The Government has undertaken a consultation on proposals to lower the threshold on the ban on using combustible construction materials from buildings of 18m to 11m. This would reduce the maximum height of timber-framed buildings from six storeys to four. However, the recent spate of timber-framed fires means that even
Introducing a lively debate on Building a Safer Future at the Firex International event held on June 18, 2019 in the ExCel centre in London Michael Harper, who became the Federation’s chairman last year, welcomed the progress made whilst expressing the frustration professionals and residents have concerning the lack of
The Government has undertaken a consultation on proposals to lower the threshold on the ban on using combustible construction materials from buildings of 18m to 11m. This would reduce the maximum height of timber-framed buildings from six storeys to four. However, the recent spate of timber-framed fires means that even that reduced height may be questionable. The consultation findings are due to be reported later this year. The ‘Building a Safer Future’ consultation proposed reforms to England’s current building safety regulations following the Grenfell Tower tragedy. Initially, it was to examine the prohibition of using combustible cladding systems. However, a series of timber building fires has resulted in calls to ban the use of combustible materials for muti-storey building structures. These fires include low-rise multi-storey buildings. Last September, a major fire reduced a four-storey timber-framed block of flats at Worcester Park in South-West London to ashes. In August, a three-storey timber-framed retirement development collapsed after a devastating fire. Meanwhile last November following a fire at a student accommodation block in Bolton, the Fire Protection Association called for a complete ban of the use combustible materials for all buildings regardless of their height. “Timber is not a suitable construction material for either high-rise or low-rise multi-storey buildings. Unlike reinforced concrete which provides up to 6 hours of inherent fire resistance and structural integrity, timber frame offers just 30 minutes,” said Steve Elliott, Chairman of the British Association of Reinforcement. Elliott also questioned the use of cross laminated timber which is being forwarded as a structural frame option because it chars rather burns and has higher strength than timber frame. He said: “Cross laminated timber is being touted as a structural option for multi-storey construction as a layer of charring is thought to prevent the structural component from burning. However, charring is burning and will have a significant impact on structural integrity. To say that charring is not burning is being disingenuous.” He concluded: “There is too much real-time evidence of the unsuitability of timber for multi-storey construction. Building for a safer future must recognise the simple fact: timber burns.”
Introducing a lively debate on Building a Safer Future at the Firex International event held on June 18, 2019 in the ExCel centre in London Michael Harper, who became the Federation’s chairman last year, welcomed the progress made whilst expressing the frustration professionals and residents have concerning the lack of positive actions taken to stop another catastrophic fire. He told the audience of well over 100 that the Fire Sector Federation (FSF) along with many others inside and outside government had been trying to address the myriad of issues in a building system that so clearly failed while also trying to identify the products that can and cannot be used in circumstances like high-rise or high risk buildings. Observing “this has not been an easy or indeed fast task, and in fact it has at times been frustrating and painfully slow”, he added the caveat that “it does of course have to be thorough and meticulous”. Part recalling Churchill’s ‘this may be the end of the beginning’ Michael Harper also emphasised the clear wish to see the public inquiry move quickly into its investigative second phase and for the government’s current building safety consultation to bring into fruition the “bedrock change” of a better building control system. One that “chased down the whole culture and competency of a construction industry that had somehow become complacent if not, in some cases, positively indifferent about fire safety”. Outlining that the Federation had joined with many others to implement 100% of Dame Judith Hackitt’s final report to stop cherry picking or conversely avoid the “too difficult” issues and very recently had also backed the Inside Building campaign to have public finance allocated to assist private tenants remove the cladding from their buildings, Michael pointed out this was no sudden call to action. Indeed, for a number of years FSF members had, he said, argued for a review of building regulations; pressed the case for defining competency; suggested strongly that third party installers offer assured quality; promoted sprinklers and alarms to protect the vulnerable; and argued for better building protection. And this was not because of vested commercial interest but because all FSF members share a common commitment to improve fire safety in the UK. Organisations like FSF often had a difficult task in bringing the diverse views of their members together but he closed his comments by saying he was pleased that on many issues that common commitment had allowed FSF to agree “a common denominator” position in a number of fire safety concerns. Immediately after the introduction to Building a Safer Future a panel of FSF lead officers addressed issues relating to fire strategy, competency, active and passive fire protection. The concern that two years after Grenfell little change had actually happened in regulation, products and practices was raised and debated. The underlying belief that few people really understood fire from a risk perspective, knew how to recognise companies and people who were competent and third party assured, and were unprepared to support a socially responsible industry simply because it cost more to have that quality, were all explored by the panel and their questioners.
