Grenfell disaster a ‘direct consequence of government policies’ – FBU

by Breaking NewsSafety

As the Grenfell Tower Inquiry drew to a close, the Fire Brigades Union’s lawyer told the Inquiry that the disaster was: “a direct consequence of a generation of government policies which combined to create a death trap for the residents of Grenfell Tower”.

The comments came in the closing submissions for Phase 2, which covers the run-up to the night of the fire. 

Martin Seaward, speaking to the Inquiry on behalf of the union, said that whilst: “The private sector companies involved in the refurbishment [of Grenfell] bear a heavy responsibility… it would be wholly wrong and provide no justice to victims to leave the blame there”.

He continued: “They were encouraged to act by 40 years of political decisions in the service of an ideology [deregulation] based on the prioritisation of commercial interests and profit above all else, including public safety”.

He asserted that the “real culprits” of the disaster were those in power at the top, such as ministers following their “deregulatory agenda” to the detriment of fire safety, and the directors of industry on which they depended for sponsorship and party funding.

Seaward added that deregulation: “Has become synonymous with central government abandoning responsibility for… building regulations, building control, testing and certification, fire and rescue services and fire safety”. He said deregulation policies “tragically came together on 14 June 2017 to create the worst residential fire since 2017” and these policies meant that Grenfell “was a disaster to waiting to happen”.

Seaward described deregulation as part of a set of ideas that drives for a “largely unfettered” free market and a role for the state that “limited to… supporting the free market”, and “prioritises… entrepreneurial freedoms and private business interests”. 

He highlighted how ministers pursing this agenda had “deliberately and irresponsibly undermined” a “culture of health and safety”. Regulations were “repeatedly depicted as pointless, time-wasting administrative bureaucracy”. He noted that already-deregulated legislation “has not been effectively enforced” with effective enforcement “instead progressively weakened by successive governments”.

Seaward also highlighted the role of the individual organisations involved in the refurbishment of Grenfell, including the refurbishment that covered Grenfell in cladding that had a flammability which some have compared to petrol.

He said that: “The key players [in the refurbishment] amply demonstrate the widespread disregard of fire safety”. He pointed to cladding manufacturer dishonesty and manipulation, and several agencies including the architects and the design and build contractor failing to complete the fire risk strategy.

Finally, Seaward highlighted the structure of the Inquiry, which first involved a close analysis of the emergency response and then returning to discuss the run-up to the disaster in phase two. He stated that the Inquiry: “Risks distracting from the real causes of the disaster and creating a scapegoat that would allow those truly responsible, including senior politicians and company directors, to evade responsibility”.

He added that “Firefighters risked their lives going into the blazing inferno to try and rescue residents and extinguish the fire. They and the control staff did their duty professionally, bravely and to the best of their abilities in the face of a rapidly developing fire that was beyond anything any of them had ever experienced or trained for. They followed their procedures and applied their training as much as the extreme conditions allowed”.

After this set of submissions there will be a pause whilst the Inquiry prepares its final report, which is likely to be published next year.  

BESA says industry must share responsibility for Grenfell

by Featured NewsSafety

One of the key messages to emerge from the recent Building Engineering Services Association (BESA) National Conference was that the building services industry cannot claim to have learned from the Grenfell Tragedy unless every member of every supply chain takes full responsibility for their safety role. 

Arup transformation director Gill Kernick told the conference she was “appalled” that commercial pressures were still driving poor design decisions and unsafe practices. She said: “Until we take a systemic approach to change, we cannot say that we have learned from Grenfell or honoured those who died. 

“The merry-go-round of buck-passing is our failure. Nobody across the [Grenfell] supply chain did the job the way they were meant to do it,” Kernick told conference delegates. “It’s not helpful to say construction hasn’t changed. We must ask why it hasn’t changed and what needs to be done.” 

Other conference speakers added that too many firms are still waiting to be told what to do rather than getting on with reforming their processes in line with the new Building Safety Act, which has been in force since April. 

CIBSE technical director Hywel Davies said that up to 70% of the industry were doing nothing to prepare for the provisions of the Act, which he described as “the most fundamental reform of building work since World War II”.  

He also said many people were still under the illusion that the Act only applied to high rise residential buildings whereas it covers: “any building work to which the Building Regulations apply”. 

BESA technical committee chair Will Pitt said responsibility for fire safety needed to be shared and the practice of passing risk down the supply chain was undermining efforts to make buildings safer. “This is not entirely on the consultant, but they shouldn’t be throwing it over the fence to the contractors either,” he said, before adding that the way safety critical products were tested also needed to change.  

He added: “We test products, but not how they work in systems. They are tested against a specification, but if that changes on-site, then you face problems of compatibility.” 

Scottish ministers called out over slow response to cladding crisis

by ConstructionFeatured NewsIndustry Sectors

Scottish ministers have been called out over the slow action surrounding the removal of Grenfell-style cladding on public buildings as the bulk of the removal work is earmarked for 2025.

