back
home page

IN THE HOT SEAT

Philip Rougier M.Phil MCIOB FBEng MCIArb

Interviewed by Michael Gannon, Editor

Fenestra Journal 2005
Copyright © Philip Rougier 2005

MG. How did you get into what you're doing now?

PR. After leaving college I worked for a Local Authority and two major housing developers for a total of 7 years, and then started in professional practice in 1978, concentrating on building defect reports and hotel extensions. I've always been interested in windows and doors - they're among the most expensive and complicated building components, in which lots can go wrong. But I arrived in the fenestration sector by accident. In about 1990 I visited Ian Chisholm at GGF, then a mere Technical Officer, to talk about glazing bar performance calculation for a piece of software I was developing - I thought I'd found a couple of "holes" in the otherwise excellent Data Sheet he'd devised on the subject. It turned out that GGF had a list of independent glazing consultants to whom they referred non-member complaints, he invited me to apply for committee vetting and I was formally appointed. Thanks Ian! They now do it in-house and have apparently scrapped the independent list, which is a shame. I thought I knew a fair bit about windows at the time, but my goodness there was a lot more to learn.

 
MG. How do you feel about FENSA?

PR. Mild disappointment really, so far. It's a grand idea, and could eventually prove to be one of the best things that's happened to the replacement glazing industry. But I've lots of concerns. When it was introduced 3 years ago I thought, hoped even, it would mean I'd be required to look at fewer glazing disasters - but that hasn't happened. You see, FENSA only sets out to visit 1 in every 100 installations, so 99 will automatically slip through the net without being inspected. How would it be if only 1% of foul drainage systems were checked? Or 1% of structural calculations? A recipe for anarchy! Furthermore, FENSA doesn't vet applicants' technical abilities, and offers no training scheme. Window installers should be licensed as individuals, as gas and electrical installers are. FENSA is a convenient way for the government to avoid burdening Building Control departments. But it must have sounded a daft idea when first mooted. Imagine a dozen people around a table - GGF officers, glazing company owners, a couple of civil servants from ODPM. Someone puts the question:

"How about every double glazing installation firm assessing itself?"
"You mean, GGF Member companies with track records?"
"Er, no. Every double glazing firm."

Stunned silence, then gales of laughter. I still have faith in the idea that a regulatory body should be in place, and FENSA is the only one so far with government approval, but there's a vertical wall to climb. For remedial situations, which I see a lot of, I regularly recommend that a Building Regulations application is made because this will involve an actual inspection, rather than a 1 in 100 chance.

 
MG. What about Building Control for conservatories?

PR. Yes please. I was amazed when they were given exemption 20 years ago. They're sold, and believed in, as "habitable spaces", equipped with plastered walls, carpets, furniture and so on. Even connected to central heating systems. Yet in building terms, most are constructed like greenhouses. It's a pity there are no absolute requirements for vertical DPC's adjoining existing property, cavity trays, foundation depths and many other things. Even NHBC Standards waver on a number of these issues. Roof frames and Safety Glass in windows are just about the only things that receive careful attention from everyone - and only the glass is subject to legislation, and then only by a "smoke and mirrors" lawyer trick. Fortunately the specialist roof frame people are very good at doing their thing, but most of the time no one is responsible for checking their calculations. Whether conservatories will be constructed like "real" buildings in future is a matter for the 200-odd independent consultations that have been going on in the run-up to Building Control. I hope they get it right. Conservatory customers spend a lot of money on the things, and frankly they deserve a better deal.

 
MG. Do any new innovations interest you?

PR. Yes indeed. I'm actually quite excited about the new Spacia IG units being developed in Japan, with 0.2mm evacuated voids, the panes supported by 0.5mm glass micro-spacers at 20mm centres. It's not a new idea - it was patented in Australia in 1913 - but the precision manufacturing technology it requires has only become available in recent years. It seems it will be possible to make very thin units that significantly outperform our current IG's in insulation terms, and they won't need edge drainage and ventilation. The timber frame people can go back to their prehistoric carvings! Do you remember the Honda 50's introduction in the early 1960's? BSA were shocked at its quality compared their crude 125cc 2-stroke Bantam, and knew it was curtains for the British motorcycle industry. That mustn't be allowed to happen again - UK IG unit makers must grasp the new technology with both hands. I'm also quite taken with the idea of electro chromic glasses developed a few years back by Professor Mick Hutchins at Oxford Brookes - you press a switch and the glass goes from clear to obscured or coloured. That has lots of possibilities. It's an arrow in the quiver of "smart" building technology where the structure responds to changing temperature, humidity and light levels. At its simplest this can be just a temperature-actuated mechanical vent for a conservatory roof, but it has much broader implications - ultimately computers will look after the health and welfare of humans, which is quite a Big Idea if you think about it. I'm sure fenestration will play a part in that.

