SAFETY & SECURITY 71
The impact of Martyn’s Law on secure door specifi cation
Rob Mottram at Robust UK examines the door specifi cation implications of Martyn’s Law (AKA the Terrorism Act 2025), in larger educational and public venues.
M
artyn’s Law – formally known as the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 – received
Royal Assent last year and comes into force in Spring 2027. For architects and specifi ers working on schools, colleges and other larger public venues, it introduces a new layer of design responsibility that sits alongside existing fi re and life safety requirements. Martyn’s Law is built around a deceptively simple principle: venues must take proactive steps to protect people from terrorist attacks. For larger venues such as those with a capacity of 800 or more, which encompasses most secondary schools, sixth form colleges, universities, theatres and other leisure buildings, this means implementing procedural and physical protective measures, as well as training staff and being able to demonstrate a credible, tested security plan. Doors are the physical expression of that plan: they determine who can get in, how quickly a building can be secured and how people escape if something goes wrong. A door schedule that hasn’t been thought through in security terms leaves a gap that no amount of procedural planning can close.
Four functions to design around Historically, door specifi cation in education buildings has been driven by fi re compliance and budget, with security treated as an add-on if it is considered at all. Martyn’s Law asks specifi ers to think in terms of four distinct functions and to map every door in a scheme against them. The fi rst is entry control, which is managed access at the perimeter and at key internal thresholds. Second is zoning and compartmentalisation, as internal doors need to break up circulation and create protected areas. Thirdly, lockdown capability needs to be considered. Doors
ADF SEPTEMBER 2026
need to be secured quickly and reliably to shelter occupants in place. Finally, escape routes – doors should be specifi ed that guarantee fast, unimpeded egress without compromising external security. Few existing school buildings and venues were designed with this framework in mind, which makes early-stage audit work an essential part of any refurbishment or extension project.
Evacuation & ‘invacuation’ aren’t the same design problem One distinction that is easy to miss on paper, but is critical in practice is the difference between evacuation (moving people out) and invacuation (moving people to shelter within the building). Many hostile threat scenarios call for invacuation rather than evacuation, which means the doors serving refuge areas need to resist forced entry for long enough to allow emergency services to respond, while still allowing instant, single-action egress from inside if conditions change.
This is a genuine design challenge, not a hardware afterthought. A doorset that has to resist attack from one side while guaranteeing free escape from the other needs to be specifi ed and tested as a complete system – leaf, frame and hardware together – rather than assembled from components chosen independently.
What assessors will look for The Act doesn’t prescribe a specifi c doorset standard, but it does require the responsible person to evidence a proportionate level of protection. In practice, that means specifi ers should be building the following into their door schedules: • Third-party certifi ed doorsets are specifi ed and tested as a single system rather than combined from separate suppliers • Resistance ratings matched to a site
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
It is essential that compliance be built into the specifi cation
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
