can examine the same façade and reach different conclusions. One may consider the external wall system tolerable within the building’s wider fire strategy. Another may place greater emphasis on material uncertainty, cavity barrier integrity or balcony detailing and conclude remediation is required.
Both may be acting in good faith.
The methodology asks assessors to weigh a number of factors. Fire performance of materials. Façade configuration. Compartmentation. Means of escape. Firefighting access. Management arrangements. The extent and reliability of intrusive sampling.
None of this sits neatly inside a checklist.
On Cladding Matters, the focus tends to move quickly from theory to consequence. When a standard produces different outcomes depending on who applies it, the ripple effect is immediate. Mortgageability, insurance premiums, service charge forecasts and resident confidence can all shift on the strength of a single professional judgement.
From a resident and market perspective, divergence between assessors does not feel like technical nuance. It feels like instability. One report may steady the position, another may reopen uncertainty, delay transactions and introduce fresh cost.
For those of us working around conveyancing and building safety documentation, the tension is visible in transactions. Lenders lean heavily on conclusions drawn under PAS 9980. Buyers seek clarity. Solicitors look for defensible reasoning. When reports differ, additional layers of enquiry follow.
The framework does allow for flexibility. That flexibility was designed to prevent unnecessary works and to encourage proportionate decisions. However, it also means that assumptions matter.
How much weight is given to incomplete data.
How much confidence is placed in concealed cavity barriers.
How uncertainty is treated where product information is limited.
These are judgement calls.
Competence therefore becomes central. PAS 9980 assumes a high level of expertise. It expects clear documentation of assumptions, sampling limitations and reasoning. Where that documentation is thorough, conclusions can at least be understood and professionally scrutinised.
Where it is light, confidence weakens.
The wider debate has sharpened over time. Fire chiefs, insurers and resident groups have raised concerns about what they see as tolerance of combustible materials remaining in place. Others argue that without a risk-based approach, the sector would face unnecessary remediation on a vast scale.
There is a structural tension at the heart of PAS 9980. It seeks to introduce proportionality into a market shaped by fear, liability and financial exposure. The consequences of disagreement are significant. Leaseholders, developers, lenders and insurers all sit within the same equation.
As we return to this topic, Gareth Wax will chair the discussion, with myself, Hamish McLay, reflecting on the documentation and transactional impact, and Stephen Day grounding the debate in resident reality.
It would be interesting to consider whether the next phase of building safety reform will tighten interpretation, strengthen accreditation, or introduce clearer thresholds within the methodology itself. For now, PAS 9980 remains a framework built on professional judgement.
And judgement, by its nature, rarely delivers identical answers.
Cladding Matters airs Friday at 1pm on our YouTube channel, Spilling the Proper-Tea:
https://www.youtube.com/@SpillingTheProper-Tea
For content enquiries:
For podcast or media enquiries: