search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Current affairs


and the move towards modern methods of construction (MMC) had resulted in a massive rise in the proportion of combustible materials being routinely used in the building process. Frustrated by the continual refusal of successive governments to recognise the importance of a resilient (as well as a sustainable) built environment, we had already produced our own version of Approved Document B (ADB) – which highlighted property protection. Interestingly, it proved to become one of RIBA’s best sellers!


Proposal to BRAC


Our presentation to BRAC had three main themes: a proposal to solve the problem of unwanted and false automatic fire alarms, which continues to be such a drain on fire and rescue service resources. We made the case (as others were at the time) for sprinkler protection of warehouses. And finally, we questioned the suitability of BRs for addressing MMC fire challenges. We argued that MMC and the ‘sustainability


agenda’ were resulting in buildings with much higher, readily available combustible content: for example in the structure (timber, timber and polystyrene mixes [SIPS]); in the cladding (polyethylene etc) and in insulation (polystyrene, PUR, PIR). We were concerned that there was little or no requirement for external fire spread mitigations. Experience showed us that the integrity


of MMC (for example, light timber frames) was immensely susceptible in terms of its fire safety properties to even minor deviations from perfect installation, and that MMC as a


process tended to allow practices and products that may also create significant risk. Our proposal was: regulations should accept that MMC demands that regulations include the external envelope of the building within its scope. We were seeking consideration of prevention of fire ingress to ensure a reduced likelihood of the internal cavity fire protection being challenged, and we suggested a ‘fresh eyes’ review of the appropriateness of our current regulations in supporting fire safety in MMC buildings. So that was February 2015: and BRAC was


extremely receptive, or so we thought. I left the meeting believing the long overdue ADB review was imminent, but as events have proved, my assertion was wildly optimistic. Nothing happened and then we had Grenfell. Back to the day it all unfolded: I made my


way to my international conference, but whilst in Lisbon, I wrote to the Secretary of State and then the Prime Minister offering to resubmit the evidence we had given to BRAC, and offering to assist in a review. I heard nothing! So what transpired? For those of you with any detailed knowledge


of the history of the FPA, I am sure it will be of little surprise that I was in almost immediate contact with insurers and the ABI, and it was quickly established that we needed to have a well focused understanding of key insurer research requirements in time for the anticipated reviews (neither of which had, at that stage, been announced). Presented in no specific order, the themes


were focused on clarity and interpretation; scope; engagement; competency; supervision; control and authorisation; combustible


FOCUS


www.frmjournal.com APRIL 2018


37


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