News

Timber faces the heat of combustibles ban

Story for CM? Get in touch via email: [email protected]

Comments

  1. I’m glad timber towers are being frustrated. But the “ban” is of course not the “absolute and complete ban” that Kit Malthouse claimed in Parliament on 29.01.19:

    ‘It should be clear that in December last year, we banned flammable cladding of all types on buildings over 18 metres. This is an absolute and complete ban, and nobody should be under any illusion about that, or represent it as being anything other than that.’

    That is a falsehood.

    The MHCLG has only amended Regulation 7 with reference in Approved Document Part B Volume 2 by introducung 7(4) for “relevant buildings”, requiring only those over 18m to have external walls (including window and door frame insulated infill panels) be built to Class A2,s0, d1 or Class A1 as 7(2), with the extensive list of exceptions in 7(3).

    Architects are still perfectly free to build combustible non-“relevant buildings” over 18m, and any kind of non-“relevant buildings” under 18m, or six storeys.

    What has not happened is the publication of the Building Science that is needed to relate the Section 12 combustibility of External Walls, with glass windows and doors that will shatter in fire, to the Section 13 allowance for the PERCENTAGE of non-fire resisting External Walls, with “unprotected areas” of windows and doors. A fire in one compartment is still able to break out of the windows or doors, play on the windows and doors above, and circumvent the slab edge. Or with down to 0% of the External Wall needing any fire resistance, the Lakanal House effect can be replicated by buildings that comply with the ADBv2 (2013 as amended 2018).

    Of course what Malthouse won’t admit is that the new Paragraph 12.6 for over 18m non-“relevant buildings” is still the same as the old 12.7 Paragraph concerned with INSULATION PRODUCT. Contrary to Footnote 4. in Advice Note 1. of 30 June 2017. So that CLADDING PRODUCT can still be as combustible for over 18m non-“relevant buildings” as that used on Grenfell Tower, allowed by Diagram 40 in Section 12.

    So even before Architects start making the STRUCTURE out of a timber as fuel to fire, instead of concrete or steel, there is huge freedom to use timber in the External Wall on over 18m non-“relevant buildings”, and all under 18m non-“relevant buildings”.

    The people who should be complaining are the concrete sandwich panel Precasters, for although combustible INSULATION PRODUCT can be excapsulated quite safely in concrete, Malthouse’s Ministry has excluded the very safe precast sector from over 18m “relevant buildings”.

    His personal technical illiteracy is excusable, but the technical illiteracy of his Ministry seems not to be a matter of political concern to Malthouse. He is far more interested in the question of architectural beauty, only without attending to fire safety.

    Will the precast sector put Malthouse straight?

Comments are closed.

Latest articles in News