How to Submit a Part B-Compliant Window Schedule in 2025

The Invisible Approval Gate That Stops UK Builds Cold

In 2025, the window schedule has become one of the most consequential documents in any residential or mixed-use development. It no longer serves as a routine specification chart—it now operates as a fire compliance dossier, subject to rigorous scrutiny under Approved Document B. At the point of submission to Building Control, it must establish conformity across multiple critical vectors: certified fire resistance, operable egress dimensions, traceable third-party test reports, and full alignment with architectural elevations.

Failure to meet any of these standards is not a hypothetical risk. It is an operational certainty. Delays of four to six weeks are common following rejection, disrupting critical path timelines, delaying handover, and exposing developers to cascading costs. The root cause is rarely noncompliant products. It is the absence of verifiable, properly structured, and cross-referenced documentation.

A fire-rated sash window tested in a fixed configuration is insufficient. An egress unit without millimetre-specific clearance data will not pass. A certificate unlinked from the schedule cannot be validated. Each of these omissions undermines the submission, and in the current regulatory climate, precision is no longer optional—it is the basis of approval.

This guide exists to mitigate that risk. It outlines a submission framework that meets and exceeds the expectations of Building Control officers, fire consultants, and planning authorities alike, ensuring your schedule functions not as a liability but as a compliance asset.

What Is a Window Schedule—and Why It’s a Risk Multiplier in 2025?

To the untrained eye, a window schedule looks like a glorified spreadsheet: a list of window locations, dimensions, and types. But for Building Control, it’s a declaration of fire compliance. Every cell in that document is a legal assertion—that the component specified meets performance requirements under the current edition of Approved Document B and relevant standards like BS 476 Part 22 or EN 1634-1.

In the context of fire safety, the window schedule must achieve three things:

Demonstrate the fire resistance of each unit by referencing valid certifications
Prove that every required egress window meets the minimum dimensional thresholds
Align visually and dimensionally with architectural elevations and escape routes

Each omission becomes a liability. Consider this: a window noted as “W14 – Rear Bedroom, First Floor” may seem innocuous. But if that window is an escape route and lacks a valid certification for egress dimensions, it could trigger rejection and stop occupation of an entire unit.

Even worse, the myth of “like-for-like replacement” leads many to believe they can avoid this scrutiny. In 2025, Building Control expects proof, not assumptions. The window you used on your last job is not grandfathered into compliance. If your new project is a three-storey dwelling, flats, or a building with shared stair access, then Part B compliance becomes non-negotiable.

And yet, most window schedules fail not because of non-compliant windows, but due to how poorly those windows are documented. That’s the shift. You don’t just need better windows—you need a better schedule.

Understanding Part B: The Fire Compliance Rules You Must Meet

Approved Document B is the authoritative fire safety document for England and Wales. When it comes to windows, it’s especially focused on two concepts: means of escape and compartmentation. For most developers, this means you must ensure two things:

Egress windows provide a safe, unobstructed escape route
Fire-rated windows prevent the spread of fire and smoke between compartments

The Legal Thresholds You’re Expected to Hit

Let’s take a closer look at what Building Control looks for under Part B:

Escape Windows must:
- Provide an openable area of 0.33m²
- Be at least 450mm in height and width
- Be positioned with the bottom of the opening no more than 1100mm above the floor
- Be fully openable without obstructions
Fire-Resisting Windows (typically on boundary lines or in protected corridors) must:
- Meet an EI rating (integrity + insulation), typically EI30 or EI60
- Be tested to BS 476 Part 22 or EN 1634-1
- Be third-party certified (IFC, Warrington, BRE)

That’s the letter of the law. But here’s the catch: Building Control doesn’t just want the law. They want the evidence. In your schedule, they want to see:

The product’s certification ID number
The testing standard used
The exact fire rating, in minutes (e.g., “EI30” not just “fire rated”)
Whether the window has been tested in a sash configuration, if applicable

And yes, they will reject schedules that simply say “compliant” without citing the actual test report.

