Home>Fire>Legislation>The Grenfell Legacy: Why we need to rethink fire safety
ARTICLE

The Grenfell Legacy: Why we need to rethink fire safety

16 December 2024

AS MANY sector commentators continue to reflect on the Grenfell Tower Inquiry and its recommendations, it’s important to recognise that the issues brought to light extend far beyond high-rise residential buildings. The challenges highlighted by this tragedy, asserts Thomas Roche, and highlighted in the Phase 2 final report are not confined to one type of building or one type of issue. Rather, they permeate across the entire built environment.

Those who have glued their attentions to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry process may well have seen a focus on high-rise buildings, but if they look closely enough they will also see that the changes put in place since the tragedy (and called for by the Inquiry Panel) are right across the built environment.

After all, if there are challenges with high- rise structures, why would there not be challenges with offices, warehouses and other buildings? The same contractors from the same industry groups used similar methods whether they be raw materials, regulations or guidance.

One only has to look at the Building Safety Act 2022, itself a product of the Grenfell tragedy, which has introduced wide-ranging responsibilities for designers and contractors. Importantly, and perhaps less well understood, these responsibilities apply to all buildings, not just residential high-rises. This broader scope reflects a fundamental truth that the issues we face in fire safety and the Building Regulations are both systemic and universal.

Misunderstanding of guidelines

One of the items that we’ve highlighted for some time now is the widespread misunderstanding of the Building Regulations and guidance. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry report highlights that Approved Document B, the ‘go-to’ guidance for fire safety in common buildings, is often misinterpreted or applied incorrectly against the functional requirements of the Building Regulations.

This confusion isn’t limited to residential buildings, either. We see it manifested in industrial and commercial structures as well. That causes problems. There are different risks in those buildings, but they still need to be addressed on a proportionate basis.

For instance, we are currently investigating a case of a series of large buildings with no internal subdivisions and no sprinkler system. They are beyond the scope of the guidance. The Building Regulations and their functional requirements still apply. How does this happen under the current guidance?

The answer lies in the misinterpretation of that guidance and, dare I suggest, a lack of enforcement. The scenario repeats the same issues that contributed to the Grenfell tragedy: a misunderstanding of the regulations and a failure to meet functional requirements. We need to be honest with ourselves. There are some broader issues, perhaps with differing potential consequences.

Growing pains

The construction industry has long operated on a principle of compliance and meeting the minimum standards required, but – and as the Grenfell Tower Inquiry has highlighted – without always fully understanding the intent behind the Building Regulations.

Government and industry can show they have acted, yet many promised actions are yet to materialise, while those regulatory items that are currently in operation are showing the signs of growing pains.

It comes as no surprise to learn that the construction industry is facing a day of reckoning. With only 50% of submissions to Gateway 2 in the new safety regime making it through, and 20% of submissions to Gateway 1 being rejected, it’s clear that the industry is struggling to adapt to the new realities. This pain is necessary, but also indicative of how far we have to go.

One area we’ve watched closely has been the approach to guidance. A programme was established, with an outline plan, and now an ageing update still sits on a lonely page on the Government’s portal. Much has been promised.

It has been good to witness such positive action on instructing research, engagement and output. A collection of items exists on externals walls, sprinklers in high-rise residential buildings, alert systems, a second staircase and, of late, detail on the removal of national classes for sprinkler systems in care homes. The plans, though, promised so much more.

Change or total reformation?

On reading the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report, my heart sunk. It rightly highlights what has been apparent for some time in that the guidance is not clearly understood by all stakeholders and, once again, calls for change.

The document highlights that research, funded by the public purse, struggles to find the light of day. What has become of research awarded from contracts in the last five years? Perhaps an update will be forthcoming as part of the response to the Inquiry report from Government in March 2025.

Is it change we need or total reformation of the guidance? ‘Madness’, some of you will cry, but wait. I’ve just told you that we appear to be in a loop on guidance. We’re doing the same things and expecting a different end game.

If you still think reformation is madness, at least indulge me a little more. Should we not at least be asking whether our requirements and guidance are truly delivering the outcomes we desire?

Earlier today, we discussed access to buildings and yet we still haven’t stretched our minds on the matter of egress for some of the most vulnerable. We stare at a picture of the flats on fire in Dagenham and think about the other buildings over the last seven years that have been destroyed by fires, in turn leaving hundreds of people homeless. That’s far from being a success story,

Element of resilience

Large compartment buildings are destroyed by fires and sit for months as rusting hulks after the fire has been wrestled into submission by most of the resources of one regional Fire and Rescue Service. Is this a form of success?

Perhaps we are not missing an element of resilience as much as we should? In an era of climate change and evolving urban landscapes, resilience should be at the forefront of our minds when it comes to building design and safety considerations.

The lessons from Grenfell are not confined to one sector of our built environment. They call for a fundamental reassessment of how we approach building safety across the board. It’s time to stop looking through the narrow end of the telescope and start viewing the bigger picture. Only then can we hope to create a truly safe and resilient built environment for everyone.

Thomas Roche is Secretary of the Business Sprinkler Alliance

*For more information concerning the Business Sprinkler Alliance visit the website at www.business-sprinkler-alliance.org

 
OTHER ARTICLES IN THIS SECTION
FEATURED SUPPLIERS
TWITTER FEED