28
INDUSTRY VIEWFINDER
a product from market if it presented a significant safety risk. Dame Judith Hackitt, in her preface to the 2023 Morrell Report
said: “We must move from a state where up to two-thirds of products are unregulated, there is lack of clarity around purpose of testing, the fitness for purpose of current standards is questioned and there is no enforcement to implement a process that delivers quality and confidence.” She added that as part of the solution, “conformity assessment bodies must be adequately resourced, independent and impartial to provide confidence,” but that there remained “serious gaps in our current behaviours.” Paul Morrell pointed out the anomaly that “there is no UK system for testing products for safety,” and we asked our architectural audience (mainly architects and architectural technologists) whether they thought a single national product conformity body would be preferable to the current system of a multitude of different approved assessment organisations. The answer was a resounding ‘yes’ with 66% saying they would prefer a national body supporting all certifications. We asked our survey cohort whether they believed that the new National Construction Products Regulator would have “the powers and competence to investigate testing regimes effectively.” The respondents to our survey were split 50/50, showing there is work to be done to persuade architects of the regulator’s credibility. The emerging CCPI (Code for Construction Product Information) method for specifiying products was yet to gain traction with our survey sample; only 3% were using it. A later question found only 58% said they were even aware of the CCPI.
Performance certification
Morrell noted a total of 53 accredited Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs) approved by UKAS to assess the conformity of products, including testing labs, Factory Production Control (FPC) bodies, and Product Certification Bodies. This complex picture was exacerbated by the initial tight deadline put in place for achieving UKCA Marks for products, although this may be extended pending further clarification. Technical Assessment Bodies (TABs) certify products “where there are no designated standards or where the scope of a standard does not cover a particular product,” but this relies on them having “necessary understanding of the regulation, professional ability, technical knowledge and capability,” said Paul Morrell. Durability is a key part of long-term performance, but how difficult was assessing this within product certifications, for our respondents? Fortunately 59% said that they were not having problems assessing the durability of certified products, however, this figure was further clarified by asking which categories of products were causing more challenges on durability factors within certification. Cladding and wall finishes was well out in front, 74% picking it as a problem area. Second was roofing at 46%, a high figure compared with structural frame, which was less of a challenge for respondents, picked by 20%.
Do you believe testing and certification of composite product systems should be made a mandatory requirement in the industry?
Sustainability certification Despite the ubiquity of sustainability goals, clients were not requiring specific product certification on sustainability from their architects in the main, according to our sample. Only 40% saying their clients were requiring them to ‘ensure products were certified on sustainability.’ This potentially suggests however that clients regard this as the province of the design team. Manufacturers are going to be required to include a full range of ‘environmental impact’ data in their Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) by 2030. Our respondents gave resounding support to this in verbatim comments, but adding some important qualifications. These included: “There is a tremendous lack of clarity, transparency, structure and consistency in the environmental reporting and testing of products. There needs to be a standardised suite of product details that are applicable to all products.” Another key comment was “full data transparency and confidence in that data is needed for architects and specifiers to even begin to be sure about the accuracy of whole life carbon assessments.” We asked which certification methods they were using, and FSC certification for timber came out highest at 32% of surveyed respondents, with EPDs in second (joint with Carbon Neutral Product Certification.) A further 29% said they were using British Standards and BBA for sustainability certification.
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
ADF SEPTEMBER 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
