Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 1980 > Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies > Report No. 12 - National Building Agency, Limited

APPENDIX 28

LETTER TO CLERK TO JOINT COMMITTEE FROM THE NATIONAL BUILDING AGENCY LIMITED CONCERNING NO. 80 CARROWNREDDY ESTATE, TIPPERARY

I refer to your telephone enquiry yesterday in connection with the above matter.

The Carrownreddy scheme was built under the Guaranteed Order Programme and I quote hereunder a description of the construction of No. 80, as extracted from a report prepared by the IIRS:

“The house under investigation, No. 80 Carrownreddy Estate is a mid-terrace cross wall structure. Cross walls form party walls and are of in-situ reinforced concrete construction. Cross walls are the primary load bearing elements carrying roof and floor joists. Front and back facades are of timber framed construction being clad with expanded metal reinforced sand/cement render at ground floor storey and aluminium shiplap at first floor storey. Internal walls are of timber stud construction with gypsum plasterboard nailed both sides. Ground floor is of floating slab concrete construction and the roof is finished in 2 layer built-up felt on pre-felted 2” wood wool slabs which are fixed to soft wood joists. The complete specifications of ‘as constructed’ components and original design specifications are included in Table I of Section D.2.1. of this report.”

I enclose a copy of the Phase II Report prepared by the IIRS, which summarises the findings and gives conclusions on sheet number 6.

Managing Director.

22nd August 1980

NO. 80 CARROWNREDDY ESTATE, TIPPERARY

Extract from Sheet No. 6 of Phase II Report of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards

VII Conclusions

1. Considering the relatively minor damage caused by the fire since it was confined generally to the ground floor level it would appear that the particular form of construction did not have a significant bearing on the course of the fire. The cause of death of the victims was probably due to smoke inhalation. Indeed, the same incident could have happened equally in a traditional brick built house given the same circumstances and internal fittings such as doors. The lack of fire stopping at the front and back walls was undesirable but in this case did not influence the course of the fire nor, indeed, the death of the victims.

2. The materials employed in the house construction did not constitute any abnormal hazard to life.

3. The investigation of the fire damage to No. 80 Carrownreddy Estate did not identify inadequacies in respect of currently prescribed design standards for this form of construction relative to traditional construction from the view point of structural fire precautions. In this context it should be noted that building regulation requirements are aimed at ensuring that a building will not itself be unduly hazardous in the event of a fire. The regulations cannot legislate effectively against the outbreak of fire since this is in most cases accidental and not associated with the fabric of the building, neither can they control the use of contents susceptible to ignition. Fire prevention is, therefore, a matter for care on the part of the occupants of the building.