I wonder how many Reform voters you could accidentally scoop up if Rejoin was on the ballot paper. Election trolling at its best

What caused the big jump in uptake in 2025? Was there a policy change? Tax incentive?

Worse than coal says another top scientist, expert in the matter:

I don't find it meaningless. Even if it wasn't debated this time, the motion was selected. If the proposer decides to bring it back it could be debated at Autumn Conference.

This is totally bonkers proposal, it goes in the exact opposite direction to where we need to go 🤦

Restricting timber in construction further would mean we burn through the remaining carbon emissions much quicker.

It needs a robust rebuttal during consultation.

This is a really stupid move

This is madness!

But if you think of an oak column with 4 surfaces, you begin to eat into that 20m2 quite quickly

As I understand it, it says; In buildings with floors up to 4.5 above ground, a maximum of 20m2 surface area of timber can be left exposed OR 50% of the floor area, whichever is smaller.

Not clear whether this is per fire compartment or per room (i.e a 12m2 double bedroom, 6m2 of exposed wood

encapsulated usually means encased with fireproof lining such as fire rated plasterboard or other cementitious board. With natural materials in mind, clay boards are used

Yes we (at Built by Nature) are speaking to TDUK and STA next week. I think we'll establish some common response points and publish these - probably via TDUK.

Thanks for sharing, and for the article, it's a great summary and I find it quite alarming.
If the motion was passed, what would happen to the conference briefing notes ? I.e. would they be carried forward in anyway to the policy itself?

I'm a green party member, and I wasn't aware of this. Would you mind sharing the extracts of the motion about mutual consent and armed struggle?

Yes! please do! And encourage colleagues to as well!

An extract from a Government proposed revision to Approved Document B (Fire safety in new buildings). The paragraphs include requirements for no combustible structure - i.e. timber - in all buildings with a storey more than 11m above ground level. In addition there is a requirement to encapsulate - i.e. encase with plasterboard - all structural timber in buildings with more than a single storey

Here is the offending extract from the proposed new Approved Document B

yes - good point. Difficult at this point to properly assess how challenging it will be to demonstrate compliance via other means. But in larger buildings insurance will be a prohibitive barrier

The theory behind it is about restricting the fuel load. Encapsulated timber does not contribute to the fire - so a reduction in the visible timber surface reduces the intensity of the fire - which in turn leads to faster "burnout".

Technically, yes. But in practice this works like a ban:
- If not using approved docs, building control and insurance (property, construction & professional indemnity) are impossible.
- Plus the cost of large fire testing.
- Plus the wider impact of the Gov guidance saying "don't use timber"

Just ridiculous. Grenfell optics with no basis in reality

An extract from a Government proposed revision to Approved Document B (Fire safety in new buildings). The paragraphs include requirements for no combustible structure - i.e. timber - in all buildings with a storey more than 11m above ground level. In addition there is a requirement to encapsulate - i.e. encase with plasterboard - all structural timber in buildings with more than a single storey

Here is the offending extract from the proposed new Approved Document B

The UK Government is making a move to try and restrict timber from being used in a significant proportion of new buildings, proposing to significantly extend the "external wall ban" which has been in place for residential buildings residential buildings of more than 7 storeys since 2022.

The changes also include a requirement to ensure there is no visible structural timber in all new buildings taller than a single storey. Goodbye oak frame housing! consultations.hse.gov.uk/bsr/review-o...

The changes are proposed - not in force - in a re-written Approved Document B (The statutory guidance for fire safety in new buildings) which was published for public consultation on March 25th

This is a shocking move and makes the UK an outlier with the most restrictive policy on timber construction in the world

In the midst of a climate crisis, this removes one of the best tools in the box for climate mitigation in the built environment - Timber, a low-emission, carbon-storing material

The restriction on timber is extended in 3 ways:
1️⃣ Lowering the height threshold to 11m.
2️⃣ Increasing the scope to include all building types, not only residential.
3️⃣ Including internal structural elements - not only external walls.

The UK Government is making a move to try and restrict timber from being used in a significant proportion of new buildings, proposing to significantly extend the "external wall ban" which has been in place for residential buildings residential buildings of more than 7 storeys since 2022.

Wes Streeting has changed his tune. It's clear he wants to delay. Do you think it could be because he hasn't come out looking good from the mandelson scandal, perhaps?

A coalition government is likely after the next election and Greens will be one of several parties holding the balance of power.

Those Green domestic policies you like - they could be on the agenda.

Just imagine how different the world could have been if Bernie Sanders had won the democratic nomination in 2016

Spain's renewables build-out has structurally decoupled its electricity prices from gas markets. Gas now sets the price in only 15% of hours, compared to 90% in Italy.

Countries that invested early in clean power are far less exposed to fossil fuel price shocks. Those that didn't now pay the price.