FOCUS
Cladding focus Contrived remit
With an unashamedly contrived remit, Hackitt deliberately avoided the subject of a combustible ban; however, on the day she published her report, she could not avoid being pressed on it. In doing so, she revealed something quite startling. Having spent almost nine months on the subject, as a graduate engineer and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, on the day she published her report, she stated: ‘I’m very clear that the regulations and the guidance that exist today already says that the only type of cladding that you can use on high-rise buildings must either be of limited combustibility or must be subject to a full test.’ Judith Hackitt hasn’t tried to hide her disdain
there is disagreement. Successful endeavours need some kind of vision, mission, objective or strategy. Failing those, the very least you need is a philosophy. This is where leadership comes in, and the lack of it within our regulatory body was something that Hackitt also overlooked. Leadership is essential in resolving disputes
and differences of opinion, often highlighted through consultations. Historically, where there has been polar disagreement, as in the 2017 EU review on toxicity, the conclusion is all too often that ‘agreement couldn’t be reached’ and thus nothing gets done. I was recently involved in the review of BS 8414 for the fire performance of external cladding systems, conducted by the British Standards Institute. There was no brief or guidance; we didn’t know what we were expected to do; and everybody had a different opinion.
I do sense that within MHCLG – given the
heightened political importance and media attention the use of combustible materials attracts – this is no longer an acceptable way to function. Another recommendation I would make is that the consultation process and the Building Act’s legal requirement to undertake consultations in the event of a significant change in the regulations are reviewed to limit the potential interference of corporations on the wishes of the general public. This would prevent things happening such as the British Association of Blinds and Shutters overturning part of the combustible ban because the consultation was not conducted fairly.
48 JUNE 2020
www.frmjournal.com
for levels of competence and ethical standards within the construction sector. We’re constantly told to look to other industries (aerospace, automotive etc) to see how they manage to do things so much better. Yet you don’t have to think hard to come up with catastrophes at least equal to Grenfell in all major industries. We now have legislation passing through parliament based on 53 recommendations originating from her belief that the industry was failing to implement something that was required by the guidance and regulations. In itself, that is a mistake of catastrophic proportions and precisely the same kind of error she lectures us on how to avoid. Combustible materials have always been
allowed. Not only are her recommendations built on shaky foundations; her wild goose chase has massively overcomplicated the situation and detracts from the heart of the problem. There is much merit in her recommendations, but no acknowledgement that they are mostly based on what the industry has been telling government for many years – just as the CWCT told MHCLG in 2014 that the core of ACM was not ‘filler’.
Combustible ban review
Social media has been a good platform for professionals to voice their feisty opinions and exchange views on building safety since Grenfell. Having worked in the electronics and automotive sectors, I have always had the impression that the construction industry (and in particular engineers and architects within it) seems to uniquely ignore the desires of the customer. As we approach the conclusion of the combustible ban review, the timber industry is lobbying hard to resist the threshold of the ban moving down from 18m to 11m. This is something I’ve campaigned for since Grenfell. One of the
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
