VIEWPOINT


CHANGING PERCEPTIONS


David Hopkins, Chief Executive of the Timber Trade Federation, says perceptions need to change as Government moves forward with its


consultation on the specification of combustible materials.


THE GOVERNMENT’S CONSULTATION reviewing its ban on the use of combustible materials in, and on, the external walls of buildings closed for responses at Easter. The TTF led the the Confederation of Timber Industries’ response to the consultation, and worked with interested parties across architecture, building specification and construction to support a science-based approach to regulations around fire safety compliance, and on the specification and installation of combustible products such as CLT and cladding in/on buildings of up to 11 metres in height.


We applaud the Government’s aim of creating safer buildings. Yet we do feel that there is a perception gap somewhere. The consultation was often referred to as a ‘ban on cladding’, yet has also extended to the structural walls of buildings. This has implications not only for bigger projects using CLT (cross- laminated timber) at large scale, but also for all those, including our colleagues in the builders’ merchant sector, selling structural and framing timbers.


The government seems to be treating cladding and structural timbers in the same way. Our suggestion is that the Scottish Government’s approach, of separately regulating the two aspects, is the right one. Timber- frame building is an established method used in 83% of new


14


builds in Scotland. The Scottish Government’s view, that timber cladding can be used up to a height of 11 metres, also provides clarity.


When specified and installed correctly, timber cladding is a safe, sustainable, popular and practical solution for many building types. We fully recognise that high rise buildings need additional safety measures and we support the use of only non-combustible cladding in categories A or A1 above 11 metres. Yet height is not the only issue affecting safety and regulators should look beyond this.


The best way that Government could achieve a safer building system is by introducing mandatory, comprehensive fire-risk assessments during the design process for buildings such as high-rises, community and assembly buildings and schools. An independent, professional fire risk assessment that considers building design, use, materials and location, is essential at the design stage for multi-occupancy and assembly buildings, regardless of height. We also advocate a locking-down of the specification between the design and construction phases of a building to ensure that the use of materials, the scope of work, installation, and other aspects of designing for fire are not diluted or lost during the project. We very much support


“


The best way that Government could achieve a safer building system is by introducing mandatory, comprehensive fire-risk assessments during the design process.


”


stronger enforcement in the form of a new Building Safety Regulator. The principle of risk assessment has been embodied in the Construction Design and Management Regulations for some years but this needs rigorous enforcement. The TTF, Wood Protection Association and Timber Decking & Cladding Association recommend that for multi-occupancy and assembly buildings, timber- based cladding and balcony components should be treated using a quality-assured, factory- applied flame retardant to Euroclass B, unless otherwise


indicated by a professional risk assessment. We firmly stand behind comprehensive fire risk assessments.


Our response to the consultation recommended focussing the ban on combustible cladding to a height above 11 metres. Also that a science-based approach be taken to fire safety compliance, such as BS8418, which was found still to be fit for purpose by the Hackitt Review; and that legislation be aligned with the Scottish approach to encourage a common regulatory framework to improve both clarity and safety.


www.buildersmerchantsjournal.net May 2020


Peter Fogden


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