Three Decades of Fire Tragedy: Why the Insurance Industry is Demanding Concrete Construction
The numbers tell a story that the construction industry can no longer ignore. Over the past thirty years, while Europe has celebrated a remarkable 65% reduction in fire-related fatalities [1], a disturbing pattern has emerged in the data that reveals the actual cost of our building material choices. Behind these statistics lies a stark reality: the construction material used in our buildings can mean the difference between life and death, between minor property damage and catastrophic loss.
As we examine three decades of fire incident data, a clear picture emerges of two divergent paths in construction safety. On one side, we see timber frame buildings that, despite their growing popularity, continue to demonstrate alarming vulnerability to fire spread and devastating damage. On the other hand, concrete construction is a beacon of fire safety, offering inherent protection that has caught the attention of the insurance industry’s most authoritative voice: RISCAuthority.
Through its technical authority, RISCAuthority, the insurance industry has quietly but persistently advocated for a fundamental shift in how we approach building safety. Their message is clear and uncompromising: “The presence of combustible voids creates one of the greatest challenges for building safety and the insurer” [2]. While technical, this statement represents a call for the construction industry to embrace non-combustible materials like concrete as the foundation of safer building practices.
Europe has achieved a remarkable 65% reduction in fire fatalities over 30 years, with the UK leading with a 56% reduction from 1982 to 2013.
The Hidden Cost of Combustible Construction
While the overall trend in fire safety has been positive, a deeper analysis of the data reveals troubling disparities based on construction methods and materials. The Fire Protection Association, working closely with RISCAuthority, has identified several high-profile incidents highlighting the vulnerabilities of lightweight construction methods, including the fires at Beechmere care home and Richmond House in Worcester Park [3].
These incidents have prompted serious questions about construction methods using lightweight materials. The Fire Protection Association notes that “if further safety testing is required to enable the use of materials such as cross-laminated timber, it means that there is already too much doubt about their ability to protect people and property” [3]. This statement reflects a growing concern within the insurance industry about the inherent risks associated with combustible construction materials.
The data supporting these concerns is compelling. Research has shown that timber frame construction fires result in significantly more extensive damage than conventional construction methods. While only 4% of traditional construction fires cause damage over 100 square meters, an alarming 24% of timber frame construction fires reach this scale of devastation [4]. This six-fold increase in severe damage represents not just a statistical anomaly, but a fundamental difference in fire behaviour that has profound implications for human safety and economic loss.
The speed of fire spread in timber frame construction has proven particularly challenging for emergency responders. Fire chiefs have reported that timber frame construction sites can burn so rapidly that firefighters are often unable to attempt extinguishment, instead focusing their efforts on protecting adjacent buildings while allowing the timber structure to burn out completely [4]. This reality represents a sobering acknowledgement that specific construction methods may be beyond the capability of even the most advanced fire suppression techniques.
The stark reality: 24% of timber frame fires cause extensive damage over 100m² compared to only 4% of concrete construction fires
RISCAuthority’s Call for Concrete Solutions
The insurance industry’s technical authority, RISCAuthority, has emerged as a leading voice advocating for fundamental changes in construction practices. Their research and recommendations represent the collective wisdom of an industry that bears the financial burden of fire-related losses and is therefore vested in promoting the safest possible building practices.
RISCAuthority’s position on combustible construction is unequivocal. Their statement that “the presence of combustible voids creates one of the greatest challenges for building safety and the insurer” [2] reflects a deep understanding of how fire behaves in different construction systems. Combustible voids, inherent in many timber frame construction systems, allow fire and smoke to spread rapidly through a building, often in complex ways that are difficult to predict or control.
In contrast, RISCAuthority has consistently advocated using non-combustible materials, with concrete as the preferred solution. The Joint Code of Practice, which incorporates RISCAuthority recommendations, explicitly advocates for “constructing the ground floor from non-combustible construction (concrete, masonry)” [5]. This recommendation reflects a preference and recognition that concrete construction provides fundamental safety advantages that cannot be replicated through other means.
The insurance industry supports concrete construction based on solid scientific evidence. Concrete is classified as an A1 non-combustible material, meaning it does not burn, contribute to fire spread, or give off toxic fumes or smoke [3]. Unlike other materials requiring extensive testing to demonstrate fire resistance, concrete’s non-combustibility is inherent and does not degrade over time.
RISCAuthority has also been instrumental in developing new testing standards that better reflect real-world fire conditions. Their development of RISC 501, a fire safety assessment test for external cladding systems, significantly advances how the industry evaluates building materials [6]. This large-scale fire test method goes beyond minimum life safety requirements to provide classifications that help insurers and building owners make informed decisions about fire risk.
Insurance industry professionals are reviewing building safety recommendations and fire safety certifications as part of RISCAuthority’s comprehensive approach to risk management.
The Economic Reality of Fire Risk
The insurance industry’s advocacy for concrete construction is not merely theoretical; it reflects complex economic realities that affect every stakeholder in the construction process. Fire-related losses represent billions of pounds in annual costs across the UK, encompassing not just property damage but also business interruption, temporary accommodation, and the immeasurable human cost of injury and death.
From an insurance perspective, the choice of construction materials directly impacts risk assessment and premium calculation. Buildings constructed with non-combustible materials like concrete typically qualify for lower insurance premiums, reflecting their reduced fire risk profile. This economic incentive creates a powerful market force that encourages safer construction practices while penalising those who choose higher-risk materials.
The speed of construction offered by precast concrete systems also provides economic advantages that extend beyond fire safety. RISCAuthority has noted that concrete construction can provide up to 50% faster construction schedules than traditional methods [7], while providing superior fire resistance. This combination of speed and safety represents an optimal solution for developers who must balance project timelines with risk management requirements.
