Apathy Ignorance and Denial
M
ore than 100 guests attended the Association for Specialist Fire Protection (ASFP)
annual President’s Lunch, at the Palace of Westminster, to hear ASFP President Brian Robinson spell out the current problems with regard to the control of fire protection in the UK. “I have been questioning whether the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the CDM Regulations 2007 and Regulation 16B of the Buildings Act were working together to raise installation of appropriate fire protection measures” he commented. “Have matters improved? Sadly, I think not”.
He blamed the lack of a national audit
procedure and claimed that the biggest challenges faced by the industry were apathy, ignorance and denial. “We all recall the scene of the tragic fire at Lakanal House that unfolded on our television screens recently, in which six people sadly lost their lives. At the time, the media were asking the obvious question – how could this happen? Lakanal House gained national media attention because people died”,
he stressed. “Only then were questions asked of Lambeth and other Local Authorities, to ascertain their legal requirement to undertake fire risk assessment”. He questioned if Lakanal House was a one
off, or if it was symptomatic of a much more deeply rooted problem. He also queried if other issues were contributing to a picture of worsening public fire protection in the UK and pointed to the recent Association of British Insurers (ABI) fire loss figures. They show fire damage up by some 16 % to £1.3 billion, which represents a record high. Life loss figures also indicate that we will see a significant rise over the next year. “Such a combination of factors should at least raise the question of, why”, he stressed.
Get it wrong and you run the risk of killing, or seriously injuring its occupants.’
“Disasters such as Lakanal House could be minimised by much tighter Building Regulations” he claimed. “However, it is arguably just as true to state that if appropriate fire protection measures were installed correctly, in accordance with the Building Regulations, both the human and financial cost would be considerably lessened. The demise of the
Clerk of Works is symptomatic of how, piece by piece, our systems for delivering excellence of works in buildings have been stripped away and the matter has been made worse through the introduction of competitive bidding between local authorities and approved inspector bodies” he maintained. Mr. Robinson confirmed that if the evidence of malpractice or inadequate passive fire protection witnessed by many ASFP members on an almost daily basis was anything to go by, the courts should be overflowing. The journey from the architect’s initial design, to occupancy, is one loaded with opportunity for error, compounded upon error. The ASFP President drew the analogy of taking delivery of a new car. “Do you give much thought to the process of manufacture, or how the vehicle was inspected before delivery? You assume they put brakes in it, that the steering wheel is connected correctly and that your family will be safe in it. If you think that way about a car, why shouldn’t the same rules apply to the fire protection measures installed in a building? The hazards are the same. Get it wrong and you run the risk of killing, or seriously injuring its occupants.
‘How could this happen?’
“It is simply not good enough to state that
measures exist to ensure against incompetent workmanship, that everyone will take ownership of their responsibilities, utilise properly qualified people and proper independent audits”. All too often when deficiencies come to light one can expect to hear the retort ‘Well Building Control has passed it off’, even though the intent of Building Control is to check designs against regulations, and not to carry out detailed checks on installed works. That is squarely the duty of the person carrying out the work, who often contrary to what he may think, can be prosecuted. So is government local or national doing
anything about this very issue? There is no doubt that Government clearly expects that the duties of Building Regulation 16B will be reliably carried out and the building user/owner will be fully informed on the fire protection provisions in the building he now occupies, and that these assumed provisions will still apply after 20, years, or more. Furthermore subsequent fire risk assessments will ensure that this continues to happen, or will they?
181
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237 |
Page 238 |
Page 239 |
Page 240 |
Page 241 |
Page 242 |
Page 243 |
Page 244 |
Page 245 |
Page 246 |
Page 247 |
Page 248 |
Page 249 |
Page 250