Journal of Building Survey, Appraisal & Valuation Volume 7 Number 2
Understanding fire safety requirements for
Journal of Building Survey,
Appraisal & Valuation
Vol. 7, No. 2, 2018, pp. 162–172
© Henry Stewart Publications,
2046–9594
Page 162
JBSAV7_2.indb 162
high rise buildings
Adrian Pargeter
Received (in revised form): 31st July, 2018
Kingspan Insulation Ltd, Pembridge, Leominster, Herefordshire, HR6 9LA, UK
Tel: +44(0)1544 388601; E-mail: adrian.pargeter@kingspan.com
Adrian Pargeter joined Kingspan Insulation
in 2009 after 20 years’ experience working in
the automotive component supply chain sector.
Adrian started in the Research & Development
department, where he was responsible for
fundamental research into Vacuum Insulation
Panels (VIP) as part of the development of the
Kingspan OPTIM-R VIP system. Subsequently
he worked as a Product Development Manager,
focusing on developing thinner insulation solu-
tions for energy efficient buildings, before
moving onto Head of Marketing. In 2015, Adrian
became Head of Technical and Marketing for
KIL GB, responsible for Technical Services,
Technical Projects, Marketing and Product
Development.
Abstract
The final report from the Independent Review
of Building Regulations and Fire Safety1 (led
by Dame Judith Hackitt) was published in May
2018, proposing radical changes to how the con-
struction industry tackles the issue of fire safety in
Higher Risk Residential Buildings (HRRBs). If
the recommendations in the report are adopted by
government, it will take a considerable amount of
time, and a huge cultural shift to implement the
full scope of what is proposed. In the meantime,
there has been a specific focus from the media and
other interested parties on which materials should
be permitted in rainscreen cladding applications.
This paper sets out the current requirements, what
the issues are and how the Hackitt Review could
revolutionise the way in which we build.
Keywords: The Hackitt Review, Part
B Building Regulations, combustible
cladding materials, cladding fire safety,
external cladding systems, cladding
insulation, fire engineering
IT STARTS WITH REGULATION
The Building Act 1984 permits the Secretary
of State to make regulations for the purpose
of ‘securing the health, safety, welfare and
convenience of persons in or about buildings
and of others who may be affected by build-
ings or matters connected to buildings’,2
among other purposes such as facilitating
sustainable development. The resulting
building regulations have evolved over time
to the current statutory instruments, which
were last updated in 2010.3
Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations
2010: England and Wales outlines the spe-
cific requirements, and is split into sections
A–P. Each section sets out the statutory
requirements for a particular area of the
design and construction of buildings, such as
electrical safety (Part P) or conservation of
fuel and power (Part L). The Government
has then provided guidance as to how these
requirements may be met, in the form
of Approved Documents. So, guidance on
how to comply with Part B of Schedule 1
(Fire Safety) of the Building Regulations
2010: England and Wales can be found in
Approved Document B (ADB) Parts 1 and
25/09/2018 14:26

2, covering residential and non-residential
buildings respectively
REQUIREMENT OR GUIDANCE?
One issue that is frequently not under-
stood is that the regulatory requirements
and the guidance provided by the Approved
Documents is not the same thing. For
example, Part B of the Building Regulations
is mandatory, ADB is not. ADB is just the
government view of what would fulfil the
statutory requirement laid out in Part B.
Other routes can be taken, provided it can
be demonstrated that the requirements of
Part B have been met.
There is also a whole raft of other
guidance supplementing the Approved
Documents, some of which has evolved
over the intervening years since ADB
was last reviewed in any detail in 2006
(with minor updates in 2010 and 2013).
Perhaps the most significant of these in
relation to high-rise buildings is BCA4
Technical Guidance Note 18: Use of
Combustible Cladding Materials on
Buildings Exceeding 18m in Height5
(TGN 18). First published in 2015, the
document was updated in June 2017, and
introduces additional, alternative routes to
compliance with Part B of Schedule 1 to
the Building Regulations to those indi-
cated in ADB. These alternative routes
will be explained later in the paper.
