Barratt - Timber framed - New build

artyboy

caprikid1 said:

artyboy said:

housebuyer143 said:

It's like living in a pirate ship - only negative. Creaky and everytime a truck went the whole house would shake. 
I think they are considered standard construction for new builds now. 

Hmm, my old 1600s timber framed cottage was like a rock - never any movement. Possibly more down to the overall quality of modern builds than the actual materials used?

(Mind you, it was a disaster in terms of insulation, good job energy was cheap back then...)

Timber framed using slow grown uk oak, there are modern steels not as strong !. The Oak is probably close to 600 years old !

So what do they use these days, balsa wood? 

caprikid1

artyboy said:

caprikid1 said:

artyboy said:

housebuyer143 said:

It's like living in a pirate ship - only negative. Creaky and everytime a truck went the whole house would shake. 
I think they are considered standard construction for new builds now. 

Hmm, my old 1600s timber framed cottage was like a rock - never any movement. Possibly more down to the overall quality of modern builds than the actual materials used?

(Mind you, it was a disaster in terms of insulation, good job energy was cheap back then...)

Timber framed using slow grown uk oak, there are modern steels not as strong !. The Oak is probably close to 600 years old !

So what do they use these days, balsa wood? 

It's not that good !.

Barratt to open £45m timber frame factory | News | Housing Today

It's not being done for the customer that is clear, increased risk or fire, insect damage and rot.

Doozergirl

caprikid1 said:

artyboy said:

caprikid1 said:

artyboy said:

housebuyer143 said:

It's like living in a pirate ship - only negative. Creaky and everytime a truck went the whole house would shake. 
I think they are considered standard construction for new builds now. 

Hmm, my old 1600s timber framed cottage was like a rock - never any movement. Possibly more down to the overall quality of modern builds than the actual materials used?

(Mind you, it was a disaster in terms of insulation, good job energy was cheap back then...)

Timber framed using slow grown uk oak, there are modern steels not as strong !. The Oak is probably close to 600 years old !

So what do they use these days, balsa wood? 

It's not that good !.

Barratt to open £45m timber frame factory | News | Housing Today

It's not being done for the customer that is clear, increased risk or fire, insect damage and rot.

I'm not sure what that article is supposed to demonstrate. It talks about meeting the Future Homes Standard which would require a decrease in carbon emissions of 75-80% from the existing Building Regs for new homes.  ie.  Improving the building fabric.  

Modern Methods of Construction do cut build times.  It happens by increasing productivity in a factory; they also improve build quality because they are engineered.  The length of time spent out on a muddy/frozen site battling the elements does not automatically equate to higher build quality.  

I think it's pretty well acknowledged in the construction industry that timber build is stronger than masonry in many situations.  It's inherently flexible.  Artyboy's house is a prime example of that flexibilty.  The oak wasn't 600 years old when the house was built.  Most self-builders end up choosing a timber frame of some description once they've done their research. 

Timber still forms a massive part of masonry homes too, which are also flammable and can suffer with rot.   Building regs require mitigation and we should all be maintaining our homes properly.   We don't suffer with insect damage in the UK. 

BarelySentientAI

caprikid1 said:

It's not being done for the customer that is clear, increased risk or fire, insect damage and rot.

Setting fire to the timber frame of a building is really difficult.  Actually, setting fire to big chunks of timber anywhere is pretty hard.

The vast majority of fires start by igniting fittings, furnishings or contents.

I have been to the aftermath of many house fires where large beams have only surface charring that you can scrape off with a screwdriver and keep the beam but everything around them is completely destroyed.

RHemmings

The OP asks about problems with timber-framed homes from the 1990s to the present.

This article, from 2022, goes into the history of timber-framed buildings and fires in the UK. Going back even earlier than the 1990s, including relaxation of regulations under Thatcher and an early timber-framed building boom. And, how that boom reversedy. 

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/timber-frame-buildings-and-cavity-fires-the-burning-question-77981

There are a number of buildings listed where there were serious fires, including some that burned to the ground. The article includes a photo of the remnants of a care home in Crewe that was destroyed in a fire. 

The article, reminder: 2022, asks why regulations have not been tightened concerning such buildings. I have had a search for any new such regulations, but have not found anything specifically mentioning timber-framed buildings. 

