RIBA calls for changes in construction safety and regulatory systems

Regulatory recommendations for enhancing building safety

On 16 January 2025, the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) released its further response to the Phase 2 report of the Grenfell Inquiry.

Building on its initial reaction on 4 September 2024, RIBA identified opportunities for regulatory reform.

It recommended exploring the establishment of a single statutory body, akin to the Engineering Council, to develop a competence system for construction professionals.

Other suggestions include revising the definition of higher-risk buildings to cover assembly spaces and temporary leisure establishments, requiring dual fire-fighting staircases in new residential buildings over 18 metres, and retrofitting single-staircase buildings of similar height with fire safety upgrades during material alterations.

RIBA also advocated for a review of Approved Document B and broader use of sprinklers in buildings with vulnerable occupants.

Structural reform for accountability and safety

RIBA proposed structural changes to improve accountability in fire safety.

It supported consolidating fire safety responsibilities under a single Secretary of State and appointing a suitably qualified Chief Construction Advisor.

The organisation also called for an organisational-level licensing scheme for principal contractors to enhance professional accountability.

These measures, RIBA stated, are vital to ensuring better coordination and safety in the construction sector.

Operational changes and independent research

To restore trust in construction product standards, RIBA urged the need for independent research and development into testing methods.

It also suggested making safety-critical guidance freely accessible and emphasised the role of contracts and procurement in clarifying the responsibilities of project teams.

A key operational recommendation was the introduction of Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) for residents requiring them in all buildings over 11 metres in height.

These operational adjustments aim to strengthen safety protocols and rebuild public confidence in construction practices.

RIBA’s commitment to meaningful reform

Jack Pringle, RIBA Chair of Board, emphasised the need for industry-wide cultural and behavioural changes: “The full findings of the Inquiry’s report make a clear case for further regulatory, structural and operational change, alongside a fundamental shift in culture and behaviours – and we remain fully committed to playing our part.”

He highlighted RIBA’s ongoing efforts to improve training and education, including its mandatory Health and Safety test and Principal Designer Register, and its dedication to driving reforms to enhance public confidence in the built environment.

RIBA calls for changes in construction safety and regulatory systems: summary

RIBA has released further recommendations following the Grenfell Inquiry Phase 2 report, urging changes in regulatory, structural, and operational practices.

Key suggestions include establishing a single statutory body for construction competence, revising high-risk building definitions, mandating fire-fighting staircases in residential buildings over 18 metres, and implementing broader sprinkler use.

The organisation also advocates for a unified fire safety authority under a Secretary of State and operational measures like PEEPs for vulnerable residents in buildings over 11 metres.

RIBA remains committed to supporting these changes to ensure a safer built environment.

Building safety act delays impact high-rise construction approvals

Delays in Building Safety Act procedures stall high-rise residential construction

The Fire Industry Association (FIA) has highlighted delays caused by the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) in its latest briefing.

The act introduced Gateway 2 and Gateway 3 regulatory checkpoints to enhance safety in high-risk buildings (HRBs), primarily residential developments over 18 metres tall.

Gateway 2 mandates design approval before construction begins, while Gateway 3 requires final clearance upon project completion.

According to the FIA, these processes have led to significant project delays, exacerbating the housing shortage.

Only 6% of new building applications meet the statutory 12-week approval timeline.

Challenges in gaining Gateway 2 approval

The FIA briefing identifies several issues with Gateway 2.

Submission requirements lack clarity, often resulting in excessive documentation at early project stages.

Moreover, pre-submission consultations are not permitted, forcing designers to make costly adjustments after rejections.

Designers also face restrictions on direct communication with Registered Building Inspectors (RBI) during reviews, which hinders resolution of technical disagreements.

These procedural inefficiencies discourage HRB construction, with developers reducing project sizes to bypass Gateway 2.

Implications for construction and housing

Delays in Gateway 2 approvals are limiting new construction projects, especially in urban areas where high-rise developments are critical for housing supply.

