Dame Judith Hackitt has stressed the need for competency, accountability, and responsibility to be at the heart of the new building safety system at an event at the Institution of Engineering and Technology, in order to rebuild the public’s trust in providing safe homes for people to live in. As
The Local Government Association is urging MPs to back amendments to the Building Safety Bill – tabled by LGA Vice President Daisy Cooper MP – to protect the future residents of new buildings under 18 metres not covered by the scope of the Bill, The Building Safety Bill will establish
On Monday 10th of January, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the RT Hon Michael Gove MP, outlined his proposals aimed at ensuring that industry contributes to the cost of remediating unsafe cladding on residential buildings over 11 metres in height. The announcement makes clear that
Experts Say Announcement Could Mean More False Hope For Leaseholders Developers have been given an early March deadline to create a fully funded plan of action to help the cladding crisis, with further measures to be put in place by the Government. The announcement from Michael Gove MP at the
By partner Simon Lewis, managing associate Michelle Essen and socilitor Ryan Lavers What a year it’s been for building safety The construction sector has seen a significant amount of progress in this area over the last 12 months. To give some perspective on how things have changed, we’ve looked at the
Introduced to Parliament in June 2021, the Building Safety Bill establishes a new regime that will overhaul the building safety system in England and Wales. It brings in a stringent framework for high-rise buildings, which will strengthen regulatory requirement before building work commences, through construction and before occupation. The Bill,
AECOM director David Ross said: “AECOM provided strategic and technical support to DLUHC in its development of the changes to Part L (conservation of fuel and power) and Part F (ventilation) of the Building Regulations and the introduction of Part O (overheating). Our work supported policy development in areas such
The Fire Brigades Union lawyer for the inquiry has placed central importance on the “agenda of deregulation, privatisation and marketisation” as causing the disaster. Martin Seaward said that an agenda “which encouraged companies to behave recklessly towards building safety” was “actively and, regrettably, deliberately created by central government”. The comments
While slip and fall accidents can occur in any workplace environment like an office or a warehouse, the chance of a serious slip and fall accident is far more common among construction workers. In fact, in 2018, there were a reported 320 construction workers who were fatally injured as a
Andy Swift, sales and operations manager for ISO-Chemie, says changes to Part L of the building regulations will see housebuilders increasingly consider alternative ways to improve airtightness as energy ratings for buildings and property are tightened. Changes to Part L of the Building Regulations, which come into effect December 2021,
Dame Judith Hackitt has stressed the need for competency, accountability, and responsibility to be at the heart of the new building safety system at an event at the Institution of Engineering and Technology, in order to rebuild the public’s trust in providing safe homes for people to live in. As keynote speaker at the IET National Conference for Electrotechnical and Building Safety Competence on Monday (31 Jan), Dame Judith Hackitt also reiterated the importance of a culture change in the whole built environment sector ahead of regulatory change – to incentivise good building practices, with disciplinary sanctions for those who exploit the system. She explained how legislation will incentivise the take up of professional registration, which in turn will help to demonstrate competency, and stressed how the focus must be on delivering quality buildings that are safe, with genuine engagement with residents needed to rebuild trust. She explained how there is currently a very fragmented way of looking at buildings, e.g., separate walls, separate electrics, separate foundations, when in fact we need these things to work and be addressed in totality. Linking this to competency and quality assurance, Hackitt explained: “It is not good enough for people to simply say ‘my bit’s ok, it’s the other people who got it wrong, not me’. We need to start getting people to work together, to collaborate, and recognise that it is the overall outcome that matters.” She continued: “What matters is that everyone should be able to feel safe in their home, that is everyone’s right, irrespective of the type of dwelling that they live in. And that’s why we need to have this risk-based approach, and why competence and quality assurance must become part of the new culture across the whole of construction.” The IET National Conference for Electrotechnical and Building Safety Competence, which is being delivered virtually across two dates, aims to bring experts together, working with or within the electrotechnical sector and in building services/safety related roles with a key focus on individual competence, accountability and continuing professional development. Sir Julian Young, IET President, said: “Professional registration is an important milestone for any engineer or technician, as it demonstrates professionalism, competence and personal commitment to the engineering and technology sectors. I encourage all our members and beyond to adhere to our Knowledge Network and Rules of Conduct, which provide guidance and informational sources to support people to make good decisions and act ethically. “I assure you that the IET is working with appropriate trade associations and Trades Unions to help bring about a step-change in the level of relevant training, upskilling and professionalism of those working in the industry: it will not be easy or quick, but we are determined to make a positive difference and, ultimately, to raise the status of engineers and technicians across the UK.” Part 2 of the conference is taking place virtually on Monday 21 February 2022 at 10am. To find out more, please visit IET Events (theiet.org).
