Ceramic Glass Ltd is playing a direct part in the fight against Covid-19, in support of the NHS. As part of our commitment to them, we are working on critical projects within the medical sector and supplying two NHS trusts, the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Cardiff & Vale University Local Health Board of NHS Wales, with our FireLite ceramic glass. Specifically developed to provide robust and stable fire-resistance, FireLite is being used in steel fire doors inside of negative pressure isolation units to protect both patients and key infrastructure.

At what is a difficult time for many, the safety and wellbeing of our staff, customers and suppliers remains our highest priority. Following the latest guidance from the government and Public Health England, our workforce is now working remotely where possible and staying at home in order to help the NHS and protect both themselves and their families.

Despite having a reduced workforce, our production continues. Those still in the factory are working hard and ensuring that we continue to meet the needs of every customer – especially those in the healthcare sector – while adhering to strict social distancing guidelines.

Should we see a further influx of orders from this sector, then those requests will take priority due to the nature of the current situation. We should stress, however, that our materials are available and our supply chains remain robust so we will aim to fulfil every order where we can and keep in contact with our customers should the situation change.

We hope that all our customers, suppliers and distributors remain safe and well at this time and we look forward to the future when a sense of normality can resume. In the meantime, we will continue to monitor and follow the latest guidance from both the government and Public Health England and keep in regular contact with our customers.

Please do not hesitate to get in touch with our team via phone or email should you have any enquiries.

The growing cladding fiasco reminds us of a key principle that fire safety is best done “Right First Time” because trying to correct mistakes later on can be horrendously costly.

The Grenfell Fire catastrophe still casts a deep and dark shadow over fire safety. Residents of high-rise blocks continue to express profound dissatisfaction, more than two years after the fire, that they are living in questionably unsafe apartments and that they are faced by life-changing costs as they are left to shoulder the heavy burden of improvements that they can’t possibly be responsible for.

It is estimated that 196,000 people could still be living in dangerous buildings after the combustible cladding problem was first tragically exposed by the Grenfell fire. Using industry sources, the Sunday Times has reported that their investigation suggests 82,000 flats are potentially affected, and that the repair bill could be of the order of £1.4 bn in total (86% for private residences). That’s at least 6 times the £200 m Government has allocated to help with safety improvements for private  residences. The research is reported to cover residential blocks of all heights with questionable rainscreen cladding systems but excluding those built or refurbished before 2013.

No one, it seems, can really be sure on the full extent of the combustible cladding fiasco. And no one can really get a grasp of the upfront costs and the full lifetime costs accruing on residents from the psychological impacts and long-term loss of property values.

Leaseholders find themselves in a horrible trap, with responsibility and accountability landing at their doors when they can’t possibly be held in any way responsible for the original decisions concerning compliance with building regulations and key fire safety principles.

The Government’s new consultation this summer on the regulatory system talks a great deal at its heart of assigning responsibility and accountability through the design, build and regulatory process from start to finish in the occupation and management of the building. Presumably on that basis the issue of who should be held accountable and who should foot the bill for correcting errors in future will be different if this regulatory structural reform comes through into new legislation. But right now there is a massive problem that no one apparently seems able to solve.

Refurbishment costs for affected apartment blocks are variously estimated in the order of around £5m to even £9m depending on the block and what is necessary. Individual flat owners are reported to face personal bills of £70,000 to £80,000 as a share of the replacement and refurbishment costs. There are also costs on a continuous basis for round-the-clock fire warden inspections of around £16,500 per month per flat. Such costs are intolerable. And completely unreasonable. Residents are justified in thinking that responsibilities outlined in the Government regulatory consultation could quite reasonably be assumed to apply already in the normal course of providing building designs and constructions (just as safety is implicitly part of supplying a whole range of consumer products).

Fire safety crucially depends on three key principles for provisions built-into the fabric of the building.

Firstly, compartmentation to prevent fire and smoke spread to other parts of the building. The aim has to be to restrict the chance of fire spread, to localise the fire and make the job of suppression (for example by sprinklers) and extinguishing by the fire and rescue service as effective – safe, easy and quick – as possible. Secondly, comes fire separation to allow occupants to be alerted and to escape safely before conditions become untenable, physically isolated from fire. Thirdly, the fabric and structure of the building needs to be resilient and robust so that it can continue to stand up and resist aggressive fire spread both inside and outside by limiting destruction, burning and flaming. The best way to achieve those aims is by getting levels of fire protection right from the beginning.

Where lives are at stake then surely people and property should come first? Cost-cutting should be seen as false economy, because trying to modify and correct constructions at a later date is far more costly and dangerous in the long run. Function should come before cost. “Right First Time” for fire safety should accordingly be a key dominating principle that needs far more attention than has apparently been the case so far. Hopefully Government through its reforms will recognise that.