 
MG. What about overhead glass?

PR. Yes, I don't understand why there's still no proper standard in place. In theory you can still hang Annealed glass over peoples' heads. Toughened glass is not the complete answer - certainly it will withstand more snow and pigeons, but it still ends up on the deck in a messy heap when it breaks, and lets the rain pour in. I suppose if anyone's in the way they're less likely to be guillotined with Toughened than Annealed, but I don't want to be lacerated and put into shock by any gravity-powered glass, thanks very much. The expensive re-working of the Eurostar roof at Waterloo should have been an object lesson to everyone - they had to apply film to the underside of every pane, carrying it over the edge supports, took ages, cost zillions. Laminated is a possible answer, but it tends to crack at the slightest roof movement - it's much better used fully framed and in the vertical. This is an area crying out for a breakthrough development (a spray-on safety film with a hard surface perhaps?), a BSI standard and a bit of legislation. Far more important than chasing ever-smaller U values in my view.

 
MG. Is there any change you'd like to see for domestic installation Guarantees?

PR. Yes and no. This is the No part. The replacement glazing companies offer incredible guarantees of 10 years - no other sector of the building industry does that. The NHBC & Zurich appear to, but many things are excluded - it has to be a "major structural defect" to qualify. Generally a window company's guarantee will deal with anything down to a gasket leak in year 10. So no, I'd not want to see any change there, I'm very happy that the glazing industry is able to offer this kind of service. And here is the Yes part. What goes wrong with this is that glazing companies tend to go out of business rather a lot. Supposedly the Insurance Warranty kicks in (one of the good things about FENSA membership, by the way, is that such insurance is compulsory), but in my experience it's difficult to get them to pay up. I've never seen the specialist Window Guarantee insurers publish any figures for the number of claims they settle each year, and I would like that to be made compulsory. But I've come across plenty of cases where they "wear down" claimants by sending polite, abstractly reasoned letters about why they cannot accept liability. And a lot of claimants seem to just, well, evaporate. It may be that these insurers aren't charging enough for their policies, so can't afford to meet claims. Then so be it, let them charge more. If they collectively engaged an actuary to do the sums properly, developed a national assessor / repairer network like the motor industry's, and dealt with claims in a practical way rather than just sending bits of paper, I'd be happier. So yes, I'd like to see the replacement window industry's Guarantee/Warranty insurers put their collective cards on the table.

 
MG. There's been recent controversy about sealed units mounted In timber frames. You've been quiet about that. Do you have any comments?

PR. I've avoided the recent altercation on the basis that it's being well aired by others. But I've been commentating on it for many years, mainly in window defect reports and the occasional journal article. Personally when specifying for IG's, I simply disregard solid-bedded systems, and reject timber window units designed for single glasses. I was forced to use a combination of IG units and Boulton & Paul frames once, on a small new-build cottage project for insurers - the original thatched cottage was wrecked in a fire. So I called B & P's technical people asking about drainage and ventilation for their rebates, to be told "we don't do that, why should we?" I patiently explained why, and the riposte was "well, housing developers don't agree with you, and they buy our frames in huge numbers, why should we re-tool?" The bullies knew best. As Jay Webb so often says "but who am I?" So I specified modifications, as best I could, to the frame set I was committed to, and the company lost my little bit of business for more than a decade. Developers continued buying IG unit failure problems for themselves, and I prepared defect report for some of the many claims against them. There's light on the horizon though - I understand that earlier this year Jeld-Wen (B & P's re-branding) started making frames with 18mm rebates and in-built drainage/ventilation. I've yet to take a look at one, but I will. And I'm also encouraged that some independent window joinery firms I've been talking to recently are doing it properly, but not all, not yet. I can't go any deeper into that because some are in legal process and it wouldn't be fair or sensible to identify anyone.

 
MG. Someone you admire in the industry?

PR. "Admire" would be a bit sycophantic but there are many people I have time and respect for, and who make a genuine contribution. Do you want a list? Ok, in no particular order: Alan Barnard an unsung hero who plugs solidly, patiently, away at GGF at solving members' customers' problems, Ian Chisholm's vision, perception and wit, Robin Kent for his acerbic yet charming insights, Jay Webb for his durability and encyclopaedic product knowledge, Rod Appleyard for his bluff, good-natured approach to academia, industry and life, Terry Hudson for his windowman.co.uk forum and straight talking on dishonest sales tactics and inferior installers. And I see you're looking at your watch. There are lots more . . .!

MG. Philip, it's not time but word count - that's all we have space for this month! Thanks for your responses, they've been thought-provoking.

PR. You're welcome Michael, my pleasure.

Fenestra Journal, 2005 - In the Hot Seat
Philip Rougier interviewed by Michael Gannon.

Copyright © Philip Rougier 2005