The FIA reports that changes to design plans during construction, classified as Major Changes, require BSR approval to avoid criminal penalties, further complicating project timelines.

Gateway 3 presents additional challenges as completed buildings cannot be occupied until the process is finalised.

Delays at this stage risk leaving new buildings unoccupied for months.

FIA recommendations for process improvements

The FIA recommends simplifying Gateway 2 and Gateway 3 to reduce inefficiencies.

Suggested changes include phased submissions, where initial approvals focus on general arrangements and high-level documents, allowing more detailed designs later.

Clearer guidance on documentation requirements is also advised to reduce wasted resources.

The FIA emphasises maintaining high standards of competency and quality control while addressing procedural issues to support the government’s housing targets.

Building safety act delays impact high-rise construction approvals: Summary

The FIA briefing highlights delays in HRB construction due to stringent Gateway 2 and Gateway 3 processes under the Building Safety Act 2022.

Key issues include unclear submission requirements, limited pre-submission consultations, and inefficient review procedures.

These challenges hinder project approvals, with only 6% of applications meeting statutory deadlines.

Developers are reducing project sizes to avoid the process, exacerbating housing shortages.

The FIA proposes phased submissions and clearer guidance to streamline procedures while maintaining safety standards.

BESA names Tony Gilbert as first COO during major strategic changes

BESA announces first Chief Operating Officer

The Building Engineering Services Association (BESA) has appointed Tony Gilbert as its first chief operating officer.

According to BESA, Gilbert began his role at the start of 2025 after serving as a consultant to the organisation since last year.

BESA’s chief executive officer, David Frise, said: “Tony brings enormous experience and vision to the Association and has already played a key role in our strategic review and re-organisation.”

Tony Gilbert’s background in management and consultancy

Tony Gilbert previously worked with illumini consulting for 15 years, specialising in organisational change and growth strategies.

His clients included high-profile organisations such as Airbus, Rolls-Royce, BAE, the Ministry of Justice, and the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA).

Before that, he held the role of group technology director at France Telecom – Orange and established his own consultancy in 1993.

Strategic focus of the new role

David Frise commented on the importance of this appointment: “We are delighted that he has now agreed to join us full-time to guide us through the next vital stage as we put our plans into action.”

Tony Gilbert expressed his aspirations: “It has been a real privilege to work closely with the staff and membership of this historic and forward-looking trade body as it re-sets for an exciting and challenging new era in building services technology and practices.”

Challenges and opportunities for the sector

Gilbert highlighted the issues currently facing the sector, including skills shortages, difficult trading conditions, and rapid technological changes.

He added: “Our members and their clients are facing an unprecedented range of challenges, alongside significant business opportunities such as the rapid deployment of digital technology and an urgent drive towards decarbonisation of the built environment.”

“The Association’s leadership has been working flat out to ensure members have the information, tools and support they need to, not just survive, but thrive in this new environment,” Gilbert stated.

BESA names Tony Gilbert as first COO during major strategic changes: Summary

The Building Engineering Services Association (BESA) has appointed Tony Gilbert as its first chief operating officer, beginning in January 2025.

Gilbert, who previously worked as a consultant for BESA, brings extensive experience in management and organisational change, including roles at illumini consulting and France Telecom – Orange.

The appointment comes as part of BESA’s broader strategic transformation to address challenges such as skills shortages and decarbonisation while leveraging opportunities in digital technology.

BESA’s CEO, David Frise, described Gilbert as a visionary leader who will play a critical role in advancing the Association’s plans.

Gilbert emphasised the importance of supporting members during this period of rapid change, aiming to equip them to thrive in evolving market conditions.

Funding delays push Grenfell Tower fire investigation timeline to 2026

Metropolitan Police Grenfell Tower investigation delay

The Metropolitan Police’s investigation into the Grenfell Tower fire will not be completed until September 2026, according to The Telegraph.

