28
THE CHANGING FACE OF CONSTRUCTION PRODUCT CERTIFICATION ROUND TABLE REVIEW
The Government has now responded to the Morrell/Day report in the form of a green paper and a consultation with the industry. But, as the sector seeks clarity from the centre (such as on its new ‘single’ regulator idea), it would do well to pay attention to diverse forums such as our round table, to identify shared practical concerns. With players such as SMEs urgently needing to engage in this improved but changing picture, and helpd shape the solutions, we can deliver the forum for such important discussions.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INDUSTRY & GOVERNMENT
• Chris Gaze: You need a body of tests you can conform against that we can trust.
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT Peter Caplehorn said that the OPSS had “done a great job building its capacity”
haven’t got the people in industry to understand the certifi cation they are obtaining,” for example around certain product assemblies.
Site issues – a scapegoat? Wates’ Nev Grunwald pushed back against the idea that safety- critical products were only as good as those installing them on sites, citing the Grenfell inquiry report: “How many times did we talk about the secondary subcontractor? Very few; when did we start making mistakes? Design, procurement, delivery.” He added: “The problems start before we get to site, we have to start with the manufacturers who are dithering or doing nothing, and get them to start talking to their sales people.”
Bryan Cowey added however that he regularly sees “outrageous
specifi cations” from subcontractors which are “so prescriptive and out of touch with what a contractor’s wanting to see.” He added: “Ideally we should be providing a performance specifi cation, so a contractor can pick what they need.” The key problem, concluded Nev Grunwald, was that the competencies around safety “have not yet been agreed,” and added that manufacturers and specifi cation writers can both “be in a position where you put something forward that is actually wrong, and you don’t know it.”
Conclusion
The round table was a rare opportunity to bring experts in construction product certifi cation together with manufacturers and specifi ers including architects and housebuilders, to the critical topic of how the sector can build trust with a better testing regime. The Grenfell Tower catastrophe has had few positive outcomes, but one has been the beginning of a more robust, transparent framework for testing, certifying and marketing products. While there are major barriers to overcome and points of
clarifi cation needed, the round table revealed the aspiration for much more testing and standards, including systems. But as architect Mark Taylor characterised it, changing the industry is like “moving a supertanker,“ so the Government may have to step in to speed progress. He said that architects’ standpoint on product certifi cation has changed, however: “Architects used to believe everything that came from the manufacturer. Now we sometimes start from the opposite end and question; we fi nd that whenever we interact with manufacturers in a critical way, there is a benefi t.”
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
• Mike Vaczi: It’s about looking at the volume of what is going through the testing facilities; with more and more systems being tested, how do they cut down the timelines?
• Mark Taylor: Accelerate and expand the suite of test standards, fi nd the gaps, and a kind of medium ground which suits the laboratories, but also meets the needs of the real world.
• Gabriel Pierazzini: There should be a specifi c government sponsored review of the testing that is available, paying people that are the best of the industry, and not working in their spare time.
• Seán McAlister: A Government–funded open-source virtual physics building model (with building physics at its core), designed for AI testing and development to vastly speed up building product testing, compatibility checking and innovation to support Future Homes targets.
• Amanda Long: CCPI should be adopted by the Government; it’s really simple, and we are learning there are a lot of benefi ts. It isn’t possible to solve the problems of building safety by ticking boxes.
• Tony Ryan: More guidance and clarity around Gateway 2 submissions would be helpful to the industry.
• Ross Newman: An awareness or PR campaign to dutyholders and design teams around how the Building Safety Act has changed the Building Regulations 2010, specifi cally clauses 11A to 110. Also, the expansion of the fi re engineering aspect of standards to cover the areas specifi cally excluded from the scope of the PFPF Passive Fire Protection Forum) Guide to undertaking technical assessments of fi re performance of construction products based on fi re test evidence (2021).
• Bryan Cowey: We need to bring accountability back into the product test area, not just allowing people to test one element of a certain system. We need the regime set up so it brings the trust back in.
• Nev Grunwald: We should be choosing CCPI products, and we need a funded Secretariat at government level leading on things such as product testing, certifi cation and new standards – and they must include SMEs.
ADF APRIL 2025
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