With the impact of the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) outbreak being felt by businesses around the world, we want to make all stakeholders aware that we are taking our responsibilities seriously in relation to this significant global challenge.

Ensuring business continuity in light of events like pandemics is something we have been working towards over the last few years. When the first cases of Covid-19 were identified in the UK, we began to monitor and review the situation and put in place specific measures to manage the resulting risks.

We are taking the following specific actions:

* Wherever possible, we are engaging in electronic communication methods rather than face-to-
face meetings, in order to avoid any physical contact such as handshakes.
* We are following all government guidelines with respect to international travel and domestic
containment measures.
* We are undergoing regular cleaning of our offices.

We do not currently foresee any impact on the continuity of our service, but should the situation change we will notify you immediately. Although we believe the actions we have put in place are appropriate for the current levels of risk, they remain open to review.

Fire safety could not have been more in the public spotlight than has been the case through 2017 to 2019. Arguably Government has not shown a greater level of attention on fire safety since the Great Fire of London in 1666 left 85% of the capital’s population homeless. And authorities could not be more under pressure from growing community awareness of the severe threats that fire poses if more care is not given to fire prevention and protection in practice.

We’ve seen the Expert Panel set up by Government to provide focus on immediate issues as they arise. There has been a Government-sponsored test programme on cladding testing which has led to a major review of BS standards covering facade test methods and procedures. Initial reaction led to combustibility questions which in turn resulted in a blanket requirement for residential blocks over 18 m to only have classified non-combustible materials on external walls. There has also been a major test programme followed through first on plastic-based composite doors, resulting in their removal from the market and major soul searching by the sector.

That was followed by extensive testing of timber fire doors from 25 manufacturers, which proved successful in all respects with good pass results in all cases, several tests indicating very significant safety margins in extended levels of timber fire door performance. We are told that attention has shifted to other types of cladding now under consideration. There has been the major review of fire safety carried out by Dame Judith Hackitt initiated by the Government as an immediate response to concerns arising from preliminary considerations of the Grenfell fire, initiated and completed before the Moore Blick Inquiry had hardly got off the ground.

Now in June 2019 there are major consultations from Government on what amounts to a root-and-branch reform of the regulatory system, following from the Government’s clear statement that they accept all the recommendations from Hackitt, and of the way the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 works in practice. The proposals are extensive; and they require a major cultural re-adjustment towards fire safety as Hackitt concluded necessary at an early stage of the review. Is all this activity producing results? Is the level of attention given to fire safety in practice yet as good as it needs to be given the potential threat from fire? Is there still a belief that in some way “the system will provide” and provisions for protection against fire really don’t need special consideration? Is sufficient notice really being taken in practice to counter the threats of fire?

Especially, are the principles of built-in fire safety protection in the fabric of a building using compartmentation, fire separation and active fire suppression as fully understood as they should be? 2019 has so far seen four major fires in different types of buildings which have all hit the headlines because of the circumstances and extensive destruction in all cases. The Ocado warehouse fire, the Beechmere Retirement Home, the Willenhall hotel and the Samuel Garside residential block fires all suggest that fire can break out in any situation and that buildings remain highly vulnerable to fire unless special measures are taken to limit fire growth, spread and development.

Nobody was injured or killed, miraculously. But chance could so easily have determined otherwise. The buildings were either completely destroyed or substantially damaged. The writing is there on the wall for all to read. We do not want another shock like Grenfell or Lakanal House.

The Hackitt report suggested that the fire safety system for buildings in the UK is broken. Despite all the activity initiated by Government and the warnings from numerous fire safety organisations and individuals, significant improvements will not arise – and the system will remain broken – until conscious positive steps are made in the way buildings are designed, constructed and maintained for protection against fire.

Special measures are necessary. Buildings are not naturally resilient and robust against fire. Particular built-in fire-resistant barriers are needed throughout a building and especially in key critical locations. And not to provide adequate provisions against fire spread can only be a false economy, risking not only major losses but sooner or later, at some point, serious threats to innocent lives.

Will BREXIT require a re-think for products in relation to CE Marking and EN standards? Will there be change? Or is the best policy, perhaps, to keep calm and carry on? What does No Deal mean?

Few in the current fevered political environment have in mind what happens in a post-Brexit UK to the suite of glass and glazing standards originating under the CPR. The glass and glazing standards have been very well established for around 20 years, after what was a long gestation period of diligent standardisation work in which the UK industry took such a prominent leading role. Will Brexit bring problems? Or can we just follow on, still dancing to the EN tune?                                                                                

One sure aspect of BREXIT is that very little is actually nailed down. Nothing is certain relating to possible consequences and outcomes. Politicians have wandered into a political morass and are now going about in increasingly smaller circles trying to find a way out to firmer ground. We won’t know in many areas what the implications are until events start to unfold after the UK leaves.