The Local Government Association is urging MPs to back amendments to the Building Safety Bill – tabled by LGA Vice President Daisy Cooper MP – to protect the future residents of new buildings under 18 metres not covered by the scope of the Bill, The Building Safety Bill will establish a Building Safety Regulator (BSR) within the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to implement a new, more stringent, regulatory regime for higher-risk buildings. These are defined as residential buildings, care homes and hospitals over 18m. However, the Bill leaves residential buildings under 18 meters out of scope. This will create a two-tier system where buildings below 18 metres will face less rigorous safety regulations than buildings over 18 metres. The current scope of Building Safety Bill would not have covered the Cube student residence in Bolton. In December 2019, the flammable cladding at the Cube rendered the only staircase untenable within half an hour and a resident was rescued from the top floor of the building moments before the flat from which she was rescued was destroyed by fire. This suggests that had the fire taken place later in the evening when more residents were asleep, it would probably have resulted in fatalities. In addition, we have already seen serious fires in Barking and Worcester Park, among others, which have demonstrated the very real danger that the failings of modern construction pose to residents in buildings under 18m. Cllr David Renard, housing spokesperson at the Local Government Association, said: “The Building Safety Bill, along with the Fire Safety Act, are important pieces of legislation will strengthen the building safety system in the UK. “The LGA has long-warned about the need for building safety reforms to avoid creating a two-tier building safety system which leaves buildings under 18 metres vulnerable and unprotected. The height of a building does not define the risk to its safety, as has been proven by a number of dangerous and potentially fatal fires in buildings below 18 metres. “We urge MPs to back these amendments to ensure the extension of the Bill’s protection to those buildings under 18m that require it on the basis of risk is hardwired into the legislation.”
On Monday 10th of January, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the RT Hon Michael Gove MP, outlined his proposals aimed at ensuring that industry contributes to the cost of remediating unsafe cladding on residential buildings over 11 metres in height. The announcement makes clear that the Government is committed to the principle that ‘polluter pays’ and that those responsible for the building safety crisis should be held to account. Whilst the proposals for funding this work may not address the immediate concerns of residents, there can be no question that the industry needs to undergo fundamental change if it is to ensure that there is never another Grenfell Tower tragedy. This is the central message of the Industry Safety Steering Group’s third report to the Secretary of State, which was also published yesterday. Highlighting examples of good practice, the report makes clear that there is still a long way to go, and leadership is needed if we are to rebuild trust in the sector following the Grenfell Tower tragedy. Eddie Tuttle, Director of Policy, External Affairs & Research at CIOB, said: “The Chartered Institute of Building has been actively engaged in raising standards and promoting best practice in building safety, for its members and wider industry, and will continue to work with industry and government to bring about the culture change that is needed, as well as developing the required competency standards for the duty holder roles under the upcoming Building Safety Act.”
