Setting the record straight on timber frame fire risk report

A lead story in this week’s Building is the latest in a series in the magazine that plays into the hands of elements of the masonry lobby and their efforts to crank up fears about timber frame fire risk.

The article alleges that insurers are threatening to pull cover from completed timber frame buildings because of the perceived fire risk. It said that companies are concerned about fire spreading in timber frame wall cavities due to poorly installed “fire-stopping devices”.

However, the two companies quoted in the story, insurance giants Axa and Aviva, have now issued categorical denials to TTJ that they are considering withdrawing cover on timber frame. They and other insurers are addressing fire safety in timber frame construction sites and finished buildings because the surge in its use, and that of other modern methods of construction in recent years, particularly in high rise, has thrown up new issues for fire prevention, building control and fire fighting. But they said withdrawing cover on a blanket basis for a particular construction type would not happen. Instead, they want to work with the industry to tackle any issues. Aviva has consequently asked Building to run a clarification and Axa said it may do the same.

Making it more damaging for timber frame’s image and reputation, the Building piece juxtaposes the insurance story with the fact that the London Assembly is looking into fire safety in timber frame following building site fires on part-completed Greenacre Homes developments in Peckham, London in November last year and Camberwell, London, this January. This is only partly correct. Following the widely reported catastrophic blaze in the concrete panel Lakanal House tower block in Camberwell last July, the investigation is looking at high density, high rise buildings of all types.

The Building article states too that there were six fatalities in the November, Peckham blaze. This is totally wrong and the story is confusing that Greenacre Homes fire with the Lakanal House incident in which six people were killed. The trouble is, even though Building has now corrected its story online, the original version is out there, further increasing fears about timber frame’s fire performance. And this follows an earlier piece in the magazine after the Greenacre November fire, which also referred to the Lakanal House blaze without saying the building was concrete-panel rather than timber frame. Stoking the controversy, the cover of that edition featured the image of a building made of matches and the cover-line “So how dangerous is timber frame?”.

This kind of emotive and inaccurate coverage of a sensitive issue is irresponsible and potentially puts businesses and livelihoods in the timber-frame sector at risk.

The UK Timber Frame Association has acknowledged concerns over fire safety and security on part-finished timber frame construction sites and is responding with its Site Safe code of conduct initiative and technical research. So far, however, this development doesn't seem to have been given the same kind of prominence and banner headlines as other coverage of the topic.