Criticism can be constructive when it’s based on accurate information and clear understanding of the issues. Jeff Howell’s article in the Sunday Telegraph, which damned timber frame construction as a tinderbox waiting for a match, was based on neither.
I know I banged on about this subject last week but further developments have definitely made it worth another visit.
Mr Howell cited the devastating blaze at the Yarl’s Wood immigration centre as evidence that timber frame was a fire hazard. At the time it seemed bad enough. Another case of the author, a brick and block builder by trade with a thorough dislike for all things timber frame, totally ignoring all the latest research findings on its excellent fire safety from TRADA and the BRE . He was also oblivious to statements from the Bedfordshire fire service that the severity of the blaze was due to the facts that Yarl’s Wood had no sprinklers and that the fire was deliberately started in several locations.
On closer investigation, Mr Howell’s arguments unravelled still further. It turned out that Yarl’s Wood wasn’t a timber frame building after all. Both the fire service and a source involved in the construction categorically confirmed to TTJ it had a steel superstructure.
The UK Timber Frame Association, wood. for good and the TTF, with advice from TRADA, complained to the Sunday Telegraph immediately the offending article appeared. But their letter, highlighting that Mr Howell was completely off-base on timber frame’s fire safety, was not published. Now that it has categoric proof that he was completely off-base on Yarl’s Wood structure too, the paper says it will think again.
What this episode highlights once more is that the timber trade can’t stop stating its case. There are still plenty of misconceptions about wood out there and the industry’s critics and competitors are clearly more than willing to exploit them.