Det Supt Garry Moncrieff informed survivors and victims’ families of a revised timeline due to a lack of financial resources.

The initial target was March 2026, but the new timeline has pushed the conclusion date by six months.

Moncrieff acknowledged the impact this delay may have on families and stated that the investigation, involving 160 officers, is one of the most complex ever conducted by UK policing.

Impact on criminal prosecutions

The delayed investigation timeline will affect subsequent legal proceedings.

Det Supt Moncrieff indicated that the delay will push Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) charging decisions to 2027.

The inquests into the deaths of 72 individuals can only proceed once criminal prosecutions are complete.

This means that the legal process could extend nearly 20 years beyond the 2017 tragedy.

Campaigners have criticised the timeline as exacerbating the suffering of those affected.

Campaigners’ response

Grenfell Next of Kin, a group representing victims and survivors, condemned the delay.

A spokesman stated: “This letter has heaped injustice upon injustice,” and accused authorities of exploiting the system.

The group expressed frustration over ongoing delays and questioned the necessity for further funding.

The campaigners noted that public inquiries, which heavily relied on police evidence, did not uncover fundamentally new findings compared to police investigations.

Government and police responses

The government has reiterated its commitment to supporting the investigation.

A government spokesman stated: “We share the community’s determination to get to the truth of what happened and for those responsible to be held to account.”

Dept Asst Commissioner Stuart Cundy acknowledged frustrations over the delays but emphasised the importance of conducting a thorough investigation to ensure justice is achieved.

Funding delays push Grenfell Tower fire investigation timeline to 2026: Summary

The Metropolitan Police’s investigation into the Grenfell Tower fire has been delayed by six months due to insufficient funding, pushing the conclusion date to September 2026.

The revised timeline has caused frustration among victims’ families and campaigners, as Crown Prosecution Service charging decisions will be delayed until 2027, further prolonging the legal process.

Campaign groups have criticised the police and government over the timeline and the additional funding request.

Both the government and police maintain that a thorough investigation is necessary to achieve justice.

Asbestos awareness for emergency responders

With over 20 years in asbestos health, Samantha Collins, Principal Examiner (Asbestos), British Occupational Hygiene Society, discusses the unseen risks firefighting personnel face in asbestos exposure

I consider myself very lucky to have no real experience of the fire sector.

I have of course always been aware of the dangers firefighting personnel must face.

As an occupational hygienist with some health and safety experience, I can probably recognise some of the slightly less obvious issues such as smoke and soot inhalation, exposure to extreme temperatures and the risks of working in high-stress environments.

What I am ashamed to say, however, is that despite having worked within the asbestos industry for 20-plus years, asbestos exposure to firefighting personnel has never been at the forefront of my mind, possibly due to several reasons.

The first is that the ‘immediate risks’ to firefighter’s health and safety were always the ones I thought of first.

The second is that I always imagined the PPE, RPE and decontamination procedures within the emergency services to be of such a high standard that exposure to various ‘nasties’ would be almost non-existent, and finally, as an industry with the HSE as our regulator, we are primarily focussed on the exposure risk in ‘tradespeople’ and members of the public more so than emergency responders.

Recent press releases and campaigns, news articles and reports have all predominantly centred around the risk of asbestos in schools, hospitals and government buildings and there are more training courses marketed for electricians, plumbers, property maintenance workers etc than you can shake a stick at.

But what is this ‘asbestos’ and could we be doing more about it for the fire industry?

Understanding the risks

Asbestos, from a Greek word meaning “inextinguishable” is the name given to a group of ‘naturally occurring fibrous silicate minerals’ formed over time throughout the Earth’s crust.

The mineralogy of asbestos formation is somewhat complex and requires quite specific circumstances influenced by local geology and environmental conditions.

