Government ‘aware of regulatory confusion’ around combustible material before Grenfell Tower fire – FBU

by Building ManagementFeatured NewsIndustry SectorsPassive

The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) has called the latest report into the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, released to the public today, “massively significant” evidence.

The FBU said that the report details previous cladding fires which can be viewed as missed opportunities to prevent Grenfell, and Building Research Establishment (BRE) failures around them. It also builds up a picture of BRE only doing work within contracts, and only specific things – close to client and government demands – within those contracts.

The report, written by Professor Luke Bisby, a professor of fire and structures at Edinburgh University and an expert witness to the inquiry, details the flaws with the BRE – the government’s former safety research and testing body that was privatised in 1997 – which was responsible for testing many of the cladding, insulation and other building materials used in the Grenfell refurbishment.

Bisby’s report concluded: “What emerges from this overview of the development of England’s building regulatory environment, and the major cladding fires that have occurred during the same period, is a picture of increasing freedom for industry…”. He also highlights a “profound lack of competence of actors” including the BRE [both page 253] and “powerful commercial and ideological objectives” to increase flexibility for industry.

The Fire Brigades Union said that many of these flaws can be explained by the privatisation of BRE and the creeping, increasing influence of the private sector in the BRE in the years running up to the completion of full privatisation.

Mark Rowe, Fire Brigades Union national officer, said: “Professor Bisby’s report details multiple failings on the BRE’s part in the run-up to Grenfell, failings which were caused – fundamentally – by private ownership and the increasing encroachment of the private sector. It is massively significant.

“We are clear: the BRE was not, and is not, fit for purpose, because it is privately-owned. It is vital that the BRE is taken back into public ownership and run for the public good, not profit.

“In the run-up to Grenfell their status as a private company meant that they were dependent on fee income from clients, such as Grenfell manufacturers. This made them too willing to please clients and too reluctant to challenge them or the information they provided. The BRE’s private status also meant it did not share information as it should have done, and there were basic failures of competence in vital areas.”

What is the report about?

The FBU breaks down the report, which is centred around Building Research Establishment failures, mainly in relation to key cladding fires:

Regarding the Knowsley Heights fire in 1991 the BRE “had a significant organisational incentive to enable overcladding solutions whilst being seen to mitigate their fire risks – rather than prohibit their use” (page 253), with the BRE having significant “reputational investment” here (p100), and the failure to “properly interrogate the key issues” here is “tragic” (p99).

According to Bisby the BRE report has a “striking absence of any explicit discussion regard the degree to which the GRP rainscreen product may have contributed fuel to the fire” (page 98). The GRP rainscreen product was later found to have contributed to the fire (also page 98). 

Bisby includes a handwritten note detailing a Department of Environment press office request to BRE to “play down the issue of the fire” (p104).

Following the Garnock Court fire in 1999 there were “surprising oversights” made by the BRE with regards to a lack of investigation of cladding and other materials, and possible implications for building regulation (p125). “It is not clear” why a later, more detailed set of reports was not properly communicated to government or Parliament by BRE (page 136).

Around this fire there was an insight into how BRE worked and prioritised work: “We are a private sector organisation; we are not part of government. Clearly, in days gone by, when we were part of DoE then this work was done and would have been done in the public interest without the need for formal contract. One regrets there are now commercial pressures that require clients to place formal contracts with us before we can undertake work.” (BRE comments to the select committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, page 131).

A BRE report on the Lakanal House fire “contains very little insight” into the roles of combustible materials in and on the walls in the fire’s development. Bisby expresses surprise that there was a lack of comment around the external fire spread at Lakanal (from p186 – para 1046, 1049, 1052, 1055, 1058) and the questions this should have raised in relation to building regulations.

The “BRE “External Fire Spread” Reports (2014-2016) are in places incomprehensible, and they appear to lack in any real insights or practical significance” (page 229).

As early as 2017 the BRE – as well as government – was aware of regulatory confusion that would later help lead to combustible material being used in the Grenfell refurbishment, but “it appears that little or no action was taken” by the BRE “to seek to highlight or mitigate this confusion or the resulting significant hazards” (page 255).

