search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
FIRE SAFETY


CODIFYING BY CATASTROPHE, AGAIN Wrightstyle, the advanced glazing supplier, has been raising issues of


fire safety for years. Jane Embury, Director, adds her voice to the outrage surrounding the Grenfell Tower fire.


It’s been called “codifying by catastrophe.” It’s the way in which fire and building regulations are tightened after every major fire. The Grenfell Tower fire will be no exception, with government ministers also now having to explain why fire and building regulations weren’t tightened sooner.


At this stage, it would be wrong to point fingers of blame, although the implications of the Grenfell Tower fire have resounded around the country – and the world. Instead, I would like to pay tribute to William Linton, whose death in a tower block fire eighteen years ago led directly to a change of fire regulations.


He died in a fire in a 14-storey block of flats in Ayrshire, with the fire having spread via the external cladding, reaching the 12th floor within minutes, and destroying properties on nine floors. Four other people were injured. The local MP, Brian Donohoe, was sufficiently concerned about cladding safety that he lobbied for a parliamentary inquiry, which was carried out by the select committee on environment, transport and regional affairs.


The report found that most external cladding being used in the UK did not pose "a serious threat to life or property in the event of fire." However, it added: "Notwithstanding... we do not believe that it should take a serious fire in which many people are killed before all reasonable steps are taken towards minimising the risks."


26


The MPs on the committee also concluded that any addition to the outside of a building, which had the "potential to lessen its resistance to external fire spread" should be subject to building regulations.


“WE NEED BETTER TRAINING, BETTER DOCUMENTATION AND BETTER


CHECKING OF DOCUMENTATION.”


Those words, of course, date back to the start of the 21st century. But compare Westminster words with the reaction of the Scottish government. A Scottish select committee reported a year after the fire, which led to the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 that introduced the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004, which came into force in 2005.


They state that: "Every building must be designed and constructed in such a way that in the event of an outbreak of fire within the building, or from an external source, the spread of fire on the external walls of the building is inhibited." The word “inhibited” is vital to interpreting those regulations.


Following the Grenfell Tower fire, the Scottish Government convened a


Ministerial Working Group to examine building and fire safety regulations in Scotland although, crucially, it confirmed that the type of external cladding reportedly used on Grenfell Tower is not present on any residential tower block in Scotland.


It seems to me preposterous that if Scotland ‘codified by catastrophe’ after a fire in which only one person died, why did the Westminster government not consider a change in building regulations south of the border? At this stage, of course, we shouldn’t speculate, but it does raise uncomfortable questions for the government and all those charged with fire safety.


Fire safety officials, in certifying new or refurbished buildings as safe, may simply have asked the wrong questions. In this case, what cladding and insulation had been fitted, and was it compliant? The answer, as we published in an article to the industry this year, is that we need better training, better documentation and better checking of documentation.


There is little doubt that further guidance will be forthcoming following the Grenfell Tower fire. But maybe what’s required, and what many of us have been arguing for some time, is a complete overhaul of building and fire regulations. At the very least, the public will expect it, and the Grenfell Tower victims deserve it.


www.wrightstyle.co.uk www.tomorrowshs.com


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