Phil Key - UK Timber Frame Association

Question: How do you respond to the view that timber frame construction is unsuitable for modern housing?

 

I understand that the brick and block manufacturers are worried about the increasing popularity of so-called ‘offsite’ construction methods, particularly in housing. There is real interest these days in timber frame and steel frame systems that allow more of the construction process to be done in factory conditions where wastage is minimised and quality control can be more easily monitored.

 

But I completely reject the notion that somehow the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Housing Corporation, English Partnerships and others are taking huge risks with the public’s health and safety by encouraging the UK construction industry to consider using more modern methods of construction such as timber frame.

 

This is not untried technology.  Nor is it a return to the days of shoddy prefabs.  We are talking about a much more intelligent and prudent approach than I think the masonry lobby gives the authorities credit for.

 

 

Question: So what is your view on the government’s support for modern methods of construction?

 

Frankly, it makes sense.  As a society we desperately need building methods that are more efficient – Sir Michael Latham, Sir John Egan and others have been calling for this for the last 10 years!  We also need buildings that are higher quality, less wasteful, easier to adapt and much more environmentally sound.

 

Gone are the days when we can dismiss timber frame construction as an option.  You just can’t deny the merits of a building system that, instead of creating more greenhouse gases as a result of its manufacture, actually helps to lock up CO₂ and reduce environmental damage because it is so very thermally efficient. 

 

Nor can the UK’s economy and construction industry fail to benefit from the way that timber frame construction promotes better supply chain integration, fewer defects and improved health and safety.

 

 

Question: But timber burns – surely that must mean it’s a risky building material?

 

Of course timber burns. But masonry flakes and can even explode in the heat from fires.  Steel can melt and buckle in severe heat – that was the problem at the Yarl’s Wood Detention Centre fire (it was not a timber frame building). 

 

Every building material has its weaknesses if you want to test them in this way.  Equally, each mainstream method of construction in the UK, including timber frame construction, has its specific strengths and benefits.

 

The real point is this: do our architects, builders, developers and building authorities know how to overcome any weaknesses, maximise strengths and generally use such materials in such a way that our buildings are safe, robust, durable and fit for purpose?  And of course the answer is yes. 

 

We have centuries of experience of building with timber in this country.  We also have some of the best building regulations and standards in the world. 

 

The UK construction industry – in particular, the house building industry – is very familiar with building with timber frame. Technical experts such as the NHBC and BRE consider timber frame to be a perfectly acceptable method of building.  Even the most expert risk-assessors, including mortgage lenders and insurers, accept that well-built timber frame homes are as safe and reliable an investment as brick and block homes.

 

 

Question: What research has been done into the durability and fire performance of timber frame buildings?

 

As you would expect, there is very extensive research here in the UK and across the world, particularly in countries such as the USA and Canada where timber frame accounts for 90% of low rise buildings such as housing.  In the UK, organisations such as TRADA help to share and disseminate this research.

 

There are studies into everything from fire and flood resistance to damp and insect attack. There is not an aspect of timber frame construction that has not been tested. The data from this research is all helpful in ensuring that we create safe, durable timber frame homes that we can build with confidence and hand down with pride to future generations.

 

I’m not usually comfortable with the use of selective quotations – it’s too easy to distort the truth – but there is one quote that sticks in my mind.  It comes from the BRE report ‘Timber Frame Housing Systems 1920-1975’, which assessed 120 timber frame houses built during those years and found their performance to be “similar to traditionally built dwellings of the same age and, given proper maintenance, likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.”  A further extensive 10 year study published by BRE in the mid ‘90s concluded that timber frame will give long-term durable performance.

 

Fire tests carried out in partnership between BRE, TRADA, the ODPM and industry have also given the Government an authoritative verdict on timber frame construction in the UK.  The TF2000 project provided a six-storey experimental timber frame building for the sole purpose of investigating its structural and fire performance. The results proved that fire resistance of a timber frame structure is achieved by a combination of the timber structure itself, the internal lining material and the insulation. In all these elements, a well built timber frame home will meet all current building regulations and standards in the UK.

 

 

Question: What about the alleged statistical link between deaths from fire and a country’s proportion of timber frame homes?

 

A distinguished professor once told me that there was a proven statistical correlation between drinking tonic water and getting cirrhosis of the liver.  He was quite right of course in his statistical analysis, but as he explained later the disease had absolutely nothing to do with the tonic water – it was the gin that goes with it!

 

So such statistics must be used with extreme caution – they do not prove a causal link and can be very misleading.  I have seen statistics like this being used in the study by the University of Vienna on the fire performance of timber frame buildings, and I think we must be very careful of drawing conclusions.

 

Actually I have read this report very carefully, and it’s mostly concerned with the difference between timber frame technical standards in Austria compared to Germany – both countries with very different methods of timber frame construction to the UK. If you’re so minded, choosing selective quotes from the research can paint an alarming picture, but I’m not particularly impressed with this study’s relevance to the UK.

 

 

Question: So what is the UKTFA’s message to anyone who is concerned about the use of timber frame in construction?

 

Come and talk to us.  Or talk to the construction industry’s leading independent experts at BRE or NHBC.

 

We are always interested to listen to peoples’ views and would welcome the opportunity to offer our own food for thought.  We will work with others wherever we can to find ways to improve the quality of building in the UK.

 

We don’t dismiss genuine concerns, but in this day and age we do reject the need for some sort of war of words where one set of manufacturers tries to rubbish another.  With such exciting plans afoot for the creation of new sustainable communities and a rapid expansion in house building, we see that there is plenty of opportunity for all types of construction. 

 

We should work together to promote quality and confidence in UK housing.