Fire Brigades Union calls on Government to rethink PEEPs decision

by Building ManagementFeatured NewsIndustry Sectors

The Fire Brigades Union has written to the UK government, asking decision makers to rethink the rejection of a key Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommendation concerning the evacuation of disabled residents of high-rise buildings.

The inquiry recommended that “that the owner and manager of every high-rise residential building be required by law to prepare personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs)” for all disabled residents.

In May, however, the government rejected the recommendation and revealed downgraded plans, which has been meet with criticism from both Grenfell campaigners and disability rights campaigners.

In a letter to Lord Greenhalgh dated 6 June 2022, Minister of State for Building Safety, Fire and Communities, Matt Wrack, Fire Brigades Union general secretary wrote that the FBU was ‘disappointed’ with the Westminster government’s decision to downgrade work towards ensuring residents with disabilities are provided with Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs)

The letter read: “The [government] statement claims that implementation would involve significant issues with practicality, proportionality and safety. The FBU argues that resident safety is paramount, so there is a greater safety issue in declining to implement PEEPs. As for proportionality, the Inquiry has found the introduction of PEEPs to be a proportionate strategy, and the FBU agrees.

“Some reasons given for the refusal seem poorly evidenced, for example stating that if a PEEP advised the purchase of an evacuation chair, there would be an “impact on the good relations between disabled residents and non-disabled residents if disproportionate costs were passed on to the latter. Building owners should carry the costs.”

“The government’s decision is a negative, backward step, and the FBU stands with disability campaigners, the Grenfell campaign groups and the LGA in asking you to reconsider.”

Fire protection laws have come into effect across Great Britain

by Building ManagementFeatured NewsIndustry Sectors

The UK has one of the most advanced fire protection markets in the world, despite legislation only catching up now in critical areas. According to FPA managing director Jonathan O’Neill the ingenuity and innovation of various stakeholders, manufacturers, fire training professionals, consultants, and the fire services themselves has contributed to a thriving fire protection and detection market across the UK.

The United Kingdom government spent approximately 3.13 billion British pounds on fire-protection services in 2020-2021, the highest amount spent since 2010/11 when the government spent 3.02 billion pounds.

More statistics

Since the late 90s various government efforts, resulting in orders, bills, and acts have come into effect to protect assets. But more importantly, painstaking efforts have been taken to minimise fatalities. Plenty of movement has taken place in the last five years, in the aftermath of the horrific Grenfell Tower disaster. The incident is considered as one of the UK’s worst modern disasters. As many as 72 people died in the disaster that took plan on June 14, 2017, which made up a staggering 18% of all deaths caused by fires in the UK that year. In 2019-2020 fatalities caused by fire accidents dipped below the 300 figures for the first time in several decades.

There were 311 fire-related fatalities in Great Britain during 20120/21, 22 more than occurred in the previous reporting year when there were 289. In the early 2000s, the annual number of fire fatalities was consistently over 500, with numbers gradually falling throughout that decade. In 2011/12 the number of fatalities related to fire fell below 400 for the first time, and has remained below 400 since that point.

Although there has been a net decrease in the number of incidents attended by fire and rescue services in the United Kingdom since 2010/11 the current trend from 2014/15 onwards has been one of increase. In 2018/19 there were over half a million incidents attended in England, over 92,000 in Scotland and almost 37,000 in Wales. Northern Ireland had the least number of incidents attended at around 24,600.

Since peaking at over 55,600 workers in 2010 there has been a marked decline in the number of fire and rescue workers in England, with the service losing more than 10,000 workers by 2019. In a similar time period, the expenditure on fire-protection services in the United Kingdom fell from 3.1 billion in 2009/10, to around 3 billion in 2019/20.

Building Safety Bill

At the end of April 2022, the UK Government’s Building Safety Bill completed all the parliamentary stages in both houses, ready to receive Royal Assent. The 252-page bill, which began the process of going through the houses of parliament in July 2021, is aimed at improving building standards, ensuring the safety of residents, and protecting leaseholders from the costs of fixing their blocks. 

