FOCUS
Grenfell progress
because in our view these properties are not the only problem. It appears that current regulations have a remit that extends no further than ‘evacuation before collapse’. Amended regulations (such as the combustible ban) will allow for deployment in medium and low rises of materials that do burn, so long as they do to a timeframe or at a location that won’t impair escape. Whilst life safety has traditionally been achieved using good performing materials such as bricks and mortar or reinforced concrete, MMCs have introduced large quantities of combustible material into the built environment via structure, cladding and insulation. Protecting MMCs very often demands encapsulation by better performing materials (such as plasterboard) to a precision that may be difficult to achieve on site, the capability of which will almost certainly reduce during the building’s lifespan. So what else should change? Returning
reduces their potential as an accidental source of ignition None of these are unreasonable in my view and none are new; they have been guiding principles for the past 25 years and I don’t think that they are desperately complicated either. Current regulations are focused only on life safety, with no recognition of resilience or property protection objectives. We believe consideration must be given to extending the BRs’ scope to address the changing risk environment and emerging trends.
Key focuses
The principal areas for attention include a minimum (prescriptive) property protection element, around which life safety provision is formed. We need to address fire ingress, which has led to both significant property loss and near miss life safety issues. We need to address arson (internal and external) as a tangible threat and amend many other parts of the BRs that might contribute, such as thermal insulation or security. Finally, we should review the suitability of the
regulations in respect of provision for some modern building methods of combustible structures and voids. Again, this is basic common sense to insurers and not unreasonable in our view, so that is for debate. What could we have reasonably expected
to have ticked off already? I’d begin with the combustible ban for high rise, high risk HRRBs,
to Dame Judith, she devoted a good part of her review to competence, or the lack of it, across construction and fire. She suggested the introduction of a building safety manager with the requisite skillset – clearly a good initiative. We agree the need to ensure that design is undertaken by appropriately qualified architects and engineers. We want the design and build checked by equally competent, appropriately qualified FRS and building control engineers, but I think we all recognise that her demand that construction and fire sectors work together on a competence framework is challenging. That said, important work by the Industry Response Group has resulted in the Construction Industry Council (CIC) led framework, now published and subject to consultation. Without taking anything away from the hard work and dedication of the group, particularly Graham Watts of CIC who has driven it hard as chair, this work will take years to have a meaningful effect. In my view, there is a ready made way that is available immediately, based on competence.
Third party certification
To me, third party certification (TPC) is the easiest and simplest way for a specifier or end user to gain the assurance they require that the chosen supplier is fit for purpose or competent; that the system and the system design is risk appropriate; and that the equipment which makes up the kit of parts has been tested to appropriate standards and checked in the factory and the field to ensure that what is being made and sold is to the same specification as samples tested. The mandatory use of third party accredited products and services for fire protection should
28 DECEMBER 2019/JANUARY 2020
www.frmjournal.com
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
