LANDSCAPING & EXTERNAL FINISHES 87
ALUMINIUM: THE BEST FOR BALCONIES?
With combustible materials banned in the external walls of high-rise buildings, the industry has had to adjust to a new design environment, however as AliDeck’s Richard Izzard explains, it hasn’t always been a smooth transition for balconies.
I
n the wake of the renfell ower fi re, and following the ackitt eview, the specifi cation of non-combustible con- struction materials in the external enve- lope of high-rise buildings is now mandat- ed by a revised set of uilding egulations. With balconies clearly defi ned as
specifi ed attachments to the external envelope, the new, and more stringent regulatory environment requires balcony materials to be as fi re safe as the rest of the envelope. his removes previously common materials, such as timber or com- posite decking, from the options available to specifi ers.
Architects and specifi ers however have rapidly embraced the new opportunities made available to them by metal balcony component systems that manufacturers have delivered to the market in response to evolving legislation. In particular, aluminium has risen to the fore, with manufacturers reacting to the situation by developing comprehensive al- uminium systems for balconies, including decking boards, support joists, pedestals, soffi t cladding, balustrades, and more.
OFF-THE-SHELF’ REGS COMPLIANCE o satisfy the new regulations, all mate- rials must be certifi ed to urolass A1 or A2-s1, d0 ratings. Aluminium easily achieves this standard, providing no con- tribution to fi re and, when powder-coated to ualicoat standards, no smoke emission and no production of aming droplets. he compliance guarantee that these
fi re ratings deliver to specifi ers is invalua- ble, allowing for essentially off-the-shelf specifi cation of products, and providing peace-of-mind that proposals are robust and, most importantly, safe. It has by no means been a smooth transition, though. As regulations began to evolve following renfell, and against a backdrop of the unrecognised implications for balcony design, many new and in-progress developments ‘fell between the cracks,’ and were completed with timber or composite decking across their balconies.
his has resulted in a huge amount of
almost brand-new timber or composite decking needing to be stripped out and replaced with a non-combustible alter- native, creating unnecessary additional expense and waste.
BUILDING A FIRE-SAFE FUTURE? hese new requirements and their associ- ated costs and upheavals are appropriate responses to a genuine and inarguable set of problems within the construction sector.
ew legislation such as the ire afety Act and uilding afety ill has helped to clarify the situation and move us towards a fi re safe future.
An additional impact on the non-vi- ability of combustible materials was highlighted by the xternal Wall ire eview scheme. Developed by the oyal Institution of hartered urveyors I and the uilding ocieties Association, this scheme more commonly known as W1 was designed to unblock the high- rise housing market by providing lenders with a standard fi re survey for buildings above 1 metres in height.
hanging overnment advice in anu- ary 2020, however, broadened the scope of affected buildings to all multi-occu-
pancy buildings of any height, leading to mortgage lenders requiring W1 surveys for many more properties than originally envisioned. his immediately resulted in a new log-jam and huge delays for home- owners and their buyers. or buildings that fail the W1 survey, the only solution is for all combustible materials to be replaced with non-com- bustible alternatives. While many of these failed buildings have profound fi re-safety issues affecting multiple aspects of the entire construction, there have been large numbers of buildings failing simply due to the presence of combustible materials only in the balconies. enders have simply refused to accept any risk when it comes to providing mortgages on properties that contain combustible components. With comprehensive aluminium balcony systems available to directly replace com- bustible timber or composite decking, this issue has been relatively simple to resolve, albeit at considerable expense. It under- lines, though, the importance of manufac- turers developing complete and off-the- shelf compliant systems for architects and designers to not only solve these issues but to prevent them from occurring in the fi rst place.
WWW.HBDONLINE.CO.UK
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 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92
