Your article “Experts warn of risk from unsafe glass” (18 June, page 17) states that the Building Regulations offer insufficient protection to the public from floor-to-ceiling windows and that architects are free to specify non-laminate glass.
Although this is correct, I would suggest that the contributors to the design safety group Designers Initiative on Health and Safety consult not only Building Regulation Part K, but also Part N.
Part N may permit glazing to be other than laminated, but it would still need to meet the other requirements – that is, to be safe and to be seen. Floor-to-ceiling glazing would constitute glazing in “critical locations” and as such would be required not only to break safely – so as not to cause injury – or to resist impact without breaking, but also to have a permanent manifestation that would alert people to its presence.
The article infers that any person coming into contact with non-laminated glazing would be at risk of injury. If a person could be injured as a consequence of the type of glass installed, then clearly the glazing would also be in contravention of Regulation Seven – Materials and Workmanship.
Additionally, Part M requires that, in horizontal and vertical circulation, glass doors and glazed screens should be clearly differentiated from adjacent walls, floors and so on.
Postscript
PJ Martin, Wolverhampton, via email
No comments yet