It is time to challenge misconceptions and re-embrace timber’s potential for safe, sustainable construction. We aim to drive discussion. Contact us to comment…
Timber has long been a trusted and sustainable building material, yet post-Grenfell fears have driven the construction industry toward less regenerative alternatives. It’s time to challenge misconceptions and re-embrace timber’s potential for safe, sustainable construction.
Since the tragic Grenfell Tower fire, timber’s reputation in the construction industry has taken a hit. Once hailed for its sustainability, versatility, and even its fire resistance under certain conditions, timber is now often viewed with suspicion. The consequence? A shift towards steel, concrete, and other high carbon alternatives. This knee-jerk reaction risks derailing the timber industry’s contributions to sustainable building practices. But is this aversion justified, or is it rooted in a misunderstanding of timber’s true capabilities?
This article is aimed at catalysing discussion. Please do contact us if you wish to comment and/or join a follow up participatory meeting in future.
Timber: A longstanding and proven building material
Throughout history, timber has been a trusted building material. Heavy timber structures have been shown to withstand the test of time, with some surviving centuries. Firefighters during World War II observed that timber-framed buildings in cities like Coventry fared better during bombings than steel-framed structures. Steel, when exposed to extreme heat, often fails catastrophically, while heavy timbers char on the outside, preserving their structural integrity for much longer.
This isn’t just anecdotal. Building regulations once permitted timber-clad steel beams because of wood’s insulating charring properties. So why has the narrative changed so drastically post-Grenfell?
The fallout from Grenfell: Misunderstandings and misinformation
Grenfell Tower was a tragedy that highlighted failures in regulation, design, and governance. But the fire’s causes were complex, involving combustible cladding materials, inadequate fire-stopping, and poor maintenance. It wasn’t about heavy timber structures.
Unfortunately, the public and some in the construction industry have conflated the risks of certain materials used on the tower with all timber products. The post-Grenfell amendments to building regulations, like the 11m and 18m bans on combustible materials in external walls, have fuelled this misconception. Now, decision-makers are quick to reject timber out of fear rather than informed reasoning.
The current charring rates in Eurocode 1995 (EN 1995-1-2: Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures) and are 0.8mm/min for softwoods with a characteristic density ≥ 290Kg/m3 and 0.55mm/min for hardwoods ≥ 240Kg/m3.
Misplaced trust in non-combustible materials
In response to new regulations, many councils and developers have opted for cold-formed steel studs over timber framing. The logic? Steel is non-combustible. But here’s the irony: in the event of a fire, these thin steel frames soften and fail much faster than a timber stud that chars slowly and maintains its load-bearing capacity for longer. This critical point seems lost in the conversation.
Timber advocates argue that fire-resistant design isn’t about avoiding timber but about using it wisely. Large, exposed timber elements perform differently in a fire compared to lightweight timber cladding. Yet, distinctions between heavy timber structures and light timber applications are often overlooked by regulators and builders alike.
Rational safety protocols: A path forward
We need a shift in thinking. It’s time for the construction industry to adopt rational, integrated safety protocols that account for both fire safety and sustainability goals. The current approach of treating timber as a universal fire risk is overly simplistic and risks pushing us further down an unsustainable path.
Consider this: if we focus solely on fire risk without balancing other policy objectives like carbon reduction, we fall foul of the Tinbergen Rule. This economic principle states that achieving multiple policy targets requires multiple policy instruments. In other words, we need fire safety measures that also address environmental sustainability.
Learning from the past and looking to the future
There are lessons to be learned from history. Heavy timber structures have proven resilient in past fires. Modern fire science supports the use of engineered timber products, like cross-laminated timber (CLT), in building designs that meet strict fire safety standards. The challenge lies in educating policymakers, local councils, and developers about these realities.
Unfortunately, misinformation and fear are currently winning. Local authorities often reject timber proposals outright without giving architects and builders the chance to present evidence or share successful case studies. This reluctance stifles innovation and keeps the industry stuck in old patterns of steel and concrete dependency.
Breaking the cycle of fear
What can we do to turn the tide? It starts with advocacy and education. Organisations like Woodknowledge Wales are working to demystify timber’s fire performance and champion its use in sustainable construction. We must bridge the gap between regulatory bodies, architects, and builders to ensure that decisions are made based on facts, not fears.
Local authorities need clear, evidence-based briefings that differentiate between various timber applications and their respective fire risks. Heavy structural elements should not be lumped into the same category as lightweight cladding systems. The distinctions matter, and the future of sustainable construction depends on understanding them.
A call to action for the industry
As we face a climate crisis, the construction sector must prioritise sustainable materials. Timber, as a renewable resource and the ability to store carbon over long lifespans, should be at the forefront of this movement. But for that to happen, we need to confront the myths that have arisen since Grenfell.
It’s time for the construction industry to revisit its relationship with timber. Let’s replace fear with facts and embrace rational, integrated safety protocols that allow us to build both sustainably and safely.
The path forward isn’t about abandoning timber—it’s about using it wisely, innovatively, and responsibly. By doing so, we can create buildings that are not only safe but also part of the solution to our environmental challenges.
This article is aimed at catalysing discussion. Please do contact us if you wish to comment and/or join a follow up participatory meeting in future. Let’s get proactive about this as an industry at WoodBUILD 2025 (3-4 June, Llandudno) and forge a path for the introduction of rational integrated safety protocols. Please email info@woodknowledgewales.co.uk with your comments.