Experts Say Announcement Could Mean More False Hope For Leaseholders Developers have been given an early March deadline to create a fully funded plan of action to help the cladding crisis, with further measures to be put in place by the Government. The announcement from Michael Gove MP at the House of Commons on the afternoon of Monday 10th of January said he is giving developers the chance to ‘do the right thing’ or he would ‘impose in law’ ways to make them pay for the cladding crisis. So far residents in blocks 11-18m high haven’t been eligible for government support to remove unsafe cladding, instead being offered loans to shoulder the often eye-watering cost – but this scheme is now scrapped, along with further measures to ease the standstill for leaseholders affected by surveys, insurers and market uncertainty as a result of the crisis. Residential property experts at Irwin Mitchell say the announcement shows the Government has shut the door on providing its own funding to help leaseholders, instead relying on developers to pay for the cladding crisis. Jeremy Raj, national head of Residential Property at Irwin Mitchell said: “The sentiments and ambition of Mr Gove’s statement today were praiseworthy and long overdue. The realities of his proposals are, however, as yet of questionable efficacy and breadth. “The truth is that the fifth anniversary of Building Safety reaching its current level of crisis for leaseholders in taller blocks of flats in particular is fast approaching. The acknowledgement today that reaction to date has been slow and ineffective will be cold comfort, particularly in relation to those with non-cladding issues. Government must indeed accept when its own performance has not been acceptable and ensure a rapid improvement. “The cladding on Grenfell had nothing to do with current or historic developers of new build homes, having been retro-fitted many years after the original build, using materials that were clearly dangerous that seem to have been ignored or waved through by the regulatory authorities. “The idea that responsibility for resolving the cladding scandal – which has now widened to become a general building safety scandal – should be laid solely at the doors of developers asked to voluntarily cough up more cash, is likely to lead only to further delay and heartbreak for leaseholders caught in dangerous or un-sellable properties. “Many developers will be puzzled as to how and to what extent they can justify such expenditure on a ‘voluntary’ basis in the context of their obligations to shareholders, and a lack of direct responsibility, particularly given clear evidence of contributory negligence by others. “As Irwin Mitchell have been saying from the outset, fixing dangerous buildings (of whatever height) should be dealt with as a priority using up-front Government money, with clawback provisions activated as soon as the extent and identity of all liable parties has been established under due legal process.” Large housebuilding developers are already facing the Residential Property Developer Tax, which targets companies with annual profits of over £25m with a 4% tax to go towards cladding. Legal experts point out that laying the blame at one person’s door doesn’t help the situation for affected leaseholders – or help with the long-term housing crisis the UK is currently facing. Jeremy continued: “In the context of an acute national shortage of safe, suitable and environmentally sound housing stock, it will not help to demonise and threaten all developers if they can clearly see that the manufacturers and suppliers of those dangerous materials, the poorly resourced regulators and the industry as a whole, seem to be being let off the hook. “It now seems clear that the Treasury has firmly shut the door to further funds being made available and that, along with Planning reform, a full upgrade and proper funding of Building Control remains a distant hope for the future. “Nobody wants the leaseholders caught up in the post-Grenfell nightmare to continue to suffer, and it is right that they should be absolved of financial responsibility for making their buildings safe. “However, significant issues relating to building safety remain in addition to the cladding problems and many of our clients do not appear to be helped by today’s announcement in resolving the problems with the homes they bought in good faith, expecting them to be safe to live in and easy to sell on.”