Asbestos was first reportedly discovered by the ancient Greeks and Romans and appears in early texts written by the Greek geographer and philosopher Strabo (64/63 BC – 24 AD) and the Roman naturalist ‘Pliny the Elder’ (AD 23/24 – AD 79).

Following its initial discovery, we quickly recognised the ‘magic’ properties of these asbestos minerals, notably their high resistance to fire and excessive heat, and its historical use has been found in many countries around the world used to strengthen clay cooking pots, form lamp and candle wicks, woven into fireproof tablecloths and interestingly even cremation blankets because the blanket itself didn’t burn and could contain the deceased’s ashes for easy separation from the rest of the funeral pyre.

Closer to home during the Industrial Revolution, the expansion of Britain’s global trading empire and the threat of a second World War, the use of asbestos in the UK became more widespread, particularly in the aftermath of WWII when several political changes resulted in increased demand for schools, hospitals and government buildings, and a general desire of the country to get back on its’ feet.

Cheap and readily available

There are reportedly more than 200 different types of asbestos mineral globally, however, due to various reasons, including how abundant they were and how commercially viable they were to extract, only 6 types tend to be ‘regulated’ in the UK.

These are Chrysotile, Crocidolite, Amosite (more often known by their colours as white, blue and brown respectively) and the slightly rarer types of Fibrous Anthophyllite, Tremolite and Actinolite.

The concept of new construction and engineering materials which were strong, cheap, readily available and more importantly said to ‘save lives’ through fire protection, meant demand and importation of asbestos fibre and the production of asbestos containing materials (ACMs) skyrocketed.

ACMs quickly found their way into various installations around the country with the number of imports increasing steadily from the late 1930s, peaking in the 1970s and only finally reducing throughout the 80s and 90s when awareness of the health risks associated with asbestos exposure began to expand until asbestos was finally banned in the UK in 1999.

It’s estimated that during the 20th Century over 6 million tonnes of asbestos were imported into the UK, mostly as ‘raw fibre’ direct from the mines of countries such as South Africa, Canada, Russia, Cyprus and Australia.

Often arriving by sea and distributed countrywide by road and rail, UK factories and processing plants produced a variety of different ACMs.

There are thought to be approximately 3600 different types of ACMs in the UK.

We have thermal insulation, fireproofing, firebreaks and ‘compartmentalisation’ materials, ‘sprayed coatings’, friction products such as clutch linings and brake pads, roofs and rainwater goods moulded from asbestos-containing cement, ‘Artex’ ceilings, floor tiles, toilet cisterns and even full woven asbestos firefighting suits at one point in time – the list goes on.

The ancient Greeks and Romans may have had conflicting ideas of what asbestos was and where it came from.

They were however in agreement that asbestos caused illness in human beings noting that workers involved in extracting the fibres from the ground or weaving them into cloths and ropes often developed ‘lung sickness’ and had short life expectancies.

Unfortunately, as advancements were made in medicine it became undeniable that asbestos exposure was a serious health concern.

Due to the unique fibrous shape of the minerals, the microscopic size of the fibres, their ability to become easily airborne when agitated, and their resistance to heat, acids and alkalis, once they enter the human body (usually via the respiratory system) they can remain in situ for decades without being broken down or removed by our body’s defences.

This can cause devastating damage including diseases and conditions such as lung cancer, asbestosis, pleural plaques, pleural effusions (lung fluid accumulation), pericardial effusions (build-up of fluid around the heart) and even laryngeal and ovarian cancers.

There is also the infamous ‘mesothelioma’ whereby inhaled fibres can migrate through the lung tissue, penetrate the lung wall and lodge themselves in the pleural lining on the outside of the lungs where they can trigger the growth of aggressive cancerous tumours.

Health impact of asbestos exposure

The frightening thing is that the effects of asbestos exposure and inhalation are not immediate; there is a ‘latency’ period of anything between 15 and 60 years depending on the source of the information and asbestos is now firmly recognised by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) as a Group 1 Human Carcinogen.

