Fire Sector Summit His fifth point was risk acceptance and tolerance,


with fire engineering leading to value engineering. Sprinklers, while effective, could be installed in all high rise apartments which, while having ‘most fires, have the least deaths’, so owners should think about portfolios and take them into account. ASFP’s Niall Rowan concluded by asking ‘what’s


changed?’ since Grenfell, as two weeks afterwards, compartmentation worked in a West Midlands high rise fire. Stay put ‘works 99% of the time’, and when protection is installed correctly, it ‘works well’. The issue of competence is key, from designers to installers, Mr Rowan said, asking ‘what’s the commonality?’, and finding it is that ‘none have to be trained’ or reach accreditation, ‘fixation on price’ adding to long standing construction issues. A version of the Royal Institute of British Architects’


(RIBA’s) plan of works is being worked on by the ASFP that would adhere closely to the seven stages of design, indexing each stakeholder alongside tasks they are required to undertake.


The FPA/insurers’ view


Highlighting the stark contrast between Grenfell Tower’s insurance premium and the losses (which will exceed £1bn), FPA chairman Chris Hanks was quick to add: ‘But this is not about money’. The government and sector both bear some


responsibility: ‘It was on our watch, although we’d been warning this could happen for years’, which helps explain some frustration in the sector that the government had ‘taken its eye off the ball’ as regards fire safety. Less than a year ago, Minister for Fire and Policing Brandon Lewis told the Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA) Conference that they should be proud of the long term downward trend of fire incidents and fatalities over the previous decade, saying: ‘Buildings are safer, families and communities are more secure…’. Mr Hanks found it reassuring that sector groups


were taking responsibility and coming together to register protest, yet said these are not new concerns, as the response to the repeal of Local Acts in 2012 showed. The repeal followed a BRE report saying that for tall buildings: ‘There seems to be little benefit from local acts, the inherent degree of compartmentation is sufficient to prevent most fires getting “big”.’ Grenfell Tower would have fallen within the


provisions of the London Local Acts and the external panels would not have been allowed. It was no coincidence, he said, that the first Building Act followed the Great Fire of London. This has ‘served us pretty well and will be looked at by the various inquiries’. Another concern had been that protection


measures such as sprinklers in schools would be phased out. Fire Safety Design for Schools: Building Bulletin 100 removed the presumption that sprinklers would be installed in high risk schools, watered down


FOCUS


arson prevention and passive protection advice, and failed to mention changing risks with MCM. In 2015, the FPA’s Safe Futures campaign


had highlighted many concerns that have arisen post Grenfell. They included unwanted automatic false alarms, the external weak spot in some modern building designs, and improving sprinkler provision in warehousing. It also highlighted that MCM and the ‘sustainability agenda’ was resulting in buildings with much higher combustible content and little or no requirement for external fire spread mitigations. A review of the current regulations was recommended to include the external envelope in MCM buildings. ‘All very sensible concerns’, he said, ‘and all reasons why Grenfell Tower resulted in the highest number of fatalities in a fire since WWII.’ A joint insurer/FPA research project will report soon on the adequacy of the current cladding testing regime in real world conditions, standards and performance of residential sprinkler systems, and the effectiveness of detection and associated evacuation procedures, which are all likely to be under scrutiny during the inquiry. For the Grenfell inquiry and building regulations


review, the FPA has stated its concerns, such as the definition of ‘limited combustibility’ and suitability of such materials for use in social housing; the approval process for MCM and whether MCM is appropriate in higher risk occupancies; the suitability of current test methodologies for assessing the fire resilience of building products; the discipline of fire engineering and qualifications; and the repeal of the Local Acts. It also asked whether the Grenfell Tower refurbishment should have been classified as major building works and subject to full building regulations approval. This ‘big agenda’ would provide the opportunity


for ‘quite revolutionary and effective change’, he suggested. ‘We should be ashamed of ourselves if we don’t do that now.’


www.frmjournal.com DECEMBER 2017/JANUARY 2018 43


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