By partner Simon Lewis, managing associate Michelle Essen and socilitor Ryan Lavers What a year it’s been for building safety The construction sector has seen a significant amount of progress in this area over the last 12 months. To give some perspective on how things have changed, we’ve looked at the biggest leaps forward in 2021; and have also cast an eye towards 2022 to consider what we can expect next. Building Safety Bill The most talked about legislative development in 2021 was the steady progress of the Building Safety Bill, which was officially laid before Parliament in July. While it was based in large part on the draft that was circulated for comment in 2020 and was therefore in many respects already familiar, its provisions are being increasingly scrutinised in its passage through Parliament. The Bill’s proposed changes are considerable, and include: more-than-doubling the limitation period for bringing a claim for breach of s.1 Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA). This requires residential buildings to be habitable and built in a professional or workmanlike manner with proper materials. The Bill increases that limitation period from 6 to 15 years – and it would apply prospectively (going forward) and also retrospectively, meaning that claims that are currently time-barred would become an option again, inserting a brand new s.2A into the DPA, which would extend the DPA to cover subsequent building works (as s.1 only covers the original construction of the building), with a limitation period of 15 years prospectively, bringing s.38 Building Act 1984 into force, to allow claims for damage caused by breach of Building Regulations, with a limitation period of 15 years prospectively, establishing a new Building Safety Regulator (BSR), and creating a new “duty-holders” regime – where duty-holders would have greater responsibility to explain how they are managing safety risks and to show the BSR that a building is safe for occupation. Duty-holders would include existing duty-holders under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, such as (Principal) Contractors, (Principal) Designers, and the Client. As we have said before, we are still just at the start of our journey with the Building Safety Bill. The effects of the changes it will bring and its impact on industry, including around risk and insurance, are hot topics of discussion which we explored with industry leaders recently. In the meantime, the Bill continues to make its way through Parliament, and is expected to receive Royal Assent in 2022. It is worth reiterating though that the Bill when it becomes law will have a more limited effect in Scotland, which has its own building and fire safety regime. Fire Safety Act 2021 The Fire Safety Bill, which we have considered before, was given Royal Assent in April, becoming the Fire Safety Act 2021. It was not smooth progress into law for the Bill, as the House of Lords requested leaseholder protection on three separate occasions because it wanted building owners to be responsible for the costs of remedial works, or a system of government grants or loans in place if leaseholders were to bear the cost of repairs themselves. In the end, the Act did not take this leaseholder protection into account, and instead it is possible for building owners to pass the costs of fire safety works onto leaseholders via increased service charges or similar. Again, the position in Scotland is different, as the Fire Safety Act only applies to England and Wales. Cladding Remediation – Government Funds The Building Safety Fund (BSF) of £1bn, which was set up in 2020, has continued to provide support in 2021 to help landlords who own residential buildings of 18m or more in height to remove unsafe non-aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding. The aim of this fund is to protect leaseholders from the cost of these remediation works through increased rent payments or service charges. 2021 also saw a brand new fund created – the Waking Watch Relief Fund – to provide an additional £30m for applicants to the BSF to fund waking watch (i.e. building patrols to detect fire), since the cost of fire alarms are not covered by the BSF funding. This fund was announced in December 2020 and opened for applications in January 2021. £22m of the £30m available was to be spent in cities where private-sector buildings were deemed most at risk due to their prevalence of built-up areas (namely Greater London, Greater Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool, Newcastle and Bristol), with the remaining £8m planned for other private-sector buildings in England plus all social-sector housing over 18m . The fund closed in April, reopened in May to distribute unused funding, and then closed again in June. It is also worth noting that in the Autumn Budget, the Chancellor said “we’re also confirming £5bn to remove unsafe cladding from the highest risk buildings partly funded by the Residential Property Developers Tax”. We know about that Tax but details about what constitutes the rest of that funding is still awaited. Changes to Planning Permission Requirements The Hackitt Report’s recommendations included the addition of several “Gateways” to check that newly designed buildings are safe for residents to live in. In August 2021, Gateway One came into force, in the form of new planning requirements. Now high-rise developers must consider fire safety in new developments at the planning permission stage, to be evidenced as a part of the planning permission process through the submission of a fire statement. Local authorities are expected to engage with the Health and Safety Executive when reviewing the fire statements provided by developers, but this role is expected to be taken over by the new BSR when it is operational. Gateways Two and Three under the Building Safety Bill will be before the building works start and when the building works are completed respectively, and are anticipated to come into force around late 2023. What to look out for in 2022 We anticipate a number of other significant developments in building safety in 2022: Phase 2 Grenfell