THE CURRENT STATE OF PLAY
Under Part B of the Building Regulations,6
the statutory requirement for external fire
spread is clear:
B4. (1) The external walls of the building
shall adequately resist the spread of fire over
the walls and from one building to another,
having regard to the height, use and posi-
tion of the building.
JBSAV7_2.indb 163
Pargeter
ADB essentially offers two different routes
to compliance with this specific require-
ment — one based on the fire performance
classification of individual products (the
linear route), the other based on a large-
scale test of the whole external wall
cladding system (the performance-based
route).
THE LINEAR ROUTE
Section 12.5 of ADB is the entry point:
External walls should either meet the guid-
ance given in paragraphs 12.6 to 12.9 or
meet the performance criteria given in
the BRE Report Fire performance of external
thermal insulation for walls of multi storey build-
ings (BR 135) for cladding systems using full
scale test data from BS 8414-1:2002 or BS
8414-2:2005
Paragraph 12.6 deals with the external sur-
faces of walls, stating that they should meet
the provisions of Diagram 40 (see Figure 1),
which depicts the requirements for various
scenarios, including height and distance
from other buildings. An important area
to note is the requirement for the external
façade surface of buildings over 18m, or less
than 1000mm from an adjacent building, to
have Class 0 (national class) or class B-s3, d2
or better (European class).
Paragraph 12.7 gives the requirement
for insulation. This is much stricter, stipu-
lating that it should be classed of ‘limited
combustibility’ or better. ‘In a building
with a storey 18m or more above ground
level any insulation product, filler material
(not including gaskets, sealants and similar)
etc. used in the external wall construction
should be of limited combustibility (see
Appendix A)’.
The guidance given in paragraphs 12.8
and 12.9 refers to cavity barriers and is not
covered in detail by the scope of this paper.
Page 163
25/09/2018 14:26
 Understanding fire safety requirements for high rise buildings
Figure 1: Section from Diagram 40 provisions for external surfaces or walls
Source: Approved Document B Vol 2 Buildings other than Dwelling Houses
Classification of products
ADB ‘Appendix A: Performance of materials,
products and structures’, sets out the British or
European Standards that underpin the guid-
ance given in the Approved Document, with
‘non-combustible’ and ‘limited combustibility’
being defined in tables A6 and A7 respectively.
In each case both national and European
classes are listed, and while achievement
of the relevant European class endows the
product with the national non-combustible
or limited combustibility classifications, the
converse is not necessarily true.
For example, a product that has achieved
a European rating of A2-s3, d27 or better
in accordance with BS EN 13501-1:20078
is ipso facto considered to be of ‘limited
combustibility’, but a product that is rated as
‘limited combustibility’ in accordance with
BS 476-11:19829 cannot be classified as A2
without also passing the European test.
Page 164
JBSAV7_2.indb 164
National classes
The series of national classes that are defined
in ADB (namely ‘non-combustible’, ‘limited
combustibility’, ‘Class 0’, ‘Class 1’, ‘Class
2’, etc.) are arrived at based on testing
in accordance with the BS 476 suite of
tests, which comprise bench-scale tests on
small samples of individual products (see
Figure 2).
The classifications of ‘non-combustible’
and ‘limited combustibility’ are assessed using
BS 476 Parts 4 and 11 respectively and are
primarily determined by the calorific value
of a small sample, either a cube or a cylinder
measuring just a few cm3.
Based on this small sample size, materials
whose calorific value exceeds the threshold
that would allow them to be classed as either
‘non-combustible’ or of ‘limited combus-
tibility’, are considered by default to be
‘combustible’.
