Exclusive: Considerations for outsourcing aviation fire and rescue services

by AviationBreaking NewsIndustry Sectors

Chris Thain, Business Development Manager for Fire & Rescue Service at G3 Systems Ltd, talks outsourcing aviation fire and rescue services

When it comes to outsourcing a process to an outside organisation there is always a lot to consider in terms of how it will affect the business as it could affect staff numbers and impact existing management systems and processes.

To find out about the ins and outs outsourcing aviation fire and rescue services, International Fire and Safety Journal caught up with Chris Thain, Business Development Manager for Fire & Rescue Service at G3 Systems Ltd, a supplier of bespoke operational delivery of Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) and Industrial Rescue and Firefighting Services (RFFS) to airports and high-risk industrial facilities around the world.

Why should businesses consider outsourcing their ARFF and RFSS services?

Outsourcing fire and rescue services can enable organisations to concentrate on their core business, while continuing to maintain and improve safety, resilience, and regulatory compliance. It enables companies to focus on their own customers’ needs while delegating essential but non-core requirements to external specialist providers. This releases internal resources that can be put to more effective use for other purposes, leading to greater overall efficiency and competitiveness.

It is unrealistic for airport operators to be experts in every business function, process, and discipline required to manage a modern airport, it is simply far too expensive to maintain this level of knowledge and expertise internally. By utilising outsourced service providers, airport operators can leverage a global knowledge base and resource centre, accessing world class capabilities, skills, and expertise that they may have been precluded from previously.

What are some of the key benefits of outsourcing?

Managed ARFF service providers often have access to a wider, more highly skilled, and diverse talent pool than the client themselves and will already have in place the requisite interview and selection processes designed to select only the strongest, most appropriately qualified, and experienced staff.

Training and competence management can reflect global best practice, with industry and/or site-specific risks recognised, evaluated, and reflected in the ongoing training provided to the ARFF staff members.

Shared experiences gained from a variety of different airports or industrial operations, coupled with specialist skill sets, ongoing education, learning and professional development and best working practices also enable the outsourced service provider to add value and resilience to and further reduce risk within the client’s operation.

As specialists in their field, outsourced ARFF service providers are generally much better at deciding how to cost effectively avoid risk in their areas of expertise without compromising safety and response, than perhaps a fully employed on-site team might be.

What are the biggest concerns around outsourcing?

Firstly, there is issue of compliance. If we assume that the vehicles and equipment provided by or for the ARFF meet the ICAO standards for the airport Category and that they are well maintained and fit for purpose, then the only other variable affecting the service delivery and compliance standards is the ARFF officers and staff that are engaged on the contract.

The second issue often stems from concerns around management control and responsibility for delivery. Relinquishing a degree of authority and responsibility can be difficult but By delegating and working as partners, communicating openly, honestly and in a timely manner, and through building close working relationships, we quickly overcome any feelings of doubt or concern.

Thirdly, the issue of cost versus benefit must always be addressed. While airport ARFF services may be seen by some as an expensive mandatory cost, in most cases the provision of an outsourced ARFF service can deliver cost savings in other areas of airport maintenance and management.

Finally, a common misconception is that outsourcing an existing airport ARFF service to a third-party provider will result in firefighters losing their jobs. This is simply not the case. In most situations, it makes sense for the outsourced provider to retain as many of the incumbent staff as possible on the contract.

What are the cost considerations involved in outsourcing?

People and equipment form the largest elements of cost for any ARFF service. Labour costs, including the costs of employment, vary from country to country and from role to role within the ARFF itself. The mix of officers to firefighters, the availability and recruitment of ex-pat staff versus local staff and the contractual conditions of work all influence the final cost of labour for the end customer. It is also very important to consider local employment terms and conditions and to ensure that costs such as social insurance, pensions and contractual stipends are captured and included.

Similarly, emergency vehicles and the technical equipment required to effectively fight fires and rescue people in modern aircraft and airport incidents can be very expensive. For example, a typical airport crash rescue tender can range in price from $500,000 to more than $1.2 million depending upon the age, technical specification, and the category of airport the vehicle is required to protect. Given that a CAT 10 airport requires a minimum of three such vehicles fully loaded with PPE and safety equipment, you can quickly see how the costs to deliver the ARFF service can mount up.

Other ancillary costs for the ARFF service will include staff travel, training and certification costs, communications, IT and data costs, licenses, and permit costs, insurances, medical support and, in some extreme cases, security and life support costs.