The Building Safety Bill’s main aims is to reform the safety system for properties higher than 11 metres by appointing a Building Safety Regulator, giving a greater voice to residents, driving industry change, and creating a national framework for increased oversight.

UK Minister for Building Safety Stephen Greenhalgh has branded the Building Safety Bill as the “biggest changes in building safety legislation in our history”. The act will now also include measures to ensure leaseholders avoid footing the bill for remediation costs, known as ‘waterfall’ protections.

Ministers have faced growing pressure over the building safety crisis. Thousands of leaseholders have been hit with crippling costs for fixing their buildings and have been unable to sell their flats.

The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) welcomed the passing of the bill as a ‘positive step’ and acknowledged that it “may not have been what everyone hoped for”. The bill will at the least provide greater protections for leaseholders and delivering a new building safety regime.

“It is critical for RICS and other organisations representing the professions impacted by the Act, to have the opportunity to offer their continued support in finding and shaping the solutions alongside government,” it explained.

According to law firm Clyde and Co, major changes to the Bill include scrapping building safety managers or the need to appoint one. There is now an “accountable person” who takes over day-to-day responsibility for higher risk buildings over 18 metres.

Another amendment that has been enshrined into law is extending the limitation period to 15 years for defective premises claims and 30 years for retrospective claims. The law firm said that this could come into force two months after royal assent.

Sadly, new builds or restored properties opting to use environmentally sustainable materials remain at greater fire risk. Expressing his concern on the matter O’Neill says: “there’s no way to escape the influx of sustainable, albeit combustible, building materials making a mark in our cities and towns. We need a unified code on buildings in the UK that incorporates evolving building techniques and materials.”

The ripples of the Grenfell disaster, and the impact of its subsequent inquiry, have left its mark across Britain’s devolved governments. Since October 2006 the fire safety law in Scotland has differed from that of England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Last month, a legislation by ministers in Scotland proposed ban on use of combustible materials on high-rise buildings.

Since 2005, cladding used on high-rise blocks in Scotland had to feature non-combustible materials or pass a large-scale fire test. The new building standards legislation removes the option of a fire test, completely prohibiting such materials in buildings with floors above 11 metres.

The law on fire alarms has changed in Scotland, requiring all homes to have interlinked alarms. Interlinked means if one goes off, they all go off, so you will always hear an alarm wherever you are in your home. The new law has come about because of the Grenfell fire in London in 2017, and it applies to all Scottish homes. It is the property owner’s responsibility for meeting the new standard. Could we see a similar move coming into effect across the rest of the UK? Watch this space.

Accountability in the amendment

But the amendment to the Building Safety Bill, which removes the requirement for landlords to appoint Building Safety Managers in leasehold buildings seven storeys and over, is being challenged by a leading tall buildings fire safety expert.

Russ Timpson – a former firefighter and Managing Director of the Tall Buildings Fire Safety Network -is urging the government to reconsider its decision to scrap the recommendation first proposed by Dame Judith Hackitt in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire.

“This latest iteration of the all-important Building Safety Bill states that responsibility for fire safety will now fall squarely on the squarely on the shoulders of an ‘Accountable Person’, such as the freeholder or head lessee or a management company. It is fundamentally important that anyone who is put in charge of tall building fire safety has undergone specialist training, which is backed up by a recognised qualification.”

A similar concern has been raised by several experts and veterans of UK fire safety protection. A logical solution to this conundrum, according to the FPA, is the appointment of independent assessors. It’s a case of assessing the assessor, where there is a constant loop of checks and balances put in place to ensure there are strong grounds of accountability at all times from all parties.

The 5-billion-pound change

In a significant intervention in January 2022, UK housing secretary Michael Gove announced plans to get developers and construction product manufacturers to pay for defective buildings through a multi billion-pound billion levy. In April 2022, following months of negotiations, 35 builders pledged to fix all buildings they had built in the past 30 years that have “life-critical fire safety defects”.

The agreement includes buildings they have developed on behalf of social landlords as part of Section 106 agreements. Leaseholders will also be able to launch retrospective legal action going back 30 years against developers or contractors that have built unsafe properties.