25/09/2018 14:26

Figure 2: Non-combustible small scale test
Source: Kingspan
Euroclass fire ratings
The Euroclass system categorises construction
products into one of seven Reaction to Fire
classes ranging from the highest class of A1
(non-combustible) to the lowest (worst) class
of F in defined tests or a defined combination
of tests. The reaction to fire classification for
classes B–E, and sometimes A2, is determined
by performance in the Single Burning Item
(SBI) test which measures Total Heat Release
(THR), Fire Rate Growth Index (FIGRA)
and Lateral Flame Spread (LFS).
The highest Reaction to Fire classifica-
tion available for thermoset insulation is
B, in accordance with EN 14314 and EN
13501-1, which ADB equates to Class 0
in terms of surface spread of flame in the
National classes.
The SBI test is conducted on a sample
of the product mounted to create a ‘Room
JBSAV7_2.indb 165
Pargeter
corner’ — roughly 1.5m high by 1m wide
for one wing and 0.5m wide for the other.
Note that the test was originally developed
for wall and ceiling lining products and does
not necessarily reflect how products will
perform in other applications.
In addition to the reaction to fire classes
A2 to E, products subjected to the SBI test
are also classified into one of three smoke
production sub-classes ranging from the
highest (best) class of s1 to the lowest (worst)
class of s3. The final sub-classification for
construction products subjected to the SBI
test is for flaming droplets/particles which
is also divided up into one of three classes
ranging from the highest (best) class of d0 to
the lowest (worst) class of d2.
THE PERFORMANCE-BASED ROUTE
Cited in paragraph 12.5 of ADB as an alternative
route to compliance, BR 135 fire performance
of external thermal insulation for walls of
multi-storey buildings10 sets out the perfor-
mance criteria for testing to BS 8414-1 or 2.
The BS 8414 test is designed to replicate
a fire starting inside a room, breaking out
through a window and exposing the external
façade to fire. The complete façade system
is erected on a minimum 8m test wall (see
Figure 3) and exposed to flames from a com-
bustion chamber at its base for 30 minutes.
This is not a test of individual products.
Only the complete external façade system that
was tested can be deemed compliant via this
test. It is designed to test the rate and extent
of fire spread, providing a clear assessment of
how a fully installed insulated façade system
will perform in the event of a fire.
BS 8414 is a rigorous large-scale system
test. It was developed specifically to assess
non-load-bearing external cladding systems.
It provides a high level of confidence that
systems that have passed are safe to use in
high-rise and high-risk buildings.11
More testing is constantly being carried,
and new results will not yet appear on the
Page 165
25/09/2018 14:26
 Understanding fire safety requirements for high rise buildings
Figure 3: BS8414 test configuration
Source: Kingspan
public register of BR 135 classified external
cladding systems held by the BRE, neither
will any BS 8414 test reports that have
been carried out by test houses other than
the BRE. The best way to access the latest
information and full details of the reports is
to contact manufacturers directly.
ALTERNATIVE ROUTES TO
COMPLIANCE
There are two further options, which take the
performance-based route to a different level.
Desktop studies
The performance criteria set out in BR 135
can only be considered to have been met by
the precise system that was tested to BS 8414.
Changing details such as the cavity width, or
Page 166
JBSAV7_2.indb 166
brand of product, would require another test.
With the vast array of available products and
potential small variations in design, it would
be impossible to test everything at that scale
— there simply is not the testing capacity, and
the costs involved for changing even minor
details would be prohibitive. Desktop studies
were therefore introduced by BCA Technical
Guidance Note 18 to allow reasonable vari-
ations to be made to tested systems, to meet
the needs of individual projects and allow for
innovations within the industry.
Option 3: If no actual fire test data exists
for a particular system, the client may
instead submit a desktop study report from
a suitably qualified fire specialist stating
whether, in their opinion, BR135 criteria
would be met with the proposed system.
