Planning range
Allow enough time to understand the actual premises
A small, straightforward shop or office may require around one to two hours on site, followed by off-site evaluation and report writing. A larger building, HMO, care home, hotel, block of flats, multi-tenant office or complex industrial premises may require half a day, a full day or several visits.
These are planning examples rather than prescribed minimums. The decisive question is whether the assessor has gathered enough reliable evidence to identify hazards, people at risk, evaluate precautions and produce a premises-specific record and action plan.
What changes the duration
Six factors commonly increase assessment time
Floor area alone does not determine the work. Two buildings of similar size can require very different inspection and reporting time because of occupancy, construction, shared systems and available evidence.
Size and layout
Storeys, rooms, cores, basements, roofs, external areas and separate buildings.
Use and hazards
Sleeping risk, cooking, processes, dangerous substances, storage and temporary activities.
People at risk
Occupancy, visitors, children, residents and people requiring evacuation assistance.
Construction and strategy
Compartmentation, external walls, smoke control, fire engineering and evacuation approach.
Responsibility
Landlord, tenant, managing-agent and shared-system interfaces that must be established.
Evidence and access
Plans, records, keys, occupied rooms, secure areas and knowledgeable contacts.
Before and after attendance
What the assessor’s time should cover
A professional assignment should begin by defining scope and requesting useful information. The inspection then tests the building and arrangements against that information. Afterwards, the assessor evaluates the evidence, records limitations, prepares findings and produces an action plan.
Quality assurance and factual clarification may be appropriate before issue. A promise of an instant certificate can indicate that the reporting stage or premises-specific reasoning has been misunderstood.
| Stage | Typical work |
|---|---|
| Scoping | Confirm premises, use, areas, access, responsible persons and intended output. |
| Preparation | Review previous FRA, plans, strategy, records and known changes. |
| Site inspection | Walk relevant areas, interview knowledgeable people and examine precautions. |
| Evaluation | Consider hazards, people, escape, protection, management and unresolved evidence. |
| Reporting | Record scope, findings, risk priorities, actions, assumptions and limitations. |
| Follow-up | Correct factual errors, clarify findings and identify separate specialist work where needed. |
Quotation warning
A very short visit may hide a narrow scope
Short attendance is not automatically inadequate for a genuinely small and simple premises, but the provider should be able to explain how the proposed time matches the building and deliverables. Compare quotations using the same information.
Ask whether every relevant area will be inspected, who will attend, what records must be ready and whether the price includes the written report and prioritised action plan. A lower price may reflect less site time, greater reliance on assumptions or exclusions that only become visible later.
- Expected on-site attendance time
- Named assessor and relevant premises experience
- Areas, activities and systems included
- Documents needed before the visit
- Access or sampling limitations
- Report and action-plan format
- Expected report-delivery date
- Post-report clarification and corrections
Avoid delays
Preparation makes the visit more useful—not superficial
Provide the existing FRA and actions, plans, fire strategy where available, maintenance and testing records, emergency plan, drill and training evidence, details of incidents and a summary of significant changes. Arrange access to all relevant areas.
A knowledgeable premises contact should be available to explain occupancy, systems, routines, faults and shared responsibilities. Preparation can reduce avoidable delays, but it should not be used to justify omitting necessary inspection or evaluation.