EVENTS
Building a safer future and Grenfell outcomes seminar
meaning we need to ‘get everyone talking the same language’. The work could ‘last four years’
and there are improvements to be made, as fire engineers and risk assessors should be included, with their own separate recommendations, alongside building safety managers, site supervisors, project managers and those in procurement. Mr Davis reiterated the need for ‘culture change’, as well as thinking about ‘where next?’ after a competency scheme is set up and made available. A final report from the working
groups is expected, but he warned of ‘people falling off the edge’ and argued that the sector must ‘create overarching standards’, alongside a ‘system for transition’. Competency schemes need to be ‘ethical’ and to connect with residents, new standards and new processes, with a ‘lot going on’ via government consultations, clarified guidance and traceable products.
Trigger risks FPA operations director Howard Passey spoke next on trigger risks for the sector, stating that it ‘seems we have so many challenges going forward’. The government announcements were the ‘biggest changes in 40 years in building safety’ and prompt ‘big changes with product testing’, while ‘more complex recommendations’ mean a focus on key roles and responsibilities. Mr Passey split this into different
system roles, with clients managing building work and focusing on procurement, appointing dutyholders and information management without compromising on costs. Principal designers need to identify safety needs before construction begins, as well as be responsible for competency and information management. The dutyholder meanwhile is responsible for competency and accountability. All this was a ‘huge change
and a challenge’, with an occupied building requiring a register adhering to the idea of the golden thread and ‘passing forward’ building information.
People ‘don’t really understand what their building is’, and so the sector’s different role holders ‘need to apply ourselves correctly to get this done’.
Building information modelling
(BIM) is ‘not straightforward’, requiring its own level of understanding and competence, and as such potentially ‘not being a cure all’ – while digital technology ‘is good, a lot of updating will be required’, particularly for FRSs. The new regulator will mean more pressures and a ‘significant uplift’, the HSE having recently lost a third of staff and cut operations by half. The Grenfell inquiry’s first phase
report and inspectorate findings illuminate the ‘complexities of scope’ and different requirements, though the government changes provide a ‘chance for increased scope’. With guidance changing, some will supersede others, and individuals will ‘need to think for themselves and not blindly follow’ it. Accreditation ‘or lack of it’ for
fire risk assessors was just one area where there is a ‘challenge to meet the demand for competent people’, though a working group is focusing on this. The industry has ‘pockets of excellence working in silos’, and Mr Passey asked ‘have we learned from the mistakes of Lakanal at all?’. The mood ‘feels different’, but with modular buildings and the inquiry’s findings ‘are we getting the balance wrong again?’. This moment offers an opportunity to ‘think about
18 MARCH 2020
www.frmjournal.com
changing thought processes and risk appetites’, he warned, pointing out that ‘if you have something to say, don’t leave it too late’.
FRS dilemmas Mark Hardingham, protection lead at the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC), explored FRS dilemmas post Grenfell, stating that since that fire, the FRS ‘certainly didn’t expect to have so many ACM buildings’, or so ‘little regulatory change’; while there has been an ‘over focus on ACM’ against a ‘broken system’. Reflecting on recent fires, Mr
Hardingham wondered ‘what will come in the next year’, and asked ‘when is an interim measure not interim’, citing an NFCC guide on ACM buildings launched in October 2017, which it ‘didn’t expect to have reviewed twice’ in that time. He welcomed the government’s announcements and ‘could see the NFCC influence’, but was ‘cautious about a two tier system’. Mr Hardingham reflected that these were ‘early steps’, and highlighted that the inquiry’s first phase report saw ‘responsibility laid firmly at the feet’ of London Fire Brigade. On the protection board run by the NFCC taking charge of high rise fire safety, Mr Hardingham asked ‘can we provide assurance’ via FRSs, how can this be achieved, and ‘what is the risk to which FRSs are exposed?’. While offering reassurance and support to all residents of the UK’s
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
