Current affairs
‘complexity provides safety’. Mr Passey referred to the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 as it provides an ‘appropriate model’ for fire safety, with ownership handled differently and the creation, maintenance and handover of relevant information an ‘integral part’ of legal responsibilities. This provides a ‘clear model of risk ownership’,
and would allow for extending roles and responsibilities from HRRBs down to other multiple occupancy buildings. He also highlighted Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidance on health and safety in construction, the fire sector being ‘quite late to the party’ with clear guidance. On competency, Dame Judith recommended
that all working in ‘every stage’ of building should have ‘proven competence’, citing the FPA’s Hot Work Passport as an example of this. Competence is likely to be applied right through risk areas as a result, and Mr Passey said the industry needs to ‘be prepared’ for a ‘call to arms’ whereby it can get involved and be engaged to ‘get the best possible outcomes we can’.
Document implications
On ADB, FPA practice principal David Poxon explored implications for approved documents after Hackitt, naming ‘drivers to date’ including Dame Judith’s interim report, ADB itself and the Lakanal House fire coroner’s recommendations. A clarification review for ADB had seen a lot of demand for a while, and the Lakanal coroner had addressed complex legislation as an issue. Looking at consultation into a review,
Mr Poxon covered the process and the involvement of governmental organisations, the final report and statements from the government, noting that the review’s purpose was to ‘improve clarity, reduce ambiguity, remove superfluous/dated information and review document architecture’, with no technical content changes to be made at this stage.
His opinion was that aspects of the final
report ‘may speak to inclusion’ of a ‘more thorough review’ of ADB, giving examples of areas where clarification would have value including focusing on non combustible materials and the raft of standards covering this, which can create a ‘potential for misunderstanding’. Asking ‘do we need all this?’, he added that additional information would ‘help match standards’, rationalise the document and avoid contradicting details. Another example given was limited combustibility, with confusion around this meaning that clarification is required and standards need to be updated. On desktop studies meanwhile, proposed amendments
ABI/FPA research
Dr Jim Glockling, FPA technical director, discussed recent testing undertaken by the FPA with the Association of British Insurers (ABI). The focus and the themes covered cladding, sprinklers and detection, with the cladding element looking at the ‘adequacy of the current testing regime to deliver high levels of fire safety in real world conditions’. A BS 8414 cladding test rig was built and methodology followed, a rainscreen like that used at Grenfell featuring a void between the insulation and the cladding, while an ETICS system – featuring no void – was also tested in a ‘fresh eyes look’.
www.frmjournal.com JULY/AUGUST 2018 47
FOCUS
have been made to fit these to a standard, while product changes should follow BS EN 15725 to ensure that retests have been done to the appropriate required points. Reflecting on the government consultation about banning combustible materials on HRRBs, he asked ‘will it negate the need for BS 8414 testing?’, pointing out that if materials were non combustible, ‘there’s no problem’, though the continued use of limited combustibility materials means that an ‘interesting debate’ lies ahead with implications for standards and guidance. This would apply generally to those
two factors, as new standards may require referencing in ADB and others may be reviewed, with consultation results still to come on ADB and combustible cladding. In Mr Poxon’s view, the sector and government need to ‘thoroughly revise’ ADB and ‘accommodate post Grenfell changes’, ensuring the document is up to date and reviewed regularly at defined intervals.
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
