36
INDUSTRY VIEWFINDER: REVISITING FIRE SAFETY & PROJECT ACCOUNTABILITY
Which building methodologies and elements do you require more understanding on in terms of fire safety?
Most verbatim comments backing testing assemblies, such as “you need to test the interface between individual products,” “there are differing circumstances,” and “fire test certificates for individual products appear to be unable to predict the performance of the individual material, as part of a build-up assembly.” A further commenter said: “As the Grenfell case has shown, materials can behave differently in different scenarios, including when combined with certain other products.”
A National Regulator with teeth?
The National Regulator for Construction Products within the Government’s Office for Product Safety & Standards has the power to prosecute individual manufacturers for breaches of its code. The divisions between certain product types and the ensuing responsibilities are sure to be a long-running source of difficulty for the body as it tries to establish a viable new regime and develops an evidence base. A representative has this year raised the issue of what constitutes a ‘product’ when it comes to the assembly required in an offsite context. Arguably this is an issue in many cladding scenarios which are not necessarily offsite-based too. The Regulator has powers to investigate firms it believes may be making suspect claims, and to do its own testing. However, how have our survey audience’s views of the new body changed in the two years since it has begun work? prosecuting companies who are attempting to produce dubious test results?” Most thought it would be prosecuting companies producing ‘dubious test results’ when asked in 2022 (64%), however this had softened considerably in 2024 with only 38% saying they believed prosecutions would be likely, and a much larger 33% saying they weren’t sure. This played into a further finding on the National Regulator’s potential to ‘ensure transparency on building materials’ safety?’ which we asked in this year’s study. This was a transparently unclear response, with half of respondents saying they were ‘unsure’ on whether it will ensure such transparent information to be promulgated to the industry. And more worryingly, 29% said no, meaning that more moves are going to be needed to unravel the issues which obscure performance information from manufacturers.
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
Lastly, the veracity of certification depends on the robustness and rigour of the testing processes, and one of the major lessons from Grenfell was that there was a lack of coordination across product testing bodies, but moreover a series of loopholes enabling product testing not to be as rigorously policed as it should. This can (and did) result in products being tested and approved in situations where what was tested was not what was installed, resulting in confusion and obfuscation, and higher risk.
The difficult takeaway for manufacturers reading this report is that when asked if they had ‘had difficulties obtaining credible test data on fire-resistant building materials from manufacturers,’ the largest segment of responders (43%) said they had found this to be the case.
A broader understanding
Our survey respondents were asked where their knowledge gaps were on product types relating to fire safety, and there were several stand-out areas. 70% of our cohort said they require more understanding on ‘cladding build-ups,’ 60% said they needed more on ‘non-combustible cladding materials,’ 55% on ‘fire stopping and fire barriers.’ It is incumbent on the supply chain including testing houses as well as manufacturers to provide unbiased, third-party resources to assist these specifiers on the necessary knowledge. However, going forward, architectural education establishments also need to take note that these may be areas where there are gaps in awareness.
The Building Safety Act is a powerful new lever for change in the
sector, one which is going to cause some pain as well as significant gain in rigour. Our architectural survey group backed the Act despite a few caveats, and two-thirds (67%) believed it should be extended to buildings under 18 metres and refurbishments. We will watch with interest to see what happens at the central level and bring you further research to gauge the industry’s response, to help share understanding, and where there are weak links in the chain.
For the full version of the Industry Viewfinder white paper report, visit
insights.netmagmedia.co.uk
ADF NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2024
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 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84