The current stance of the regulators in the UK is that if ACMs are not disturbed and the risk of any fibres being released and becoming airborne is mitigated, then ACMs should stay in place and be ‘managed’.

They are often still doing an important job of thermally insulating or fire-proofing structures and their removal could compromise structural integrity and/or cause unnecessary exposure to removal workers and the public.

There are issues with removal costs; who is liable for these costs, and what we should do with waste asbestos.

Currently, it’s buried at specialist landfill sites but many of these sites are now ‘full’ and ideas on dealing with asbestos waste in the future are limited.

Under the current Control of Asbestos Regulations (2012) Duty Holders are legally obliged to survey their properties for ACMs, keep a register of what and where they are and have a management plan to monitor condition and mitigate exposure.

In addition, we have legal training requirements stating anyone liable to disturb the ‘fabric’ of a building during their work must have a minimum of ‘asbestos awareness’ training to educate them in what different ACMs can look like, their different applications and how to avoid exposure.

There are also tight restrictions on knowingly working with asbestos including minimum RPE and PPE requirements, control measures to reduce fibre levels if disturbed and the all-important site and personnel decontamination.

Limitations of current safety protocols

Whether this system is working however is hotly debated both by industry leaders and politicians, with the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) Select Committee raising its concerns with the Government in 2021 about the usefulness of the regulations for managing asbestos, prompting a review on ‘effectiveness’ by the HSE.

The reason is that despite the legal requirements in place we still have more than 5000 people dying each year in the UK from asbestos-related disease.

So even with the regulations in place and a duty to Manage which has been in effect since 2004, we are still seeing many annual deaths, and this is mostly with our focus on managing asbestos in a controlled way within buildings which are intact or undergoing planned demolition.

Registers should be in place for contractors to reference before starting work; tradespeople are taught not to conduct any work without the correct information and we usually have the small luxury of time for planning and acting when it comes to ACMs in the form of training, data retrieval, method statements and risk assessments.

However, what do we do about emergencies, explosions, unplanned structural collapse, fire and dare I say terrorist attacks?

Of course, these are situations where something has the potential to end a life immediately which understandably takes precedence over some strange ‘fibrous rock’, exposure to which may or may not cause harm in the next 30 years, but should we be doing more when it comes to safeguarding firefighting personnel from this so-called ‘Magic Mineral’?

This article was originally published in the December 2024 issue of International Fire & Safety Journal – to read your FREE digital copy, click here.

Fire safety data highlights remediation progress in UK social housing

Regulator reports on fire risk assessments for tall social housing buildings

The Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) published its latest findings on 19 December 2024, detailing fire safety survey results for buildings over 11 metres within the social housing sector.

According to the report, 99.2% of the 17,516 identified buildings had completed fire risk assessments.

However, 11.5% (2,009 buildings) were found to have life-critical fire safety defects associated with external wall systems.

Of these, only 7.2% (144 buildings) have had remediation works completed or are pending building control sign-off.

Progress in fire safety remediation works

Landlords managing affected properties have reported varied timelines for addressing life-critical fire safety defects.

Approximately 69% of buildings with these defects are expected to be fully remediated within five years, with 10.4% scheduled for completion within the next six months.

The report noted that some landlords are prioritising work on high-risk and complex cases, leading to longer remediation timelines.

Additionally, challenges remain in providing specific timelines for remediation, as some landlords reported ‘unknown’ timeframes in this quarter’s survey.

Ongoing monitoring and regulatory oversight

The RSH emphasised its commitment to monitoring landlords’ progress in addressing fire safety issues in buildings over 11 metres.

It also highlighted the importance of accurate record-keeping and rigorous safety systems to ensure tenant safety during and after remediation.

Boards and councillors were reminded of their responsibility to understand and enforce landlords’ legal obligations concerning fire safety.

This includes ensuring identified risks are promptly managed and mitigated.

