VENTILATION SYSTEMS


remaining so throughout their lifecycle. The value of certification is already well established


Mathew Hopwood


Mathew Hopwood is Sales director at Mansfield Pollard, a Bradford-based manufacturer of specialist air handling, acoustic control, and data centre cooling solutions. He joined the business in January 2024, bringing with him over two decades of experience in the mechanical and electrical industry. Throughout his career,


Mathew has held a variety of roles spanning sales, operations, project management, and system design. He has led installation and service teams, developed technical specifications, and delivered tailored solutions across a range of sectors. His broad expertise enables him to bridge the gap between commercial strategy and technical delivery - an approach that underpins his work at Mansfield Pollard.


In his current role,


Mathew is responsible for driving growth across the company’s portfolio, with a particular focus on ventilation. He works closely with estates teams, consultants, and contractors to ensure that ventilation systems meet the highest standards of performance, compliance, and reliability. Outside of work,


Mathew is a keen sports enthusiast and a proud supporter of Peterborough United. He is also a former member of the British Army and values teamwork, integrity, and continuous learning in both his professional and personal life.


in other sectors. In healthcare construction, BREEAM Healthcare standards are widely used to ensure sustainable building design. In manufacturing, CE marking, Eurovent Certification for AHUs, and ISO 9001 have all contributed to raising quality, improving consistency, and building trust in performance claims. A similar model for healthcare ventilation would


offer the same benefits. It would provide estates teams, contractors, and manufacturers with a clear benchmark, reducing ambiguity and supporting more consistent outcomes across the healthcare estate.


Making procurement more efficient Certification could also unlock significant commercial and procurement efficiencies. Currently, varied interpretations of HTM 03-01 often lead to bespoke designs, extended lead times, and complex tender evaluations. A defined certification standard would help manufacturers to develop pre-approved AHU configurations, optimising production and reducing engineering variation – ultimately lowering costs through economies of scale. Procurement teams would then benefit from clearer


Specialist air handling supports high-risk clinical areas, from operating theatres to isolation rooms.


extended equipment lifespan, and simplified maintenance, will often far outweigh the initial investment. Commercial pressures within the construction supply


chain often lead to the selection of lower-cost alternatives. We’ve seen HTM-compliant units substituted for systems certified under Germany’s VDI 6022 standard, and whilst VDI is a respected hygiene standard in its own right, it is not equivalent to HTM 03-01. Using it as a value- engineered substitute can compromise performance in UK healthcare settings, where the regulatory and clinical context is different. In some projects, derogation has been sought to


allow the installation of non-compliant units. This practice highlights the need for clearer specification processes, and improved understanding of how ventilation standards differ, particularly where clinical risk is high. Smaller manufacturers may view certification as


exclusionary, fearing it could limit their market access. However, a tiered approach where critical areas such as operating theatres require full compliance, and non- critical zones follow guidance, can balance inclusivity with rigour.


What a certification framework could look like A structured certification model would not require every air handling unit in every healthcare building to be certified. That would be impractical. However, in high-risk clinical environments, certification could provide the assurance that systems are designed, installed, and maintained to a consistent and verifiable standard. Such a framework could include design certification


linked to defined performance criteria, third-party verification of installation and commissioning, and periodic operational re-certification. It would also ensure that all personnel involved, from designers to maintenance engineers, are appropriately qualified and trained. Rather than replacing the role of authorising engineers, certification would complement it more effectively. It would provide a stronger foundation for their oversight and ensure that systems are compliant from the outset,


142 Health Estate Journal October 2025


benchmarking, enabling like-for-like comparisons and greater confidence in performance claims. Thinking ahead to project delivery, this would be significantly more streamlined and consistent due to the reduced administrative and technical burdens of design reviews and compliance checks. As healthcare embraces Modern Methods of


Construction (MMC), including off-site modular builds, certified ventilation systems will become increasingly important. Standardised AHU certification would allow validated equipment to be integrated into Building Information Modelling (BIM) object libraries, facilitating faster design approvals, improved coordination, and fewer late-stage design changes. This approach would reduce reliance on specialist on-site design teams and support scalable, repeatable healthcare facility models such as those being developed


A crane lifts in a ventilation unit.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184