The long-term economic benefits of concrete construction become even more apparent when considering the total cost of ownership. While initial construction costs may vary depending on specific project requirements, the reduced insurance premiums, lower maintenance requirements, and enhanced durability of concrete structures often result in significant savings over the building’s lifecycle.
The stark reality: 24% of timber frame fires cause extensive damage over 100m² compared to only 4% of concrete construction fires
Lessons from International Experience
The global construction industry provides valuable insights into the relationship between building materials and fire safety outcomes. International data consistently demonstrates that regions with higher adoption of non-combustible construction materials experience better fire safety outcomes regarding fatalities and property damage.
Scandinavian countries, which have traditionally favoured concrete and masonry construction, have achieved some of the world’s best fire safety records. Swedish fire statistics reveal that two-thirds of fatal fires between 2000 and 2004 occurred in homes with no or non-functioning smoke alarms [1], highlighting the critical importance of early warning systems. However, even in cases where smoke alarms failed, buildings constructed with non-combustible materials demonstrated superior fire resistance and provided occupants with additional time to escape.
The contrast with regions that have embraced lightweight construction methods is stark. Areas with higher concentrations of timber frame construction consistently report more severe fire damage and greater challenges for emergency responders. This pattern has been observed across multiple countries and climate zones, suggesting that the relationship between construction materials and fire outcomes is fundamental rather than circumstantial.
RISCAuthority has studied these international patterns extensively, incorporating global best practices into their recommendations for UK construction. Their analysis has consistently pointed toward concrete construction as the optimal solution for achieving the highest levels of fire safety while maintaining economic viability.
The Path Forward: Building a Safer Future
As we look toward the future of construction in the UK, the evidence overwhelmingly supports a transition toward non-combustible building materials, with concrete leading the way. The insurance industry, through RISCAuthority, has provided clear guidance on this transition, backed by decades of data and rigorous scientific analysis.
The Fire Protection Association has articulated the industry’s challenge: “The drive for sustainable, low carbon buildings must be balanced with the need to ensure that new and existing building stock achieves a high degree of fire safety” [3]. This balance is not just achievable with concrete construction but optimised by it. Modern concrete production techniques have significantly reduced the carbon footprint of concrete while maintaining its superior fire safety characteristics.
RISCAuthority’s recommendations extend beyond material selection to encompass comprehensive building design principles. Their guidance emphasises eliminating combustible voids, ensuring proper compartmentation, and designing buildings that facilitate rather than hinder emergency response efforts. Concrete construction naturally supports these objectives while providing additional structural integrity and durability benefits.
The regulatory environment is also evolving to support these recommendations. Following the Grenfell Tower tragedy and the subsequent Hackitt Review, UK building regulations have been strengthened to prioritise fire safety over other considerations. These regulatory changes create a framework that naturally favours non-combustible construction methods and provides additional support for RISCAuthority’s advocacy of concrete construction.
Professional building safety assessment of concrete structures ensures compliance with enhanced fire safety standards and insurance requirements.
Conclusion: The Insurance Industry’s Clear Message
After three decades of fire safety improvements, the insurance industry has delivered an unambiguous message about the future of safe construction: concrete offers the optimal combination of fire safety, economic viability, and long-term performance. RISCAuthority’s research and recommendations represent the collective wisdom of an industry that has analysed thousands of fire incidents and billions of pounds in losses.
The 65% reduction in fire fatalities over the past thirty years represents a remarkable achievement, but it should not obscure the ongoing risks associated with combustible construction materials. As RISCAuthority has clearly stated, “the presence of combustible voids creates one of the greatest challenges for building safety and the insurer” [2]. This challenge can be eliminated by adopting concrete construction methods that provide inherent fire resistance without relying on additional protective measures.
The choice facing the construction industry is clear: continue with construction methods that require extensive testing, additional fire protection measures, and higher insurance premiums or embrace concrete construction that provides inherent safety, economic advantages, and the full support of the insurance industry. RISCAuthority has made its recommendation clear, and the data supports its position unequivocally.
As we move forward, the question is not whether the construction industry will transition to safer building materials, but how quickly this transition can be accomplished. The insurance industry, through RISCAuthority, has provided the roadmap. The data has demonstrated the need. The only remaining question is whether the construction industry will heed this call for safer, more sustainable building practices that put human life and property protection at the centre of every design decision.
The thirty-year journey toward improved fire safety has been remarkable, but the next chapter must be written with concrete as its foundation. The insurance industry has spoken, the data is precise, and the inherent safety of non-combustible construction illuminates the path forward. The time for half-measures and compromises has passed; the future of safe construction is concrete.
References
[1] Modern Building Alliance. (2024). Fire Safety Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.modernbuildingalliance.eu/fire-safety-statistics/
[2] Techrete. (2019). The Non-Combustibility of Concrete Facades. MPA Precast. Retrieved from https://techrete.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/3521-MPA-Precast-Concrete-Facades-Combustibility.pdf
[3] Fire Protection Association. (2024, April 23). Concrete advances. Retrieved from https://www.thefpa.co.uk/news/concrete-advances
[4] UK Government. (2018). Timber frame analysis. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a79c85ced915d042206afcf/Timber_frame_analysis_17_Jan.pdf
[5] Aviva. (2022). Joint Code of Practice Tenth Edition. Retrieved from https://static.aviva.io/content/dam/document-library/broker/aviva_jcop_2022_v10.pdf
[6] Fire Protection Association. (2024). RISC 501 – Fire Test and Assessment Method for External Cladding Systems. Retrieved from https://www.thefpa.co.uk/fire-testing/risc-501-fire-test-and-assessment-method-for-external-cladding-systems
[7] JVI Inc. (2024). Precast Concrete: The Perfect Material for Fire Resistance. Retrieved from