Statement from the Regulator of Social Housing

Will Perry, Director of Strategy at RSH, said: “Fire safety continues to be a hugely important priority for the social housing sector.

“While the vast majority of buildings have no life-critical fire safety defects, we are continuing to scrutinise progress closely for the minority that do.”

He added: “We expect landlords to keep accurate data and rigorous systems in place to make sure tenants are safe – this includes any necessary mitigating measures to protect residents while works are completed.

“The collection and publication of this data is just one of a number of tools we use, alongside our programme of inspections and responsive engagement, to make sure landlords are meeting fire safety requirements.”

Fire safety data highlights remediation progress in UK social housing: Summary

The Regulator of Social Housing’s latest survey on 11-metre-plus buildings in the social housing sector reported that 99.2% had fire risk assessments completed.

However, 11.5% of buildings were found to have life-critical fire safety defects.

Remediation works are underway, with 7.2% of affected buildings completed and 69% expected to be remediated within five years.

Some landlords reported challenges in providing precise timelines for remediation.

RSH will continue monitoring landlords’ progress to ensure fire safety obligations are met.

Façade fire safety: European Commission validates harmonised testing standards

Harmonised testing for façade fire performance

The European Commission has validated the final report on a harmonised European testing methodology for façade fire safety.

This decision marks progress toward standardising testing and classification processes for façades across EU member states.

The finalised methodology addresses varying national standards and incorporates detailed technical guidelines to assess façade systems comprehensively.

Key aspects include fire spread, falling parts, and exposure criteria, based on tests performed under diverse conditions.

Key findings of the research project

The research project analysed current façade testing methods, using input from 29 laboratories across 20 countries.

Participants completed extensive questionnaires, identifying discrepancies and areas for improvement.

Issues included unclear guidelines for mounting test specimens and differences in fire spread evaluation.

Recommendations were made to refine performance criteria and standardise test configurations, such as combustion chamber design and specimen setup.

These changes aim to enhance repeatability and ensure tests align with real-world conditions.

Experimental Round Robin results

The project concluded with an experimental Round Robin, testing four façade systems at three laboratories.

A total of 24 tests were conducted, examining large- and medium-scale exposures.

Variations in ambient conditions and wind effects were considered, highlighting the need for consistent testing environments.

Tests also explored alternative fuel sources, like propane burners, which proved effective in mimicking wood crib exposures while offering cost and safety benefits.

Further adjustments to test configurations were incorporated into the updated assessment method.

Next steps for European façade fire standards

The European Commission plans to issue mandates for drafting formal standards through CEN/TC 127/WG 6.

These standards will harmonise façade fire testing and classification, supporting safer building practices.

To ensure widespread adoption, the Commission emphasised collaboration among stakeholders, including regulatory bodies, industry representatives, and laboratories.

Additional research may further refine the methodology and address emerging fire safety challenges.

Façade fire safety: European Commission validates harmonised testing standards: Summary

The European Commission has validated a harmonised testing methodology for façade fire safety.

The methodology integrates input from 29 laboratories across 20 countries and incorporates findings from experimental testing of façade systems.

Recommendations include refining performance criteria, standardising test setups, and considering alternative fuel sources.

The Commission plans to draft formal standards through CEN mandates to support consistent and effective fire safety measures across Europe.

Hochiki Europe joins NBS platform to streamline product specifications

Partnership to expand Hochiki Europe’s product accessibility

Hochiki Europe has partnered with NBS, a construction specification platform, to enhance accessibility to its life safety products for specifiers.

As reported by Hochiki, the company will list 50 products on the NBS Source platform, covering its range of fire alarms and control systems.

This integration aims to simplify the specification process for built environment professionals.

Ian Humby, UK Sales Manager for Hochiki Europe, said: “We wanted to find a way of raising our profile amongst built environment professionals and chose NBS Source as a way to target specifiers looking for best-in-class product and specification data.”

