NEWS


limited combustibility materials on high rise buildings is the ‘low-risk option’ in comparison to large scale testing, which is currently what the building regulations require combustible insulation to pass in order to be used on tall buildings. With data used from these tests


by the industry to ‘clear untested combinations of systems’, Dame Judith believed avoiding combustible material use altogether was the ‘low-risk’ way to go. She added: ‘There is currently a choice between using products of limited combustibility or undergoing a full-system test. Current views vary on whether or not the guidance is clear on this. For the future, my view is clear that the former is undoubtedly the low-risk option. ‘Where the person undertaking


the work chooses the latter option, not only must they ensure that the full system is tested, but they must also ensure that the potential risks are mitigated by ensuring the system is properly installed and maintained throughout its life cycle’. One of the working groups in her review will consider ‘the future approach to testing’, though Inside Housing pointed out it is chaired by the Building Research Establishment, which ‘runs many of the tests’. Her letter also responded to criticism suggesting she would not back a ‘prescriptive’ system of regulation, and stating that ‘an outcomes-based system’ was the best way, ‘as opposed to a system that “tells people what to do”’. She added however: ‘I do agree that there is a need for some prescription within regulations and guidance, but it is a system with clear roles and responsibilities, clear permission points and strong enforcement and sanctions that will drive the culture change towards intelligent thinking that will in turn deliver safe building outcomes.’ A footnote repeated her view


that regulations ‘require cladding panels, as well as insulation, to be of limited combustibility’, with the standard for external walls – Class 0 – a lower standard than the ‘limited combustibility’ required for insulation, and which was met by


the aluminium composite material (ACM) used on Grenfell and other buildings ‘where cladding is now being removed’. With many in the industry said


to have told Inside Housing that they believed this guidance ‘would have therefore made the use of the cladding legal’, the government rejected this, ‘arguing that the plastic inside the aluminium sheets should be considered to be insulation’. In reply, Dame Judith wrote that ‘the scope of paragraph 12.7 [on insulation] extends to cladding’, with this ‘fully ventilated’ and having ‘no insulation function’. Safety and Health Practitioner


reported comments from MP Clive Betts, who wrote to Dame Judith asking her to reconsider her view that the review ‘should not examine the current regime for testing domestic electrical appliances’, and to ‘undertake an examination of Part P of the building regulations’. He welcomed her comments


on prescription, adding: ‘It’s telling that Dame Judith herself noted that current views varied as to whether the regulations permit the use of combustible materials in the cladding of high-rise buildings. I have raised this in a series of


parliamentary questions over the last month, and am yet to receive a satisfactory answer from the Government.’


Meetings and debates Dame Judith also hosted a meeting of chairs of each working group, established to ‘develop innovative solutions’ in a series of key areas, as well as from sub groups formed around procurement and the golden thread. The groups were ‘asked to consider how to develop elements of a more effective building regulations and fire safety system, taking forward the directions of travel identified’ in the interim report, and saw an ‘overwhelming response’. To ensure responses in a ‘timely


manner’, group sizes were restricted but chairs were ‘encouraged to consult as widely as possible when developing their advice’. Dame Judith praised the groups’


‘commitment’, as they met ‘multiple times’ in a six week period, and thanked them for the ‘quality of their contributions’. However, a series of contrasting


views were shared on whether there will be ‘no huge changes’ or ‘big changes’ to building regulations in the final report. Inside Housing reported on views from the FPA’s managing director Jonathan O’Neill and the Fire Industry Association’s chief executive Ian Moore. Mr Moore stated that the report


would be ‘tweaks and small changes but also people adhering to what their responsibilities are’, adding that ‘I don’t think you’ll see huge changes in everything to do with building regulations [...] it’s about understanding whose responsibility it is to take on the particular roles that were already laid out’, and so ‘when the report does come out it will be more of a case of responsibilities and competency than anything else’. Mr O’Neill disagreed, stating that


‘there were discussions about how stuff is approved in the future and how stuff is tested, and I would expect big changes on both of those’. The Residential Landlords Association (RLA) stated meanwhile that the inquiry is ‘missing the opportunity’ to reassess fire safety across various other housing types. Landlord Today reported on the RLA’s formal response to the interim report, including that they are ‘concerned’ about the report’s ‘focus on new build and high rise residential buildings, largely to the exclusion of’ smaller residential accommodation’. It wanted to see ‘contradictory’


and ‘outdated’ guidance across all housing updated ‘to make it clearer for landlords to ensure their properties are safe and improve enforcement and risk assessments by the authorities, in order to stop rogue landlords exploiting potential loopholes caused by overlapping regulations’. Of particular concern for the RLA were ‘confused and split’ responsibilities of fire services and local authorities concerning bedsits and flat blocks


www.frmjournal.com MAY 2018 9


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