The Scottish Government’s spending review pledged £180 million over three years to remove the potentially harmful insulation. The vast majority of funds equating £100m, however, will be allocated in 2025/26, while a £30m budget will start in 2023/24, increasing to £50m in 2024/25.

The cladding remuneration programme, which aims to replace insulation in high-risk buildings which are fitted with aluminium composite material, was initially expected to be rolled out in 2022.

A freedom of information request revealed that more than 100 public buildings, including hospitals and more than 80 primary and secondary schools, are believed to contain the potentially flammable material similar to that which caused the devastating fire at Grenfell tower in 2017.

Mark Griffin, Scottish Labour’s housing spokesman, asked for an update on how many surveyors and fire engineers had been procured to carry out single building assessments earlier this year. Housing minister Shona Secretary replied that 29 buildings had been contacted so far to offer the direct provision of fire engineers, adding that Once they ascertain consent and details, they will move to the contracting process.

A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “Our ban on combustible cladding from domestic and other high-risk buildings applies on buildings of 11m and higher, whereas elsewhere in the UK it is 18m. We have also banned the highest risk metal composite cladding material from any new building of any height.”

“The vast majority of buildings in the initial phase of our programme have secured fire engineers.”

“A new streamlined process for commissioning the assessments will help identify at-risk buildings more quickly. We still expect the vast majority of buildings assessed through this programme to be found to be safe. We have allocated almost £400m to this programme of work.”

Cladding crisis: landmark ruling puts liability on building contractor

by ConstructionFeatured NewsIndustry Sectors

The High Court in London has delivered a landmark judgment that establishes legal liability for remedial safety work on buildings in a ruling that could help resolve one of the biggest unanswered questions from the Grenfell Tower fire.

In a ruling last week, Mulalley & Co, an Essex-based contractor, was ordered to pay damages towards the cost of removing cladding it had fitted to four residential tower blocks in Gosport on the south coast of England which had been deemed to unsafe after the Grenfell blaze.

The ruling marks is the first time financial liability for remediation work on unsafe cladding has been established in court. It is thought that the outcome could have far-reaching ramifications for leaseholders, building owners and contractors in England.

Andy Hulme, chief executive of housing association Hyde Group which brought the claim via its subsidiary Martlet Homes against Mulalley, said the case had ‘massive implications for the market’.

He said it should help unblock disputes between leaseholders living in blocks fitted with flammable cladding and the buildings’ owners over who should pay to have it removed.

“It’s the first time a contractor has been held accountable for the quality of work and the materials they have used,” he said. ”Based on this case we now know where the lines of accountability lie.”

The court has yet to decide what the extent of the damages will be. According to Financial Times Hyde is looking to recoup as much as much as possible of the £8mn it spent fixing the blocks.

Criminal proceedings are expected to follow. Ahead of the inquiry laying out its conclusions, the High Court’s ruling could provide a legal precedent and a new path for leaseholders and property owners to recoup the costs of fixing blocks found to be unsafe in the aftermath of Grenfell.

Mary-Anne Bowring, a fire safety expert and group managing director at property consultant Ringley Group, said of the ruling is: “A landmark that gives hope to millions of residents living in unsafe buildings by opening the potential for legal action against other construction contractors who installed unsafe cladding”.

She added: “However, it is not enough to simply expect developers and housing associations to launch further legal action off the back of today’s judgment in order to recover the money spent on fixing unsafe buildings.”

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).

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 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.

LFB ‘in serious need of funding’ to tackle building safety crisis

by Featured NewsSafety

The London Fire Brigade (LFB) commissioner Andy Roe has said the fire service is in serious need of funding if it is to effectively tackle the building safety crisis.

At a City Hall Plenary meeting in February, LFB Commissioner Roe said that to inspect just 10% or 20% of London’s approximately 95,000 mid-rise buildings for fire safety defects, the LFB would need to recruit a “significant labour force” of “a couple of hundred” additional specialist fire safety inspecting officers. He also said that there is an £8 million budget gap expected for the LFB in 2022/23.

During Mayor’s Question Time on 19 May, Labour’s London Assembly Fire and Resilience Spokesperson, Anne Clarke AM, entreated the government to support people living in residential blocks of all heights and called for proper funding for the LFB to tackle the building safety scandal, seeking compensation for leaseholders who have already paid out of their own pocket to fix potentially deadly fire risks.

Secretary of State for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), Michael Gove, stated developers will pay for mid-rise buildings between 11 and 18 metres with dangerous cladding, and funding has been provided for 8,500 high rise buildings above 18 meters in London.

Blocks below 11 metres that have been deemed in need of remediation work will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, but the government has stopped short of providing blanket protection under the Building Safety Act as revealed by Housing Minister Stuart Andrew in the Commons last month. In response to a question from Ms Clarke, Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, stated: “I think the height requirement should go, either your building is safe, or it isn’t”.

