MHCLG has published its analysis of responses to the call for evidence concerning the Technical Review of Approved Document B (fire safety) which closed on 15 March 2019.
Click here to view the document.
Summary of general comments
- There was a large degree of commonality of viewpoint on many issues
- While the consultation focused on technical matters, a considerable number of responses included non-technical observations
- There were many suggestions for minor amendments
- While there was a desire for change, this was tempered by a realisation that there is a need for much research and that the resulting impacts and the cost of change could be extensive and needs careful consideration
- Whatever changes were to occur would require a published implementation programme
- On the status of ADB, one viewpoint expressed it allowed too much freedom and a prescriptive approach is needed while others favoured that a correct understanding and use of ADB guidance in practice needed strengthening
- While flexibility was considered beneficial, a number of response threads were not adverse to a more prescriptive approach being taken on certain matters e.g. fabric first concept of prescribing only non-combustible materials
- It was expressed that content of ADB should be more readily understandable and easy to use while a contrary and isolated viewpoint amongst some fire services was that ADB should only be used by experts.
- Many responses called for a programme of frequent review of ADSB and some suggestions that a new format should be considered.