Industry Viewfinder


Delivering better fire safety INDUSTRY VIEWFINDER


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Despite disasters such as the Lakanal House fire in 2009, the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, the widespread condemnation of poor practices that have followed each of these, or the promises that such horrors will never again be allowed to happen, fires in housing continue to occur, and continue to prove deadly. Even as the Grenfell Inquiry progresses at the time of writing – four years


after the tragedy occured, and after more promises have been made – there are still tower blocks across the country whose owners are yet to start removing the aluminium composite material cladding identified as dangerous. One of the few silver linings of late is that landlords and tenants are arguably


more aware of the risks than ever, and strict standards – such as the Building Safety Bill going through parliament – are being introduced to provide residents and homeowners with more rights, power and protections, and overhaul regulations to help keep buildings safe and compliant. Right now however, Housing, Management and Maintenance’s research of


housing professionals has shown that there are still huge risks present in the industry. Our survey revealed that 1 in 5 (22%) potentially lethal failed fire risks assessments take from three months to a year to be addressed, and that a shocking 16% of respondents have been put in a position where it would be uncomfortable to report fire safety issues or malpractice to a superior or relevant authority. On a more positive note, the research indicated a widely agreed, achievable


solution that can demonstrably lower fire risk in the first place: ensuring that landlords and housing associations can clearly identify the most up to date fire safety products, install and maintain them in the correct manner, and use them to the best of their ability. While this may seem like a simple solution to a deadly problem, however,


there are many barriers to the adoption of such technologies, and not all products are created equally – with 85% of our respondents arguing that ‘better’ fire safety products can significantly reduce fire risk. Some of the major barriers to adopting such products listed by our


respondents were varied – with cost being the highest, followed by a lack of Government support, as well as a lack of trust in product manufacturers following the Grenfell disaster – with a third (35%) of respondents reporting that it fairly or very negatively impacted this trust. This research study aims to explore what landlords and housing professionals


believe makes a product ‘better’, how they believe fire risk can be best reduced, what brings greatest risk of fire to their properties, why they believe these risks remain, and the fire safety products they are most trusting of.


INTRODUCTION FIRE FATALITIES Despite the UK’s long history of fire safety legislation – reaching from the first act in England that regulated construction of buildings and roads with the aim of fire prevention, passed shortly after the Great Fire of London of 1666, to the first set of national building standards introduced in 1965, to the Building Safety Bill currently going through Parliament – fires in UK housing are no thing of the past. Deadly fires have continued to occur in recent years – with an estimated 200


house-fire deaths recorded every year in the UK. In 2009, six people died in a tower block fire inside Lakanal House in South


London, with widespread industry outcries, inquiries concluding that there was unsafe renovation work and the council had failed to inspect the building correctly, and claims from those involved that it could never happen again.


“In your experience, do ‘better’ fire safety products significantly reduce risk?”


Deadly fires have continued to occur in recent years – with an estimated 200 house-fire deaths recorded every year in the UK


Then, in 2017, seventy-two people were killed at Grenfell Tower, in West


London, one of the UK’s worst modern disasters. The ongoing Grenfell Inquiry was created to investigate the circumstances behind the fire, and has so far seen evidence of ‘woefully inadequate’ smoke ventilation, mis-specified and arguably mis-sold cladding, unheard residents, poor escape plans, and much more, with calls from across the country echoing the same sentiments that followed Lakanal House: this can never happen again.


THE HACKITT REVIEW There are of course many failings behind such disasters and their continuation – and they have not gone unnoticed. Post-Grenfell, the Government commissioned an independent review of the


building regulations and fire safety. Named the Hackitt Review – after its leader, Dame Judith Hackitt – the 50-recommendation report examined fire safety in housing, including the regulatory system around its design, construction and maintenance, issues around compliance and enforcement, and international regulation and expertise in this area.


www.housingmmonline.co.uk | HMMOctober/November 2021 | 21


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