You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
Are two fires on the Shetland Islands a canary in the coal mine for modular construction?
The total loss of a hotel and bird observatory to fires on the Shetland Islands have not made much of an impact on the built environment sector. But should they serve as a warning about the risk of offsite construction, asks Peter Apps
It was 12.30am when Jonathan (not his real name) woke up. An automated voice had disturbed his sleep: “There is an emergency situation in the hotel. Please stand by for further information.”
A worker on an offshore gas plant, he was used to alarms in the middle of the night, and he went to the window to check for any signs of fire. He saw none – just the dark night of the Shetland Islands, nearly 300 miles off the coast of Scotland.
READ MORE
But there was no noise, no smell of burning. Jonathan started to think he had dreamt the alarm, and was about to go back to bed. But then it crackled into life once more: “There is an emergency. Please evacuate the hotel immediately.”
Jonathan grabbed his phone and walked out of the building – The Moorfield Hotel in the village of Brae, Shetland. His colleagues, all workers on a Total offshore gas rig, and a couple, who were visiting Shetland for a cycling holiday, joined him outside. For around 40 minutes, they stood around in the chilly car park chatting, suspecting it was a false alarm.
The roof on The Moorfield Hotel catches alight (picture: Shetnews)
“The boys were joking around saying, ‘My laptop’s in there, my watch is in there,’ but the fire brigade were there so we all thought they will put this out,” Jonathan recalls. But then they saw flames under the roof. Around 30 minutes later, the entire roof was alight.
“The fire brigade didn’t really seem to have the equipment to deal with it,” Jonathan recalls. “Pretty early on when they went up and inside, they all kind of walked down pretty calmly. The impression I got was, ‘There’s not much we can do here.’”
Coaches arrived to take the guests to another hotel. As they left, Jonathan and his colleagues could see flames spreading down into the hotel rooms, devouring the possessions they brought for their long stints on the rig. By morning, the entire hotel was a heap of smouldering rubble.
Fires should not spread in this way. Whole buildings should not be lost. But this is not the first time the islands had experienced such an event recently. In April 2019, a blaze broke out in a large bird observatory and guest house on Fair Isle, tearing through its structure.
The bird observatory on Fair Isle burns (picture: Shetnews)
Volunteer firefighters on the tiny island (population: 60) found themselves contending with a fire they could not hope to contain. Additional firefighters landed in helicopters and arrived by ferry. But like the hotel, the observatory was reduced to a pile of wreckage.
The loss was felt intensely on Fair Isle. The building – which had 24 bedrooms, lounge and dining facilities, a shop, offices and separate accommodation for the warden and his family – was the linchpin of the small island’s fragile economy.
What links these two buildings, as well as their destruction in a fire, is the way they were built.
Shetland is not an easy place for traditional construction. Not only is it remote, but the weather conditions in the middle of the North Sea are far from ideal. So in recent years, the islands have embraced something that is now becoming increasingly popular in mainland UK: modern methods of construction (MMC).
One of the modules for the bird observatory is shipped to Fair Isle (picture: James Jones & Sons)
Both buildings were constructed into modules in factories and then shipped to Shetland on ferries and assembled on site.
The 106-bed Moorfield Hotel was built in 2013 from modules constructed in a factory in Northern Ireland out of structural insulated panels (SIPs) – combustible polyurethane insulation held between two sheets of oriented strand board, a product made from compressed wood flakes.
This makes a strong, light building product, but also one that is vulnerable to fire. The strand board had a surface spread of flame rating of Class 3 – making it a ‘high-risk’ product in Scottish building regulations – and the plastic insulation was combustible. The hotel was built by contractor McAleer & Rushe.
Frances Maria Peacock, a fire engineer and director of FMP Architectural, says the images of the hotel were “horrifying”.
“No building should be able to burn to the extent that there is nothing left of it, and the level of destruction in this case is indicative of how combustible the SIPs were,” she says.
McAleer & Rushe did not respond to a request for comment on this story, but has previously said it has provided all relevant documentation to the local fire service for review.
The bird observatory was constructed to replace a previous observatory in 2010. It too was built into modules offsite, at a factory in Orkney. It was constructed from glue laminated timber and JJI-Joists – engineered timber made by James Jones & Sons. The firm’s website boasts of a 45% market share and use by “every major UK house builder”.
A spokesperson for James Jones & Sons said that as it had no influence on the design or specification of the building, it did not wish to comment.
Still listed as a case study on the Timber Trade Federation website, the structure comprised 30 engineered timber modules, made from 9,300 linear metres of wood.
The exterior was made from timber cladding panels with an insulation system comprising a cavity and a heat pump to keep the building warm.