The 35 developers collectively agreed to contribute £2bn towards fixing buildings they had a role in constructing. Under the Gove plan, in addition to the £2bn from developers to fix their own buildings, the industry will commit a further £3bn for the removal of unsafe cladding through an expansion of the building safety levy, a charge on new residential buildings. Firms refusing to contribute to the fund set up to fix dangerous cladding will be warned they could be blocked from selling new homes.

This article was originally published in the May edition of IFSJ. To read your FREE digital copy, click here

Expert Insight: Fire protection DNA

by Breaking NewsBuilding ManagementIndustry Sectors

Erik Boyter, CEO, WindowMaster and Ian King COO Zeroignition explore importance of a robust fire protection built into the DNA of every building

Smoke control systems should be built, certified and delivered in a way that building owners and occupiers can depend on.

It’s vitally important to recognise that only certified components of the system should be used. For example, smoke panels proven, factory built and certified to the relevant parts of EN12101 and other relevant standards like ISO21927-9.

A factory-based quality system or factory production control, audited by a notified body, should be used to certify components of factory-built products.

Consistency is key. Systematic checks of components, arrangement, fabrication and build in a controlled environment is the only appropriate route to prevent any variations in build from what has been tested and allowed to be certified. This helps ensure dependability as designed, and will enable the supplier to produce a product specific declaration of performance at point of manufacture.

System install and commissioning should be conducted and completed by an appropriate party qualified and competent to do so. This might be demonstrated through voluntary certification such as the SDI 19 scheme.

Finally, the building owner or manager is responsible for ensuring that the system remains compliant through a systematic approach to testing and maintenance.

It cannot be emphasised enough for life safety systems: compliant systems must exist and be documented throughout the design, manufacture and delivery process, as well as through the life of the building.

We’ve looked at smoke control systems, but of course fire safety also encompasses general building materials. While it is important to understand and use FR products in all building specification, it is also crucial we consider the wider system. Ian King, COO, Zeroignition, takes us through the importance of a systematic approach to fire safety.

The Grenfell tragedy was a catalyst for change in the construction industry. It marked the realisation that much more needs to be done to ensure the buildings we live in are properly equipped to protect occupants from the risk of fire and that safety must be put first, above all else.

As the Building Safety Bill continues to make its way through Parliament, albeit slowly, discussions around cladding continue to dominate headlines pushing fire safety even higher on the priorities list. Yet as we’ve seen, the pace of the bill has re-affirmed how notoriously complex fire safety compliance is in the UK.

In reality, we must remember the Bill will be unlikely to eradicate some of the wider issues that the industry struggles with, namely, cost and more recently the availability of materials. Add to this the lack of construction product testing facilities, which are key to the ‘levelling up’ of standards and quality. The Local Government Association (LGA) is one example, encouraging more reliable testing systems that are also more user friendly. It also wants to see businesses caught selling products that aren’t fit for market, held accountable. “The new regulator must have real powers and sanctions and the regulatory system must be properly funded,” says the organisation. “Trading Standards authorities have found themselves caught between costly and complex arguments between test labs about the correct approach to testing, with no way to resolve them.”

At Zeroignition, we agree with this sentiment. Since our founding, Zeroignition has been keen to see a vast improvement in accurate labelling by product manufacturers, ensuring that any information provided is easy to understand and identify, so that materials specified to construct buildings are what they say they are. Without this clear guidance, change will never materialise and people and properties will remain inadequately protected from fire.

Disrupting traditions

There’s no denying, construction projects are incredibly complex and involve a myriad of decisions. Every specification choice has a knock-on effect to the wider build, and unforeseen results can easily arise when a systematic approach to fire protection isn’t maintained.

Although it’s widely agreed by industry professionals that a methodical approach is the key to quality, there’s clearly some scepticism as to how to achieve this. Manufacturers, specifiers and architectural bodies must do more to ensure best practice is fully established and abided by, on every single project, without fail.

Beyond this, the construction industry should look to other industries for guidance, such as automotive and aviation, where a checklist approach reduces the risk of harm to passengers. It’s no longer good enough to work from memory or from a notepad and pen. Digital record keeping is now necessary to ensure certain fire planning elements aren’t being missed.

