Earlier this month, the government revealed that all residential buildings over six storeys will be covered by its new fire safety regime, after Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick announced in January ‘the biggest change in building safety for generation’, including a new regulator, changes to height limits and new consultations.
‘Clarified and consolidated’ advice for building owners, proposals to extend the combustible materials ban and a consultation to lower mandatory sprinkler limits were launched, while a construction expert was appointed to review timescales and ‘identify what can be done to improve pace in the private sector’ in terms of cladding removal.
Mr Jenrick stated that the new regime would apply to all buildings six storeys or taller ‘even when they are below 18m in height’, a change from the government’s previous perspective that the regime would ‘only cover buildings at or above 18m in height’. Architects Journal reported on the lobbying efforts of Glenn Howells Architects, AHMM, dRMM, Waugh Thistleton and Urban Splash to ask the government ‘not to ban structural timber under proposed rule changes on fire safety’, as including timber in a potentially extended combustibles ban ‘is not only unnecessary on safety grounds but would badly damage the rise of mass timber construction’.
Such construction is ‘seen as a crucial means of responding to the climate emergency because it could slash the building industry’s carbon emissions’, with a consultation extended until 25 May from a previous deadline of 13 April. The Architects Climate Action Network argued that timber ‘should be exempt from the ban’, urging architects to respond to the consultation.
Glenn Howells, principal at Glenn Howells Architects, stated that he ‘suspected’ the ban was ‘another example of poorly thought-out science’, and that his practice had responded to the consultation, claiming that ‘there is obviously an emotional urge to “do something” after a tragic event and everyone understand that’, but that ‘there is a danger here in short-circuiting the truth about the safety in designing in timber’.
He added that ‘timber structures do not burst into flames like timber cladding can’, and that cross laminate timber and glulam ‘chars in a fire and performs better than steel… we need flexibility to work with experts and find ways to make sustainable and safe buildings’. Mr Howells also pointed out that the UK’s approach to such construction ‘was in stark contrast’ to other countries, and warned the government that its approach might ‘kill off’ the sector.
Mr Howells said: ‘Why aren’t we partnering with other countries and sharing knowledge? In France, President Macron has mandated the use of a minimum of 50 per cent timber construction on all public buildings from 2022. How can we be in such a different place?’
Jonas Lencer, director at dRMM, said safety was its first priority, but that ‘we know there has not been enough testing to conclude the proposed ban’, and that while ‘we do not take issue with the government’s dedication to safety; of course it is better to err on the side of caution […] we take issue with the lack of clarity in guidance on the use of timber in buildings’, as the new legislation ‘has created uncertainty’ across the sector ‘making lenders and insurers increasingly cautious’.
He added that ‘a commitment from the government to support the testing of emerging systems would allow designers to respond confidently, and for the much-needed proliferation of low embodied carbon structures to happen swiftly and safely. It is important that the government does not see this consultation as a closed book, but the start of a journey to net-zero without compromising safety’.
This all follows the recently expressed views of Willmott Dixon chief executive officer Rick Wilmott, who warned that ‘efforts to eradicate’ combustible building materials post Grenfell risk going ‘too far’, and create ‘huge’ challenges for developers.