What should businesses consider when deciding to outsource when it comes to selecting a partner organisation?

The first consideration should be around timing – when is the new service required to be at full operating capacity and is there enough time work through the tendering and selection process to ensure a successful outcome? The earlier that engagement can begin with potential partner organisations, the better for all parties.

The next consideration is to know what ARFF services you require – being clear on the full scope of requirement early in the process will ensure clarity for all parties and will deliver a smoother, more cost-efficient service in the longer term.

Finally, be realistic about the budget for delivering a fully compliant ARFF service for your aerodrome – manage the expectations of those responsible for allocating and approving the budget and ensure that the safety of travellers, airport staff and firefighters always remains the highest priority.

What are the main services you offer for customers looking to outsource their aviation fire and rescue services?

G3 systems offer the following main services for our customers:

  • Structural & industrial rescue & fire fighting service
  • Aviation crash/rescue & fire fighting services
  • Emergency dispatch & control
  • Incident command & control
  • On-site fire safety, fire inspection & service
  • Emergency vehicle management & maintenance
  • Fire & rescue equipment and facilities management & maintenance
  • Fire & rescue training
  • Emergency medical services

How do you analyse the needs and requirements of potential clients?

Assessing the needs of a potential client begins with a conversation to determine what kind of airport they are operating (Civilian, Military or both, or Heliport/Seaplane Airport etc.) and what the ICAO Category for the airport is or will be. This immediately helps determine the number and type of emergency vehicles that are required to meet the regulations (ICAO Annex 14 Document 9137 Part 1: Rescue and Fire Fighting) and therefore the minimum number of staff that will be required to effectively deliver the ARFF service.

We determine if the airport is already operational, with an incumbent ARFF service, or if the airport is a new development requiring a first time ARFF presence. The geographic location of the airport is also important as we need to understand the local operating conditions, both physically and environmentally as well as commercially. We also need to understand the timing requirements for the airport and the process that the customer will undertake for competitive tendering.

A task resource analysis is conducted, and mobilisation and project management plans created to understand exactly how the new ARFF service will be implemented. We then also have our strict risk based internal process to navigate, ensuring that any responsibilities and liabilities that we take on are manageable and viable for us as an organisation.

What are you focused on at the moment?

We have some exciting prospects on the horizon and are currently working on new projects in the Middle East, Africa, and the Indian Subcontinent, which we hope will result in long term ARFF contracts taking us into the 2030’s.

In the meantime, we are also actively engaged with trade organisations such as the Airport Fire Officers Association and attending events such as Interschutz 2022, to continue to meet with our clients and colleagues across the aviation industry and to support the sector as much as possible.

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

UK homebuilder swings to loss following Fire Safety Pledge

by Building ManagementFeatured NewsIndustry SectorsPassive

UK homebuilder Crest Nicholson Plc has reported being pushed into a loss in the first half of the year after pledging to fix safety issues on apartments buildings.

The company reported a loss before tax of £52.5 million ($64 million) for the six months through April after recording an charge of £105 million in the half year, according to a statement Tuesday.

The charged wiped out growth in sales and prices as the UK’s new build housing market continued showing no signs of slowing down as rising rates and a cost of living squeeze threaten to damp demand. 

The pledge is a result of the UK’s debate over how to address widespread fire safety failures that were exposed in 2017 by Grenfell Tower fire in London. Uncertainty over who should fund repairs left thousands of homeowners unable to sell their homes and trapped in tower blocks that may be unsafe. 

This in turn prompted the government to seek commitments from homebuilders to help fund repairs, with large publicly traded firms expected to make contributions that will help cover the cost of repairs on buildings whose developers no longer exist or are overseas and unwilling to pay. 

“We are pleased to have reached a resolution with the government by signing the Building Safety Pledge,” Chief Executive Officer Peter Truscott said. “We hope this now provides comfort and assurance to affected residents and stakeholders. It also allows the group to move forward in remediating the affected buildings directly or through another party as soon as possible.”

Crest’s revenue climbed 12.3% in the half year period while home completions rose 7.8%.

Grenfell Tower fire: The importance of cultural change within the industry

by Building ManagementFeatured NewsIndustry Sectors

Quelfire marks the fifth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire

On 14 June 2017, a fire started in the kitchen of a fourth floor flat in West London. Within minutes, the fire spread via the exterior of the building reaching all four sides of the 24-storey tower block and in two hours, most of the upper floors had been engulfed in fire. The fire which destroyed Grenfell Tower saw the loss of 72 lives and has been named as “one of the UK’s worst modern disasters.”

