FOCUS
Current affairs
Again this is basic common sense to insurers, and again these are not unreasonable in my view. Whilst the UK insurance industry is in an
admirable position to detect and comment upon emerging trends associated with fire loss, our capability to both raise concerns and invoke change is greatly limited by the defences put in place by government. The issues raised generally receive a short email response, and we are left unclear as to whether our concerns have been raised with a panel of appropriate experts or get no further than the inbox of an individual. A typical response might read ‘…there
are no plans to change Building Regulations for the foreseeable future’. The lack of an established review period is in our view unacceptable. We need to ascertain if there is a quality system in place within government to deal with concerns relating to potential shortcomings of BRs or ADs. If none is found to exist, then a case should be made for improved assured engagement routes – perhaps even having BRAC as a standing committee, capable of providing feedback to set criteria. A look at other countries’ procedures for engagement could reveal good models to take forward.
Combustible materials
As defined in the RISCAuthority Essential Principles guide, resilient fire prevention and
40 APRIL 2018
www.frmjournal.com
protection starts with the selection of non combustible materials. Non combustible materials are known to be very forgiving of other key fire relevant challenges such as poor quality workmanship, structural abuse, and wear and tear over time. With a remit that extends no further than
‘evacuation before collapse’, the regulations allow for the deployment of materials that do burn, so long as they do so to a timeframe, or at a location, that will not impair escape. Whilst life safety has traditionally been achieved using good performing materials, such as bricks and mortar or reinforced concrete, MCM, in association with the drive for improved energy efficiency, has introduced large quantities of combustible material into the built environment by way of structure, cladding and insulation. The protection of this material very
often demands encapsulation by better performing materials (such as plasterboard), to a precision that may be difficult to achieve on site or whose capability may reduce during the lifespan of the building. We believe that we would benefit from
the creation of hierarchical guidance on the selection of materials to support BRs where non combustibility in the key areas of structure, cladding, and insulation is considered with priority over the selection of combustible alternatives and encapsulation methods. Evidence exists to demonstrate that key failings in the execution of BRs generally
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