Introduced to Parliament in June 2021, the Building Safety Bill establishes a new regime that will overhaul the building safety system in England and Wales. It brings in a stringent framework for high-rise buildings, which will strengthen regulatory requirement before building work commences, through construction and before occupation. The Bill, which has been welcomed by leading building control and regulation expert, Bureau Veritas, includes a range of new measures – including competence requirements, duty holder accountability, a ‘golden thread’ of building information and mandatory reporting to a newly-appointed Building Safety Regulator. Crucially, it also includes a three-stage ‘gateway’ process. Gateway One regulations were enforced on 1 August 2021, whilst it is anticipated that the remaining two gateway regulations will come into force by 2023 as the Bill passes through Parliament. It is hoped that the new process – when fully enforced – will provide the home-building industry with the necessary framework it requires to deliver safe homes, along with clear accountability on those undertaking design and construction work. Andy Lowe, Technical & Training Director for Building Control at Bureau Veritas, said: “The Building Safety Bill is an absolutely crucial requirement for the construction industry. However, with mandatory regulations being introduced at different times, there is a very real risk of developers waiting for legislation to be introduced before making the necessary changes needed to ensure a smooth process to regulatory compliance – risking delays and increased costs at various approval points.” The requirements of Gateway three are a prime example of this. Gateway three will occur at the completion stage of a building and will be considered – like Gateway two – as a stop/go point. If requirements of the Gateway are not met at this stage, the Building Safety Regulator will not provide final certification; resulting in the developer needing to retrospectively correct noncompliant or defective work, risking lengthy delays to occupation and unbudgeted costs. Andy continued: “There is a slight misconception that Gateway three and the registration process for a new building are the same thing. It’s important for developers to fully understand the requirements of each stage of the gateway process ahead of planning and development to ensure they are not met with costly delays – whether they are mandatory now, or not. “Gateway three will take place when a building has been completed, and approval from the Building Safety Regulator must be obtained before it is formerly registered for occupation. Whilst it seems simple enough, there is a lot to consider at this stage with the application requiring plans and documents that reflect the ‘as built’ building, with paperwork demonstrating how the building works comply with the various new regulations. This is part of the ‘golden thread’ approach. “Only when the Regulator is satisfied a building meets all the requirements is it eligible for registration – and this must be done by the Duty Holder (or Principal Accountable Person), who identifies with having overall responsibility for the building safety risks. “Overall, the Gateway process will provide a very clear framework that will require regulation compliance at every stage of the build. It’s a necessary change for the industry, however construction companies are going to need to evolve quickly to meet the changes; particularly those working on large and longer-term projects. We’d therefore urge the industry to plan for these important changes now, irrespective of when the various Gateways are set to be introduced, or risk potential delays and increased costs further down the line.” Bureau Veritas works with developers as an independent third party throughout the building lifecycle to help reduce risk and to achieve compliance. This includes supporting on the ‘golden thread’ approach, and meeting the gateway requirements. For more information on the detail of the Building Safety Bill, download Bureau Veritas’ free ‘Understanding the Building Safety Bill’ webinar. To find out more about Bureau Veritas’ services or to discuss individual requirements with a member of the team, call 0345 600 1828 or visit www.bureauveritas.co.uk.
AECOM director David Ross said: “AECOM provided strategic and technical support to DLUHC in its development of the changes to Part L (conservation of fuel and power) and Part F (ventilation) of the Building Regulations and the introduction of Part O (overheating). Our work supported policy development in areas such as assessing the technical viability and the cost benefit of proposals. “New buildings have been set an improved performance standard which will make them more energy efficient through better insulation, better performing windows and more efficient building services. The new regulations should also encourage the early adoption of low carbon heat by presenting a roadmap for its implementation in new buildings and they are also more favourable to low carbon heat sources such as heat pumps. Standards have also been raised to reduce energy use and carbon emissions when carrying out works to existing properties such as retrofitting or extending the building. “These new regulations will have significant impact on the industry and the day-to-day decisions developers make about building design and specification. They should be seen as a stepping stone to the 2025 Future Homes and Buildings Standard and are an important milestone in the built environment sector’s journey to net zero emissions.”
