NEWS Combustible cladding towers ‘at risk’ of arson and terrorism


AN INVESTIGATION has found that public officials fear both terrorists and arsonists could target high rises nationwide. The Guardian’s investigation


noted that there were ‘fears for vulnerable buildings’ that have led councils to ‘keep locations secret’, with officials worried terrorists and arsonists could target buildings ‘still covered in combustible Grenfell-style cladding, amid increasing delays to safety works’. The information came from 36 freedom of information requests sent out by The Guardian to a range of councils across England. These particular councils were


‘known to have failed towers in their areas’, with the news outlet looking to ‘chart the scale of the problem with flammable cladding’. With waits ‘of up to seven months’ to test replacement systems and ‘ensure they are safe’, legal disputes are ‘holding up works’, and terrorism and arson concerns have ‘been voiced in central and local government’, necessitating councils ‘trying to keep the locations of scores of affected blocks secret because of the perceived danger’. One particular block in Slough,


owned by the council and featuring combustible insulation, has ‘already been attacked by arsonists several times’, while another has aluminium composite material (ACM) panels similar to those on Grenfell Tower, and has a fire crew and wardens on 24 hour watch. Slough Borough Council


‘refused to release detailed information’ about the affected buildings, citing government ‘concerns that vulnerable buildings could become a target for terrorist activity’, and adding that there was a ‘real and significant risk’ of repeat attacks. In Islington, 44 buildings are under investigation and seven are confirmed to have flammable panels, with the council refusing to say where those were, as ‘in the wrong hands the information


Research Establishment (BRE). The NHF’s Lucy Grove, Grenfell programme lead, stated that the ‘government must lead on identifying and unblocking delays at every stage. Right now, this means making sure BRE prioritises tests for materials being used on these buildings’. The NHF had also recently recommended that the government ‘remove VAT on cladding works’. A spokesperson for the Ministry


could be used by arsonists/ terrorists’. Wandsworth council in turn


said that releasing information on its buildings ‘may allow an individual building owner to be found by other individuals intent on harming them’. With only seven of the 158 social housing blocks that failed the government’s fire safety tests having seen cladding removed, officials ‘don’t know the speed of progress in the private sector’ where around 130 buildings failed tests. The Guardian added on this that its investigation ‘suggests it is slower’ progress there. Of ten councils that provided


privately owned high rise building information, half said none of the failing cladding had been removed, while ‘tens of thousands more homes’ beyond that are ‘likely to be unfixed’. Officials added that they were ‘frustrated at the failure of many private landlords to provide information’, though security services ‘do not know of any specific terror threat’. Despite this, concern ‘is likely to increase about the slow progress of remediation works’. In response, the National


Housing Federation (NHF) called on ministers to ‘accelerate works and cut costs’, adding that long delays ‘were being caused by a lack of fire experts and specialist contractors’, as well as ‘a queue of 50 systems’ waiting for testing at the Building


of Housing, Communities and Local Government stated: ‘This process is complex and will take time. While remediation work is ongoing, interim safety measures have been put in place to ensure these buildings are safe now.’ The Guardian investigation


also found that ‘not all councils insisted on keeping the locations of their affected buildings secret’, with 19 providing addresses for buildings that failed the tests, while others withheld data ‘for other reasons, including fearing being sued by owners whose property values might drop’. In Oldham, where there are reported to be between one and five privately owned buildings that failed, the council refused to provide further information. Reasons included ‘public


safety risks’, ‘distress to residents’, the ‘unwarranted negative attention’ from the media, and the risk that owners ‘may face loss of insurance cover and suffer property depreciation’. Wandsworth Borough Council refused to reveal locations of four to eight private buildings because of the potential for ‘widespread public panic’. Finally, Lambeth Borough


Council was also worried about being sued by owners ‘who may suffer a fall in demand’, stating that ‘it is not in the public interest to provide information if to do so would mean that the council had to pay a significant amount in compensation to third parties from the public purse’


www.frmjournal.com MAY 2018 11


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