Grenfell progress
In common with many in the sector, we had become frustrated that regulations had not been properly reviewed for a decade. We were concerned that changes in the regulations for thermal insulation, the drive for sustainability and the move towards modern methods of construction (MMCs) had resulted in a massive rise in the proportion of combustible materials being routinely used in the building process. Our presentation to BRAC had three main
themes. We had a proposal to solve the problem of unwanted and false automatic fire alarms, which incidentally continue to be such a drain on FRS resources. We made the case (as others did at the time) for sprinkler protection of warehouses, and we questioned the suitability of BRs for addressing fire challenges posed by MMCs. We argued that MMCs and the ‘sustainability
agenda’ were resulting in buildings with much higher, readily available combustible content; and raised the issue of cladding, as we were concerned that there was little or no requirement for mitigation of external fire spread. Experience showed us that most MMCs were particularly susceptible, in terms of fire safety properties, to even minor deviations from perfect installation. Current BRs assume that all fires start inside buildings and some will break out – this takes no account of incidents such as fires in wheelie bins and the like. We believe this has contributed to the practice of retrofitting combustible insulation as part of refurbishments, and it is our view that BRs should reflect that change – we continue to seek recognition that fire ingress should be a consideration. If left unchecked, it can result in internal cavity fire protection being challenged. Finally, we argued that the government should conduct a ‘fresh eyes’ review of the appropriateness of BRs in supporting fire safety in buildings where MMCs have been deployed. That was February 2016 – what was the reaction of BRAC? Well, they were extremely receptive – or so we thought. I must admit that I left the meeting believing that the long overdue ADB review was imminent; of course as events proved, my assumption was wildly optimistic. Nothing happened, and then we had Grenfell. On the day of the fire I wrote to the Secretary
of State (then Sajid Javid) and the Prime Minister offering to resubmit the evidence we had given to BRAC, and offering to assist in a BR review – I heard nothing! The first thing the government did was establish an expert panel, and I was asked to be a member. Sadly, I was quickly identified as a potential troublemaker unlikely to toe the party line, so after the first meeting I wasn’t invited back! The PM also announced the establishment of a public inquiry under retired High Court judge Sir Martin Moore-Bick, which started taking expert
www.frmjournal.com DECEMBER 2019/JANUARY 2020 27
evidence in June 2018, finished its first phase that Christmas, then reported on that phase in October (read our detailed coverage on pp8-13). So what would the FPA like to see change? For us,
areas for consideration are issues that contravene the underlying RISCAuthority Design Guide for the Fire Protection of Buildings – Essential Principles, as outlined in RISCAuthority and other FPA guidance: • minimising fire and smoke damage • considering the importance of non combustible products
•
taking suitable measures for preventing structural collapse
• considering potential damage from firefighting water at the design stage
•
ensuring all fire protection products are third party certified and installed by appropriately trained specialist installers
• fitting buildings with an appropriate automatic fire alarm system that will suitably reduce/prevent false alarms
•
regularly inspecting and maintaining fire protection systems
• adequate provision to prevent an arson attack
• constructing buildings so that fire cannot spread into the premises from an adjoining building
• building owners should ensure an adequate standard of fire safety management
• all building services should be designed, constructed and installed in a manner that
FOCUS
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