This article says that timber-framed buildings are more likely to be completely destroyed in a fire than masonry buildings: http://www.brand-newhomes.co.uk/timber-frame-new-home-fire.htm The article says that a masonry-built home will maintain structural integrity even after a fire, while a timber-framed house will not. Again, there are pictures of houses on fire.

The OP is asking about a new-build, so the safety of historic buildings is not directly relevant. And, new UK buildings should all be safe and preventing fires from spreading for 30 minutes to allow people to chance to leave. The second article says that in a masonry building a fire may be contained for four hours. A claim is not proof, and just based on seat of the pants four hours sounds quite a bold claim to me.

There are some concerns that timber-framed buildings may be a great risk to firefighters due to the greater risk of collapse. 

Surrey Fire and Rescue say: "Fires in timber framed buildings under construction generally develop very rapidly and lead to early structural collapse. The severity of the heat generated can cause the fire to spread to neighbouring buildings over 30 meters away and embers can spread fire over an even greater distance."

https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/community/fire-and-rescue/businesses/buildings/planning-and-building-control/timber-framed

That page also points out that the safety of a timber-framed building depends considerably on the materials the timber frame is contained within. 

Switching from looking for solid information to a personal comment, I think I would be safer in a modern timber-framed building than I am in my own home, until I get the fire door to the kitchen - that a previous owner removed - put back in. 

BarelySentientAI

RHemmings said:

The article, reminder: 2022, asks why regulations have not been tightened concerning such buildings. I have had a search for any new such regulations, but have not found anything specifically mentioning timber-framed buildings. 

Probably, in this case, because fire performance requirements are often independent of construction method. In the UK we define the performance, not quite so much how to achieve it. The USA is quite different in this regard - hence why they have specific inspections for fire performance of buildings and can condemn a property for not meeting them.

RHemmings said:

This article says that timber-framed buildings are more likely to be completely destroyed in a fire than masonry buildings: http://www.brand-newhomes.co.uk/timber-frame-new-home-fire.htm The article says that a masonry-built home will maintain structural integrity even after a fire, while a timber-framed house will not. Again, there are pictures of houses on fire.

The article is factually incorrect in several critical assertions, including that which I bolded above.  I have direct experience in this matter.

RHemmings said:

There are some concerns that timber-framed buildings may be a great risk to firefighters due to the greater risk of collapse. 

Surrey Fire and Rescue say: "Fires in timber framed buildings under construction generally develop very rapidly and lead to early structural collapse. The severity of the heat generated can cause the fire to spread to neighbouring buildings over 30 meters away and embers can spread fire over an even greater distance."

https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/community/fire-and-rescue/businesses/buildings/planning-and-building-control/timber-framed

Note the important wording here - "under construction".

I presume the OP will not be living in the house whilst it is still under construction.

All that SF&RS really say in relation to a completed building is that workmanship defects might impair the fire performance of the structure - which is true for all construction methods.

DullGreyGuy

Jamo574922 said:

Hi All,

I have reserved a Barratt, new build home in Merseyside. Whilst I was aware of the fact I’ve become uncertain about the fact it is a brick faced timber framed home. 

I have no prior knowledge on this subject but the points that make me concerned as to if this is a ‘wise’ investment are as follows:

1. Are timber framed new build homes classed as a standard construction type?
2. Is there any additional concern or cost associated with insurance?
3. What is the resale value on this style of house? Does the market show a proportional trend in comparison to the standard construction builds within the UK? 

4. Have any issues been identified with both design/construction to timber framed homes built from 90s to present? 

5. It is likely that timber framed homes will become more common in the UK (and therefore widely accepted)  as they are in Scotland and the EU?

I would really appreciate feedback on the above points.

thanks to all who respond in advance,
Jamo574922. 

1) Depends for what purpose, they are becoming more common

2) Insurers dont aim at new builds explicitly and so for them it's a non-standard build. Many will be happy to consider it -v- some rarer methods but you may pay a little more than a standard brick and tile construction

5) Ignoring your UK -v- Scotland comment... they are getting more common again and so will get greater acceptance over time 

stuart45

One of the issues with timber frame houses was the cavity being the wrong size. The foundations being slightly out with the measurements doesn't matter so much brick/block, as you just adjust the masonry to suit. When the panels are made up in the factory, they are designed for set dimensions. In reality you often ended up with the brickwork touching the inner skin at one end and a 4 inch cavity at the other. In the USA most houses are stick built by the framers on site to avoid this.

