Grenfell progress
be a given but isn’t, and so we have to ask why this is the case. Take fire alarm and detection systems: instinctively I feel that using a third party accredited installer for my fire alarm system should give me the confidence of competence, but I would also assume that it would minimise the chances of false alarms. Why is that important? As far as I can
ascertain, over the past five years the number of false alarms attended by FRSs in England has held steady at 150,000 a year – 400 a day and ten in the time you’ve been reading this. That is totally unacceptable and is unsustainable when FRSs (like all public services) are coming under increasing budgetary pressures, something that has been worked on by the National Fire Chiefs Council. As we move to the BRs review, we have
written to TPC bodies to provide evidence that certificated systems perform better than the unregulated market. I have sat on the BRAC ADB review group for more than 15 years – the reviews have been so infrequent that we haven’t had that much to do! But please be assured that BRAC reacts well to strong evidence and I am sure that without too much effort a meaningful research project could put this to bed. Should evidence be strong enough, I would go one further and present it to the Treasury – imagine offering a solution that could reduce FRS callouts by 75,000 to 100,000 a year; it would be irresistible. We could then have a model in fire similar to the police model for intruder detection systems. I am convinced that with mandatory
TPC we are pushing at an open door. We have urged the likes of BAFE and NSI to explore the options for an insured scheme that will take time to establish, but in truth any conclusion to the current BRs review is likely to be two to three years away at least. In the meantime we are trying to encourage the Home Office, as guardian of the FSO, and MHCLG to introduce a statutory defence for anyone using a certificated supplier of goods or services, including fire risk assessments. Clearly this is not as powerful as it being mandatory, but it is my understanding that this approach could be introduced immediately, and could apply to both the FSO and BRs. If adopted, it could be a very powerful tool.
Other changes
What else could the government do immediately to improve building safety, with little debate and without the need for a detailed regulatory impact assessment (so often the killer for sensible fire safety regulatory change in the past)? A ban on single staircases as the sole means of escape for
www.frmjournal.com DECEMBER 2019/JANUARY 2020 29
buildings over 18m seems an easy win, and I’ve already covered sprinklers and TPC. Let me throw into the mix detection and
evacuation systems for HRRBs. Without going into the whys and wherefores of stay put, it is crystal clear that when fire breaks out and behaves in a way we can’t predict or control, we require a means of staging full scale or limited evacuations. From what I understand, either through the use of intelligent multisensor detectors or programmable panels, the technology exists today. These need to be fitted now, without the need for BR change. We have concerned residents, confused landlords and waking watch systems that are expensive to maintain and of questionable value. This is a change, in my view, that the
government can and should immediately embrace. A new regulatory system has already been announced, so we now need to urgently alter the ruleset to embrace the insurers’ essential principles; facilitate mandatory TPC; effect a ban on single staircase evacuation in all buildings taller than 18m; seek a total ban on combustible materials; and promote installation of sprinklers and multisensor detection systems on all high risk buildings irrespective of height. It is only with these changes that we can reasonably guarantee that a tragedy such as Grenfell never happens again
Jonathan O’Neill is managing director of the FPA. For more information, view page 5
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
