Summary
Fire chiefs raise concerns over the use of modular construction and engineered timber in high-rise buildings, citing insufficient understanding of their fire performance. They advocate for stricter testing regulations to ensure safety and protect leaseholders from costly remediation. The NFCC emphasizes the need for thorough testing before incorporating these materials into buildings, especially those with vulnerable occupants or stay-put policies.
Focus360 Energy: property compliance services – pre-planning to post-construction. Learn more.
** Main Story**
Fire Chiefs Sound the Alarm on Modular Construction and Engineered Timber
The National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) has expressed concerns regarding the fire safety of modern methods of construction (MMC), particularly the use of 3D modular or volumetric construction and engineered mass timber products like cross-laminated timber (CLT) in high-rise buildings. These concerns stem from what they perceive as a lack of comprehensive understanding of how these materials perform in fire situations, especially within the context of high-rise structures, buildings housing vulnerable populations, and those employing “stay put” evacuation strategies. The NFCC advocates for more stringent testing regulations for MMC to address these concerns. This call for tighter regulations reflects a growing unease within the fire safety community about the rapid adoption of MMC without adequate research and testing to ensure their safe implementation. As of today, March 19, 2025, the debate continues on how to balance the benefits of MMC with the crucial need to ensure fire safety.
The NFCC’s Concerns
The NFCC’s primary concern revolves around the perceived lack of understanding surrounding the fire performance of these materials. They highlight several key issues. Firstly, questions arise regarding the structural safety assessment of modular buildings, particularly the performance of connections between modules under fire conditions. Secondly, there are concerns about “unseen fire spread” within the voids created when modules are assembled on-site. These hidden pathways could facilitate rapid fire and smoke propagation, potentially exceeding the parameters considered during design and approval stages. This highlights the potential for discrepancies between theoretical fire models and real-world scenarios, adding another layer of complexity to fire safety considerations.
The NFCC’s stance emphasizes a cautious approach toward adopting newer construction technologies, underscoring the importance of prioritizing safety amidst innovation. They also point to the existing regulatory system, which has already been acknowledged by the government as needing improvement. Adding MMC into the mix further complicates an already challenging regulatory landscape. The NFCC insists that materials and technologies must undergo rigorous testing to prove their safety before their widespread use in buildings, especially those designed for vulnerable occupants or incorporating stay-put policies. This precautionary principle aims to prevent situations where remedial action or interim safety measures become necessary after construction, potentially burdening leaseholders with unforeseen costs.
The Need for Further Research and Testing
The NFCC’s call for stricter regulations aligns with a broader push within the fire safety sector for more research and testing of MMC. They advocate for comprehensive, system-wide testing to demonstrably prove MMC compliance with building regulations and fire safety guidelines. The current regulatory landscape presents a complex picture. While frameworks like the Buildoffsite Property Assurance Scheme (BOPAS) and NHBC Accepts exist, the NFCC highlights the need for further clarification and possibly more specific regulations addressing the unique challenges posed by modular construction and engineered timber. This includes the relationship between MMC and the existing Approved Documents, the primary fire safety design guidance in the UK.
The NFCC argues for a holistic approach to fire safety in MMC, moving beyond simply relying on prescribed guidance. They emphasize the need for designers to have sufficient knowledge and skills to approach these designs from first principles, considering all potential risks. This highlights the importance of continued professional development and specialized training within the construction industry to ensure competency in working with MMC and mitigating potential fire risks. The NFCC’s position statement emphasizes the need for more clarity and definitive guidance on how existing regulations apply to MMC and calls for ongoing review and adaptation of the regulatory framework to keep pace with innovation in construction technology. This is particularly crucial in the context of rapid technological advancements in the sector.