The Rising Scrutiny: Why Fire Officers Are Hitting Harder in 2025

Following regulatory tightening in response to high-rise fire tragedies, Building Control officers have increased scrutiny of all submissions, especially in projects involving:

Flats above 11m in height
Multiple-occupancy housing
Properties with shared stair cores
Boundary-adjacent developments

If your project fits any of these categories, assume the officer will treat your schedule like a fire compliance audit. They’re not just checking for aesthetics—they’re checking for life safety. The narrative is shifting: if your documentation doesn’t reflect a chain of traceability—from specification to certification to installation—you will not get sign-off.

And as Building Control becomes more data-driven, your submission is being judged not just by an officer, but by a system. Schedules that lack keywords, certificates, or fire ratings may be auto-flagged for inspection queue escalation. This is the future, and your window schedule is under the spotlight.

The Hidden Conflict Between Design and Compliance

Let’s not forget one more invisible pressure: visual conformity vs. technical obligation. Architects want slim, beautiful profiles—often timber or aluminium-look sash units. But fire engineers want test results, not aesthetics. If your spec sheet shows a window with unknown core materials or unverified glass types, the elevation drawing becomes meaningless.

Here’s where the developer is caught in the middle: the client wants planning approval, the architect wants heritage fidelity, and the fire officer wants paperwork that proves none of it will burn. The solution isn’t a compromise—it’s pre-approved certified products, wrapped in a well-documented, airtight schedule.

And that’s exactly where we’re heading next.

Structuring the Window Schedule: What Every Line Item Must Include

Every approved schedule starts with structure. The clarity, consistency, and completeness of your window schedule don’t just make the officer’s job easier—they become the reason you get approved. While many developers rely on manufacturer-provided templates or contractor estimations, Building Control expects precision engineered into every field. A Part B-compliant schedule must read like a legal document: defensible, unambiguous, and complete.

At its core, your schedule must contain a tabular dataset that matches the visual intent of your elevation drawings and the technical claims of your certification files. Each row is a window, and each column is a declaration. The following fields are non-negotiable:

Window ID: A unique alphanumeric tag (e.g. W01, W14A) that must match exactly with the elevation drawings and installation sheets. Do not reuse IDs between blocks or phases.
Location: This must refer to the building level, room name, and orientation (e.g. “1st Floor, Rear Bedroom, North Elevation”). Officers use this to cross-check escape strategy and fire corridor integrity.
Type: Be explicit—“Top-hung sash”, “Fixed pane”, or “Side-hinged casement” are not interchangeable terms. If it’s a sash, say so. If it’s tilt-and-turn, say so.
Fire Rating: State the actual certified fire resistance level (e.g. EI30, EI60). Do not write “FR window” or “Fire Safe” without substantiation.
Egress Compliance: Either “Yes” or “N/A”. For egress windows, this field should also confirm dimensions (e.g. “Yes – 0.33m² / 850mmH x 500mmW”).
Certification Reference: Input the certificate ID or report number that proves compliance. If it’s an IFC or Warrington document, include both the report title and reference code (e.g. “IFC 21014 – EI30 Sash Configuration”).

The Secret to Officer-Friendly Formatting

Beyond the content, format matters. Building Control isn’t just reading your document—they’re processing it. Clarity improves confidence. That means:

Use consistent units (always millimetres, not inches)
Align text and numbers in tables for legibility
Avoid merged cells, images embedded in tables, or colour-coded data that won’t survive black-and-white printing

Consider including a legend or reference note section that explains your abbreviations (e.g. “EI30 = 30 Minutes Integrity & Insulation”) and links to any appended documents or PDFs.

How Your Schedule Interacts with Elevation Drawings

This is the point where many submissions break down. A perfect schedule means nothing if your architectural elevations don’t agree. That means every Window ID in the schedule must also appear on your CAD elevations in a legible, callout-box format. If W07 is listed in the schedule as “Bathroom, East Elevation”, but the elevation drawing shows W07 on the west face, the submission will be flagged.

