BuildLaw Issue 34 December 2018 | Page 4

BuildLaw: In Brief
New UK regulations to ban combustible materials in cladding
Amendment to The Building Regulations in England will ban the use of combustible materials in the external walls of residential buildings that are more than 18m above ground level.
Residential buildings affected are those with a storey containing one or more dwellings; or an institution; or a room for residential purposes, and that is at least 18 metres above ground level. This will include hospitals, residential care premises, dormitories in boarding schools and student accommodation.
The ban will apply to new building work, with the exception of work for which non-combustible alternatives are currently not available. The ban will also apply where the use of a building is changed so that it comes within the requirements mentioned afore, in which case the building must be investigated and, where necessary, work done to ensure it complies with the new regulations.












The Regulations were issued on 29 November and will come into effect from 21 December 2018. Remediation measures in relation to existing buildings have also commenced and the has offered to support local authorities in taking enforcement action against the owners of buildings who refuse to remediate unsafe cladding.

Disciplinary proceedings able to continue against Christchurch CTV Building engineer
The High Court of New Zealand has issued a media release to assist the understanding of the Court’s judgement in the case of Attorney-General v Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand Inc [2018] NZHC 3211.
The case addressed the question of whether the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand could continue disciplinary proceedings against Dr Reay, an engineer involved in the design and construction of the CTV Building that collapsed during the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake killing 115 people, as he had resigned his membership to the institution before proceedings were concluded. Upon Dr Reay’s resignation the Institution decided to dismiss the proceedings, as they believed they could not be continued. The Attorney General applied to the High Court for judicial review of this decision by the Institution.
The Court held that, while expulsion or suspension from the Institute were no longer practically available options, the resignation did not preclude the continuation of disciplinary proceedings against Dr Reay. Accordingly, the Court determined the Institution had made an error of law on the basis of an incorrect interpretation of its Rules.
The Court considered that there was overwhelming public interest in the ability for voluntary professional bodies to carry out effective disciplinary proceedings, as such proceedings