Factors that played part in the disaster

Grenfell Tower had a ‘stay put’ fire policy which assumes that fire compartmentation works in the event of a fire. Being an important element of passive fire protection, its purpose is to contain the fire to its area of origin for as long as possible meaning that effectively, the fire and rescue services can bring the fire under control, and residents can evacuate safely. Many of Grenfell’s residents followed this policy and stayed put only to become trapped by the fire that gained momentum around them; others ignored this policy and managed to escape to safety.

It is quite incomprehensible just how many things went wrong during the early hours of that Wednesday morning. Fire safety engineer Dr Barbara Lane, in a report to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, discovered that the fire started spreading vertically up the tower block, and “laterally along the cladding above and below the window lines (and) the panels between windows.” The fire reached the top floor of the east side at approximately 01:26, evidenced by mobile footage, and had spread to the north side by 01:42.

There were many factors that played a part in the fast spread of fire, but in his report to the Inquiry, Professor Luke Bisby said that evidence “strongly supports” that the external cladding was the main cause.

He said: “The ACM (aluminium composite material) product on Grenfell Tower incorporates a highly combustible polyethylene polymer filler which melts, drips, and flows at elevated temperature. The polyethylene filler material is expected to release large amounts of energy during combustion”.

However, Bisby found that other factors may have contributed to this such as other flammable materials for example, a polyurethane polymer foam insulation board, whilst Lane identified combustible materials in the windows, exposed gas pipes and flat doors not meeting current fire resistance standards.

An important factor: current practices in the industry

In light of the fifth anniversary of Grenfell Tower, a day to remember the people who lost their lives and hold in thought all of the family members and survivors, it is important to reflect on the years that have passed and why a cultural change is needed. Dame Judith Hackitt has been the driving force behind the construction industry’s next steps in building a safer future.

Current practices show that the industry, often, focusses on sales and profit; cheaper products and money saved; quantity of content rather than the quality of content, over the safety of a building and its residents. Until the industry wholeheartedly embraces change and separates itself from old practices, the risk of destructive fire is inevitable.

The industry’s culture has been resisting change for decades, suggesting that most parties are reluctant to take the lead and admit that it needs to improve with immediate effect. It has taken the tragedy of Grenfell for the culture of the industry to come under hard scrutiny in what Hackitt explains as “lack of ownership and responsibility, the system is gamed, and corners are cut wherever possible.”

The Building Safety Bill received royal assent on 28 April 2022, meaning that it is now an act of parliament (BSA). Although many of the requirements will not come into force for another 12-18 months, Hackitt senses the mood may have shifted.

She said: “The construction industry is waking up to the reality that this is really going to happen.

I am delighted to hear […] that more than 300 organisations have now signed up to the Building a Safer Future charter and a similar number to the Code for Construction Product Information (CCPI).”

Why is cultural change important?

Although five years on, there is still a long way to go in terms of embracing innovation and rebuilding the trust and confidence lost in the construction industry. Legislation will help to change behaviours and force people into doing the right thing, but it cannot create a cultural change alone. It needs leaders and professionals within the industry to stand up and be counted but ultimately, encourage other individuals to do the same. If the practices displayed in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry have shown anything, it is that there is no better time than now for all parties to start utilizing guidance provided from relevant sectors and begin changing the way they work.

With the ongoing push for reform, it has never been more vital for individuals to have the correct training, experience, and knowledge in their sectors. One main problem highlighted was the lack of well-trained workers. Sir Martin Moore-Bick, chair of the Grenfell Inquiry, stated: “Four members of the first [firefighter] crews to have fought the blaze had 52 years of combined experience. However, they had not received any training on the risks posed by exterior cladding or the techniques to be deployed in fighting fires involving cladding, the report found.”

This suggests that when it comes to fire safety, every party needs to be involved from architects, who design a building, to fire and rescue services who are the first point of call in the event of a fire. By employers becoming influencers in the development of their organisation, alongside workers wanting to do the right thing for a safer future, this will ensure competency and ultimately, help create safer living spaces for residents in high-rise buildings.

For any cultural change, there must be someone willing to take the lead. The construction industry is guilty of waiting for regulations to come into force before taking any action, but it is not enough to wait for government changes anymore: all sectors must get ahead of legislation now. This can be through guidance from manufacturers for example, firestopping manufacturers on their tested details, or through cross-party communication where all sectors communicate with each other throughout the entirety of a project. By the construction industry working together as a unit, rather than individual sectors, lives will be saved, and buildings protected.

