Timber compliance: what stakeholders need to know
For many commercial construction projects, compliance is where the viability of timber is ultimately decided.
Across recent Tasmanian case studies, fire safety and regulatory approval emerged as one of the most significant hurdles to using structural and appearance-grade timber products. Not because timber can’t meet performance requirements, but because the pathways to demonstrate compliance are less familiar, less standardised, and more resource-intensive than those for steel or concrete.
The result is a more cautious decision-making environment, where design, insurance and material selection are all influenced by how confidently compliance can be demonstrated.
Where the friction sits
Research from the Centre for Sustainable Architecture with Wood (CSAW) identified three pressure points for commercial buildings and timber compliance.
The first is fire performance and perception. Stakeholders noted that concerns about combustibility continue to influence both approvals and insurance, despite strong evidence of timber’s predictable performance in fire conditions. As one industry expert observed, the perception that “timber will burn” continues to outweigh a more nuanced understanding of mass timber’s charring properties and fire resistance.
This perception feeds directly into insurance challenges. Some projects reported difficulty securing cover locally, with premiums significantly higher than comparable buildings overseas, and in some cases requiring international insurers.
The second challenge is evidence and data. Local timber products often lack the depth of fire testing and certification available for more established international systems. European mass timber products, particularly those manufactured from spruce, benefit from a mature evidence base that supports compliance and provides confidence to fire engineers and building surveyors. In contrast, Australian products may require additional third-party certification or project-specific testing, adding both cost and time.
The third is codes and consistency. Several participants pointed to variation in fire engineering assessments and approval decisions across similar projects. Timber construction often requires detailed technical justification under the National Construction Code (NCC), particularly where ‘Deemed-to-Satisfy’ pathways are not easily applied. While this allows flexibility, it can also make approvals less predictable.
Material properties may further constrain design options. For example, external wall systems in Type A and B buildings must meet non-combustibility requirements, and timber species must fall within specific fire performance groupings. In some cases, locally preferred species could not be used due to these classifications, which are based on testing conducted over a decade ago and may not reflect current resource characteristics.
Together these factors make timber compliance more demanding to navigate, with additional testing, research and data often required. This complexity shifts when and how key decisions need to be made. With early alignment, projects avoid redesign, delays, or the need to substitute materials during procurement.
A shift towards certainty
Despite the challenges, the research also points to clear signs of progress.
One of the most important is growing experience. As more timber buildings are delivered in Tasmania, fire engineers, certifiers and project teams are becoming more familiar with how to assess and document compliance. This is beginning to reduce uncertainty and streamline approval processes.
The role of expertise is critical. Martin Rees is a board member of St Lukes and was involved in the delivery of its Launceston building – the largest mass timber commercial project in Tasmania. He emphasises that successful outcomes often depend on early engagement with consultants who have relevant experience:
The fire engineer was very good, excellent to work with,” he says. “It’s a question of picking the right consultant who has done it before; someone who can give you quick solutions that don’t hold you up or cause any problems.
There is also increasing interest in expanding the evidence base. Stakeholders pointed to the need for further research into fire performance, including the use of treatments such as intumescent coatings, which have shown promising results in slowing fire spread and protecting structural elements.
At a broader level, standards and regulatory frameworks are beginning to evolve. Updating NCC provisions, improving alignment with contemporary timber products, and developing more consistent guidance were all identified as key enablers. Compared to steel and concrete, timber construction still lacks the same level of standardisation, particularly given the diversity of species, products and connection systems in the Australian market.
International experience suggests this is a transitional phase. In more mature markets, standardised systems and extensive testing have helped embed timber within established compliance pathways.
Strategies for success
Across the case studies, a consistent pattern emerged in projects that navigated compliance more effectively.
Early engagement is critical. Bringing fire engineers and timber specialists into the design process from the outset allows appropriate fire strategies to be developed alongside the architectural and structural concept, rather than retrofitted later.
Clear documentation and alignment also matter. Where design intent, product specifications and performance requirements are well coordinated, the compliance process becomes more predictable and less prone to revision.
Finally, collaboration plays a central role. As architect Alastair Flynn notes, innovation carries risk, but those risks can be resolved through coordinated effort. “If you work together as a team, you can surmount those risks, but it takes a lot of time, energy and collaborative effort to do so.”
From complexity to confidence
Timber compliance in Australia remains more complex than for materials like concrete and steel, reflecting a sector that is still building its knowledge base, standards and shared experience.
The evidence from Tasmania suggests these barriers are not fixed. With targeted research, updated codes, and continued investment in capability across fire engineering and certification, compliance pathways can become more consistent and more efficient.
For fire engineers and building surveyors, this places them at the centre of the transition. Their expertise, judgement, and growing familiarity with timber systems will play a defining role in moving the material from perceived risk to established practice.
Share this Article
