ACP Cladding and the Suspension of CodeMark Product Certification
In the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower disaster, there has been a renewed focus on the types of cladding used on buildings in New Zealand. This is because the use of Aluminium Composite Panel (ACP) cladding was considered to be a major factor in the speed and spread of the Grenfell Tower fire.
Essentially, ACP cladding is a sandwich of two thin aluminium sheets with a binding core made up of polyethylene and/or a mineral combination. ACP cladding is popular because it is lightweight, comes in a variety of colours, and appears to be aesthetically desirable. However, polyethylene is a petroleum product and is, therefore, combustible.
There are different types of ACP panels that contain different levels of polyethylene and are, accordingly, associated with differing levels of combustibility. As a general guide, those ACP cladding products with 50-100% polyethylene are considered highly combustible. Those with 30-70% polyethylene are considered to be less combustible but are unlikely to be Building Code compliant. Those with less than 7% polyethylene are considered to be non-combustible and could be Building Code compliant.
Here in New Zealand, concerns have arisen as to whether similar ACP cladding with polyethylene cores, has been used or is being used in the construction of buildings in New Zealand. This prompted a nationwide request from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) for New Zealand councils to gather information about buildings clad in the same or similar ACP cladding used on Grenfell Tower.
We should remember that in New Zealand there are other fire safety requirements, such as the presence of sprinklers, fire alarms, and multiple escape routes.. As such, the mere presence of ACP cladding may not mean that a building is not compliant with the Building Code.
To date, the Auckland Council has identified 25 buildings that have ACP cladding with a polyethylene core. The Wellington City Council identified 113 buildings with ACP cladding, but it has included in this count buildings where it could not be confirmed whether a combustible polyethylene core was present. However, for 18 of the 113 buildings the Wellington City Council considered that a fire engineer’s assessment was required.
Since the disclosure by the councils, there has been a further significant development in relation to six CodeMark Certificates, which cover a number of common ACP products. These certificates have been accepted by councils as confirmation that the products under the corresponding CodeMark Certificate were compliant with the Building Code.
Therefore, it is significant that, as of 26 July 2018 and following an audit and peer review of CodeMark Certificates attached to ACP products, MBIE has suspended the following CodeMark certificates:
(a) CMA–CM40035 – Alucobond Cladding Systems;
(b) CMA-CM40075-I01-R01 – Apolic FR ACM Panel Cladding;
(c) CMA-CM40100 – Larson FR;
(d) CMA-CM40094 – Symonite (Alubond) Cladding Systems;
(e) CMA-CM40111-IO2-RO3 – Symonite Cladding Systems (Reynobond FR); and
(f) CMA-CM40193-IO1-R01 – Vitrabond FR Cladding System;
MBIE’s audit did not identify particular safety concerns regarding the above ACP products; however, it did identify that there was insufficient documentation to support evidence of compliance with the fire performance clauses of the Building Code. Manufacturers now have the opportunity to rectify issues identified with these particular CodeMark Certificates. If these issues are not rectified, MBIE may revoke the CodeMark Certificates.
While the above CodeMark certificates are suspended, councils cannot rely on them as evidence that the products comply with the requirements of the Building Code. Councils are now required to consider the ACP product used on a case-by-case basis when assessing a building consent application. This assessment includes building consent applications that have already been lodged with the council but not yet issued.
And, these assessments may have significant price impacts on the costs of any proposed developments: for example, a different cladding material may have to be used instead of an ACP product under one of the above CodeMark Certificates to ensure compliance with the Building Code. Also, you may have to remedy existing buildings (incurring remedial costs) that have the above CodeMark ACP products to ensure that the buildings are compliant with the Building Code.
Should you wish to discuss any of the above and how it may affect you, please do not hesitate to contact Vicki Toan (DDI: (09) 914 3501; v.........@glaister.co.nz) or Kishen Kommu (DDI: (09) 914 3502; k...........@glaister.co.nz).