Current affairs


pertain to inexactness in construction (in both ‘traditional’ building methods and more modern approaches such as modular construction), and inappropriate (deliberate or accidental) adjustment of the materials/ specification of the building during construction or occupation.


If this is an accepted fact, then there should be a duty on BRs and guidance to not support construction and material combinations that are so susceptible to minor deviation that they can only really be demonstrated to be safe and compliant ‘on plan’. Specific examples might include the fire stopping requirements of light timber frame construction, and cladding systems that encapsulate combustible insulation.


Standards and challenges


Seldom is it the case that test standards accurately represent real life situations with any exactness, but this is generally catered for by the application of safety factors inherent in the challenge of the test, or protection additions over and above the ‘pass’ threshold. For example, gaseous extinguishing


systems are tasked with satisfying a series of tests to determine an ‘extinguishing concentration’, but the end use, or ‘design concentration’, is the extinguishing concentration uplifted by 30% to account for ‘test to end use’ differences. Such a process does not seem to be commonplace within the product approvals process for building products. Specific to cladding systems, which are tested as ‘perfect build’, there might well be a need to introduce additional, reasonable worst case features known to impact upon performance. Some of these might be legitimate, such as the installation of plastic vents, grilles and pipework that are not required to be fire stopped; or illegitimate, such as imperfect construction or wear and tear features. This may also raise questions over the


suitability of testing building components in isolation rather than as built up systems. An additional area for consideration is in the interpretation of standards. A review of rainscreen cavity barrier tests demonstrates that, whilst many products ‘technically’ fail the testing regimes (in the early stages of a fire, they allow flames to pass), they can still be promoted as being fit for purpose through later desktop evaluation.


It is clear that competing parts of


the regulations can work against building fire protection endeavours. Such areas might include the provision of voids in building cladding to prevent moisture issues – these can act as flues in the event of fire if not controlled – and thermal performance demands that might promote poor fire performing products over better performing ones. We want to look at all areas of building


regulation and associated documents, and determine potential conflicts with fire safety. And finally we should look at the consequences of previous reviews and legislative changes. The regulations, which have origins in the Great Fire of London, have undergone systematic erosion in recent history to bring us to this point in time where the built estate, whilst generally safe, is increasingly fragile to fire. The last mandated requirement for


property protection, the Local Acts, was removed in April 2015. Had they still been in place, it is possible that they may have influenced the fire requirements of Grenfell Tower’s refurbishment. This needs further consideration by both reviews.


What insurers want


So before I close, what do insurers want from building codes and standards? Well let’s start with the essential principles – as I said, they are not new and this is not rocket science. We want codes that recognise the importance of resilience in the built environment and to move away from the principle of evacuation before collapse or sacrificial buildings. We want robust structures protected by products that satisfy and have been tested to internationally recognised codes and standards, installed by competent persons. We want the design to be undertaken


by appropriately qualified architects and engineers; we want the design and build checked by equally competent, appropriately qualified fire and rescue and building control engineers. And we want assurance that systems are in place to regularly review building standards to ensure that the UK can never experience a tragedy on the scale we witnessed last year – on our or any future generations’ watch


Jonathan O’Neill is managing director of the Fire Protection Association. For more information, view page 5


www.frmjournal.com APRIL 2018 41


FOCUS


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