Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

At European level, fire safety legislation falls entirely within the competence of the Member States (MS), unlike the Construction Products Regulation and the harmonised Eurocodes. The consequence of this European approach has led to the development of different perspectives regarding fire safety legislation that are being used by the MS. On the other hand, fire safety legislation in each MS is being composed in a different way. Besides national regulations, fire safety legislation may be shaped on other levels as well such as on regional level, by the mayor on municipal level or by the fire department. Due to the shared objective of obtaining an adequate level of safety in all MS, and given that serious fire accidents have occurred in the recent past, the decentralised approach to fire safety has been criticised. In terms of the fire safety of buildings, one can say that the EU does not provide a comprehensive approach. The lack of a framework to address fire safety legislation in a harmonised manner is recognised, as well as the need to do so equally in all Member States. Secondly, a growing need for harmonious cooperation between MS, and the joint resolution of fire safety problems in buildings is tangible. This raises the question as to whether or not there is an overlap of fire safety legislation between the various MS and how the differences and similarities are reflected. In this research, an attempt is made to shed light on these unanswered questions. A comparative study between Belgium, The Netherlands and France will reveal the similarities and differences between these countries with the aim of encouraging the harmonisation of fire safety legislation of buildings on European level. The emphasis of the aspects examined is placed on the passive fire protection requirements with specific attention to compartmentation, evacuation and building elements such as structural elements, walls, (interior) doors, ceilings and facades. Increased risk profiles will not be included in this research. Specifically, this concerns schools, hospitals, industries, and underground car parks. On the basis of an analysis of the national legislation of these three countries, a comprehensive table was established for each country containing all passive fire protection requirements of buildings. Subsequently, an overall table was drawn up covering all three countries. The results show that there are large differences in the harmonisation of national fire safety legislation, that each country has a different classification, that the fire resistance values (REI values) are not uniquely used in countries and that differences exist between a comparative table across the three countries. The overall table shows that the emphasis is different across countries on certain aspects. Finally, the recommendations give a direction as to how harmonisation of fire safety legislation in Europe can be promoted. Remarkably, the shortcomings of the prescriptive approach, such as the over-regulation of some aspects, and the complicated explanations of some articles, become apparent here as well.