The Fire Brigades Union lawyer for the inquiry has placed central importance on the “agenda of deregulation, privatisation and marketisation” as causing the disaster. Martin Seaward said that an agenda “which encouraged companies to behave recklessly towards building safety” was “actively and, regrettably, deliberately created by central government”. The comments were made as part of the opening statements for Module 6 of Phase 2 of the inquiry, which is set to focus on government. Seaward said that this agenda of deregulation, privatisation and marketisation had been in place for “more than four decades”, across multiple governments, and had “predictably… degraded public services such as building control and fire and rescue services, thereby [weakening] enforcement of these regimes, and led to the abolition of national bodies, ambiguity and confusion in the guidance which has been left unclarified, a culture of complacency created towards fire safety, both during and after building works, and private companies being enabled to put profit over people”. He stated that, in turn, these factors “contributed to the systemic failure of the building and fire safety regimes, thereby enabling the installation of cheap and dangerous rainscreen cladding systems all over the UK, including at Grenfell Tower”. Seaward specifically named the evolution of building safety regulation “Approved Document B [ADB] with ever greater complexity and flexibility, bringing concomitant ambiguity and scope for manipulation” as an issue here, with confusion around the ADB being “ruthlessly exploited by manufacturing companies for their own commercial self-interest” according to Seaward. He also pointed to the introduction of the Building Regulations 1985, which “replaced the previously detailed technical and prescriptive regulations, covering at least 300 pages, with ‘functional requirements’ covering just 25 pages, supplemented by guidance in the ADB”. This introduction of “functional” requirements was described by Seaward as a “major change”, which brought with it “significant flexibility” that in turn “could be and was exploited by some in the construction industry”. Seaward also noted that after the Lakanal House fire, a 2009 fire in which six people died, none of the coroner’s “recommendations were implemented either effectively or at all either by Lord Pickles [Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government when the recommendations were made], his successors or anyone else in government” – which Seaward said was “the consequence of the government’s deregulatory agenda”. The recommendations included ones relating to “stay put” guidance, guidance on high-rise firefighting, and sprinklers. For more information, comment and interview contact Ben Duncan-Duggal on ben.duncan-duggal@fbu.org.uk and 07825 635224.
While slip and fall accidents can occur in any workplace environment like an office or a warehouse, the chance of a serious slip and fall accident is far more common among construction workers. In fact, in 2018, there were a reported 320 construction workers who were fatally injured as a result of a slip and fall. Sadly, these tragic accidents could have been stopped had employers implemented the correct training and made sure employees were using the required fall prevention equipment. Here, we will look at how slip and fall accidents happen on a construction site, the types of accidents, and what steps can be put in place to prevent further accidents from occurring. Common Causes of Slip and Falls If you’re a construction worker, there are a variety of hazards in the workplace that can increase your risk of a slip and fall. These include uneven surfaces, slippery or wet surfaces, trash, or debris on the floor, as well as damaged or broken handrails. It is your employer’s responsibility to stop any of these hazards from occurring, as they can put you in harm’s way and increase your chance of getting injured. Types of Slip and Falls In the construction sector, there are two kinds of slip and fall accidents. These are falls on the same level, which usually result in less severe injuries, such as bruises, minor cuts, and strains. On the other hand, falls to a lower level can understandably cause severe, and potentially fatal injuries, especially if the worker falls from a level that is much higher off the ground. Steps to Prevent Slip and Falls Your employer has a legal responsibility to ensure the workplace is safe for all employees, including construction sites. Although some accidents are inevitable, there are steps your employer can take to protect you from slip and fall accidents. These include general housekeeping, maintaining indoor and outdoor surfaces, as well as examining lifting equipment. Other things employers can do include covering openings and holes, protecting stairs and ladders, and providing regular training for employees on all things health and safety. Common Slip and Fall Injuries If you are involved in a slip and fall accident, your injuries can be incredibly severe, especially if you have fallen from scaffolding. Some injuries can include burns or abrasions, amputation, fractures, and traumatic brain injury. Whatever injuries you sustain, you should hire a law firm like Oresky Law who can help represent you if you were injured. When picking the right slip and fall lawyers for the job, ensure they have excellent attention to detail as well as good time management skills, and that they are compassionate and understanding of your injuries. Do not delay in seeking help, as the longer you wait, the less chance you have of getting justice. While slip and fall accidents are more common on a construction site, that’s not to say they should ever happen in the first place. Should you have an accident on a construction site, make sure you hire an expert attorney to guide you through the case and get the compensation you deserve.
