Current affairs


pleased about’ in terms of the duty holder focus, the new gateway points, digital recordkeeping and stronger sanctions. However, it has concerns that 10 storeys and


over as a definition of HRRBs is ‘too narrow’, and about how the JCA would work, alongside the ‘lack of adequate addressing of overlapping regulatory frameworks’. The NFCC is also concerned about the lack of recommendations to ‘resolve the interaction between current regulations and buildings not in scope’. The organisation’s next steps include working alongside the government, continuing its support and working closely with partners on challenges such as private blocks, as it was ‘time someone helped leaseholders out’ over costs.


The FPA view


Starting with a discussion of ‘where we were prior’ to Grenfell in terms of regulations and their gradual devolution, FPA MD Jonathan O’Neill pointed out that as the number of fires fell, ‘ministers were overjoyed’, but this ‘led to complacency – spending on FRSs fell, and there were no building regulations reviews’. Grenfell ‘happened in a G7 country on our watch’, and the industry knew a fire like this would occur due to combustible materials or cladding. It had called for a regulations review for a while, and he was keen to stress it was ‘simply untrue’ that the sector had been surprised by the fire. The FPA lobbied the Building Regulations


Advisory Committee (BRAC) in February 2015 with three central themes: solving the false alarms issue, installing sprinklers in warehouses, and the suitability of Building Regulations in the case of MMC, which has meant there are ‘much higher numbers of readily available combustible materials’. With ‘little or no requirement for external fire


spread mitigation’, and materials sensitive to ‘minor deterioration’, the FPA argued that MMC means the external envelope of a building should be included in the Building Regulations. Dame Judith’s report dealt with a lot of topics


and was ‘quite detailed’, and he hoped it could be ‘the end of limited combustibility’, referencing the government’s combustible cladding ban consultation, adding that not calling for a ban on combustible materials in the final report ‘completely underestimated’ public reaction to Grenfell. Having been ‘highly critical’ of desktop studies,


and believing they should be ‘severely limited’, he was not sure that the Hackitt report ‘goes far enough’, and other areas ‘lack clarity’, referencing the insurers’ essential principles and commenting that not only were these not ‘unreasonable’, but were not ‘desperately complicated’ to work with. FPA concerns include matters of adequacy, clarity and scope, with some areas beyond


FOCUS


Dame Judith’s remit, and Mr O’Neill hoped that the government can ‘fire the starting gun’ on the ‘long overdue’ ADB review. The scope of this should address the changing risk environment and the ‘emerging trends’ of fire ingress and arson, with the suitability of the regulations needing to be reviewed. These were ‘basic common sense and not


unreasonable’, with general engagement issues including the ‘capability to raise concerns’ with the government, due to ‘poor governmental response’ historically to FPA and insurer issues and projects. Commercial insurers ‘knew we had a problem’ with fires getting larger and more serious, and both the FPA and insurers lobbied the government to review regulations for a number of years, becoming ‘frustrated and concerned’ at the lack of action, and creating their own version of ADB. The lack of an established review period for the regulations is ‘completely and totally unacceptable’, with the overview a ‘challenge that should not be underestimated’. With the Hackitt report positive that ADB should


be reviewed every five years, Mr O’Neill moved on to the JCA, stating that while the ‘devil would be in the detail’, and clarification was required, he cautiously welcomed the initiative. Dame Judith’s demand for a periodic review of testing ‘should be welcomed’, Mr O’Neill railing against what he called the ‘systemic erosion’ of regulations in terms of conflicts with fire safety and failing products later approved by desktop studies. Generally, the FPA welcomed the review’s direction of travel, and it was a ‘good place to begin’


William Roszczyk is the editor of Fire & Risk Management. For more information, view page 5


www.frmjournal.com JULY/AUGUST 2018 51


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