34 | NOVEMBER 2017
News
Read online at www.proinstaller.co.uk
FEDERATION ADDRESSES
REDUCED SIGHTLINE ISSUE
Following recent news coverage regarding the manufacture and compliance of some reduced sightline insulating glass
units, the Glass and Glazing Federation (GGF) has addressed the issue from a technical and GGF policy perspective.
On the compliance
with Building Regulations,
Steve Rice, GGF director of
technical affairs explained:
“Initially we need to clar-
ify the issue as to whether
or not narrow cavity IGUs
comply with Building
Regulations. In all countries
within the UK there are pro-
visions for non-compliance
with the general thermal
requirements in properties
that are classed as heritage
assets (listed buildings)
and conservation areas
where the use of compliant
products would significantly
change the fenestration of
the building. For example,
in Scotland, clause 6.0.3
general guidance states:
“Work on existing build-
ings: as for other standards
within Scottish building
regulations, the energy
standards apply to con-
versions and also work on
existing buildings, such as
extensions, conservatories,
alterations and replacement
work. However, in some
situations, individual stand-
ards may not apply or guid-
ance on compliance with
the standards may differ for
such work. The latter is usu-
ally to recognise constraints
that arise when working
with existing buildings.”
Phil Pluck, GGF group
chief executive, addressed
the issue at the GGF’s
annual Members’ Day in
September. Phil announced
the GGF’s position on the
compliance of reduced
sightline units.
“If a member chooses
for their own advantage
to breach the GGF rules
or indeed the law, it is the
GGF’s duty to inform them
and to guide and support
them to return within the
boundaries of the GGF rules
and the law. If they choose
to ignore that guidance,
then upon a finding of guilt
they will be expelled. We
have evidence that that
course of action has worked
in the past. But we are not a
policing authority.
“However, if we find
that a member is operating
outside of the GGF rules
because of other authorities’
failings then it is the GGF’s
duty to both guide that
member and address the
root cause that is putting
that member under pressure
to act in a way that takes
them outside of the GGF
rules.
“Reduced sightline units
are an area that is sim-
ply not a case of black or
white. Break the GGF rules
for your own advantage
without cause then you are
expelled. We must uphold
the highest standards for
the sake of the GGF and its
members.
“But if a member is part
of a supply chain that puts
pressure on them to supply
or fit products that may
breach standards then the
GGF must do two things:
1. Give definitive tech-
nical and legal advice to
member - we have done
that in this case.
2. Highlight to other par-
ties that unless they uphold
the same standards then
inevitably this will isolate
our members and make
them vulnerable. Architects,
planning authorities, herit-
age groups, and Chartered
and although early failure
of these IGUs has been ex-
perienced, the view of most
agencies is that Heritage
takes precedence to compli-
ance with BS EN 1279.
The GGF has referred one
manufacturer to Trading
Standards and although they
will not confirm whether
they have investigated, and
given the manufacturer is
still trading the same prod-
ucts, it can only be assumed
that Trading Standards has
yet to deal with the case.
Trading Standards Institute
all have a part to play to
address an issue that affects
us all. Simply isolating
and punishing one part of
that supply chain i.e. our
member, will not address
the underlying issue that
affects the entire industry.
We have and are continuing
to try and engage the whole
group of stakeholders in
resolving this issue. The
expulsion of a few members
will not solve the issue sur-
rounding this topic and so
GGF will continue to take
a holistic approach to this
problem.”
The GGF has worked
mainly in Scotland on this
issue, having many meet-
ings with Historic Environ-
ment Scotland, Building
Control, MSPs and Scottish
ministers, Trading Standards
and local authority planning
departments. Generally,
the view from most is that
although they accept