The report should be supported by test
data from a suitable independent UKAS
accredited testing body (BRE, Chiltern Fire
or Warrington Fire) and so this option may
not be of benefit if the products have not
already been tested in multiple situations/
arrangements. The report should also spe-
cifically reference the tests which have been
carried out on the product.
Fire engineering
The final option outlined in ADB is a
fire engineering approach, which is gener-
ally recognised as being more suitable for
complex and high-risk buildings. It deals
with the performance of the whole building
and so, simultaneously deals with several
statutory requirements including B4. (1) for
external fire spread.
0.30: Fire safety engineering can provide an
alternative approach to fire safety. It may be
the only practical way to achieve a satisfac-
tory standard of fire safety in some large
and complex buildings and in buildings con-
taining different uses, e.g. airport terminals.
Fire safety engineering may also be suitable
for solving a problem with an aspect of the
building design which otherwise follows the
provisions in this document.12
25/09/2018 14:26

POST GRENFELL — CURRENT
ISSUES
Following the tragedy at Grenfell Tower
on 14th June, 2017, certain aspects of this
guidance came under intense scrutiny
and review. Possibly the most hotly and
publicly debated of these have been the
performance-based route to compliance and
desktop studies. With mounting media and
public pressure to act, the Government
issued two consultations. The first was on
proposed amendments to statutory guid-
ance on assessments in lieu of tests (‘desktop
studies’),13 which closed on 25th May, 2018.
The second is still open at the time of
writing this paper, and is seeking views on
banning the use of combustible materials in
the external walls of high-rise buildings.14
The consultation is due to end on 14th
August, 2018.
ASSESSMENTS IN LIEU OF TESTS
The issue with desktop studies as they cur-
rently stand is that there are no common
Figure 4: ISO 13785 tests with A2 solid core ACM: non-combustible mineral fibre insulation (left), combustible phenolic
insulation (right)
Source: Kingspan
JBSAV7_2.indb 167
Pargeter
rules on how they should be conducted. A
working group has been set up to develop a
new British Standard — BS 9414 — setting
out the parameters that would be consid-
ered acceptable in carrying out an extended
application (EXAP) of a BS 8414 tested and
BR135 certified system.
One way of doing this could be to
support proposed changes to the tested
system with data from a standard interme-
diate-scale system test. However, for these to
be considered a valid proxy, it is essential to
establish how closely results from the inter-
mediate scale tests mirror those from the
large-scale ones.
An initial piece of work has been under-
taken, using as a comparative benchmark
the results from the series of seven BS 8414
tests15 commissioned by the Government
in the wake of Grenfell on combinations
of three different grades of ACM clad-
ding panels and three types of insulation.
A series of tests were carried out by fire
testing laboratory Efectis using the same
design principles and overall specification
Page 167
25/09/2018 14:26
 Understanding fire safety requirements for high rise buildings
as these full-scale BS8414 tests, but based
on the existing standard ISO13785-1: 2002
(Reaction-to-fire tests for façades — Part 1:
Intermediate-scale test), which is approxi-
mately a third of the scale of BS 8414. The
test comprises a 2.4m high wall with a
corner, and a fire barrier two thirds of the
way up the wall (see Figure 4).
The correlation between the Efectis
ISO13785-1 tests and the Governments
BS8414 tests was good, indicating that
testing to ISO13785-1 may have promise
in supporting the extension of scope of BR
135 classifications.
Requiring desktop studies to include test
data at an intermediate-scale on the actual
system being analysed could therefore make
this route to compliance far more robust,
by basing it on empirical data rather than
relying on opinion. Crucially, capacity for
ISO13785-1 testing can be ramped up easily
and quickly, and it would be realistic to
achieve on the kind of scale that we would
need to ensure that a comprehensive range
of systems can be tested.
ROBUST TESTING
Of course, no amount of tighter regulation
will make desktop studies fit for purpose
if the original test data on which they are
based is not robust. BS 8414 has recently
come under heavy scrutiny, with some
parties claiming that it does not sufficiently
reflect the realities of constructed buildings,
because it does not incorporate aspects such
as penetrations and windows.