Even when leaving is finally settled, we still cannot be entirely confident what will emerge as a result. Uncertainty rules, OK?  There is a hope that the implications will not mean a re-working of all the product standards that now provide such a firm basis for glass and glazing products in the UK.

It is useful to recall the origin for those glass and glazing standards – the background history is important

The standards come from the Single Market, determined by processes under the Construction Products regulation (the CPR) subject to the original EU Treaties, originating way back from the Single European Act, in Margaret Thatcher’s day, to establish the single market by 1992. The Act came into force in 1987, under the Delors Commission.  Before the stimulation provided by the European single market process there were no BS glass and glazing product standards in the UK.

A fundamental requirement by treaty is the free movement of goods without technical barriers to trade within the EU. That requires what is described as a common technical language, captured by harmonised European Norms (hEN’s) that allow the definition of product types and classification according to key properties and characteristics.   

First came the Construction Products Directive in 1988, finally leading to a new regulation of the European Parliament 305/2011 known as the CPR (The Construction Products Regulation). The CPR made CE marking obligatory for qualifying products available for sale and placed on the EU market (i.e. those which are covered by an appropriate product harmonised standard, hEN).  

On that count there is perhaps not cause to worry unduly. It seems BSI will remain part of the European standards club – at least as far as we can see, at the moment, until things settle down further.

BSI has announced that they have been accepted to continue as a full member of CEN in transition to BREXIT until the end of 2020. How membership continues beyond the interim period is not yet clear: CEN membership rules require the national bodies to come from countries that are either EU or EFTA members. The UK looks likely to be in neither camp.

As a member of the standards club, the UK represented by BSI will be able to continue using the BS EN standards that have already been developed. The consequences of not being able to continue with those standards is horrific to contemplate. They have all been developed over many years, involving a very high level of work in various European and UK standards forums, for many industry people. It would take years to go over that work again, to replace the BS EN’s with original new BS’s. It is fundamentally important to keep the British Standards for products, testing and performance classification that are available from adopted EN standards.  

When standards have to be updated, or new standards developed, the future ability to be as fully engaged in the standardisation process is less clear and somewhat hazy.  

Hopefully the deadlock intransigence to agree will not spill over into standardisation, where there has been harmony. But the UK may find itself not as welcome in European Forums as it has been in the past.  Voting rights might not be the same. And it would be an unwelcome outcome if UK industry should not be as influential as it has been in the past.

Conformity with the EN standards is shown by the CE Mark, the only mark acceptable for compliance with the CPR Single Market process.  If the UK is no longer part of the EU Single Community Market – by definition, beyond the CPR – then it’s obvious that the CE Mark can no longer hold sway in the UK. Government has suggested an answer. There are optimistic noises and the mood at least in this respect, can be said to be somewhat upbeat.

If the UK crashes out on a No Deal basis then the Government has said that goods already on the market that meet EU CE mark requirements can still legitimately be placed on the UK market in the same way. Current arrangements are expected to have force through a new UK mark, the CA Mark (i.e. Conformity Assessed). The stated policy intention is that new UK rules will mirror the EU rulebook. That at least is the anticipated position when the starter gun goes off.

But this is to be time-limited. Products tested by a UK-notified body under CPR procedures will no longer be able to be placed on the EU market without re-testing and re-marking by a EU-recognised conformity assessment body. A UK-based organisation cannot be a new EU notified body. UK bodies notified under the CPR will be granted new UK Government approved body status, Government has said. And those organisations will be able to assess products for the UK market against UK essential requirements (which are naturally expected most likely to mirror EU essential requirements).  

All this scenario comes under the heading “We hope; and expect.” But there are many BIG influential issues to be resolved yet.  The best policy in the absence of anything more definite does seem to be to keep calm and carry on.  But don’t be surprised if there should be unforeseen consequences and disruptive unwelcome outcomes.

Ceramic Glass Limited has been involved in fire safety since 1982 as a dedicated supplier of ceramic glass.  The prime product ranges are FireLite as fire-resistant and thermal shock resilient glazing (such as fire doors and glazed screens), and heat-resistant NeoCeram for all types of heating stoves, both traditional and new modern designs.  We stock the entire range at our modern factory in Loughborough and can provide cut sizes as required, with quick response and short lead times. Please contact sales@ceramicglass.co.uk or Michael Bye on 01509 273970 for personal attention.  Check out our products on www.ceramicglass.co.uk . Please talk to us about applications.