The arrival of the Building Safety Regulator signals a new era of more robust regulation for the construction industry, but inconsistencies remain in the area of risk which was central to Grenfell. Marc van der Voort, Managing Director at ITP Ltd, explains why façade safety remains an unresolved issue. 
Construction companies and organisations across the UK are entering uncharted territory as they adapt to a new regulatory landscape taking shape under the Building Safety Act. The new Building Safety Regulator will oversee products and systems, acting as a prosecutor for any failures in compliance.
Many organisations and individuals in the construction and property sectors will be wary of finding themselves charged with an unwitting failure to meet their responsibilities as dutyholders. Prior to Grenfell, developers across the UK installed ACM cladding on the basis that it met regulations. Without knowledge or understanding of the increased risk of using that material, they made their decision according to the standards set out in law at the time. Those developers are now paying the cost of rectifying their decision in line with a subsequent change in laws. With many areas of risk still a matter of ongoing debate and potentially liable to regulatory changes in future, many developers will now be mindful that decisions they make in 2023 could be subject to remediation in the years ahead.
Dame Judith Hackitt, the former Chair of the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety, underlined the likelihood of further change during a recent speech to a Construction Leaders’ Summit hosted by NBS for over 250 architects, engineers, contractors, and manufacturers. Dame Hackitt emphasised the need to recognise that “simply meeting requirements of this act is the start. Because there will be more to follow – whether that is more regulations on products, whether it’s more recommendations from the public enquiry, whether it’s new risks that emerge.”
In the past six years, the pace of change has already exposed regulatory inconsistencies which are ripe for further scrutiny. Advances in construction technology have made some regulations appear outdated – notably in relation to the design of external walls, which remain inconsistent in the application of safety principles despite being the focal point of post-Grenfell reform.
Current law requires breather membranes and vapour control layers to have a minimum Euroclass B fire safety rating compared to a minimum Euroclass A2-s1, d0 rating required for other wall elements such as cladding. The legislation was drafted in the year that followed Grenfell, when the textile technology had not developed to the extent that they could provide a Euroclass A rating while still performing vital functions such as breathability and waterproofing to an adequate level. As a result, breather membranes and vapour control layers were made exempt from Euroclass A.
Since the legislation came into effect in December 2018, advances in product development have led to the emergence of breather membranes and vapour control layers which are Euroclass A rated without compromising the other key attributes. Therefore, there is no reason not to apply the same levels of fire safety throughout the external envelope and remove the exemption which applies to these elements. With that in mind, the logic of using A-rated membranes is compelling. It is now considered best practice to use A-rated membranes whenever possible.
There are nuances within the Euroclass A classification which demonstrate the complexity of the issue and the relationship between fire safety and other areas of functionality in breather membranes. Euroclass A1 membranes have been developed for non-combustibility, but their coating is lighter than the coating applied to an A2 (limited-combustible) membrane. This means that A1 membranes do not provide W1 water tightness, which is the highest rating and recommended for open-jointed cladding, high-rise buildings and exposed buildings. In comparison, a Euroclass A2-s1, d0 membrane provides a W1 rating while more advanced A2 membranes will also offer 5,000 hours of UV resistance to EN ISO 13859-2. This means that the membrane is more durable and will therefore maintain its fire safety performance in the long-term.
Much of the detail of the new regulatory framework will be determined by secondary legislation, but one aspect is already clear: enforcement will be much more data-driven. The Building Safety Regulator will rely on the ready availability of data that will de-risk the process, supporting construction operators and building owners in ensuring safety standards are met. Digital tools and systems for data storage will provide instant access to information.
Transparency of information and certification will be fundamental to the success of these new systems. That will require closer scrutiny of data sources, with testing methods and associated documentation. The quality of testing and data within the construction industry is highly variable. Some suppliers and manufacturers will undertake every possible measure to demonstrate that their products meet and exceed performance requirements. Others will cut corners, obfuscate and omit.
Membrane fire safety is an area that illustrates the problems caused by this variation. A Declaration of Performance (DOP) should show the tests results before and after ageing as specified in the harmonised standard BS EN 13859-2, but some manufacturers supply a DOP without the results after ageing. It’s impossible to make an informed decision about membrane specification without that data, particularly in relation to open-jointed cladding and permanently open facades.
If a supplier is unable to provide certified evidence of independent testing from a recognised testing body, it is likely that the tests were carried out in-house and therefore their findings lack credibility. In the case of fire safety testing, there should be no tolerance of doubt concerning methodology and veracity.
To deliver a reliable and robust fire safety concept, it is vital that developers, building owners, facilities managers and specifiers parties understand how design and manufacture will affect performance once installed. Dame Hackitt’s speech also highlighted the need for an approach to safety which recognises the lifecycle of a building.
Relying on good faith is not an option under the Building Safety Regulator and there are no shortcuts on the roadmap to fire safety – navigating its complexities requires rigorous attention to detail and long-term thinking. Every decision made in the supply chain should be driven by that principle.
For more information visit Industrial Textiles & Plastics | Powerclad | Powerlon | FlameOut | Powerbase – Industrial Textiles & Plastics Ltd (itpltd.com)