Consistency between documents is one of the most overlooked causes of delay. To streamline officer checks:

Include the elevation drawing reference (e.g. “Sheet A-204”) within your schedule
Group your windows by floor and orientation if your project has more than 15 units
Provide one sheet that overlays window IDs onto an elevation grid or 3D model

These aren’t flourishes. They’re survival tactics. Every extra minute you save an officer in reconciling documents increases the likelihood of immediate approval.

Certification That Passes Scrutiny: Third-Party Proof or Nothing

There is no shortcut here. In 2025, third-party certification is no longer a competitive differentiator—it’s the baseline expectation. Building Control now expects any fire-resisting window or egress-enabling unit to be accompanied by verifiable, traceable, product-specific certification from a recognised testing house.

Here’s what that looks like in practice:

Valid Certification Bodies: IFC Certification, Warringtonfire, BRE Global, or any UKAS-accredited testing body recognised under the Construction Products Regulation.
Test Standards: Ensure the report references BS 476 Part 22 or EN 1634-1, with a fire rating result in minutes (30, 60, etc).
Configuration Match: If you’re using a sash window, the test must prove fire resistance in sash mode, not in a fixed or side-hung configuration. Officers are rejecting certs that test one configuration but install another.

Reading Between the Lines of Fire Test Reports

The average developer doesn’t read through 48 pages of fire test data, but Building Control does. More importantly, fire consultants and enforcement officers know the signs of a weak certificate. If your cert:

Doesn’t clearly list the product name or code
Lacks installation method notes
Was tested over five years ago without a maintained surveillance program

…it may be disregarded as unreliable.

To reinforce your submission, provide:

A Certificate Summary Table: One sheet that lists each window, its cert ID, issuing body, fire rating, and test configuration
Embedded certificate references: Not just attached as PDFs, but named and referenced in-line with the schedule

The UKCA and CE Marking Divide

With the UK’s divergence from the EU’s CE mark system, developers are stuck in a twilight zone of product markings. Here’s what matters:

As of 2025, UKCA marking is mandatory for England, Wales, and Scotland
CE markings are only accepted if accompanied by dual-certified UKCA documentation or are still within transition approvals
If your manufacturer cannot provide a UKCA mark, the product must be retested or replaced

This has caught out hundreds of developers submitting CE-only products, assuming they’ll be grandfathered through. They won’t.

The safest path? Work only with fire-rated sash windows that already carry UKCA compliance. Don’t let a labelling issue invalidate an otherwise strong submission.

Coordinating with Architects, Engineers & Officers

Most window schedules fail not because they’re incomplete, but because they’re isolated. The architect has the visual intent. The developer has the spec sheet. The fire engineer has the technical requirement. The Building Control officer wants harmony—and will not grant approval unless the document trail reflects cross-disciplinary alignment.

That means your window schedule must serve four masters:

The Architect – who needs dimensions, sightlines, and frame styles to match elevations and planning conditions
The Fire Consultant – who needs fire rating, egress configuration, and boundary spacing validated
The Manufacturer – who must verify that what’s installed is what was tested
The Officer – who needs everything above to reconcile without contradiction

Pre-Submission Review Isn’t Optional—It’s Your Armour

Before submitting, host a 30-minute document alignment session with all stakeholders. Review:

Each window’s fire rating and match to elevation
Any substitution notes or product changes since planning
The location of each certificate, its ID, and who issued it

If possible, submit an Officer Preview Pack alongside your formal schedule:

A one-page summary of the fire strategy for windows
Highlighted floor plans with all egress and fire-rated units clearly shown
A written declaration from your fire consultant confirming review

This doesn’t just build trust—it creates a paper trail of accountability. And Building Control respects that more than any spreadsheet.

Submission Protocols: Tools, Timing, and Attachments

By the time your window schedule is structurally sound, cross-referenced with elevation drawings, and backed by third-party certifications, the final hurdle becomes the submission process itself. This is where exceptional documentation can be undermined by something as seemingly insignificant as a poorly named PDF or a misplaced file attachment. Building Control teams are often reviewing dozens of submissions weekly—the smoother your package, the faster your approval.