Beyond this, we need to look to the latest in communications theory and decision making to ensure that fire communications are presented in a way that sticks, and use ‘nudge theory’ to ensure that it’s easier to do the right thing.

Investing in robust knowledge

We know that in-depth knowledge surrounding product safety standards is essential for architecture, specification and construction professionals. Those working in the industry must be sure they have the knowledge and understanding of fire safety when specifying building projects.

It’s an area we investigated for ourselves, post-Grenfell, and the results reveal just how serious knowledge gaps around fire safety remain in the industry. The survey was conducted across the UK, Germany and France and of those questioned, just 3% of architects were able to correctly define the four basic fire protection terms: active fire protection, passive fire protection, fire resistance and reaction to fire.

A mere 2% of the architects interviewed said they’d received comprehensive fire protection training. While most agreed they had had some sort of training, less than one in ten (8%) said they’ve never had fire protection training. These findings reveal an urgent need for serious upskilling to ensure those building liveable structures are well informed and up to speed on the essential fire safety requirements and protocols.

A third of architects who participated in the study also revealed that their current employer doesn’t spend enough on fire protection training, and it seems since the outbreak of COVID-19 particularly, many have taken matters into their own hands. NBS (formerly National Building Specification) says it saw a marked increase in webinar attendance, as more people were working remotely and had the time to attend digital webinars and seminars without having to build time into their day to travel to and from the training venue. Online webinars covered a variety of different topics including fire safety, and were attended by product manufacturers, as well as architects and specifiers.

Positive change

The digital ‘revolution’ of the construction industry is also enforcing positive change. ‘Digital footprints’ which explicitly show that work has been carried out to the appropriate standard are now essential. A further take up of this approach will no doubt help to implement watertight fire safety checks before a building is handed over to the occupant or end user.

Discussions had with manufacturers we work with, have also shown first-hand how an increased focus on R&D projects is now taking place. Advancements in innovative materials that help boost fire safety are now coming to market for added protection on new and existing building projects.

Given what we’ve seen, fire protection now needs to be given the attention it deserves and a uniformed, robust framework needs to be set in place to make sure consistency is achieved across the sector. Increased levels of third-party testing is another area that needs to improve and a greater understand of how components work in tandem will be a key element in improving fire safety within construction.

Manufacturers also have a role to play. Specifiers need to have complete confidence in the products they are recommending which means product information must be up to date and accurate. Until we address the focus on quality vs cost, we’ll never achieve construction’s primary role: ensuring its occupants remain safe. 

This article was originally published in the May edition of IFSJ. To read your FREE digital copy, click here

Evacuation: a stitch in time saves lives

by Building ManagementFeatured NewsIndustry Sectors

The fire safety order leaves no caveats for evacuation during an emergency, Triple A sheds light on the legislation

There are an estimated 1 billion disabled people worldwide. The purpose of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respects for their inherent dignity. In the UK, there are 14.1 million disabled people whose rights are protected through the Equality Act 2010. 

Disabled and Evacuation in an Emergency The use of technology and social care packages has resulted in many disabled people living fulfilled, independent lives within their communities. There is often a common belief that all disabled people are wheelchair users. 

Access and egress for disabled people

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, covers almost all buildings in England and Wales. The onus for compliance is on the individual Responsible Person who is the owner, employer or person in control of the building. 

The Fire Safety Order specifically states that all relevant people must be able to leave the building as quickly and as safely as possible and processes must be in place for when any relevant person is in immediate danger. There are no caveats excluding either disabled people or residential accommodation from the requirement and non-compliance is a criminal offence.

Building Regulations ensure that multi-storey buildings are accessible to disabled people through the provision of lifts, but the majority of lifts are not fire protected and cannot be used during a fire. This presents a challenge for many Responsible Persons delivering compliance with the Fire Safety Order where it relates to evacuation from residential buildings.

PEEPs and ‘buddies’ in residential buildings

The Fire Safety Order covers the common areas of residential accommodation.  English Heritage state that 54% of housing association tenants are disabled and many of these will be residents in multi-storey buildings, which have no fire-protected lifts and no staff. 