In addition, organisations can get ahead of legislation by complying with schemes such as the CCPI, which “will help organisations drive higher standards in the presentation of construction product information, prioritising building safety.” The objective of the code is to make sure that any given product is supported by clear, accurate and up-to-date information. While the Building Safety Regulator and National Regulator for construction products are being established, the CCPI is an efficient way for an organisation to show that it is responding to the issues raised since Grenfell.

In the Inquiry of Grenfell Tower, one devastating discovery was that there was a lack of accountability from both the government and the construction industry. Getting ahead of legislation also means taking responsibility for the work that is done. With the act placing more responsibility on individuals, it is time for the industry to take ownership rather than just accepting today’s commonly used excuses. This means to take a more proactive approach to fire safety by focussing on what products, materials, and manufacturers are used: everyone has a choice. Also, by making sure the people with the correct skill set, knowledge and experience are appointed for the job. If an organisation is accountable for their decisions and actions, the project is more likely to be delivered in line with expectations and safety regulations.

A cultural change is needed in both attitudes and practices of the built-environment industry. As industry practices have come under hard scrutiny, many organisations may feel apprehensive about new practices and how they may expose work on previous projects. Although, in some cases, many organisations were working to the best of their knowledge at the time, the focus should be on what actions can be taken now to create a safer future. By working towards competency and being prepared to ask for help from relevant experts, fire safety can become the main priority from the earliest stages of a project.

The act pays respect to the 72 victims and brings an air of hope to their family members and survivors that ultimately, change will prevail. By prioritising the safety of residents occupying high-rise buildings over the costs in the construction industry, risks of fire can be managed effectively, preventing a disaster like Grenfell ever happening again.

UK Fire industry marks 5-year anniversary of Grenfell Tower fire

by Building ManagementFeatured NewsIndustry Sectors

Today (14 June 2022) marks five years since the Grenfell Tower fire of 2017. The five year anniversary is being acknowledged by organisations from across the fire industry.

Grenfell United – a group made up of survivors and bereaved from the 72 people who died in the fire – are holding a Silent Walk which will begin at Notting Hill Methodist Church at 18:30, and participants are being asked to wear something green to show support. The group is inviting members of the community and anyone who would like to join to take part in Silent Walk, as “the community continues to heal and fight for justice”.

In a joint statement, the British Approvals For Fire Equipment (BAFE) and FireQual paid its respects to all those affected by the fire. Justin Maltby-Smith, Managing Director at BAFE also commented on the Building Safety Act: “Whilst many requirements of the new legislation will not come into effect until April 2023, it is important to begin working as if this is in effect now. This is due to the length of projects that will crossover this date, so it is in your best interest to, if not already, introduce a new regime regarding safe working and competency expectations behind this.”

Pete Wolfenden, a firefighter who responded to the Grenfell Tower fire, said: “It’s been five years since the Grenfell Tower fire and the thoughts and wishes go out from all London firefighters and fire control staff personnel to the survivors and friends and family of those who lost their lives in this appalling incident, the worst domestic blaze in living memory.

“We also remember the brave and courageous members of all the emergency services who attended on the night and subsequent days, some of who still suffer Ill health and bear the mental scars of attending that traumatic incident.”

Matt Wrack, Fire Brigades Union general secretary, said: “Firefighters and the Grenfell community have a bond that was forged in tragedy, and the Fire Brigades Union stands in solidarity with all bereaved, survivors and residents. Today on the fifth anniversary of the fire, it is a time for reflection, and to remember all those who lost their lives, and the loved ones they left behind.

“Their legacy lives on in the fight for justice. The community have faced constant denials from those responsible for Grenfell being covered in cladding as flammable as petrol. They have faced a wait for criminal charges that continues to this day. They inspire us all with their relentless fight for justice and we continue to stand in solidarity with them every step of the way.”

London Fire Commissioner Andy Roe said: “Today as we mark the fifth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire, we remember the 72 people who lost their lives that night and our thoughts are with their family and friends, the survivors and the Grenfell community.

 “I have found the strength and dignity that the Grenfell community has shown in the face of such terrible loss humbling and inspiring.

 “I give my commitment that we will continue to listen and make changes to our service and work to drive improvements in the built environment to ensure such a tragedy can never happen again.” 