RHemmings

BarelySentientAI said:

RHemmings said:

The article, reminder: 2022, asks why regulations have not been tightened concerning such buildings. I have had a search for any new such regulations, but have not found anything specifically mentioning timber-framed buildings. 

Probably, in this case, because fire performance requirements are often independent of construction method. In the UK we define the performance, not quite so much how to achieve it. The USA is quite different in this regard - hence why they have specific inspections for fire performance of buildings and can condemn a property for not meeting them.

RHemmings said:

This article says that timber-framed buildings are more likely to be completely destroyed in a fire than masonry buildings: http://www.brand-newhomes.co.uk/timber-frame-new-home-fire.htm The article says that a masonry-built home will maintain structural integrity even after a fire, while a timber-framed house will not. Again, there are pictures of houses on fire.

The article is factually incorrect in several critical assertions, including that which I bolded above.  I have direct experience in this matter.

RHemmings said:

There are some concerns that timber-framed buildings may be a great risk to firefighters due to the greater risk of collapse. 

Surrey Fire and Rescue say: "Fires in timber framed buildings under construction generally develop very rapidly and lead to early structural collapse. The severity of the heat generated can cause the fire to spread to neighbouring buildings over 30 meters away and embers can spread fire over an even greater distance."

https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/community/fire-and-rescue/businesses/buildings/planning-and-building-control/timber-framed

Note the important wording here - "under construction".

I presume the OP will not be living in the house whilst it is still under construction.

All that SF&RS really say in relation to a completed building is that workmanship defects might impair the fire performance of the structure - which is true for all construction methods.

First, yes it is mentioned in quite a few sources that building regulations are construction independent, but I've seen quite a few comments that say that does not mean that all are equally safe. E.g. various types of buildings may exceed the minimum requirements of building 

Your experience in the area is appreciated, but can you provide externally verifiable evidence? There is a long list of timber-framed properties in the first link which did burn to the ground. Hence, I don't think it can be said that a timber-framed house will maintain structural integrity even in a fire, as there are clear examples where they did not. If you have verifiable information to back up your experience, it would be useful if you can supply it. 

Note also that my first link includes this paragraph and the quote within it: "The President of the Chief Fire Officers Association John Bonney does not agree. After the recent timber frame fire on a building site in Basingstoke there are concerns that firemen are at a greater risk due to the instability of the burning timber structure collapsing around them. He said, “When timber-framed buildings catch fire the actual structure burns. It often leads to total collapse and that puts the safety of our fire-fighters at risk.”"  Does your personal experience outweigh that of The President of the Chief Fire Officers Association John Bonny? 

Yes, the Surrey Fire and Rescue page does mention houses under construction, and that was a poor choice of quote. A better quote from the same article is "The ability of a timber framed building to perform well in a fire (resist the spread of fire and early collapse) is heavily reliant on the materials used to cover and protect the wooden structure. This is generally done through the use of such materials as fire rated plaster board sheets, plaster and fire rated fillers and insulation." My first link also mentioned this. Using informal language, the safety of a timber-framed house depends on the house having been built to a sufficient safety standard. But, please see later. 

This link says that there have been reports of potential problems with timber-framed buildings, i.e. that some such buildings have not been built to ensure full safety. https://www.cross-safety.org/srms/safety-information/cross-safety-report/fire-hazards-historical-modular-timber-framed-1243  Note that this applies to buildings built up until 2013. So, it is relevant to the discussion on the history of fire risk for timber-framed buildings, but not to the property the OP might purchase which is new build in 2024. 