The Right Tools for a Bulletproof Digital Submission

In 2025, most local authorities and Approved Inspectors operate via digital planning platforms. Whether through the Planning Portal, BCMS (Building Control Management System), or private portals used by Approved Inspectors, the submission infrastructure expects:

File naming clarity
Format consistency
Minimal back-and-forth due to missing documents

A common failure point lies in document naming. Officers are not project managers—they don’t have time to decipher vague filenames. Instead of “fire-schedule_final_NEW_V3”, your files should be named for retrieval and clarity:

FireWindowSchedule_BlockA_RevB.pdf
Cert_Summary_EI60_IFC.pdf
Elevation_Overlay_EscapeWindows_1F.pdf

Use PDF format for schedules, test certs, and overlays. If your main schedule is in Excel, also export a locked PDF version to ensure it prints correctly and retains formatting. DWG or CAD files for elevations should be attached separately, never embedded in Word or PDF.

The Submission Bundle: Every Required Attachment in One Shot

Your submission isn’t a single document—it’s a bundle. Officers will expect the following components to be submitted simultaneously and properly linked:

Window Schedule Table – Fully detailed with IDs, fire ratings, egress status, cert references
Fire Test Certificates – Separate PDFs for each product, ideally labelled with the window ID or type
Elevation Drawings – With window IDs marked, ideally with directional annotations
Egress Verification Sheet – Optional but useful: a one-pager highlighting all egress windows with dimension overlays
Fire Strategy Summary (Optional) – One-pager explaining the rationale of fire-resisting vs. egress design choices
Product Data Sheets – Particularly for sash windows or heritage-style units with specialist operation profiles

The goal is simple: create no opportunity for Building Control to raise a “missing item” RFI (Request for Information). Every delay costs time, and every day of delay invites site pressure, subcontractor claims, or phased occupancy issues.

Understanding Timelines and Officer Expectations

Once submitted, your schedule enters the review queue. Depending on the size of the project and the local authority or inspector, this process can range from 5 to 14 working days. Larger projects—especially multi-block or mixed-use developments—may experience staggered review timelines by building.

What you need to know:

If your schedule is complete, matches the fire strategy, and aligns with the elevations, it will often be approved without comment
If discrepancies are found—or even suspected—expect a Request for Clarification within 3 days
Incomplete or contradictory schedules will be rejected outright, triggering delays until revisions are formally resubmitted

To prevent these bottlenecks, add a submission declaration:

“This window schedule has been cross-verified by the fire engineer, design team, and product manufacturer. All certification files listed herein are attached and valid as of the submission date.”

It’s a small addition that signals professional rigour—and buys officer confidence from the outset.

The 7 Mistakes That Delay Fire Sign-Off (and How to Avoid Them)

If you’ve ever wondered why developers get stuck in weeks-long Building Control loops, the answer usually lies in the repetition of the same core errors. These are not exotic failures. They are predictable, preventable, and almost always the result of assumptions made during documentation. In this section, we’ll cover the seven most common causes of window schedule rejection—and how to eliminate each from your workflow.

Mistake #1: Missing or Expired Certification

Submitting a product without including its up-to-date certification is a cardinal sin. Even worse, submitting a product with expired certification or a test that has since been invalidated due to design changes will trigger not just rejection, but scrutiny of the entire fire strategy.

Avoid it: Maintain a living Certificate Tracker. Match every unit in your schedule to a dated cert issued in the last five years, and confirm its test method and installation configuration match the spec.

Mistake #2: Incorrect Egress Dimensions

Most developers know about the 0.33m² minimum for escape windows, but many forget the rest of the standard. If your window is 800mm wide but only opens 200mm due to a restrictor or sash conflict, it fails, even if the glass itself could be compliant.

Avoid it: Include actual, clear opening dimensions (after allowance for sash movement) in your schedule. Bonus points: attach a drawing that illustrates the openable area as measured.

