Fighting fire with spin

I’ve just read the report, or rather propaganda, on the Masonry First website about the London Assembly hearing on Tuesday, held as part of its investigation into fire risk in tall and timber frame buildings. I was at that meeting in City Hall but from reading this piece, quoting Modern Masonry Alliance supremo Mike Leonard, I think I must have been at another event entirely, or perhaps Mr Leonard just left part way through.

There were, as Masonry First says, concerns raised by the expert witness panel about fire risk on timber frame construction sites and poor maintenance, ad-hoc repairs and ‘improvements’ in modern methods of construction (MMC) buildings generally leading to fire stops in cavity walls being compromised.

London Fire Brigade commissioner Ron Dobson also said more information was needed by fire fighters on the MMCs used in new developments in their area, so they knew what they had to tackle in the event of a fire.

But there was no-one, either on the panel or among the Assembly Members (AM), urging that timber frame, MMC or tall buildings overall be banned forthwith from the capital. Undoubtedly that’s what got the Masonry First’s goat and prompted it to produce its spin on the hearing.

AM Andrew Boff did ask whether rules should be changed to allow planners to block the use of timber frame in particularly densely populated areas due to the perceived risk during construction. But local authority building control chief Paul Everall queried this approach.

"One of the reasons timber frame has developed in the way it has is the advantage it has in terms of energy efficiency. Do you want to reach the position in parts of London where it's not possible to build timber frame buiildings, even though you'd like to from an energy-efficiency perspective, because you've taken the view that it's unsafe during construction, or is it better to try and tighten up the provisions, as the [UK] Timber Frame Association are already doing , to reduce the risk of fires taking place?" he said.

And the latter was what the hearing overall clearly did think was preferable. Nobody else expressed the view that there was anything inherently wrong with putting up timber frame, MMC or tall buildings generally in London. Rather the consensus was that these are needed and here to stay and the onus was on the authorities, services and building sector to resolve any safety or quality control issues or concerns there are. All eminently level-headed and logical.

A particularly strange Masonry First quote was that “the inquiry seemed obsessed by loss of life” in fires. I’d say that if you were going to be obsessed with anything in a fire, it should be loss of life.

Perhaps not everyone shares that view because the fatal blaze last summer which part-prompted the Assembly investigation was at Lakanal House, a concrete panel high rise. And there I go fighting spin with spin. It’s clearly contagious.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether the final London Assembly report, now unlikely to appear before an election, follows the thrust and tenor of this week’s hearing. But from being there, I’d say the chances are pretty strong that the focus will be on a civilised, collaborative effort to raise building standards and control rather than curbing the use of specific building types. Sorry Masonry First.