The growing cladding fiasco reminds us of a key principle that fire safety is best done “Right First Time” because trying to correct mistakes later on can be horrendously costly.

The Grenfell Fire catastrophe still casts a deep and dark shadow over fire safety. Residents of high-rise blocks continue to express profound dissatisfaction, more than two years after the fire, that they are living in questionably unsafe apartments and that they are faced by life-changing costs as they are left to shoulder the heavy burden of improvements that they can’t possibly be responsible for.

It is estimated that 196,000 people could still be living in dangerous buildings after the combustible cladding problem was first tragically exposed by the Grenfell fire. Using industry sources, the Sunday Times has reported that their investigation suggests 82,000 flats are potentially affected, and that the repair bill could be of the order of £1.4 bn in total (86% for private residences). That’s at least 6 times the £200 m Government has allocated to help with safety improvements for private  residences. The research is reported to cover residential blocks of all heights with questionable rainscreen cladding systems but excluding those built or refurbished before 2013.

No one, it seems, can really be sure on the full extent of the combustible cladding fiasco. And no one can really get a grasp of the upfront costs and the full lifetime costs accruing on residents from the psychological impacts and long-term loss of property values.

Leaseholders find themselves in a horrible trap, with responsibility and accountability landing at their doors when they can’t possibly be held in any way responsible for the original decisions concerning compliance with building regulations and key fire safety principles.

The Government’s new consultation this summer on the regulatory system talks a great deal at its heart of assigning responsibility and accountability through the design, build and regulatory process from start to finish in the occupation and management of the building. Presumably on that basis the issue of who should be held accountable and who should foot the bill for correcting errors in future will be different if this regulatory structural reform comes through into new legislation. But right now there is a massive problem that no one apparently seems able to solve.

Refurbishment costs for affected apartment blocks are variously estimated in the order of around £5m to even £9m depending on the block and what is necessary. Individual flat owners are reported to face personal bills of £70,000 to £80,000 as a share of the replacement and refurbishment costs. There are also costs on a continuous basis for round-the-clock fire warden inspections of around £16,500 per month per flat. Such costs are intolerable. And completely unreasonable. Residents are justified in thinking that responsibilities outlined in the Government regulatory consultation could quite reasonably be assumed to apply already in the normal course of providing building designs and constructions (just as safety is implicitly part of supplying a whole range of consumer products).

Fire safety crucially depends on three key principles for provisions built-into the fabric of the building.

Firstly, compartmentation to prevent fire and smoke spread to other parts of the building. The aim has to be to restrict the chance of fire spread, to localise the fire and make the job of suppression (for example by sprinklers) and extinguishing by the fire and rescue service as effective – safe, easy and quick – as possible. Secondly, comes fire separation to allow occupants to be alerted and to escape safely before conditions become untenable, physically isolated from fire. Thirdly, the fabric and structure of the building needs to be resilient and robust so that it can continue to stand up and resist aggressive fire spread both inside and outside by limiting destruction, burning and flaming. The best way to achieve those aims is by getting levels of fire protection right from the beginning.

Where lives are at stake then surely people and property should come first? Cost-cutting should be seen as false economy, because trying to modify and correct constructions at a later date is far more costly and dangerous in the long run. Function should come before cost. “Right First Time” for fire safety should accordingly be a key dominating principle that needs far more attention than has apparently been the case so far. Hopefully Government through its reforms will recognise that.

With the impact of the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) outbreak being felt by businesses around the world, we want to make all stakeholders aware that we are taking our responsibilities seriously in relation to this significant global challenge.

Ensuring business continuity in light of events like pandemics is something we have been working towards over the last few years. When the first cases of Covid-19 were identified in the UK, we began to monitor and review the situation and put in place specific measures to manage the resulting risks.

We are taking the following specific actions:

* Wherever possible, we are engaging in electronic communication methods rather than face-to-
face meetings, in order to avoid any physical contact such as handshakes.
* We are following all government guidelines with respect to international travel and domestic
containment measures.
* We are undergoing regular cleaning of our offices.

We do not currently foresee any impact on the continuity of our service, but should the situation change we will notify you immediately. Although we believe the actions we have put in place are appropriate for the current levels of risk, they remain open to review.

Fire safety could not have been more in the public spotlight than has been the case through 2017 to 2019. Arguably Government has not shown a greater level of attention on fire safety since the Great Fire of London in 1666 left 85% of the capital’s population homeless. And authorities could not be more under pressure from growing community awareness of the severe threats that fire poses if more care is not given to fire prevention and protection in practice.

We’ve seen the Expert Panel set up by Government to provide focus on immediate issues as they arise. There has been a Government-sponsored test programme on cladding testing which has led to a major review of BS standards covering facade test methods and procedures. Initial reaction led to combustibility questions which in turn resulted in a blanket requirement for residential blocks over 18 m to only have classified non-combustible materials on external walls. There has also been a major test programme followed through first on plastic-based composite doors, resulting in their removal from the market and major soul searching by the sector.

That was followed by extensive testing of timber fire doors from 25 manufacturers, which proved successful in all respects with good pass results in all cases, several tests indicating very significant safety margins in extended levels of timber fire door performance. We are told that attention has shifted to other types of cladding now under consideration. There has been the major review of fire safety carried out by Dame Judith Hackitt initiated by the Government as an immediate response to concerns arising from preliminary considerations of the Grenfell fire, initiated and completed before the Moore Blick Inquiry had hardly got off the ground.

Now in June 2019 there are major consultations from Government on what amounts to a root-and-branch reform of the regulatory system, following from the Government’s clear statement that they accept all the recommendations from Hackitt, and of the way the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 works in practice. The proposals are extensive; and they require a major cultural re-adjustment towards fire safety as Hackitt concluded necessary at an early stage of the review. Is all this activity producing results? Is the level of attention given to fire safety in practice yet as good as it needs to be given the potential threat from fire? Is there still a belief that in some way “the system will provide” and provisions for protection against fire really don’t need special consideration? Is sufficient notice really being taken in practice to counter the threats of fire?

Especially, are the principles of built-in fire safety protection in the fabric of a building using compartmentation, fire separation and active fire suppression as fully understood as they should be? 2019 has so far seen four major fires in different types of buildings which have all hit the headlines because of the circumstances and extensive destruction in all cases. The Ocado warehouse fire, the Beechmere Retirement Home, the Willenhall hotel and the Samuel Garside residential block fires all suggest that fire can break out in any situation and that buildings remain highly vulnerable to fire unless special measures are taken to limit fire growth, spread and development.

Nobody was injured or killed, miraculously. But chance could so easily have determined otherwise. The buildings were either completely destroyed or substantially damaged. The writing is there on the wall for all to read. We do not want another shock like Grenfell or Lakanal House.

The Hackitt report suggested that the fire safety system for buildings in the UK is broken. Despite all the activity initiated by Government and the warnings from numerous fire safety organisations and individuals, significant improvements will not arise – and the system will remain broken – until conscious positive steps are made in the way buildings are designed, constructed and maintained for protection against fire.

Special measures are necessary. Buildings are not naturally resilient and robust against fire. Particular built-in fire-resistant barriers are needed throughout a building and especially in key critical locations. And not to provide adequate provisions against fire spread can only be a false economy, risking not only major losses but sooner or later, at some point, serious threats to innocent lives.