The second link in the previous article in my previous post says this: "Homes built using traditional construction protect against the spread of fire between rooms or properties, as masonry cannot catch fire, burn or drip molten particles. A timber frame home is in most cases totally destroyed." You have disputed this reference based on your personal experience, but can you provide verifiable evidence that the structural integrity of timber-framed houses, in general, is not at risk. A comment, from an unknown person at the bottom says "Furthermore, whilst charring of timber framed buildings does provide an element of fire resistance (and in fact the size of timber members can be designed specifically to allow a certain depth of charring equivalent to a specific fire resistance period) it DOES NOT provide sufficient protection that a building would survive ‘burn-out’. In an un-tackled blaze, any timber building would combust completely." I put that in in case more evidence for or against that can be found. Otherwise it's just a random quote by an anonymous person. Like a forum post. 

Generally the safety depends on the building having been constructed and maintained properly. Which is not a given as a number of fires have shown. E.g. there were some older timber-framed houses which were later clad with inappropriate materials that proved to be a significant fire risk. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/05/fears-of-new-uk-cladding-crisis-after-blaze-destroys-timber-frame-homes  The timber frames are not by themselves fire resistant, but must be built into a structure that as a whole is fire resistant and (including 'therefore') resistant against collapse in a fire. Again, that is emphasised here: "Timber frames have a far more combustible nature than traditional masonry; it is therefore a requirement that specific care is taken in the detailing and installation of cavity barriers and firestops. Unless recommended by the timber frame manufacturer, firestops and cavity barriers should be provided at required locations." https://www.housebuild.com/construction/building-guidelines/building-regulations-and-other-guidance/fire-safety   Personal comment, why would a timber frame manufacturer recommend against fire-stops and cavity barriers. I guess due to various construction methods. 

And, more here (my emphasis): https://www.elliottwood.co.uk/latest/10-things-weve-learned-about-timber-construction-and-fire-safety

"3. Poor construction quality is a big obstacle for timber buildings

It’s possible for a building to be fire safe on the drawing board but not in reality. If fire prevention measures are not correctly installed, then any structure – wood or not – can become hazardous. Architect Jonathan Manser, CEO of The Manser Practice, has seen several examples of this. “The building industry in this country is shockingly bad,” he claims. “I am involved in one project taking cladding off a building and discovered that all the fire barriers were missing.” Build quality is essential to ensuring the durability of any structure, timber or otherwise. Demanding a proper, independent inspection system may be the only solution."

This is the problem. Providing everything is done to the book, they should be OK. The problem is that how does anyone know for sure that things have been done by the book. 

RICS have an article saying that while properly built timber-framed houses may not be a fire risk, that there may be some resistance from insurers. Quote: "Despite its numerous advantages, mass timber faces resistance from insurers mindful of the fire risks it poses." https://ww3.rics.org/uk/en/journals/construction-journal/insuring-timber-buildings-playbook.html

I'm concerned that I have seen comments about proper maintenance of timber-framed houses being important for fire safety, but I can only find general information about maintaining timber-framed houses, without mentioning fire. 

From the Elliotwood link above: "1. People naturally associate timber buildings with fire risk

Everyone knows that wood can be a highly sustainable construction material. It is naturally durable, renewable and has a low carbon footprint. There is also evidence to suggest that some mass timber products can match steel and concrete in terms of fire resistance. Despite this, many local authorities and housing associations are vetoing the use of any timber in new residential projects. In the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower disaster and others, they are under pressure to make fire safety their number one priority. Whether or not timber contributed to these fires doesn’t matter – as far as the public are concerned, this material is high risk. Timber needs an image change, or people won’t want to see it in their homes."  This might mean that even if someone has a perfectly well designed and maintained timber framed building, that they might be faced with people who don't trust the construction when it comes time to sell. Particularly if there continues to be serious fires in timber-framed buildings, even those that were constructed some time ago. 

BarelySentientAI

RHemmings said:

Does your personal experience outweigh that of The President of the Chief Fire Officers Association John Bonny? 

I don't think an appendage measuring contest is particularly useful.  My professional expertise is in a similar area with slightly different focus, but of a shorter duration than his 30-odd years.

RHemmings said:

First, yes it is mentioned in quite a few sources that building regulations are construction independent, but I've seen quite a few comments that say that does not mean that all are equally safe. E.g. various types of buildings may exceed the minimum requirements of building 

Some timber-frame buildings exceed building regulations, most match them, some don't.
Some masonry buildings exceed building regulations, most match them, some don't (just look at the numerous threads here about discovering a lack of building regs during purchase).

