NEWS Glasgow School of Art fire inquiry continues
THE INQUIRY into the fire last year saw fire safety criticisms and rebuttals from the Glasgow School of Art (GSA). This listed building caught fire after
a previous blaze in 2014. Sprinklers ‘had not been fitted’ after the first fire at the Mackintosh Library in the building, which was ‘almost entirely destroyed by fire’ in May 2014. A spokesperson for the British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association (BAFSA) stated at first that ‘it was understood’ that automatic sprinklers ‘had not been fully fitted’ due to the building undergoing refurbishment. Later, a report found that flammable insulation panels which ‘also give off toxic gases when set alight’ were used in the refurbishment, ‘rather than more expensive mineral ones which do not burn’. Fire inspectors are still investigating whether these materials used ‘exacerbated the spread’, but described the insulation panels as ‘similar to those used’ on Grenfell Tower. In September, a fire safety expert criticised the refurbishment’s use of flammable insulation after the heritage building burned down for a second time, and later that year an architect claimed that the building’s fire was due to ‘seriously flawed’ fire safety planning on site. Last November, the GSA defended its management of the building, specifically responding that no link ‘could be made’ between its management and the two devastating fires. Evening Times reported that Scottish politicians in charge of the inquiry ‘have rejected’ the submission of a key report, due to building developer Kier’s refusal to release it ‘unless the contents were kept from the public’. The company had implemented a fire prevention strategy that the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee had asked to read, but Kier said it could only be released ‘on the condition that the contents were kept private’ until after a Scottish Fire and Rescue Service investigation.
As a consequence, the committee
‘rejected the report altogether’, stating they were ‘disappointed’ that they were unable to put the report in the public domain, as it includes details
effective fire protection measures were in place’ before the fire, and this has ‘risked harming’ the reputation of the school in combination with other failings, such as ‘the non-disclosure of key evidence’ and ‘poor crisis communications’. Conservation architect Dawson
of Kier’s fire safety measures put in place after it renovated the building. Joan McAlpine, who convenes the committee, commented: ‘We asked Kier for the report because we wanted to see if any enhanced measures were put in place due to the previous fire and the iconic status of the building. ‘Kier offered to share the report with us on the basis it could not be published. I found that unacceptable, as in the interests of transparency it should be in the public domain, and the committee decided not to accept the report on that basis. We were disappointed.’ In turn, fire safety consultant
Stephen Mackenzie raised questions relating to ‘responding or responsible parties…forbidding public disclosure’. In response, a Kier spokeswoman said: ‘Since the fire, Kier has been working to support the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s investigation to establish its cause. We have also been co-operating fully with the Scottish parliament’s culture, tourism, Europe and external affairs committee inquiry, and will continue to do so.’
Fire safety criticisms
Soon after, The Times reported on Mr Mackenzie's expert testimony that said ‘not ensuring a fire protection system was in place’, alongside ‘multiple failings’ by the GSA, have damaged its reputation. The inquiry heard that the GSA ‘failed to ensure
10 MARCH 2019
www.frmjournal.com
Stelfox also criticised the £50m restoration project, stating that the fire measures were the ‘missing bit’. At the time of the fire in 2018, ventilation ducts remained open ‘despite having caused the rapid spread of the first fire’ years before, while contractors had also ‘removed an almost complete mist suppression system but had not finished installing its replacement’. On this, Mr Mackenzie said he was
‘incredibly puzzled’, as the ‘potentially viable’ system could have helped during the blaze, and he rejected the GSA claim that ‘it would have been impossible’ during construction to use a mist suppression system. While GSA chairwoman Muriel Gray had previously told the inquiry that the school had gone ‘above and beyond’ usual fire precautions’, Mr Mackenzie responded: ‘There have been a number of statements, but no substantial evidence ... I don’t even see the appointment of a specialist fire engineer between 2014 and 2018.’ He also mentioned other documents missing from submitted evidence, including a construction phase fire safety plan and an arson prevention threat assessment, alongside a Health and Safety Executive warning about fire safety concerns from 2015. He added: ‘I don’t understand why temporary arrangements weren’t put in at least around the boundary of the damaged area, to compensate for compartmentation issues. This is one of the oldest working schools of art and architecture. It is not a good advertisement to have two major structural fires.’ In response, a GSA official
stated: ‘As a result of the 2014 fire considerable elements of the [fire suppression] system were destroyed or damaged. The GSA sought expert advice, which indicated that this system was unusable. As you would
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