Mark Hardingham, NFCC Chair, commented: “It is hard to believe five years have passed since the devastating fire at Grenfell Tower.

“Today I will be taking time to reflect on the tragedy and remember the 72 people who lost their lives, those who were injured, along with the community who continue to be impacted by the terrible events that evening. The inquiry is ongoing and we continue to hear evidence which has been distressing for everyone involved. I hope that the findings will bring much-needed answers for families and friends.”

“We continue to work with government and fire and rescue services to improve how they respond to fires and the building safety regime, and ensure people feel safe in their homes.

And Dave Badillo, a firefighter who was one of the first on scene at the tragedy five years ago told the Guardian: “I truly believed Grenfell would be a turning point in the future of fire safety and building regulations in this country.

“But five years on, every time the bells go down I pray it’s not a high-rise fire. Because there’s a real chance it’s wrapped in flammable materials, and its fire doors and door closures aren’t compliant, a list of vulnerable residents is absent and there’s just one smoke-filled escape route. This leaves me helpless to rescue all the desperate families screaming for help.”

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).

Lifesavers’ Connect Hub opens at Kallang Fire Station

by Featured NewsIndustry Sectors

The Lifesavers’ Connect Hub (LCH) at Kallang Fire Station, Singapore, was officially opened by Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, Minister of State, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of National Development on 31 May 2022.

As part of Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF)’s vision to build ‘A Nation of Lifesavers’, SCDF aims to equip one million persons with lifesaving skills by 2025. To achieve this, SCDF has established the Lifesavers’ Connect (LC) Network to increase public engagement and increase the training touchpoints for our community to learn emergency preparedness (EP) skills.

The LC Network will consist of LC Zones at SCDF fire posts and at fire stations , LC Centres at Division Headquarters and brought together by the LCH.

The LCH at Kallang Fire Station will host volunteer leadership development programmes and dialogues at free of charge to further educate SCDF volunteer leaders beyond lifesaving skills. The programmes are designed to benefit volunteers to ensure they are able to carry out their roles meaningfully with SCDF and allow them to function as well-rounded volunteers.

The integrated LCH at Hill Street will house the Civil Defence Heritage Gallery, the Emergency Preparedness Centre and a leadership development space. The LCH will serve as a focal point for all Lifesavers in the community to step up as a volunteer to conduct ground-up collaborative projects and initiatives relating to EP. Through the LCH, partnerships among all partners and volunteers will be forged. Through this dedicated premises, volunteers will be able to interact and exchange knowledge with one another to equip themselves with EP skills and build resilience in facing emergencies as a community.

 Associate Professor Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, Minister of State, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of National Development, commented: “With the opening of the Lifesavers’ Connect Hub, volunteer leaders can come together to share knowledge and experience with one another, creating and implementing valuable emergency preparedness projects. The programmes at the Lifesavers’ Connect Hub will also hone the leadership skills of our volunteers.”

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.”

CIOB updates Code of Practice to reflect construction industry changes

by ConstructionFeatured NewsIndustry Sectors

The Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) has updated the Code of Practice for Project Management for the Built Environment to reflect changes in the practices and processes of construction and the increasing pressures of the industry.

 The guidance from the world’s largest and most influential professional body for construction management and leadership aims to equip construction and project managers with insight into a whole life-cycle approach, where assets can be delivered not only to meet the expected quality, cost and time targets, but where other broader, but equally important, notions of value can be incorporated.

The updated Code of Practice ” acknowledges the many challenges in the construction industry and sets the scene in the new version with a set of strategic drivers, such as sustainability, quality, competence and skills, the golden thread of information, and some guiding principles including health and safety, EDI (equality, diversity and inclusion), ethics, sustainability, whole-life perspective, project management as a strategic enabler, building information, and leadership.

The eight themes included in each chapter are designed to ensure they are embedded throughout all decision-making processes at every stage of the project. These are: quality, sustainability, value, productivity, leadership, collaboration, knowledge and risk.

Dr Gina Al-Talal FCIOB, CIOB’s Head of Technical and Standards Development, said: “I am pleased to see this publication undergoing a total revamp at a time when it’s needed more than ever, given the extraordinary pressures on the industry around the world. I have no doubt that this edition will prove an invaluable reference to built environment professionals at all levels. It was not an easy task and my gratitude goes to the construction professionals and academics who contributed so much time and effort into helping us deliver this updated resource.”

