When Net Zero Ignores Safety Cladding Matters – Friday 1st August at 1pm Net Zero is not just a target anymore. It is shaping how our homes are built, insulated, heated, and measured. Across the UK, developers, housing associations, and retrofit teams are under pressure to improve thermal efficiency, cut emissions, and tick the right boxes on sustainability frameworks. Yet in that rush to decarbonise, something vital is too often being sidelined: safety. This week on Cladding Matters, we will be looking at the tension between going green and staying safe. Where do energy efficiency upgrades risk pushing basic protections out of sight? And how do we stop well-meaning projects from creating long-term hazards for the people living in them? One of the clearest warning signs came long before Grenfell. Highly combustible insulation materials were being used to meet performance standards. Polyisocyanurate (PIR) and phenolic foam, for example, have excellent thermal properties. Yet without correct installation and enclosure, they became fuel. Today, the same logic persists in new forms. Solar panels are being added to rooftops in huge numbers, often as part of social housing retrofit schemes. When installed properly, they are a valuable tool in the Net Zero mix. Yet poor cabling, rushed fitting, or failure to isolate systems has led to fires and a growing number of alarm bells. Then there is the issue of airtightness. To stop heat loss, buildings are being sealed tighter than ever. In theory, that is efficient. In practice, without proper ventilation, it is trapping moisture and stale air. This is creating mould, condensation, and respiratory problems, especially in older buildings. Too often, safety checks come after the sustainability design is locked in. Fire engineers are called in late. Retrofit teams are handed standardised plans that do not account for a building’s unique quirks. And the result? High-scoring reports on buildings that still fail fundamental safety tests. Take Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs), for example. EPCs are designed to measure a property’s efficiency, with ratings from A to G. Yet they do not account for fire safety or structural integrity. A building can have a top rating and still be wrapped in dangerous materials. Or consider the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM). BREEAM is a recognised sustainability rating, widely used in commercial and public sector buildings. Again, a high score does not mean the building is safe for occupants. The criteria are focused on environmental performance, not resident protection. At 1pm this Friday, Gareth Wax returns to the chair alongside Hamish McLay and regular contributor Stephen Day. Together, we will be looking at how the Net Zero agenda is being applied on the ground and where it is falling short. It will be interesting to hear examples where sustainability objectives ran ahead of safety reviews, and what should change to rebalance the priorities. There is no doubt the carbon goals are important. Yet if they come at the cost of basic protection, then the approach needs to be rethought. As always, the podcast is live and open to comments. We welcome contributions from anyone working in this space, including residents, retrofit professionals, surveyors, and safety experts. PS For content enquiries: hm@searchandconveysolutions.co.uk For podcast/media info: gareth@mphats.com

Posted by Hamish McLay at 2025-08-01 08:21:44 UTC