Benefits of NBS integration for specifiers

The collaboration enables specifiers and designers to seamlessly include Hochiki products in project specifications using the drag-and-drop functionality of NBS Source.

The platform offers detailed product data, including technical specifications and compliance information, to ensure project requirements are met efficiently.

This solution is expected to save time and streamline workflows for users.

Humby added: “Partnering with NBS aligns with our goal of making it easier for specifiers to choose Hochiki.

“Furthermore, NBS Source has given us the ability to build and maintain relationships with specifiers throughout the whole construction journey.”

Advancing digital tools for the construction industry

By leveraging NBS’s digital capabilities, Hochiki aims to support the construction industry’s transition to more collaborative and technology-driven processes.

This partnership aligns with industry trends favouring platforms that provide efficient, accurate, and accessible specification tools.

Hochiki’s integration into NBS Source underscores its commitment to modernising its approach for specifiers.

The platform’s features are designed to meet the increasing demand for precision and efficiency in the construction sector, ensuring products are easily accessible and well-documented.

Supporting a safer built environment

The collaboration is part of Hochiki Europe’s broader commitment to creating safer buildings through the use of advanced life safety solutions.

The company states that integrating its products with NBS Source empowers specifiers to achieve compliance and safety standards in their projects more effectively.

Hochiki sees this partnership as an opportunity to deliver consistent support and service to professionals involved in all stages of the construction process.

Hochiki Europe joins NBS platform to streamline product specifications: Summary

Hochiki Europe has partnered with NBS to list 50 products on the NBS Source platform.

This collaboration allows specifiers to efficiently include Hochiki’s life safety products in their projects using NBS’s drag-and-drop functionality.

The platform provides comprehensive product information, including compliance and technical data, to streamline workflows.

According to Hochiki, the partnership enhances relationships with specifiers and supports the construction industry’s shift towards digital tools.

This initiative aligns with Hochiki’s aim to create safer and more secure buildings while simplifying the specification process for built environment professionals.

Updated Mass Timber Insurance Playbook gains new UK insurance endorsements

Endorsements from key UK insurance bodies

The Mass Timber Insurance Playbook, first published in May 2023, has been updated with endorsements from three major UK insurance organisations.

According to a report by the Fire Protection Association, the updated playbook has received backing from the Association of British Insurers (ABI), the Fire Protection Association (FPA), and RISCAuthority.

Since its release, the playbook has been downloaded 7,500 times and is widely regarded as a resource for managing risks associated with mass timber buildings.

The revised version, released on 4 December 2024, celebrates these additional endorsements while retaining its original content.

Insights from the authors

The playbook was authored by Professor Jim Glockling and Philip Callow, both experts in the field of insurance.

Professor Glockling, who has over 19 years of experience as the FPA and RISCAuthority Technical Director, commented on the importance of addressing the risks associated with mass timber buildings: “The need for, and challenges presented by, mass timber buildings must never be underestimated and solutions supporting progress are urgently required.”

Philip Callow, the founder and CEO of Rosetta Risk Management, has over 22 years of experience in construction insurance and innovation.

The playbook enables collaboration between insurers and construction teams to achieve more equitable insurance outcomes.

International impact of the playbook

The Mass Timber Insurance Playbook has drawn global attention.

A US-specific version was developed by Mike Hastings of Hastings Risk Management and published by Woodworks on 14 November, with contributions from the original authors.

This expansion highlights the playbook’s relevance in addressing mass timber risks and creating opportunities for improved construction practices worldwide.

Free webinar hosted by ASBP

The Alliance for Sustainable Building Products (ASBP), which managed the playbook’s development, is hosting a free webinar on 4 December from 1-2pm.

The session will feature authors, industry supporters, and funders discussing the latest developments in the construction and insuring of mass timber buildings.

The playbook was funded by Built by Nature, with additional contributions from Marsh and Zurich Resilience Solutions.