A recent report by Tenos International
Fire Engineering Consultants16 has com-
pared the BS 8414 test to the NFPA 285
whole system tests used in other regulatory
regimes, notably including the USA, UAE
and New Zealand. The Tenos study found
that the fire load used in BS 8414 was more
onerous than that in NFPA 285 because the
minimum heat flux to which the cladding
system is exposed is greater in a BS 8414
Page 168
JBSAV7_2.indb 168
test and the overall heat energy (ie intensity
and duration of simulated fire exposure) to
which a cladding system is subjected in BS
8414, significantly exceeds that achieved in
NFPA 285.
Tenos compared the fire load from BS
8414 against measurements taken from
experimental fully furnished apartment
fires. They concluded that the heat load
from BS 8414 is more severe and lasts con-
siderably longer than that measured from
these experimental, but wholly realistic,
fires.
The Tenos study also analysed readily
available information about fire spread in
recent fires in residential buildings of over
five storeys in height. The study identi-
fied 17 fires and found that none of them
contained a combination of materials which
had, or would have, passed a BS 8414
test. They included systems with non-com-
bustible insulation as well as systems with
combustible insulation.
The Tenos report concluded that the
absence of evidence of fires with significant
fire spread in cladding systems compliant
with BS 8414 is indicative that BS8414
is a good measure of robust façade fire
performance.
Notwithstanding the above, consideration
is being given to whether BS 8414 can be
further improved in other ways.
WHY BANNING COMBUSTIBLES WILL
NOT WORK
Although the Government consultation on
banning the use of combustible materials in
the external walls of high rise buildings will
have closed, it is important to understand
why the apparently straightforward step of
banning materials that are considered ‘com-
bustible’ will not guarantee a desirable level
of fire safety. If the proposed ban goes ahead,
only cladding and insulation that is classed as
‘non-combustible’ or of ‘limited combusti-
bility’ (probably based on Euroclass ratings
25/09/2018 14:26

A1 and A2) will be permitted on high-
rise buildings. This will severely limit the
materials that can be used and will involve
a much greater burden of weight and thick-
ness on building structures.
More importantly, regardless of whether
the insulation and cladding materials used
in a cladding system are classed as A1
(‘non-combustible’) or A2 (of ‘limited com-
bustibility’), there will still be a surprising
amount of combustible material within
the overall construction, including thermal
breaks, sealants, vapour barriers and tapes.
It is the interaction between all these dif-
ferent components, how they are spatially
arranged and how they are installed, that will
ultimately determine how a façade system
behaves when exposed to fire. It is also
worth remembering that many materials
classified as ‘non-combustible’ and all that
are classified as ‘limited combustibility’ still
burn.
This has been exemplified by recent
research into how certain non-combus-
tible and limited combustibility products
perform in the large-scale system test BS
8414 in accordance with the performance
criteria set out in BR 135, as cited in ADB.
There have been several failures, including
two systems, one containing a solid core
A2 ACM along with A1 rated foil faced
stone wool insulation (also referred to as
mineral fibre), and the other containing
an A2 rated honeycomb aluminium clad-
ding panel with an A1 rated stone wool
insulation.
Under the Government’s proposed ban
of combustible materials on buildings over
18m these systems would be permitted, and
under the current regulatory system they
would automatically be deemed to comply.
Yet they failed BS 8414, when many systems
containing high-performing ‘combustible’
insulation have passed.
Just because a material has been classed
as ‘combustible’ does not mean that it
will burn in any given circumstances. So,
JBSAV7_2.indb 169
Pargeter
‘combustible’ does not necessarily mean
‘flammable’. There is a huge range in the
actual flammability of ‘combustible’ prod-
ucts — from those that can perform as well
as ‘non-combustible’ and ‘limited combusti-
bility’ products as part of a system, to those
that are highly flammable.