Andy Swift, sales and operations manager for ISO-Chemie, says changes to Part L of the building regulations will see housebuilders increasingly consider alternative ways to improve airtightness as energy ratings for buildings and property are tightened. Changes to Part L of the Building Regulations, which come into effect December 2021, are part of the Government’s national drive to see all new homes from 2025 deliver a 75% saving on carbon emissions when measured against current standards. In particular, Part L sees the provision for stricter standards and compliance procedures around energy and ventilation performance, laying out a roadmap to a net zero carbon future and new homes designed and built in-line with stricter carbon emissions targets. However, despite great strides in housing design and development, evidence continues to point to doors and windows as being the biggest culprits when it comes to the nation’s chronic energy inefficient homes. Indeed, it might be said that in the light of product innovation, its almost ‘criminal’ that the hundreds of thousands of new or retrofit installations completed each year remain unchecked or unregulated. This will leave a legacy of problems for years to come and cost millions of pounds to rectify. This is a pity because with advancements in cost effective, easy-to-use technologies, there should never be any justifiable reason for delaying or avoiding the specification of better energy efficient window and door sealing solutions. Right direction In this respect, the changes to Part L have to be seen as a step in the right direction for the fenestration sector. It will see requirements for improvements in air tightness, forcing them from 10 air changes per hour down to 8 air changes per hour and also U value on windows shifting from 1.6 to 1.2wm2 k/H, which will require more energy efficient sealant solutions such as thermal foam tapes. Heat will always find the fastest exit as it comes up against the ‘A’ or ‘A+’ rated window, and invariably this emanates from the 10mm or so expansion gap left around the window following fitment. This is normally left empty, but some amount of spray foam can be injected to fill the void before a silicone trim is applied for a smart looking finish. Unfortunately, as expedient as this might seem, none of these solutions create a measurable, long term, high performance thermal, acoustic or airtight barrier – the U-Value of the installed window is simply reduced, which leads to heat escape and, ultimately, financial loss. That’s why the house building industry and wider construction sector deserves better insulating solutions to improve energy efficiencies, especially if as predicted, the UK market stays buoyant over the next 12 months as the economy continues to recover from the pandemic and building and construction activity remains busy, particular in the face of a chronic national housing shortage and the need to build more affordable housing. In modular construction, which is gaining increasing traction and will see continued integration with the more traditional methods of building in 2022, enabling developers to bring forward housing projects more expediently, designers and specifiers are looking at new ways to deliver low carbon structures, which use sustainable technologies to deliver measurable airtight, acoustic and thermal sealing benefits. And this is where self-adhesive foam sealing tapes can add real value, enabling developers to bring forward housing projects more expediently. They can use ‘smart’ foams impregnated with different substances to create a measurable U-Value as low as 0.6w/m2k, offer superb thermal insulation and can contribute to acoustic sound reduction by 63dB. As these installation tapes are completely weather tight against driving rain up to hurricane force wind speeds, installers can quickly apply them around the frame during initial fitting. This provides the assurance that they have completed a comprehensive ‘A’ rated installation rather than just supplying an ‘A’ rated window. This is a benefit that can be sold on to deliver enhanced energy efficiency advantages for customers and property owners. Fit for future Building regulation changes will have an unequivocal impact as energy ratings for buildings and property become stricter, and these include energy and ventilation standards for residential and non-domestic buildings that are far better for the environment and fit for the future – higher air and thermal standards for house construction has to be a priority. Technical innovation through sealing technologies is one way that those responsible for fenestration specification can do more to support greater energy efficiency and mee the requirements of Part L. Indeed, as sustainability continues to be of paramount concern in the development of low carbon and eco-friendly building projects, we will see technologies such as energy foam tapes, which can add real value during the initial and post construction phases, only grow in importance as the most effective solutions for sealing window and door frame expansion joints and gaps in houses. Today, there are effective products out there to ensure that airtightness and thermal efficiency within buildings should never be overlooked or ignored – it’s simply a matter of designing in these products. More at https://www.iso-chemie.eu/en-GB/home/