Mistake #3: Mismatched Drawing References

If your elevation drawings list a window as W10 on the east side, but your schedule describes it as a first-floor rear unit, the officer now has to play detective. Most won’t.

Avoid it: Use one elevation overlay drawing that maps every window ID, floor, and orientation clearly. Cross-reference this sheet in your schedule table.

Mistake #4: Using Untested Product Substitutes

One of the most common developer mistakes is specifying a tested unit, only to substitute with a different manufacturer’s “equivalent” later. Unless that substitute has been tested under the same conditions, it may not be compliant.

Avoid it: Include a substitution log that shows fire engineer approval and documentation alignment for any changed product.

Mistake #5: Certificates That Don’t Match Installed Configuration

It’s astonishing how often a fire certificate covers a fixed window, but the spec lists a sash version. Fire doesn’t care about that distinction, but Building Control does.

Avoid it: Verify the test cert covers the actual operation type and materials used on-site, not a general product family or historic test.

Mistake #6: Lack of Officer Pre-Consultation

Even if your schedule is sound, your project might raise boundary-specific or multi-storey concerns. Officers appreciate proactive engagement. They remember who asks first, not who argues later.

Avoid it: Email a “preview pack” with your key documents and request feedback ahead of submission. Officers will often flag issues early, before it’s formal.

Mistake #7: Forgetting Conservation Constraints

In listed buildings or conservation areas, aesthetics matter—but officers won’t bend fire safety rules. If your sash design is visually authentic but lacks insulation or tested fire glass, your conservation win becomes a compliance fail.

Avoid it: Use certified fire-rated sash windows specifically tested for conservation conditions and pre-approved under Article 4 alignment.

After Submission: Handling Officer Comments Like a Pro

Even with flawless documentation, well-labelled files, and a tight compliance chain, it’s possible—and increasingly common—for Building Control officers to issue post-submission comments or clarification requests. This isn’t a failure. It’s a checkpoint. In fact, how you respond to an officer’s query can accelerate your final sign-off—or trigger weeks of clarification loops.

Let’s start with a simple truth: officer queries aren’t just about what’s missing—they’re about what’s unclear. An ambiguous fire rating, a mismatched elevation, or a test certificate with unclear scope can all flag your submission for review, even if the underlying product is technically compliant. Your response is not just a reply—it’s a demonstration of procedural control.

Reading Between the Lines of Officer Feedback

Officer feedback often arrives with clipped phrasing—“Cert not valid for sash config”, “Mismatch: W12 ID vs. elevation A-205”, “Test reference unclear”—but beneath that brevity lies a predictable logic. Officers have a job: to protect lives through the enforcement of documented compliance. If they flag your submission, it’s because one of their core checks failed:

Traceability: The document trail doesn’t clearly link the product to its certification.
Consistency: The schedule contradicts visual or dimensional elements elsewhere in your submission.
Applicability: The test data doesn’t prove compliance under the actual installed configuration or conditions.

Each of these errors carries a different weight, but all share one consequence: submission delay until you resolve or clarify the issue.

Constructing a Professional Response That Builds Officer Confidence

There’s a world of difference between a rushed reply and a professional response. A developer who answers with, “See page 6 of the cert” vs. one who replies with a structured, annotated document will experience very different approval timelines. A successful response should:

Reference the specific officer query with line-item precision
Reattach the relevant certification or drawing, renamed and highlighted
Annotate the PDF or elevation, pointing to the exact dimensions or rating required
Include a one-line statement of resolution, e.g., “W12 sash configuration tested under IFC Report 21014, attached—confirmed EI30.”

If you’re asked to submit revisions, do not re-upload the same file set with vague labels. Officers can and do decline untagged resubmissions, particularly if they cannot immediately track the fix.

Escalating When You’re Technically Correct But Still Blocked

Occasionally, you’ll face an impasse: your product is compliant, your certs are valid, but the officer doesn’t accept your interpretation. In this case, escalation is your strategic weapon—but only if used with documentation, not indignation.