The Future of Building Regulations
The NFCC’s concerns underscore the broader discussion surrounding the evolution of building regulations in the UK. The Building Safety Act 2022, introduced following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, brought about significant changes, particularly regarding higher-risk buildings. These changes include the introduction of the Building Safety Regulator and new dutyholder roles. The intersection of MMC with these new regulations further complicates the regulatory landscape and necessitates ongoing dialogue between regulatory bodies, industry stakeholders, and fire safety experts. The industry faces the challenge of balancing innovation with safety, and the NFCC’s call for stricter regulations is a crucial part of this ongoing discussion. As MMC continues to gain prominence, it will likely spur ongoing adjustments and refinements to building regulations, fire safety protocols, and construction practices to ensure a built environment that is both innovative and safe. This includes considerations related to the interplay of different MMC systems, the assessment of overall building performance in fire scenarios, and the training and competence of professionals involved in the design, construction, and inspection of MMC buildings.
The NFCC’s concerns about “unseen fire spread” within modular construction voids are particularly worrying. Do current inspection protocols adequately address this hidden risk? Perhaps mandatory thermal imaging during inspections could offer a solution, identifying potential hotspots before they escalate.
That’s a great point about unseen fire spread! Thermal imaging during inspections is a very interesting idea. It could provide a non-destructive way to identify potential issues within those voids early on. How feasible do you think it would be to implement this on a large scale, considering the cost and training involved?
Editor: FocusNews.Uk
Thank you to our Sponsor Focus 360 Energy
So, are we suggesting buildings should come with a “may spontaneously combust” warning label now? Perhaps we could train squirrels to sniff out the hotspots; they’re already good at finding hidden nuts!
That’s a creative idea! Squirrels as fire safety inspectors – who knew? Seriously though, highlighting potential fire risks with clear warnings is a good starting point while we research these new methods of construction. Maybe squirrels can be on the advisory board!
Editor: FocusNews.Uk
Thank you to our Sponsor Focus 360 Energy
The NFCC’s emphasis on system-wide testing is vital. It’s crucial to move beyond assessing individual components and understand how modular construction and engineered timber behave within a complete building system during a fire. This holistic approach should also incorporate long-term performance monitoring.
Absolutely! The point about long-term performance monitoring is key. We need to be thinking about how these systems age and degrade over time, and what impact that has on fire safety. A building isn’t static; it changes, and our safety measures need to account for that evolution. Thanks for highlighting this crucial aspect!
Editor: FocusNews.Uk
Thank you to our Sponsor Focus 360 Energy
The NFCC’s emphasis on comprehensive, system-wide testing is vital. Consideration should also be given to standardized testing methodologies for these new construction methods, ensuring consistency and comparability across different systems and manufacturers.
That’s a fantastic point about standardized testing methodologies! Ensuring consistency across different systems and manufacturers is key for accurate comparisons and informed decision-making. A unified approach would significantly enhance our understanding of fire performance in modular construction and engineered timber. How can we best facilitate the development of these standards?
Editor: FocusNews.Uk
Thank you to our Sponsor Focus 360 Energy
Given the emphasis on system-wide testing, how can we ensure that these tests accurately reflect the diverse range of real-world conditions and potential modifications that a modular building might undergo throughout its lifespan?
That’s a really important question! Accurately simulating real-world conditions for system-wide testing is a challenge. Perhaps a combination of accelerated aging tests, digital simulations, and on-site monitoring could provide a more comprehensive picture of long-term performance and resilience to modifications. What are your thoughts?
Editor: FocusNews.Uk
Thank you to our Sponsor Focus 360 Energy
So, if stay-put policies are risky with new materials, should we equip every flat with a tiny escape chute? Just thinking outside the box… or, you know, *through* the wall.
That’s certainly thinking outside the box! The idea of escape chutes raises interesting questions about practical implementation. Considering the space required and the variety of building designs, it could be tricky to standardize. Perhaps exploring innovative, space-saving solutions could make this concept more viable.
Editor: FocusNews.Uk
Thank you to our Sponsor Focus 360 Energy