It is important to recognize that the Fire Safety Order does not require evacuation assistance to be provided by an employee, just that the person is competent and trained. In reality, in the vast majority of cases family members, neighbours or friends are the ‘first responders’ in an emergency and are unlikely to abandon the disabled person to save themselves.  There are also considerable advantages in involving them as a buddy:

  • they know the disabled person’s capabilities;
  • the disabled person trusts them;
  • they are aware of any vulnerabilities;
  • they will be used to communicating with the disabled person.

Many Responsible Persons are concerned about potential liabilities resulting from training family members, friends or neighbours to assist a disabled person.

PEEPS in the workplace and public access environments

In secure workplaces, the Responsible Person is aware who is present within the building and able to develop a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP) for each individual disabled person. 

In public access environments, the Responsible Person is unlikely to know who will be present in the building and therefore will need to develop Generic Emergency Evacuation Plans (GEEPs).  It is important that any strategy does not place employees in danger if they are involved in the evacuation of a disabled person as this would breach the Health & Safety Act 1974.

Developing the PEEP

The Fire Safety Order requires that the Responsible Person ensures that employees are provided with training prior to their being required to undertake new activities which includes the development of PEEPs.  Triple A Solutions provides Institute of Fire Engineers accredited training to ensure that the Responsible Person can prove due diligence in meeting the requirements of the Fire Safety Order.

The elements that need to be considered during the development of a PEEP are: he physical environment, the disabled person, and the assistance required.

Conclusion

The Tenants Management Agents of Grenfell Tower failed to develop PEEPs for their disabled residents despite being fully aware that they were unable to evacuate. As a result, 41% of the disabled residents of Grenfell Tower died and there were additional fatalities and injuries occurred due to non-disabled residents refusing to attempt to evacuate without the disabled resident.

Those who manage buildings must comply with the requirements of the Fire Safety Order for both disabled and non-disabled people.  The alternative is to risk a criminal prosecution if injuries or deaths occur.

This article was originally published in the May edition of IFSJ. To read your FREE digital copy, click here

At least 149 buildings in Chennai violate fire safety norms

by Building ManagementFeatured NewsIndustry Sectors

At least 149 buildings in Chennai have been placed under the scanner of Special Task Force (STF) for fire safety norm violations. The State fire services department will soon make checks on these buildings to ensure corrective measures are taken by their owners, said CMDA member-secretary Anshul Mishra.

Tamil Nadu government issued an order on December 17, 2018, to constitute two special task forces to address issues pertaining to encroachments, unauthorised construction, and enforcement of provisions of Second Master Plan in Chennai Metropolitan Area (CMA) and other areas that come under the jurisdiction of Directorate of Town and Country Planning and Composite Local Planning Authority.

The latest drive comes after the fire safety STF conducted a meeting after a gap of 20 months in January this year. The STF also carried out a separate study on fire safety measures needed in congested areas with narrow roads such as George Town, Purasawalkam, Triplicane, and T Nagar.  

The task force was formed after the Centre in 2018, in accordance with a suggestion of the Supreme Court, asked all States to take necessary steps to ensure fire safety measures in buildings.  

Five of 16 buildings in Chennai, where major violations were detected during an enforcement drive carried out against 396 buildings that got approval after May 2021, could also be issued with lock and seal notices, Mishra said.

All five buildings were constructed beyond approved height. While a residential area has been converted into a hospital in one case, there is shortage of car parking space in another one, sources said.

 Enforcement drives will now be carried out regularly as CMDA staff strength has been enhanced through new recruitment drive, Mishra said.

Mishra added that the CMDA is also trying to reduce time taken to clear layout files: “We have come out with a document checklist. This will be helpful in complying with CMDA norms.! Previously, layout files were prepared by the layout division of the CMDA. Now, to reduce time and ensure transparency, applicants have been asked to submit layout drawings themselves.

Tokyo major earthquake death-toll prediction number revised down

by Building ManagementFeatured NewsIndustry Sectors

The Metropolitan government has released a report which as revised down the estimated number of people who would die in the event of a major earthquake in Tokyo by 30% to 6,100.