During the presentation of his expert
witness report to the Grenfell Public Inquiry,
Professor Luke Bisby expressed the signifi-
cance of this point, saying:
‘The word “combustible” has received
a great deal of attention and use in the
media since the Grenfell Tower fire. In
reality, for materials that have the potential
to burn, by which I mean those materials
that are combustible, flammability is a
relative rather than absolute property.
Depending on the circumstances, there-
fore, combustible materials can either be
more or less flammable, and this distinc-
tion is actually very important’.
For example, ‘combustible’ thermoset insu-
lation materials char when exposed to
fire or heat preventing further fire spread,
and they self-extinguish when that fire or
heat is removed. Systems insulated with
these products can meet the performance
criteria of BR 135 mentioned as an
alternative route to compliance in ADB
because, despite not meeting the require-
ments to be classified as ‘non-combustible’
or ‘limited-combustibility’, they are also
‘non-flammable’. By contrast, thermoplastic
materials, such as polyethylene, are highly
flammable. Grouping products with such a
wide range of performance together under
one broad heading of ‘combustible’ is there-
fore misleading. This leads the public to
believe that all combustible materials burn
in the same way and at the same rate, yet
they do not.
Whilst individual product testing is
important to provide a baseline for per-
formance, it has severe limitations when
Page 169
25/09/2018 14:26
 Understanding fire safety requirements for high rise buildings
trying to assess the performance of a com-
plete building element, such as a rainscreen
façade, both in terms of scale and because it
looks at material samples in isolation, not as
the product has been designed for use in an
application. Product classifications give no
indication of how a material will perform
when combined with others in a system.
Furthermore, there are no product classifi-
cations for an airspace, ventilation gap, or
any of the other myriad parameters that can
affect system performance.
This is why it is so important to look at
the whole wall assembly to ensure that it
will achieve the desired performance. Full
system testing is therefore the best way to
assess how any given combination of prod-
ucts will perform, regardless of whether
the insulation and cladding is classed as
‘non-combustible’, ‘limited combustibility’
or not. Just banning all ‘combustible’ mate-
rials will not achieve the objectives of fire
safety in all cases and, as the Hackitt Review
reveals, the issues run much deeper than
that.
THE HACKITT REVIEW
Since ADB was last revised to any mean-
ingful degree, much has changed within the
industry, with new materials being devel-
oped and modern methods of construction
becoming increasingly popular in the
attempt to meet multiple pressures in terms
of thermal performance, speed of construc-
tion, skills shortages, healthy buildings, and
the often over-riding issue of the bottom
line. This has led to question marks over
the fitness of the current system to properly
regulate and guide the industry,
The Hackitt Review takes an in depth,
holistic look at the many failings in the
system that allowed the tragedy at Grenfell
Tower to happen, and the final report,
alongside the Interim Report published in
December 2017,17 sets out a series of clear
recommendations to create a much more
Page 170
JBSAV7_2.indb 170
robust, outcomes-based approach for gov-
ernment to adopt and the industry to put
into action.18
Crucially, Hackitt does not recommend
an outright ban on the use of combus-
tible materials, recognising that ‘prescriptive
regulation and guidance are not helpful in
designing and building complex buildings,
especially in an environment where building
technology and practices continue to evolve,
and will prevent those undertaking building
work from taking responsibility for their
actions’.
Instead, what she proposes is an ‘inte-
grated systemic change’. In other words, it
requires reform at every level of the chain of
delivery for HRRBs.
The proposed reform includes clearer
lines of responsibility, much more effec-
tive oversight, and serious consequences for
non-compliance. The first recommenda-
tion is for a new regulatory framework
for HRRBs, which would be overseen by
a new Joint Competent Authority (JCA).
The JCA would involve Local Authority
Building Standards, fire and rescue authori-
ties and the Health and Safety Executive.
