Due to rising concerns within the property industry, 4site has recently begun raising within our Risk Assessments the need for confirmation of the safety and fire integrity of any External Wall Systems at properties where we notice cladding, balconies or any other potentially combustible items are affixed to the external elevations. This is because it is now known that any combustible materials, or poorly configured/installed materials affixed to the outside of a building can seriously compromise the otherwise sufficient compartmentation within the building.
Legal Requirement
The impending Fire Safety Bill and Building Safety Bill, in their present form will ensure, among other things, that Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order 2005 (the regulations that stipulate the need for Fire Risk Assessments in residential communal areas) are amended to ensure that any items affixed to the external walls are considered by the duty holder and included within any assessment of risk.
This means that there will soon be a clear and obvious legal requirement to address this particular issue. We are, however, raising these issues ahead of this legislation as there is already an existing legal requirement for you to manage the risk of fire to a building and its occupants (completed through the process of Risk Assessment) and, given what we now know* about the potential combustibility of these external wall systems, it would be remiss of us not to consider any such wall system as a significant risk within the scope of our assessment.
We would not, for example, ignore large gaps in compartmentation or the dangers of Fire Doors being wedged open at a property simply because there is nothing prescriptive within regulations that addresses that particular issue; we would capture those hazard under the wider legal requirement of Risk Assessment and its objective of reducing risk at the property. Once items like these examples, and any risks identified with the external wall systems, are included within the Risk Assessment, they become a legal requirement for your client/you to manage and resolve.
(*the relatively recent high profile tragic fires, their subsequent investigation findings and MCHLG resulting guidance – you’ll note the MCHLG guidance note 1-22 removed the confusing 18m rule and stipulated “The need to assess and manage the risk of external fire spread applies to buildings of any height” –Fire doesn’t discriminate, so buildings burning with major compartmentation breaches, such as poorly installed cladding, can be dangerous at any height)
Why it has not appeared in reports before
Historically, most Risk Assessors and Property Professionals would have considered the external wall system as being low risk unless they saw any specific evidence to the contrary – It would therefore not appear in many Fire Risk Assessment reports.
This low risk consideration was primarily attributed to a once fair assumption; that existing legislation (that specifically controls the safety and fire integrity of the installation of any external wall system) in Part B of building regulations would have been adhered to and stringently checked by building control.
With the new information following the high profile fires and the subsequent government statistics in relation to the numbers of buildings with unsafe cladding installed, this once fair assumption has proven to be somewhat naïve, and all good risk assessors will have adapted, in the same way that we have, as the severity and likelihood have adjusted accordingly with the reality of the situation.
What Action to Take
If the risk assessment has identified a block that requires investigative work to establish the status of any external wall systems, you will need to first establish if the materials installed are likely to be combustible or not.
For more recently built or well documented blocks, you can consult the engineering drawings and then look up any data sheets. This information will not necessarily clear the need for further investigation works, but may save you/your client money in the long run by foregoing the paying of a specialist to investigate this part for you. The government have been offering ACM testing for free, although this started back in 2017, so it’s unclear how long this will be running for.
Once you have confirmed the status of the materials, this will inform your choice of professional contractor to approach;
- Non-combustible materials only effectively require their installation to be reviewed in order to confirm that this has been completed correctly and isn’t creating an additional Fire Risk; this work can be completed by a Façade Engineer who can demonstrate competence in the safe installation of Façades. (This is Option A on the EWS1 Form)
- Combustible Materials require investigation by a Chartered Fire Engineer (of which there are very few) in order to see if, whilst combustible, the treatment and installation of the materials present a low enough risk to the building for no further action to be taken. (This is Option B on the EWS1 Form)
This is why it could be significant that, where you can, you establish the nature of the material first; if you spend money with a façade engineer assuming a material is non-combustible only to later find that the material is combustible, they are still likely to charge you for their services and you may still then need to pay for a Fire Engineer to attend separately.
It’s also important to note that in either of the above scenarios, if there are any problematic findings that need addressing, neither contractor will include for the cost for rectifying any issues that they may identify as the necessity or extent of any such work won’t be fully realised until after the investigation has taken place.
RICS EWS1 Forms
These specific forms are not a legal requirement to hold, but are often incidental to the investigation process – they are essentially designed to summarise the engineers full reports into one of four possible conclusions, therefore making it easier for Lenders and Valuers to interpret when it comes to issuing Mortgages. This is why 4site Consulting’s reports will not say that ‘there is a hazard because you do not have an EWS1 form’ as this is not the objective of the Risk Assessment. We can, however, look at either an EWS1 form or the full report as evidence of compliance.
An EWS1 form may be the secondary driver, behind the risk assessment, for ensuring safety, as its result is a more obvious and palatable benefit for your clients/leaseholders to take on board (namely; the ability to re-mortgage or sell their property).
Project Management Service
You may wish to address these issues directly but, if it helps, we are able to provide support on the investigation services by running the project from a management and CDM perspective, presenting multiple contractors quotations and their proposals accordingly, ensuring access and Asbestos has been considered, compile & prepare the safety file and final documentation.
If you have any queries or wish to discuss these services further, please contact a member of our team on 01376 572936 or alternatively email our office on office@4siteconsulting.co.uk
