Grenfell Tower inquiry – phase one report NEWS


demanded serious attention’, and the ‘comprehensive’ report ‘explains why’ as well as ‘rightly’ drawing attention to both ‘poor performance and failures’. In turn, it ‘suggests where responsibilities lie for the loss of life and injury’ on 14 June 2017. From the FSF’s perspective, ‘when considering the detail’ it will ‘continue to reflect that without an appropriate fire strategy and a clear, strong regulatory framework the danger of terrible events like Grenfell Tower will continue to exist’. It noted that firefighting and rescue ‘are the last not first line of defence’, and that the FSF had been ‘shouting in the dark to improve fire safety through better building control’ even before 2009’s Lakanal House fire. It concluded that it will


‘continue to do so until we see the changes proposed’ by the government to ‘implement’ the Hackitt Review ‘come fully into practice. FSF chairman Michael Harper commented: ‘The release of the Grenfell Inquiry Phase 1 report with its extensive criticism and recommendations for action reminds everyone of how far the country had fallen in fire safety. It is a sad and crucial milestone.


‘One that demands we all


energetically continue the work we have started to rebuild public confidence in their homes being safe. The greatest memorial to those who we have lost and hurt is to not just to say ‘never again’ but to put in place the means that make that happen.’ BAFE added: ‘BAFE endorses


the response to the Grenfell Review by the [FSF] and their call for action that this sort of tragedy never happens again. We must look ahead, including into Phase 2 of the inquiry, to ensure that competent providers, at every stage of a building’s construction and use, keep residents and occupiers safe and that all means of fire protection are regularly monitored, with the full cooperation of owners, managers and residents.’


Association for Specialist Fire Protection (ASFP) The ASFP ‘welcomes’ the report, while pointing out that it is ‘well documented and understood’ that Grenfell’s major failing was the cladding. It ‘looks forward’ to phase two ‘where the circumstances that led to its inclusion in the building will be determined’, while the finding that ‘effective compartmentation was lost at an early stage’ due to fire spread from outside to inside through failing glass ‘is not unexpected’. Neither was the ‘failure of some


key fire protection measures inside the tower’, and ASFP has ‘long highlighted the potential for failures in compartmentation in such blocks due to lack of maintenance and poor workmanship’, with such failures first pointed out in 2003 in a government sponsored ASFP report on passive fire protection. That had stated ‘somewhat prophetically’ that ‘public safety is being impinged by incorrect passive fire protection measures and we feel that a disaster caused by accelerated or unexpected fire spread could follow if no action is taken to improve initial standards and to define the responsibility of building occupiers’. The ASFP believes that the


building’s failings ‘are the result of decades of a prevalent culture in which fire safety has not been considered as seriously as required’. The ‘race to the bottom culture’ in construction ‘extends’ from design to construction – something ‘clearly identified’ in Dame Judith Hackitt’s report on building regulations and fire safety.


In addition, the ASFP has ‘long campaigned’ for passive fire protection products to be third party certificated, and for installers ‘to be members of third party certified installation schemes’, with this being a condition of membership. The suggestion that LFB ‘bears some blame for loss of life’ was a ‘somewhat harsh conclusion’, as firefighters ‘worked tirelessly in the very challenging environment which this very severe


and almost unprecedented fire presented’. While it is ‘legitimate to question


why’ stay put guidance was not rescinded earlier, such guidance ‘has served firefighting operations well over the years’, with over 5,000 fires in purpose built blocks of flats last year where stay put was ‘successfully implemented and compartmentation was effective. We should not lose sight of that’. Niall Rowan, chief executive


officer, commented: ‘ASFP, along with many other stakeholders, has been concerned at the lack of serious consideration of fire safety since the 1980s. As fire deaths fell – mainly due to the fitting of smoke alarms, improved upholstered furniture and the decline in smoking – there was a culture in government that fire safety was “solved” and we must not do anything to make building more expensive.


‘Changes in building materials and construction processes have transformed the way in which our building stock behaves in fire and poor workmanship and light touch enforcement of building regulations has frequently resulted in buildings that offer poor levels of fire protection. [LFB] and other fire services must be confident of their procedures to realistically evaluate the effectiveness of stay put and must be equipped with an adequate knowledge of the structure of buildings to enable them to do this. ‘This will require owners


and responsible persons to regularly undertake audits of compartmentation to ensure passive fire protection systems that combine to create this vital life safety system are correctly specified, installed and maintained. ‘We hope that Grenfell will be


the catalyst for change to ensure such a tragedy can never occur again and we will continue to work with government and the construction industry to achieve the extensive and lasting culture change necessary to ensure the safety of our existing and future built environment.’


www.frmjournal.com DECEMBER 2019/JANUARY 2020 13


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