The report by a panel of earthquake experts attributed the reduction of around 3,500 people as a result of advances in the quake-resistance of buildings and the greater use of non-combustible materials in their construction.

The pane concluded that the largest death toll of up to 6,148 would result if a quake with a magnitude of 7.3 originated in the southern part of central Tokyo, after it simulated significant earthquakes with different epicenters for the latest damage projection.

Of the estimated deaths, 3,209 would be caused by collapsed buildings and 2,482 by fires, the report said.

“Although the number of deaths has been reduced, losses of as many as 6,000 people must not be allowed to happen,” Naoshi Hirata, commented Head of the panel and professor emeritus at the University of Tokyo. “It is necessary to steadily advance measures.”

Fifteen buildings in Jeypore in violation of fire safety regulations

by Building ManagementFeatured NewsIndustry Sectors

Following Odisha Fire Service directing all units to carry out a fire safety audit in all important state establishments by 21 May in the wake of a fire at a four-storey commercial building in Dehli, 15 out of 40 buildings that were scanned were found to be violating the safety norms.

The Jeypore unit of Odisha Fire Services on Wednesday slapped notices on 15 government and private buildings including Koraput Medical College and Hospital (MCH) for violating the prescribed norms as it lacks minimum safety measures.

All 15 buildings in violation were served notices to put in place measures and requisite equipment for fire prevention, safety and emergency evacuation in case of emergency.

Kunu Nayak, a fire officer from Jeypore, said the team will again inspect fire safety norms in other parts of the district: “Our staff checked all major government and private establishments and authorities concerned have been asked to maintain the norms for public safety.”

Chairman of Koraput rice millers’ association Girija Sankar Dash, said: “Every building used by public should maintain basic resources to ensure prevention and fire safety measures so that there’s minimum loss to life and property. This is needed not just in urban areas but in remote tribal pockets as well.

“The recent drive by the fire services unit here is a welcome move and should be carried out on regular basis to ensure strict adherence to the rules,” commented social activist Chitaranjan Satpathy.

Industry responds to commencement of Fire Safety Act

by Breaking NewsBuilding ManagementIndustry Sectors

The UK government’s Fire Safety Act 2021 and the Building Safety Act 2022, which have both now come into force, have been met with mixed response from the British fire and safety industry.

The National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) welcomed he publication of the government’s White Paper on Fire Reform which focusses on driving forward reform, strengthening governance and improving talent and professionalism.  

According to NFCC, the white paper and subsequent consultation provides a further opportunity to continuously improve what fire and rescue services already do and to reach into new roles and responsibilities to respond to local risk and support partner services. The reforms can build on the fantastic work already carried out every day.  

NFCC Chair Mark Hardingham commented: “I am pleased to see today’s long anticipated publication of the white paper together with the announcements on fire and building safety.  

“The public have great confidence and trust in firefighters and their fire and rescue services. We all carry a collective responsibility to build on that reputation in how we shape the fire and rescue service for the future – with the needs and expectations of the public at the forefront of our thinking. 

“NFCC has a significant role to play in advising and delivering on reform and improvements. However, no one organisation alone holds the key – we want to work with the various fire service bodies to inform and implement further improvements.” 

The Council said it would now respond to the consultations after exploring the recommendations in detail with fire and rescue services.  

A perfect storm

The Fire Industry Association has said the new legislation will create a ‘perfect storm’ for fire risk assessors, as they will now face additional challenges when it comes to satisfying new legal requirements designed to meet fire safety competency standards.

The association raised the issue thattThe legislation requires that a building’s external walls be considered as part of any fire risk assessment, which has been much debated by the industry. The Building Safety Act goes further still, it said, placing a clear duty on ‘Accountable Persons’ and ‘Responsible Persons’ to confirm the competency of any fire risk assessor whom they appoint to assist them in undertaking a building fire risk assessment.

It also noted the lack of detailed definition around the term ‘competent’, which then puts these ‘duty holders’ under considerable pressure to make the correct choices.