The framework is designed to simplify the
requirements. It provides better oversight,
clearly defined dutyholder roles, a series of
‘gateway points’ to enable better regulation,
incentives for good practice and real sanc-
tions for poor practice.
Improved levels of competence is a major
area where we can expect to see change
enacted, with a working group already
set up to create a framework for those
installing safety critical systems. There are
also working groups looking at defining
competences for those involved in pro-
curement for HRRBs, site supervisors and
project managers.
From a surveying point of view, it will
be vital to improve understanding of which
aspects of the design and specification are
crucial to building safety, and how to improve
procurement so that ‘value engineering’
25/09/2018 14:26

Key recommendations:
1. The framework;
2. Improve the focus on building safety during design, construction and refurbishment;
3. Improve the focus on building safety during occupation;
4. Giving residents a voice;
5. Improved levels of competence;
6. More robust and transparent construction products regime;
7. Creating a golden thread of information;
8. Tackling poor procurement practices;
9. Ensuring continuous improvement and best practice learning through membership of an international
body.
becomes a true reflection of value over
the lifetime of the building, not just a cost
cutting exercise. Meanwhile, construction
product manufacturers have work to do
to ensure that the testing, marketing and
traceability of products is clear, consistent
and robust. Above all, the ‘golden thread’ of
information must form an integral part of
the building lifecycle — regulating construc-
tion, highlighting responsibility, informing
maintenance and providing reassurance for
residents that their homes are safe.
It will take time for the sweeping change
that is so badly needed to be put in place
and become enshrined in the regulations,
‘… in the meantime’, Dame Judith writes
‘industry must start living the cultural shift
that is required’.
CONCLUSION
The intention behind the Building
Regulations is clear, but the guidance on
how to achieve it is complex. Work is
already underway to clarify the existing
Approved Documents and a further consul-
tation on this has recently been published.19
The full review will take two to four years.
The consultation on whether or not to
ban combustible materials could lead to
severe restrictions in how we can construct
high-rise buildings, without necessarily
achieving the objective of ensuring that they
are safe from the risk of fire spread in and
on a façade. Large-scale system testing has
JBSAV7_2.indb 171
Pargeter
been shown to be a far more robust way of
assessing and achieving a safe design than
relying on simple product classifications.
The issues that led to the Grenfell
Tower fire run far deeper than the cladding
construction. The Hackitt Review has com-
prehensively covered which problems are
endemic within the industry and provided
a roadmap for how these may be addressed.
We stand at a critical point, where we
can work together to create an industry that
leads the world in competence, quality and
building performance, or we can focus piece-
meal on quick fixes and patches that might
satisfy public perception and boost political
favour, but which will not ultimately address
the fundamental issues. The choice is ours.
References
(1) Gov.UK (May 2018), ‘Independent
Review of Building Regulations and
Fire Safety: Final report’, available at
www.gov.uk/government/publications/
independent-review-of-building-
regulations-and-fire-safety-final-report
(accessed 8th August, 2018).
(2) Legislation.Gov.UK (1984), ‘Building
Regulations 1984’, last updated 2010,
available at www.legislation.gov.uk/
ukpga/1984/55 (accessed 8th August,
2018).
(3) Legislation.Gov.UK (2010), ‘The Building
Regulations 2010’, available at http://
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2214/
contents/made (accessed 8th August, 2018).
(4) For further information see Local
Page 171
25/09/2018 14:26
 Understanding fire safety requirements for high rise buildings
Authority Building Control (LABC),
available at https://www.labc.co.uk
(accessed 8th August, 2018).
(5) LABC (June 2017), ‘BCA Technical
Guidance Note 18: Use of Combustible
Cladding Materials on Buildings Exceeding
18m in Height’, available at www.
labc.co.uk/guidance/resource-library/
bca-technical-guidance-note-18-use-
combustible-cladding-materials-0 (accessed
8th August, 2018).
