Why safety reviews are becoming more thorough
Venue operators are under increasing pressure to review their safety arrangements. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025, commonly known as Martyn’s Law, places new public protection duties on venues with a capacity of 200 or more. But the broader shift towards more rigorous safety reviews extends beyond the legislation itself.
What’s notable is that these reviews often focus on what’s physical and visible: the roof, the seating structure, the fire exits. Emergency communication infrastructure is also important. It is the technology that determines whether the right alert reaches the right people at the right time. However, it is often assumed to be adequate rather than actively tested.
Communication during an incident isn’t a single action
A common misconception is that a fire alarm system already covers emergency communication requirements. It doesn’t.
A fire alarm is designed for one outcome: everyone evacuates. But a terrorist incident or crowd safety emergency may require a very different response, moving from lockdown to partial evacuation to full evacuation as the situation develops. Each stage requires different instructions delivered to the right people at the right time. Standard fire alarm infrastructure isn’t designed for that.
Martyn’s Law reinforces the need for this capability, but the operational need exists regardless of the legislation.
What installers should be asking venue operators
The April 2027 deadline creates a natural point of entry for these conversations, but the more useful framing isn’t the legislation, it’s the question of what actually happens when something goes wrong.
Can your current alerting system deliver different messages to different zones? Can it support a lockdown instruction that doesn’t trigger a mass evacuation? When did you last test it?
Many venue operators haven’t had these questions put to them directly. Installers who can ask them, and map the answers to a specific technical recommendation, are having a more useful conversation than those who arrive with a product brochure.
Emergency communication platforms support zoned alerting, variable response types such as evacuation, invacuation and lockdown, and can integrate with existing signalling infrastructure rather than replacing it. AddSecure’s Martyn’s Law whitepaper explores these considerations in more detail.
Why now is easier than 2027
Venues that leave this until early 2027 will face higher demand, tighter installation windows, and more pressure to commission quickly. Some will also discover their existing signalling relies on analogue infrastructure that needs replacing anyway. This is a separate issue created by the PSTN switch-off. It affects any venue still relying on copper phone lines for alarm transmission.
Picking up both issues in a single scoping conversation is considerably more efficient than addressing them in separate projects.
Installers who approach venue operators with a safety review framing, asking what a site assessment covers and what it doesn’t, often find more openness than when they lead with product or compliance deadlines. Structural concerns get addressed when they’re found. Emergency communication gaps deserve the same treatment.
For a closer look at how AddSecure’s signalling infrastructure supports compliant and resilient alerting, the NGP portfolio sets out the options available to UK installers.
If you’re working with venue operators on safety reviews, speak to the AddSecure team about how AddAlert supports zoned alerting and public protection procedures alongside your existing signalling infrastructure. Get in touch to find out more.