The episode begins with Jonathan O’Neill OBE, FPA Managing Director, speaking with Chris Miles, Regional Business Director at UL, to explore how international testing practices could benefit the UK’s own building safety.
Their discussion starts with a look at the Building Safety Act receiving royal assent, and whether a clearer, more transparent, and more effective specification and testing regime for construction products was being achieved. Chris casts doubt over whether this has happened yet, calling on his experience with the government into researching the testing regime.
Building Safety Act
Fire safety products to be certified by independent body with rigorous and regular testing of product The speakers also highlight the importance of how the industry should be “on the front foot in telling the government what needs to be done” to overcome the issues raised in the Hackitt report. However, Chris states that the “industry is so disparate, that to expect it to come together and sort itself out is probably, at best, naive. It needs a driver to do that. And we all hoped that the Building Safety Act would be that driver, and it may yet be, but it's taken too long to bring it to fruition. I would like the industry to be doing more itself.”
The conversation then turns to how the UK might learn from international testing. With UL having worked extensively with international fire safety standards, Chris gives an example of how more robust practices could benefit the UK through adopting the International Building Code. This requires fire safety products to be certified by an independent body, with rigorous and regular testing of product production lines.
Fire risk assessment
Chris adds: “I think just that one simple thing, the adoption of certification as done by the IBC, would be a big step forward to address many of Dame Judith Hackitt’s points on the testing regime tidy up.”
Howard starts this segment by asking whether meeting the current requirements For the second part of the episode, Howard Passey, FPA Director of Operations speaks to Marcus Rees, FPA Senior Technical Consultant about the benefits offered by a fire strategy when designing, constructing, refurbishing, or managing premises.
Howard starts this segment by asking whether meeting the current requirements and carrying out a fire risk assessment constitutes delivering a fire strategy. Marcus, while stating the importance of complying with these regulations, says that this isn’t enough to cover the remit of a full fire strategy, which would be the “overarching document that sets the foundation for ongoing fire risk assessments, any consultation works, any building refurbishment,” as well as other points, such as detailing the means of escape for occupants.
benefits of both approaches
The conversation also covers the two types of fire strategy, that being either ‘design phase’ or ‘as-built,’ and the complexities and benefits of both approaches, before Howard poses the question of whether it is possible to pool construction information and fire risk assessment findings together to form a fire strategy? Marcus’ response is that “there is a misconception that pulling bits of information that already exist into a document will create a fire strategy, but that's not the case. There are lots of steps that need to be considered and taken.”
The speakers wrap up by stressing the importance of a change in culture and the need to focus on a broader definition of safety. Marcus says that: “In addition to life safety requirements, there needs to be an emphasis on property protection… by giving this information to the responsible person, it's giving them an overview of what their building should be doing, and how it should be managed moving forward.”