Dennis Davis, executive officer at the Fire Sector Federation, said: “Those accountable for building and fire safety, including fire risk assessors operating without clearly demonstrable competency, need to make sure they’re ready now.

“They must fully understand the implications of demonstrating compliance with their obligations under the new legislation. Using existing third party assurance schemes that demonstrate fire risk assessors are competent is a practical way forward for clients. Joining such schemes or engaging with those organisations developing standards will allow qualified professionals to show they’re competent. It’s a way forward for contractors.”

He added: “We need to face up to these challenges if we are to avoid a ‘perfect storm’ in the fire risk assessor sector which could undermine fire safety in our buildings.”

‘An attack on workers’ rights’

The Fire Brigade Union called highlighted the white paper’s review on pay and move to operational independence of Chief Fire Officers. Matt Wrack, FBU general secretary called it ‘an attack on workers’ rights by undermining collective bargaining and a proposal to remove frontline firefighters’ voices.

He said: “The narrative set out in the white paper on the fire service’s response to the pandemic is one firefighters will not recognise. Firefighters, through their union, negotiated a contract which kept them safe and allowed important work to protect the public to take place. Before this agreement, Covid positive firefighters were deployed to doorsteps – not something certain chief fire officers can be proud of.

“We’re proud of how the tripartite agreement was achieved through our long-standing arrangements, and attempts to belittle it are false and insulting.

“The vast bulk of this white paper does not relate directly to Grenfell recommendations. It is unclear why the government is trying to paint this picture. Instead of listening to frontline firefighters, the government appears to have listened only to the anti-union voice of the politically motivated, including outgoing fire inspector Tom Winsor, and fire bosses. We look forward to working with the government to address these proposals and making sure that frontline firefighters are heard.

“The union has never opposed clarifying the role of a firefighter and in some instances, expanding that role, and we have tried to have these discussions with ministers for over a decade. It is ministers who have failed to answer these questions. It is imperative that any changes are properly negotiated and discussed with frontline firefighters – it is their say that should matter most. 

“The proposals on governance suggests that we could see more Police Fire and Crime Commissioners. Throwing fire in with police means fire and rescue services do not receive enough scrutiny. Furthermore police and fire are very different functions and there is a vital need to maintain the neutrality of fire and rescue services in the public perception. If this breaks down it will make the work of fire and rescue services in communities far more difficult.”

Building Safety Bill receives Royal Ascent and becomes a law in UK

by Breaking NewsBuilding ManagementIndustry SectorsSafety

The Building Safety Bill received Royal Assent on 28 April 2022 and is now an Act of Parliament. It has been a long process leading up to this point since the tragic Grenfell fire on 14 June 2017, but there is much further work to do in order for the changes in the Act to be implemented.

As many stakeholders will be aware, the Act is a significant piece of legislation that completely overhauls the regulatory regime for higher risk buildings in England, as well as introducing numerous other changes that affect construction products regulation, competency standards in the construction industry, the management of building fire safety risks, liabilities, and so on.

Peter Baker was previously appointed as Chief Inspector of Buildings by the Health and Safety Executive, and is leading the new Building Safety Regulator as established under the Act. Mr Baker notes that:

“The Building Safety Act introduces tough new measures for the safety and quality of buildings which will be enforced by the new independent regulator being established in HSE.

“I call on everyone involved in the design, construction and management of buildings in England to now step up, get ready for the changes, and work together to drive the necessary culture change to protect people and deliver safe and good quality buildings”

The Government’s transition plan notes when various provisions are expected to come into effect, however this may well be updated now that the Act is law. HSE has said that the registration of high-rise buildings will be starting from April 2023, with the new safety management regime requirements applying from October 2023. No doubt further dates for other changes will soon be released.

Now that the Act is in force, Developers need to be looking at how they procure higher risk projects and what effect the Act will have on these developments and their obligations in relation to the same. Similarly, Contractors and Consultants need to understand their additional obligations not only on higher risk developments, but also on building projects generally where they will hold specific duties.

All construction stakeholders (including manufacturers and suppliers) need to understand the full extent of the changes coming, and appreciate now what actions and business investment are required in order to ensure compliance with the new regime, and act now or risk being caught short.