Why are we speaking up on fire safety and timber for homes?

The Government is currently reviewing its fire safety guidance for buildings. Some of the proposed changes could make it significantly more difficult, more expensive and less sustainable to use timber in and on homes across England. If adopted in their current form, we believe the proposals would have serious consequences for our business, the wider British timber industry and the long-term management of British woodlands.

I have spent my career working with British timber, the fourth generation of my family to do so. During that time, I have seen first-hand how well British-grown timber performs when it is properly designed, specified and installed. As a co-author of the National Wood Strategy, I also understand how important strong markets for timber are to the health, resilience and long-term management of British woodlands.

The document under review is an innocuously titled publication called Approved Document B. Although it is guidance rather than legislation, it is the principal document used by designers, builders and building control bodies to demonstrate compliance with the fire safety requirements of the Building Regulations. As a result, relatively small changes in its wording can have a profound impact on the materials used in construction.

Some of the proposals, as currently drafted, could, in my view, make it considerably more difficult for designers and housebuilders to specify timber cladding or traditional oak framing in low-rise domestic buildings. The unintended consequence could be to squeeze timber out of homes where it has been used safely and successfully for generations.

We fully support measures that improve fire safety. However, fire safety and the use of timber are not mutually exclusive, and the guidance should make that clear. Where timber can be used safely, the regulations should provide certainty rather than ambiguity. Uncertainty encourages architects, insurers, warranty providers and mortgage lenders to adopt the most risk-averse interpretation, discouraging the use of timber almost as effectively as an outright ban.

Below is our response to the consultation in full.

Response to the consultation on Approved Document B

We support the Government’s objective of improving fire safety and recognise the importance of ensuring that building regulations continue to reflect the lessons learned from recent years. However, we are concerned that further tightening of guidance relating to combustible materials could have significant unintended consequences for the use of timber in low-rise domestic construction.

We believe these objectives are entirely compatible. The UK has an opportunity to deliver world-leading standards of fire safety while also increasing the use of responsibly sourced British timber in appropriate applications. Regulations should seek to achieve both outcomes, rather than creating unnecessary barriers to sustainable construction.

It is essential that the final wording of Approved Document B provides absolute clarity regarding the continued use of timber in domestic buildings. Any ambiguity is likely to result in increasingly risk-averse interpretations by designers, warranty providers, insurers and building control bodies. In practice, uncertainty can discourage the specification of timber just as effectively as an outright prohibition.

This would have implications far beyond the construction industry.

Timber cladding is the principal high-value market for several important British timber species, including sweet chestnut, western red cedar and larch. Traditional timber framing similarly provides one of the most important long-term markets for home-grown Douglas fir and oak. Reducing demand for these products would weaken the commercial case for managing British woodlands and diminish the value of locally grown timber.

Our own experience demonstrates the positive impact that innovation can have in creating markets for underutilised species. We have invested significantly in the development of Brimstone®, a thermally modified timber manufactured from British-grown ash, poplar and sycamore. The product was developed specifically to create durable, high-performance cladding and decking from species that have historically struggled to find high-value end uses.

This innovation has created a valuable market for timber that might previously have been sold as low-grade material or firewood, providing woodland owners with improved returns while encouraging active woodland management and supporting domestic manufacturing. Similar stories exist across the British timber sector, where investment in new products and processing capacity has been driven by confidence in the future use of timber in construction.

We therefore urge the Government to ensure that the revised guidance clearly distinguishes between higher-risk buildings and low-rise domestic construction, and that the wording leaves no ambiguity over where timber products, including timber cladding and timber frame construction, remain appropriate. In practice, uncertainty is likely to be interpreted conservatively by designers, insurers, warranty providers and building control bodies, discouraging the use of timber even where the regulations do not intend this outcome.

It is also important that this consultation is considered alongside the Government’s wider policy objectives. Successive governments have recognised the need to increase the use of home-grown timber, improve the resilience and productivity of British woodlands, encourage domestic manufacturing and reduce the embodied carbon of construction. The National Wood Strategy similarly identifies increased demand for British-grown timber as essential to supporting investment in woodland management, strengthening domestic manufacturing and expanding the UK’s timber supply chain.

Any changes to Approved Document B that inadvertently reduce confidence in the use of timber in low-rise domestic buildings risk undermining these objectives. Reduced demand for timber cladding and timber framing would weaken markets for a wide range of British-grown species, discourage investment in innovative products such as Brimstone®, reduce returns to woodland owners and ultimately make the management, restoration and expansion of productive woodlands more difficult.

The consequences would extend well beyond the timber industry itself. They would affect the viability of rural businesses, reduce incentives for active woodland management, diminish the environmental and economic value derived from British forests and weaken confidence to invest in the innovation that is needed if the UK is to make better use of its own timber resource.

Fire safety must remain the overriding priority. However, where timber can be used safely, regulations should provide certainty rather than uncertainty. We encourage the Government to ensure that the final guidance achieves its fire safety objectives while remaining consistent with its commitments to sustainable construction, increased use of home-grown timber, rural economic growth, biodiversity enhancement, carbon reduction and the long-term stewardship of Britain’s woodlands. Doing so would demonstrate that fire safety policy, environmental policy, industrial strategy and woodland policy can work together to deliver safer buildings, stronger rural economies and a more sustainable built environment.