RHemmings said:

Your experience in the area is appreciated, but can you provide externally verifiable evidence? There is a long list of timber-framed properties in the first link which did burn to the ground. Hence, I don't think it can be said that a timber-framed house will maintain structural integrity even in a fire, as there are clear examples where they did not. If you have verifiable information to back up your experience, it would be useful if you can supply it. 

I did not say that a timber-framed house will maintain structural integrity after a fire, although it is true that is less-severe fires timber components often survive better than a layperson would expect.

Structures of all types fail following severe fires.  Would you like a list of photographs of masonry or steel structures that have collapsed following fires?  Start with 1 & 2 WTC and go from there?  The multiple of anecdote is not data.

RHemmings said:

The second link in the previous article in my previous post says this: "Homes built using traditional construction protect against the spread of fire between rooms or properties, as masonry cannot catch fire, burn or drip molten particles. A timber frame home is in most cases totally destroyed." You have disputed this reference based on your personal experience, but can you provide verifiable evidence that the structural integrity of timber-framed houses, in general, is not at risk. A comment, from an unknown person at the bottom says "Furthermore, whilst charring of timber framed buildings does provide an element of fire resistance (and in fact the size of timber members can be designed specifically to allow a certain depth of charring equivalent to a specific fire resistance period) it DOES NOT provide sufficient protection that a building would survive ‘burn-out’. In an un-tackled blaze, any timber building would combust completely." I put that in in case more evidence for or against that can be found. Otherwise it's just a random quote by an anonymous person. Like a forum post. 

Again, the exact opposite of what I said.  In an un-tackled blaze developing to sufficient severity, buildings of every construction type will collapse.  Similarly, in an un-tackled blaze which does not develop, a timber building would not combust completely.  The naked flame of a candle is essentially "an un-tackled blaze" with less emotionally charged language.

The internal construction and dividing walls of many, if not most, masonry buildings provide very limited protection against the spread of fire with sufficient intensity.

RHemmings said:

"3. Poor construction quality is a big obstacle for timber buildings

It’s possible for a building to be fire safe on the drawing board but not in reality. If fire prevention measures are not correctly installed, then any structure – wood or not – can become hazardous. Architect Jonathan Manser, CEO of The Manser Practice, has seen several examples of this. “The building industry in this country is shockingly bad,” he claims. “I am involved in one project taking cladding off a building and discovered that all the fire barriers were missing.” Build quality is essential to ensuring the durability of any structure, timber or otherwise. Demanding a proper, independent inspection system may be the only solution."

This is the problem. Providing everything is done to the book, they should be OK. The problem is that how does anyone know for sure that things have been done by the book. 

This is true.  Regardless of construction method.  Which that quote actually says.  Nothing in the quote, apart from the title, suggests that it is a particular issue for timber buildings.  There are some terrible examples of building quality across all methods.

RHemmings said:

From the Elliotwood link above: "1. People naturally associate timber buildings with fire risk

Everyone knows that wood can be a highly sustainable construction material. It is naturally durable, renewable and has a low carbon footprint. There is also evidence to suggest that some mass timber products can match steel and concrete in terms of fire resistance. Despite this, many local authorities and housing associations are vetoing the use of any timber in new residential projects. In the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower disaster and others, they are under pressure to make fire safety their number one priority. Whether or not timber contributed to these fires doesn’t matter – as far as the public are concerned, this material is high risk. Timber needs an image change, or people won’t want to see it in their homes."  This might mean that even if someone has a perfectly well designed and maintained timber framed building, that they might be faced with people who don't trust the construction when it comes time to sell. Particularly if there continues to be serious fires in timber-framed buildings, even those that were constructed some time ago. 

Yes, an image problem, not a technical problem.  The general public thinks timber is bad for fire.  The general public also thinks cladding is bad for fire.  The crux of that comes from what seems to be the same point of view as you - wood burns and bricks don't, therefore wood bad and bricks good. 

That's most of the issue in reality.  The perception of timber-framed buildings is not good, and they are still relatively rare, which makes resale more difficult and insurance more expensive.  Neither of those things are based solely (or even majorly) on technical performance