To escalate effectively:

Request a second-opinion review by submitting a formal letter from your fire engineer.
Include comparative precedent (e.g., another project in the borough with similar approval using the same window + cert).
Add a supplementary note outlining the testing method, fire strategy, and officer-facing rationale.

Position this not as a challenge, but as a clarification request. Building Control professionals respond best to diplomacy backed by evidence, not frustration disguised as urgency.

If escalation fails and you’re still blocked, it may be faster to respecify the window using a known pre-approved, certified unit than to debate nuance over interpretation. Ultimately, the goal isn’t to win a point—it’s to win approval and unlock the build.

Tools & Templates: Submission Master Template™ (2025 Edition)

The difference between a smooth approval and a stalled one often lies not in the product, but in the paperwork. That’s why we’ve built the Submission Master Template™, a field-tested, officer-verified bundle designed to help you:

Prepare schedules that pass on the first submission
Reduce RFI cycles with clear certification referencing
Harmonise elevation, fire strategy, and Building Control expectations

Here’s what’s included in the template pack:

File	Description
Window_Schedule_Template_2025.xlsx	Editable Excel sheet with required Part B compliance columns
Officer_Cert_Summary_Sheet.pdf	Ready-to-submit certificate index referencing each unit ID
Elevation_Overlay_Example.dwg	Sample elevation with window IDs and fire designations
Escape_Opening_Verification_Sheet.pdf	One-page dimension validation form for all egress units
FireEngineer_Review_Letter_Template.docx	Template letter for fire consultants to pre-approve schedule
Submission_Declaration.docx	Pre-formatted statement of cross-team verification (optional but powerful)

This pack isn’t just for compliance—it’s for clarity. Use it to reinforce confidence at every stage of officer review, especially when working with multiple consultants or local authorities.

In addition to the core files, the downloadable bundle includes optional resources:

Checklist for Substitution Review (ensures no change invalidates cert)
Officer Pre-Consultation Email Template (for early engagement)
Reference Log for Expired Certs (to justify use or provide historical context)

Why does this matter? Because in 2025, your documentation is as important as your design. Approval is no longer based on intent—it’s based on verifiable proof. This template doesn’t just help you prove it. It shows you knew how to from the start.

Conclusion: Win Planning and Building Control the First Time

There’s a quiet revolution underway in UK development—a shift where success is no longer dictated solely by build quality or design creativity, but by regulatory fluency. In the age of post-Grenfell scrutiny, Part B compliance has evolved into a core strategic function, not a back-end task reserved for consultants. And the humble window schedule? It now sits at the crossroads of safety, planning, and execution.

This isn’t about paperwork anymore. It’s about foresight.

A compliant window schedule doesn’t just pass review—it unlocks phases of your build. It secures funding by removing regulatory risk. It ensures your fire strategy holds when tested under pressure, and it protects your team from finger-pointing during snagging and sign-off. Most of all, it becomes a quiet symbol of project maturity—proof that your development is managed by professionals who anticipate the rules, not react to them.

Every failed schedule is a lesson. A missed certificate reference. An elevation that didn’t match. A mislabelled drawing that forced an officer to ask a question that could’ve been answered by one extra column in your table. These aren’t small mistakes. They’re multiplier risks, because every delay reverberates across contractors, clients, and cash flow.

That’s why you don’t just need compliant products—you need a pre-approved process. And that’s what this article has given you. A blueprint. A defence strategy. A way to turn what most developers fear—fire officer reviews, submission delays, regulatory mismatches—into a competitive edge.

Because when you show up with the right schedule, you’re not just meeting expectations. You’re beating the queue. You’re reducing RFIs before they’re raised. You’re submitting once, not thrice. And in 2025, that’s how you win planning and Building Control the first time.

So before you submit another PDF, ask yourself:

Does every window in my project trace its way back to a certificate?
Will the officer reviewing my submission find clarity or contradiction?
Am I sending paperwork, or am I sending proof?

Because in this new world of regulated certainty, only one of those gets approved.