(6) Legislation.Gov.UK (2010), ‘Schedule
1, Part B, Section 4’, available at http://
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2214/
schedule/1/made (accessed 8th August,
2018).
(7) For Euroclass fire ratings and an explanation
of what A2-s3, d2 means see Peroni,
‘European Standard’, available at https://
www.peroni.com/lang_UK/_download/
EN_Reaction_to_Fire_Classification.pdf
(accessed 8th August, 2018).
(8) NSAI (2009), ‘BS EN 13501-1:2007 Fire
classification of construction products and
building elements, Part 1’, available at
https://infostore.saiglobal.com/preview/is/
en/2007/i.s.en13501-1-2007%2Ba1-2009.
pdf?sku=634735 (accessed 8th August,
2018).
(9) SCRIBD (2010), ‘BS 476-11:1982 Fire
tests on building materials and structures.
Method for assessing the heat emission from
building materials’, available at https://
www.scribd.com/document/380136702/
bs-476-11-1982-fire-test-on-building-
materials-and-structures-part-11-method-
for-assessing-the-heat-emission-fro
(accessed 8th August, 2018).
(10) Colwell, S. and Baker, T. (March 2013),
‘Fire performance of external thermal
insulation for walls of multistorey buildings:
(BR 135) Third edition’, BREPress,
available at www.brebookshop.com/details.
jsp?id=327137 (accessed 8th August, 2018).
(11) BRE, ‘BRE Global — BR 135 classified
external cladding systems’, available
at www.bre.co.uk/regulatory-testing
(accessed 8th August, 2018).
(12) ‘The Building Regulations 2010: Fire
Safety. Approved Document B Volume
2 — Buildings other than Dwellinghouses
Page 172
JBSAV7_2.indb 172
2006 edition, incorporating 2007, 2010
and 2013 amendments’, p. 13, available
at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.
uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/441669/BR_PDF_
AD_B2_2013.pdf (accessed 8th August,
2018).
(13) Gov.UK (April 2018), ‘Approved
Document B (Fire Safety): Amendments to
statutory guidance on assessments in lieu of
tests’, available www.gov.uk/government/
consultations/approved-document-b-fire-
safety-amendments-to-statutory-guidance-
on-assessments-in-lieu-of-tests (accessed
8th August, 2018).
(14) Gov.UK (June 2018), ‘Banning the use
of combustible materials in the external
walls of high-rise residential buildings’,
available at www.gov.uk/government/
consultations/banning-the-use-of-
combustible-materials-in-the-external-
walls-of-high-rise-residential-buildings
(accessed 8th August, 2018).
(15) Gov.UK (August 2017), ‘Fire test report:
DCLG BS 8414 text no. 5’, available at
www.gov.uk/government/publications/
fire-test-report-dclg-bs-8414-test-no5
(accessed 8th August, 2018).
(16) Tenos International Fire Engineering
Consultants (date), ‘BS8414 Review:
TS18124-RO1-ISSUE 1’. This is not
currently a publicly available report, can
be obtained by contacting the author.
(17) Gov.UK (December 2017), ‘Independent
Review of Building Regulations and
Fire Safety: Interim report’, available at
www.gov.uk/government/publications/
independent-review-of-building-
regulations-and-fire-safety-interim-report
(accessed 8th August, 2018).
(18) Hackitt, Dame, J. (May 2018), ‘Building
a Safer Future — Independent Review
of Building Regulations and Fire Safety:
Final Report’, p. 6.
(19) Gov.UK (July 2018), ‘Fire safety:
Clarification of statutory guidance
(Approved Document B)’, available at
www.gov.uk/government/consultations/
fire-safety-clarification-of-statutory-
guidance-approved-document-b (accessed
8th August, 2018).
25/09/2018 14:26
Copyright of Journal of Building Survey, Appraisal & Valuation is the property of Henry
Stewart Publications LLP and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.