The biggest mistake in façade design is not to do with selecting a material, it is treating compliance as a post design check rather than a fundamental design consideration. Architects that consider safety as part of their concept design process, don’t only deliver safer buildings, as if somehow less creative design work would automatically be the result. They just deliver better buildings.
Safe Design Starts at the Sketch, Not the Specification
Architects frequently use regulations as design project parameters. But current attitudes suggest many perceive fire safety compliance as a technical detail best worked out later by specialists, once the “real design” is complete. Because flammability is considered a technical topic, many architects think of fire safety compliance as something to be solved by technical experts who they hardly need to speak with.
Instead, it is assumed the expertise of these consultants will be lead during the documentation phase because the architect believes the design is essentially complete. This is back to front. It is no more possible to fix the fire safety compliance implications of a façade element designed by the project architect without a façade engineer during schematic design than it is to address the likewise unavoidable structural or climate control implications.
The design trends weren’t wrong. Material aesthetics like timber grains, concrete looks, and metallic finishes as well as the broader trends of organic texture, tonal warmth, and material contrast can still all be achieved using non-combustible products. The challenge for specifiers is knowing which products genuinely qualify as equivalently non-combustible and performance-matched substitutions when it comes to different applications of preventing the spread of fire. This is where working with Australian exterior wall cladding distributors who understand both the product range and the compliance landscape makes a real difference.
Deemed-to-Satisfy vs. Performance Solutions
Most building projects rely on Deemed-to-Satisfy (DTS) provisions for good reason. They offer certainty. Use a listed material and system, be confident of meeting the code, and get on with the next challenge. The problem with DTS solutions, from an architectural perspective, is that their reliance on precedent inevitably tends to close off design options that have not (yet) been pre-approved in NCC 2022 Volume 1.
Performance Solutions are the other, less-trodden path. If a project can illustrate, using engineering analysis and test data, that a proposed solution will achieve an equivalent or better safety outcome than the DTS provision, it must be approved. Qualifying a Performance Solution involves applying the Performance Requirements of NCC 2022 Performance to the design. This means it is a builder, not a product and can be an easier road when it comes to incorporating leading edge design features or simply differentiating aesthetic intent.
This is where façade engineering earns its stripes. A fire engineer who can present a coherent, defensible case that a bespoke façade system will reduce the risk to building occupants or responding firefighters may provide the architect with design freedoms they would not have had if a standard DTS system was nominated. It’s not necessarily an easy process, and it’s a brave architect who forgoes the DTS route when a project is referred to the Building Appeals Board, but using Performance Solutions is more common than many appreciate and one every architect should consider engaging with.
Material Innovation Has Already Done Most of the Work
The tension that seemed to exist between how a building looks and how it performs in a fire was more real a decade ago. The products available now make achieving both design and compliance easier for most building types.
Wood-look aluminum profiles with anodised finishes really do look and feel like the warmth of timber. Textured fiber cement panels can recreate the aesthetic of rough-cast masonry or raw concrete right down to the tooth, thanks to the method of manufacturing. Non-combustible core composite panels have replaced the polyethylene core products that pretty much led us to this crisis point, and can be produced in every bit the same look and feel right down to timber grains, concrete prints, metallic foils, and powder-coated colors. So yes, you can have products that really do replicate traditional materials very effectively.
Supply Chain Transparency Isn’t Optional
One of the consequences that are not referenced enough when talking about cladding-related building fires is the fact that materials were allowed into projects without valid Certificates of Conformity. In some instances, this was facilitated via third-party resellers who simply can’t guarantee product compliance. It’s as much a procurement issue as a design one.
Sourcing matters here. The only way to protect the project and the building’s future occupants is to work with distributors who can supply traceable documentation on every product and whose test reports are referenced to AS 1530.1 and comply with NCC fire-safety provisions.
Buildings with non-compliant cladding can see their insurance premiums hiked by 300% to 400%, or even get refused insurance outright. That number almost never comes up in design discussions, but it absolutely should. Compliance is not just a legal requirement; it’s a financial condition for your building to work as an investment.
Retrofitting and New Builds Face the Same Logic
Local programs such as the Cladding Safety Victoria scheme have directed our focus to existing buildings, but the practices they’ve ushered in are equally important for new builds. Material specification, installation design, protecting interfaces, and ensuring a resilient, robust, and compliant supply chain are all factors that need to be configured into every project involving multi-residential or commercial facades. It’s not just standard practice for the buildings with a flag on them now, it’s standard practice for all of them.
For architects, the more acute focus placed on specification, material source, and compliance habits is slowly reshaping the expectations around lead-in times in the RFI and RFT phases. Where once a six-month lead time for design and documentation could get a project over the line, a meeting with the equivalent stakeholder now lands you with a lump sum and a series of deadpan questions around your risk management responses for the project.
Facades have never been so tightly regulated, but the rules are the same for all of us. As an architect, you either apply to have them work in your favor by enhancing your knowledge and up-skilling in non-combustible materials or you continue to rail against their impact, losing marking points, and tenders as you go.
Find out more on our blog.