Fire safety guidance strengthened for new high-rise homes in England

by ConstructionFeatured NewsIndustry Sectors

New improvements to fire safety guidance and building regulations to ensure tall buildings are made safer in England have been introduced as part of a wider package of reforms, meeting recommendations from Phase One of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry and will strengthen the information available to fire and rescue services.

All new residential buildings over 11 metres will now have to include a Secure Information Box that will give fire and rescue services access to important details about a building in the event of a fire. New residential developments over 18 metres will also have to incorporate an Evacuation Alert System to help fire and rescue services inform residents of a change in evacuation strategy, during an incident.

It forms part of a wider update to tighten building regulations and provide clearer fire safety rules for the design or construction of residential developments.

Building and Fire Safety Minister Lord Greenhalgh said: “We have introduced the biggest improvements to building safety in a generation, under the Building Safety Act. These changes will support our tough new regulatory regime – ensuring fire safety measures are incorporated into new high-rise homes and all new residential buildings meet the same safety standards. It does not end here and I urge the industry act quickly to update their practises in line with these new rules.”

The National Fire Chief’s Council (NFCC) Protection and Business Safety Committee Chair, Gavin Tomlinson, said: “NFCC especially welcomes the introduction of emergency evacuation alert systems in new buildings over 18 metres. We also support the inclusion of Secure Information Boxes in buildings over 11 metres, which will give fire and rescue services access to important details about a building and its residents in the event of a fire.

On the changes to building regulations, we are encouraged that unsafe MCM PE cladding panels are banned on all buildings and that the government has promised stronger safety standards for the use of combustible materials on external walls.

Fire Safety Enforcement in NYC strengthened by new bill

by Americas - Featured NewsConstructionFeatured NewsIndustry SectorsSafety

New York City Mayor Eric Adams has signed five pieces of fire safety legislation into law aimed at strengthening enforcement, education, and outreach efforts in the wake of the tragic Bronx apartment fire in January which saw the death of 17 people.

The new laws include shortening the timeline of re-inspection for self-closing door violations, increasing the fine for building owners who do not fix violations, banning the sale of certain space heaters that do not meet certain safety standards and codifying increased fire safety outreach.

“More than a dozen New Yorkers, some just children, were killed in the fire at the Twin Parks apartments. We mourn their passing but that is not enough — we must ensure that a tragedy at that level never happens again,” said Mayor Adams. “In March, I signed an executive order to immediately improve fire safety coordination and outreach. Today, I’m proud to work with the City Council to create long-term solutions that strengthen enforcement and education and will keep all New Yorkers safe.”

The mayor signed the following bills into law:

Intro. 104 which clarifies the definition of a self-closing door to mean a door equipped with a device that will ensure the door, when opened and released, returns to the closed position and self-latches shut.

Intro. 105 which shortens the timeline for correction of self-closing door violations from 21 days to 14 days, requires HPD to reinspect a self-closing door violation no later than 20 days after the expiration of the 14-day correction period, and increases penalties for building owners who do not cure those violations. It also establishes a civil penalty range of $250-$500 for the violation of the self-closing door requirement and a $250/day penalty from the date set for correction of the violation until it is corrected, increases civil penalties for the false certification of corrections for Class A, B, and C violations of the Housing Maintenance Code.

Intro. 106 which bans the sale of electric space heaters that do not have automatic shut off capabilities if the heater falls over or overheats, and requires that space heaters sold in New York City be labeled by a nationally recognized testing laboratory.

Intro. 131 which expands fire safety education to require FDNY to provide educational materials and conduct outreach relating to the safe use of electric space heaters in residences. The law — which takes effect as FDNY continues to conduct a robust fire safety education program — also requires that such educational materials be made available to tenants in the top 10 most common languages in New York City.

Intro. 155 which prohibits the DOB from charging filing fees for a permit to repair fire damaged conditions of one-, two- or three-family homes. If construction defects are discovered at such fire-damaged locations, this fee exemption would extend to other dwellings within the same homeowner or cooperative association to correct the same construction defect. The law will diminish repair costs for owners remediating fire-damaged properties and construction defects found during the remediation process and task DOB with conducting targeted outreach showcasing the fee-exemption program.

Commenting on the new legislation, New York City Fire Department (FDNY) Acting Commissioner Laura Kavanagh said: “Educating New Yorkers on fire safety and prevention is key to the Department’s lifesaving mission. These bills, and the mayor’s Executive Order increasing coordination between our department and HPD, will strengthen the FDNY’s ability to reach the neediest residents in our city with critical messages of fire education and prevention.”