Ms Clarke said: “Nearly five years on from the Grenfell tragedy it’s completely unacceptable that so many Londoners are living in unsafe homes. Ministers must extend remediation support to all residential buildings with safety defects or combustible cladding. Regardless of height, if leaseholders have already paid, they are owed compensation.

“Londoners are being let down. They’re dealing with this on top of an unprecedented cost of living crisis. It’s disgusting so many have been left to sit with this hanging over their heads. This is a building safety scandal, not just a cladding scandal. The Fire Brigade needs more funding from the government so it can recruit hundreds of specialist fire safety officers to make London safe.”

Quelfire: Building Safety Act brings ‘air of hope’

by Featured News

Fire Protection System supplier Quelfire looks at The Building Safety Act and what it means for the fire industry

It has been nearly five years since the devastating fire that destroyed Grenfell Tower, which saw the loss of 72 lives. Others lost their homes, possessions and loved ones, which changed the course of their lives forever. Since the tragic event, a public inquiry was conducted into the cause of the fire, leading the construction industry to come under heavy scrutiny.

In May 2018, Dame Judith Hackitt’s Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety found that “the regulatory system for high-rise and complex buildings was not fit for purpose.” 53 recommendations were put forward to change the way the industry works and create a safer living space for residents. But more importantly, Dame Judith Hackitt looks to drive a cultural change to make sure something this catastrophic never happens again.

After being introduced to parliament in July 2020, the Building Safety Bill was published a year later in July 2021 and was summarised by then-Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick as a “key step in an extensive overhaul to building safety legislation.”

On the 28th of April 2022, the Bill received Royal Assent meaning that now it has passed all the parliamentary stages in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, it will take a more prominent stance in the built industry as The Building Safety Act.

The Act will be directly responsible for buildings that are at least 18 metres tall or have seven storeys, with at least two residential units. It will also cover hospitals and care homes if they meet the specification.

The Building Safety Act (BSA) has named the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) as the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) to oversee the safety and performance of all buildings. With this, comes the duty to assist and encourage improvements in the built environment industry, holding powers of enforcement and sanctions.

Introduction of Gateways two and three will establish new requirements at key stages of design and construction. They are vital decision points within a project that must be passed before it can progress to the next stage, therefore, enabling a rigorous process where each stage of design and construction is monitored.

The Golden Thread, which is a live digital document that allows someone to understand a building and ensure that all information is up-to-date and accurate, will guarantee that any person responsible for any aspect of a project or building – dutyholders – work and findings are handed to the building’s owner upon completion. This will enable the right person to have the correct information regarding the safety of residents and building; ensuring risks are managed effectively. Failure to comply will see that those who are responsible for the safety of a building – the Accountable Person – are charged by criminal offence.

Finally, the introduction of The New Home Ombudsman, which will offer dispute resolution for buyers of new build homes against developers, enables the creation of a Construction Product Regulator (CPR), who will confront poor practice early on in a project and help guarantee that all construction products on the UK market are safe. They will work closely with the BSR to ensure the system of product testing and certification is being followed.

Both parties will assist in advising The Secretary of State on which products should be considered as safety-critical and consequently, remove products from the market that present any safety risks.

 So, what does this mean for the fire industry?

The government are working to ensure that the Fire Safety Order 2005 (FSO), which places duty on individuals in an organisation – the Responsible Person – to identify, control and reduce the risk of fire, and the new building safety regime work effectively together. The Fire Safety Clause in the BSA amends the FSO to further strengthen fire safety measures for non-domestic premises, which include common parts of high-rise residential buildings subject to the BSA. The FSO and BSA will overlap in some respects, but through the cross-work of the government, by aligning these essential regimes it will ultimately work to further protect residents in high-rise residential buildings.

In a typical safety case report, the Accountable Person will ensure that they have a preventative approach for managing building safety risks. An aspect of this report will cover major fire and structural hazards for example, compartmentation. This includes key areas of passive fire protection: linear gaps and cavity fire stops, service penetrations and fire doors. HSE is urging anyone involved in the design or construction of a building to act now, at the earliest stage, and become proactive in the process of ‘building a safer future.’ The work the fire industry does now can help comply with this by raising more awareness of what early engagement in firestopping is; conducting CPDS to educate the industry; providing more tested details and technical support and offering on-site support.

Despite the Building Safety Act being law, many of the requirements will not come into force until 12-18 months after the Royal Assent as the industry prepares for the new regime. The government’s transition plan can be found here.

The risk of fire has decreased considerably over the years. However, the tragedy of Grenfell has shown that there is too much scope for “poor practice, poor culture, poor accountability and poor management.” The Building Safety Act brings an air of hope to survivors and their family members but ultimately, pays respect to the 72 victims. Without the Act, there would be no push for government reform and the risk of Grenfell happening again would be inevitable.