The ruins of the bird observatory on Fair Isle (picture: Shetnews)
Investigations into both fires are ongoing and – given the total destruction – likely to be difficult. But both fires raise a large an urgent question: are these buildings a canary in the coal mine for the use of modular more widely in the UK?
Modular and MMC construction is a rapidly growing trend in UK construction. The case for it is well known: it can be both quicker and far more environmentally friendly than traditional building methods and may help to solve some chronic workforce and construction quality issues.
The number of residential developers has grown in recent years and housing associations are required to deliver 25% of their ‘strategic partnership’ deals with government through MMC. But as we expand this sector, have we taken the time to really understand the fire risks?
“The huge benefit of modular construction is if you do it right you can do everything better and safer. But you need to invest in the research and design up front to ensure you understand the risks. I’m not seeing that being done,” says Dr Rory Hadden, a lecturer in fire investigation at the University of Edinburgh. “If you use the analogy of building a car, you invest a lot of time in the research and design, the crash testing, the safety – and line all of that up before selling to people. The construction sector hasn’t quite got that mindset.”
There are two aspects of modular construction that worry experts: the use of combustible materials for the structure of the building and the presence of large cavities through which fire can spread.
Jon Curtis, director of Ringley Building Engineering, says: “You can have a superb compartment fixed to another superb compartment, but there will be gaps and cavities where they join. That’s where we need the focus to be. If you can’t put the Meccano set together properly what you create is a risk for substantial fire spread.”
This is a serious problem. If flames enter a cavity, it is near impossible for the fire service to put the blaze out. And if the structure is combustible, you have the conditions for rapid fire spread, which could totally destroy the building.
The Moorfield Hotel after the fire (picture: Martyn Neeson)
Ian Abley, technical designer and fire safety expert, adds: “The nature of a modular building is that you are stacking boxes on top of each other, and once you’ve stacked them up you are often left with gaps between them. Those cavities can potentially run straight through from the facade to the core of the building. When fire gets into the cavity if you’ve got modules made from combustible materials, the fire is just going to spread from one compartment to the next.”
Building regulations require these cavities to be fitted with barriers so fire cannot spread. But achieving this in the design and then assuring it is achieved when the modules are installed on site is a big problem.
“Intumescent cavity barriers don’t last 50 years. The products don’t exist. That’s where the innovation needs to be,” Mr Abley says.
Mr Curtis says that constructing the necessary barriers is not beyond the industry, but ensuring they are properly installed is the challenge.
“You can make a very accurately engineered section in a factory environment. This is not beyond the wit of man,” he says. “But you need to skill up the people who are going to be doing it on site. The corners which have been cut in traditional construction can’t afford to be for modular. The implications are more disastrous in this form of construction.”
Many modular developers do take quality seriously - keenly aware of the lingering consumer suspiscion that is associated with 'prefabricated' homes.
A promotional video describing the construction of the Moorfield Hotel
Many have secured warranties specifically assuring the quality of their products and the Build Offsite Property Assurance Scheme offers certification that the buildings are constructed to a standard that will last 60 years. A recent Memorandum of Understanding between various warranty providers set a minimum standard for assessing modular buildings, which should help maintain consistent standards in the nascent industry.
The industry argues its buildings are fire safe, so long as they are built and maintained properly. They are also required - like all developers - to comply with building regulations.
But do regulations - written with traditional building in mind - properly reflect the challenges of modular?
He said that this requires better oversight of what is happening on site and reform of building regulations to make them more applicable to modular building. “It’s just not a straight read across,” he says. “You need regulations that are directly applicable. As a construction sector we have the turning circle of an ocean liner and we need to learn to walk before we run with this technology.”
Dr Hadden believes these are issues that can be fixed. “We spend our lives surrounded by products we have deemed safe enough. You can make it [modular] safe if you invest in the R&D – you need destructive testing to see where the flaws are and to fix them,” he says.
The problem is buildings are going up without this work being done, and by the same construction sector which has shown a poor track record for safety and quality in recent years. The country is scrambling to deal with the enormous fall-out of this with regards to Grenfell Tower, and the thousands of other properties around the country with dangerous external walls.
Everyone walked out of The Moorfield Hotel alive and the Fair Isle bird observatory did not have guests on the morning of the fire. The warden and his family who lived there all year round were at church when the fire broke out and smoke was spotted by a passing ferry. Both fires were non-fatal. But similar technology is being used to build schools and high rises, with limited escape stairs and no fire alarms.
“A two-storey hotel where everyone is going to get a heads-up is one thing, but if you turn it vertically and it’s a building with a sleeping risk it’s a different thing,” Mr Abley says. “We are building big towers using these construction methods. The industry is going to come to a crashing halt if the first fire comes about.”
And that is an outcome the entire sector will want to avoid.
