Summary
The Mineral Products Association (MPA) criticizes the UK government for inconsistencies in its building material strategies, overemphasizing timber while neglecting concrete and other essential materials. The MPA argues this approach undermines the construction industry and the nation’s net-zero goals. This article delves into the MPA’s concerns, examining the government’s approach to building regulations and the potential consequences of these inconsistencies.
Focus360 Energy: property compliance services – pre-planning to post-construction. Learn more.
** Main Story**
Okay, so the UK government’s facing some serious heat right now. It’s all about their approach to building materials, and the Mineral Products Association (MPA) isn’t holding back. They’re calling out what they see as ‘glaring gaps’ in the government’s strategy. Essentially, the MPA argues that the government is putting too much emphasis on certain materials, like timber, while seemingly overlooking others, such as concrete, aggregates, and cement. And according to them, that’s a recipe for disaster for the construction industry, especially when the government is pushing hard to meet those ambitious housing targets and decarbonization goals.
But is there any truth to what they’re saying? Let’s delve a little deeper.
Concrete vs. Timber: A Material Showdown
The MPA’s main gripe seems to be with the government’s enthusiasm for timber, specifically their ‘Timber in Construction Roadmap’. The MPA thinks this roadmap paints an unrealistically rosy picture of timber’s capabilities, and brushes over its well-known limitations. We’re talking about things like combustibility, vulnerability to moisture, and, crucially, a lack of comprehensive environmental data. Has anyone really thought this through?
That said, concrete is pretty great. The MPA is keen to highlight the versatility, durability, and domestic availability of concrete, arguing that it is often a more sustainable and practical solution for many construction projects. Concrete’s a tried and true material, it really does have a proven track record, and they’re urging the government to think twice about this heavy reliance on timber. I mean, you don’t want to build a house out of matchsticks, do you?
Steel and Cement: A Shared Struggle
And it doesn’t stop there. The MPA is also concerned about the ‘Steel Strategy,’ currently under consultation. They’re pointing out that the steel industry is facing many of the same challenges as the cement industry. High energy costs, the threat of carbon leakage which can lead to deindustrialization, sound familiar? The MPA is drawing parallels between the struggles of the steel sector and what could happen to the cement industry if the government doesn’t step up and address these similar issues. The MPA aren’t messing about. They’ve already written to Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds MP, urging him to give the cement industry the same level of consideration before it’s too late.
A Call for Fairness
With the upcoming Industrial Strategy on the horizon, which is expected to come alongside the Comprehensive Spending Review, the MPA is really pushing for the UK minerals and mineral products sector to be recognised. This sector has a £22 billion turnover and supports 80,000 jobs, which sounds to me like a pretty big deal. The MPA says this sector is vital to the UK economy, it’s decarbonising, and is supporting the government’s housing and infrastructure targets. All they’re asking for is a level playing field, and for government policies to be consistent and supportive across the board. After all, why should one sector get preferential treatment over another?
The Changing Landscape of Building Regulations
Let’s not forget the bigger picture. The UK’s building regulations are changing, and fast. Recent amendments, like the Building Safety Act 2022, are all about improving building safety and energy efficiency. We’re talking about new dutyholder roles and a whole new regime for higher-risk buildings which are 18 meters or taller, or seven or more stories. Now, developers need to get approval from the Building Safety Regulator for new constructions and alterations.
These changes are aimed at raising standards, especially for those higher-risk buildings. On the other hand, the MPA believes that the government’s current material strategies don’t align with these wider regulatory changes. By prioritising certain materials without fully considering the practicalities, the MPA believe the government is potentially undermining its own objectives for sustainable and safe construction. So, where does that leave us?
In conclusion it seems to me that there needs to be a bit more thinking with a wider scope if these targets are going to be met safely and efficiently. I think that, above all, is what MPA are saying.
Timber roadmaps? Sounds like the UK government is planning a giant’s toothpick factory! I hope someone reminds them that houses also need, you know, floors and foundations – preferably not made of flammable materials. Maybe a “Concrete in Construction Motorway” is in order?
That’s a great point! A “Concrete in Construction Motorway” has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? It really highlights the need for a balanced approach. Foundations are definitely key, and we need to consider the full lifecycle impact of all materials used.
Editor: FocusNews.Uk
Thank you to our Sponsor Focus 360 Energy
Timber roadmaps? Are we building houses, or giant bonfires waiting to happen? Perhaps a “Materials-Agnostic Building Code” is what’s really needed. Someone needs to remind the government that diversity applies to construction materials, too, not just boardroom quotas!