LPS 1175 Issue 8: What’s In The New Standard
The latest iteration of LPS 1175 is easily one of the biggest changes the standard has ever seen, with a complete reworking of the rating system. In this article, we take a look at what has changed and why. We aim to answer some of the questions you may have about what this means for suppliers, specifiers, and end-users.
What is LPS 1175 Issue 8?
Before we get into the nitty-gritty of what has changed it’s probably best to explain what exactly LPS 1175 is. Well, ‘LPS’ is a Loss Prevention Standard. These were originally developed by the Loss Prevention Certification Board and Loss Prevention Council when owned by the UK insurance industry. Since 2000, the responsibility for their preparation and maintenance has fallen to BRE under the LPCB certification brand.
Several Loss Prevention Standards have been published, covering a wider array of fire and security-related products and services. LPS 1175 deals specifically with requirements and testing procedures for intruder-resistant building components, strongpoints, security enclosures, and freestanding barriers.
For a more detailed look at LPS 1175, we recommend reading our definitive guide which covers every aspect of the standard from the testing process through to how it compares to some of the other standards you’ll come across.
Issue 8 is the latest version of this standard and came into effect in January 2019 replacing Issue 7 which had been in place since 2010.
Now that you have a better idea what Issue 8 is let’s take a look at why a new version was needed.
Changes to Tools in LPS 1175 Issue 8
When it comes to the need for a new edition of LPS 1175 the biggest driver is always the evolution of the tools available to criminals, terrorists, and intruders. To be able to mitigate against the latest threats and to be effective and supported by specifiers it’s crucial that the standard doesn’t fall behind.
This can be painful for security equipment manufacturers as tool companies aren’t concerned with the challenges or costs involved in developing solutions to meet the changing threat posed by new or improved tools. The most recent change in this area has been the increase in the availability and power of portable battery-operated tools.
As the threat evolves, specifiers are left looking for products that will meet their needs. Criminals or terrorists will always utilise the best tools available to them for what they’re trying to achieve.
Change in Approach to Forced Entry
While technological development of tools was the number one reason for developing the new issue, another key reason was a better understanding of how criminals and terrorists behave. BRE realised that the standard no longer aligned closely enough with the threats stakeholders were dealing with when considering protection against forced entry. The most significant realisation was that individuals did not necessarily spend longer because they were using bigger tools. Instead, many actually preferred to counter having to spend longer forcing entry by using bigger more powerful tools to get through quicker.
Taking petrol grinders as an example, these were actually covered in the previous issue, but with time parameters that just weren’t realistically achievable by manufacturers. This meant that a third of the standard – SR6, 7, 8 wasn’t usable as BRE had set the bench too high. It was this realisation that drove the need for the new rating matrix that has replaced the old SR1-8 ratings of Issue 7.
Speaking to Richard Flint, BRE’s technical and commercial lead for physical security, it is clear the shift to the new matrix was a tough decision as it was the biggest change LPS 1175 had ever seen and took a very different approach to that used within other standards. Their focus when developing Issue 8 was therefore on the needs of key risk holders and other stakeholders. LPCB consulted insurers, the government, the police, consultants, and security risk managers to ensure the resultant changes were such that the standard became more dynamic in its approach to emerging threats.
However, it was also important to maintain manufacturer engagement and retain their confidence in the standard. With this in mind, the new rating system was developed to support a more layered approach to physical security – something we’ve discussed extensively in our guide to security layers.
The New LPS 1175 Issue 8 Rating Matrix
As we’ve mentioned, the biggest change in Issue 8 in comparison to the previous version is the change to the rating system. So what does this new rating system look like?
The rating system defined in LPS 1175 Issue 8 expanded upon the single-digit classifications defined in Issue 7; the Security Ratings SR1 to SR8 many readers will be familiar with. This was replaced in Issue 8 with a new alphanumeric classification system comprising two elements: threat level (A-H) which corresponds to the toolkit used; and the delay achieved by a product in minutes (1, 3, 5, 10, 15, or 20). As you can see in the table above there are comparable ratings to the previous SR ratings, however, the new two-part classification system allows for a total of 48 possible combinations of threat (tools) and delay (time).
While the new matrix gives an extensive number of options, it is unlikely end users, specifiers and regulators will require a single product to achieve the lengthier ratings. Instead of attempting to develop a single product that can withstand tools listed within one of the higher toolkits for 10, 15, 20 minutes, such delays can now be achieved by using a layered approach. For example, a 10-minute delay against an F-level threat could be achieved by investing in two layers of security equipment each achieving an F5 security rating. This gives specifiers a better palette to work with from a layering perspective and manufacturers more achievable ratings from a product development one.
Are Older LPS 1175 Issues Still Valid Now Issue 8 is Here?
For end-users and manufacturers, there is always a concern when a standard changes that suddenly previously rated products are no longer valid. But don’t worry you don’t suddenly need to retest your products. LPCB has very stringent testing procedures with only 5% of the products they test actually passing. As part of the certification process that underpins claims of conformity with LPS 1175, BRE conducts regular audits of each manufacturer to ensure the products placed on the market continue to deliver the performance certified. Those audits, therefore, ensure that if a product is certified to Issues 5, 6 or, those products continue to deliver those levels of intruder resistance.
The wider threat from different toolsets may have moved on, but if the end-user remains satisfied that the threat they need to protect against has remained the same as that covered in an earlier version of LPS1175, the delay provided by products certified to that version of LPS1175 would satisfy that requirement. That said, it is important to note that under UK trade descriptions law, manufacturers must declare which version of the LPS 1175 standard their product is certified to in order to avoid potentially misrepresenting their product’s performance.
Interested in learning more about LPS 1175 and other physical security standards?
Sign up to our free CPD webinar that teaches you the main principles of physical security, empowering you to make the right decisions when planning a security scheme. You can also download our free E-Book, providing you with an in-depth look at LPS 1175 as well as principle crash test standards such as PAS 68 and IWA 14-1.
If you’re currently working on a physical security scheme and need help? Download our free checklist or contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org or call us on +44 (0) 1942 407 288.