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.