It has also received endorsements from organisations such as the London Engineering Group, RIBA, and TDUK.

Updated Mass Timber Insurance Playbook gains new UK insurance endorsements: Summary

The Mass Timber Insurance Playbook has been updated to include endorsements from the Association of British Insurers (ABI), the Fire Protection Association (FPA), and RISCAuthority.

Originally launched in May 2023, the playbook has been downloaded 7,500 times and provides guidance on managing risks associated with mass timber buildings.

Authored by experts Jim Glockling and Philip Callow, the playbook fosters collaboration between construction teams and insurers.

A US-specific version was recently published by Woodworks, expanding its international reach.

The Alliance for Sustainable Building Products (ASBP) will host a free webinar on 4 December to celebrate the relaunch.

The updated version is available for free download on the ASBP website.

Fire safety concerns in Cypriot apartment blocks highlighted by fire service

Fire safety hazards in apartment buildings highlighted in House committee discussion

Cyprus’ fire service has issued warnings about blocked stairwells and poor parking practices in apartment blocks, stating these pose serious risks to residents’ safety.

This statement was made during a House interior committee meeting where MPs reviewed a bill aimed at regulating jointly owned buildings.

Aristos Damianou, chairman of the committee, described current conditions in such buildings as chaotic and marked by disputes between tenants and owners.

He noted that thousands of buildings across Cyprus are unmaintained.

Fire service spokesman Andreas Kettis emphasised the dangers of cluttered common areas and locked emergency doors, highlighting the potential for fatalities in emergencies.

He said: “In the event a stairwell is filled with smoke, it simply means that everyone is trapped and we will lose people.”

Fire safety oversight criticised

Kettis pointed out that current building regulations lack provisions for regular fire safety inspections.

He said: “After the final approval for any building, it is not checked at all for fire safety issues.”

He described stairwells filled with furniture, bags of charcoal, and dirt, stressing that blocked escape routes heighten the danger to tenants during emergencies.

Kettis called for regular inspections and mandatory safety certifications to be implemented and maintained by building owners.

Damianou pledged that the committee would expedite the proposed bill, which includes measures to empower building management committees and ensure compliance with safety standards.

New bill aims to address maintenance and compliance gaps

The proposed legislation seeks to establish a framework for better management and maintenance of jointly owned buildings.

Damianou noted that one key feature is granting management committees the authority to impose reasonable maintenance fees, addressing a common issue where some residents refuse to contribute financially.

The bill also introduces provisions for the compulsory registration and supervision of co-owned buildings.

This includes the mandatory insurance of these properties and oversight of administrative committees responsible for their upkeep.

Challenges in implementation

While Damianou acknowledged the importance of the proposed changes, he noted that a lack of financial resources and disinterest among some tenants could hinder the bill’s effectiveness.

He highlighted the absence of management committees in many cases and said: “The financial aspect will be a thorn in the side, creating and perpetuating friction.”

The bill also aims to define the rights and obligations of property owners, addressing gaps in the current legislation.

The goal is to ensure better compliance and safer living conditions for residents while reducing risks to public safety.

Fire safety concerns in Cypriot apartment blocks highlighted by fire service: Summary

The Cypriot fire service has raised alarms over safety risks in apartment blocks, citing blocked stairwells, poor parking, and locked emergency exits as major concerns.

During a House committee session, fire service spokesman Andreas Kettis criticised the lack of regular fire safety inspections and urged for mandatory safety checks.

A new bill aims to improve building management through enhanced regulatory measures, including compulsory insurance, maintenance oversight, and the establishment of administrative committees.

Committee chairman Aristos Damianou noted that the bill seeks to address safety gaps and resolve disputes between tenants and owners.

Despite its goals, challenges remain in implementation, particularly regarding financial contributions and tenant compliance.

Damianou committed to pushing the bill forward swiftly to address these pressing safety issues.