On 14 June 2017, a fire started in the kitchen of a fourth floor flat in West London. Within minutes, the fire spread via the exterior of the building reaching all four sides of the 24-storey tower block and in two hours, most of the upper floors had been engulfed
The Fire Brigades Union has written to the government to demand it rethinks its decision to reject a key Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommendation, on the evacuation of disabled residents of high-rise buildings. The inquiry recommended that “that the owner and manager of every high-rise residential building be required by law
Advanced wall systems company, Specwall, further enhanced their vision to transform the UK construction industry by achieving A1 fire rated panel status, classified by UKAS registered the Thomas Bell-Wright International Consultants. Specwall is an advanced wall system with inherent insulation, excellent acoustic and fire ratings, in the form of lightweight
Warringtonfire completes innovative smoke control study for Flemish Government (VIPA department), helping to better protect those in residential care Warringtonfire, a world leader in fire testing, inspection and certification services, has completed the second in a series of three studies at the request of the Flemish Government, that focus on
Under guidance from the Architects Registration Board, architectural students are set for a change in curriculum. Karen Trigg of Allegion UK explores this decision and why industry collaboration is central to improving fire safety education and paving the way to a safer future. In an evolving construction industry, the approach
Ekho, the newest hybrid wireless fire detection solution from Hochiki, leading global life safety manufacturer, has been installed in six blocks of apartment buildings for North London borough to help improve fire detection. EN54-25 approved and RED compliant, Ekho uses the latest in radio networking technology and provides a robust
One of the UK’s leading fire door inspection organisations has warned of a “tragedy waiting to happen” after it revealed three-quarters of the fire doors inspected in the UK by its approved inspectors did not meet the required standard. The Fire Door Inspection Scheme (FDIS)’s data, based on more than
The government has announced it will not be implementing the recommendation for Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, instead opting to remain with the controversial ‘stay put’ policy. The government is facing criticism from across the fire safety sector, as well as from campaign groups and
Charles Arrand considers the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, with a focus on both the potential business and human costs of failing to discharge obligations under the Order. Fire safety is regulated by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (the Order), which applies to almost all buildings, places
The Association for Specialist Fire Protection (ASFP) has expanded its range of guidance with the release of three new and three updated documents. The new Advisory Notes 27, 28 and 29 offer advice on particular issues of concern to the industry. Advisory Note 27 provides advice on the structural fire
On 14 June 2017, a fire started in the kitchen of a fourth floor flat in West London. Within minutes, the fire spread via the exterior of the building reaching all four sides of the 24-storey tower block and in two hours, most of the upper floors had been engulfed in fire. The fire which destroyed Grenfell Tower saw the loss of 72 lives and has been named as “one of the UK’s worst modern disasters.” Factors that played part in the disaster Grenfell Tower had a ‘stay put’ fire policy which assumes that fire compartmentation works in the event of a fire. Being an important element of passive fire protection, its purpose is to contain the fire to its area of origin for as long as possible meaning that effectively, the fire and rescue services can bring the fire under control, and residents can evacuate safely. Many of Grenfell’s residents followed this policy and stayed put only to become trapped by the fire that gained momentum around them; others ignored this policy and managed to escape to safety. It is quite incomprehensible just how many things went wrong during the early hours of that Wednesday morning. Fire safety engineer Dr Barbara Lane, in a report to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, discovered that the fire started spreading vertically up the tower block, and “laterally along the cladding above and below the window lines (and) the panels between windows.” The fire reached the top floor of the east side at approximately 01:26, evidenced by mobile footage, and had spread to the north side by 01:42. There were many factors that played a part in the fast spread of fire, but in his report to the Inquiry, Professor Luke Bisby said that evidence “strongly supports” that the external cladding was the main cause. He said: “The ACM (aluminium composite material) product on Grenfell Tower incorporates a highly combustible polyethylene polymer filler which melts, drips, and flows at elevated temperature. The polyethylene filler material is expected to release large amounts of energy during combustion”. However, Bisby found that other factors may have contributed to this such as other flammable materials for example, a polyurethane polymer foam insulation board, whilst Lane identified combustible materials in the windows, exposed gas pipes and flat doors not meeting current fire resistance standards. An important factor: current practices in the industry In light of the fifth anniversary of Grenfell Tower, a day to remember the people who lost their lives and hold in thought all of the family members and survivors, it is important to reflect on the years that have passed and why a cultural change is needed. Dame Judith Hackitt has been the driving force behind the construction industry’s next steps in building a safer future. Current practices show that the industry, often, focusses on sales and profit; cheaper products and money saved; quantity of content rather than the quality of content, over the safety of a building and its residents. Until the industry wholeheartedly embraces change and separates itself from old practices, the risk of destructive fire is inevitable. The industry’s culture has been resisting change for decades, suggesting that most parties are reluctant to take the lead and admit that it needs to improve with immediate effect. It has taken the tragedy of Grenfell for the culture of the industry to come under hard scrutiny in what Hackitt explains as “lack of ownership and responsibility, the system is gamed, and corners are cut wherever possible.” The Building Safety Bill received royal assent on 28 April 2022, meaning that it is now an act of parliament (BSA). Although many of the requirements will not come into force for another 12-18 months, Hackitt senses the mood may have shifted. She said: “The construction industry is waking up to the reality that this is really going to happen. I am delighted to hear […] that more than 300 organisations have now signed up to the Building a Safer Future charter and a similar number to the Code for Construction Product Information (CCPI).” Why is cultural change important? Although five years on, there is still a long way to go in terms of embracing innovation and rebuilding the trust and confidence lost in the construction industry. Legislation will help to change behaviours and force people into doing the right thing, but it cannot create a cultural change alone. It needs leaders and professionals within the industry to stand up and be counted but ultimately, encourage other individuals to do the same. If the practices displayed in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry have shown anything, it is that there is no better time than now for all parties to start utilizing guidance provided from relevant sectors and begin changing the way they work. With the ongoing push for reform, it has never been more vital for individuals to have the correct training, experience, and knowledge in their sectors. One main problem highlighted was the lack of well-trained workers. Sir Martin Moore-Bick, chair of the Grenfell Inquiry, stated: “Four members of the first [firefighter] crews to have fought the blaze had 52 years of combined experience. However, they had not received any training on the risks posed by exterior cladding or the techniques to be deployed in fighting fires involving cladding, the report found.” This suggests that when it comes to fire safety, every party needs to be involved from architects, who design a building, to fire and rescue services who are the first point of call in the event of a fire. By employers becoming influencers in the development of their organisation, alongside workers wanting to do the right thing for a safer future, this will ensure competency and ultimately, help create safer living spaces for residents in high-rise buildings. For any cultural change, there must be someone willing to take the lead. The construction industry is guilty of waiting for regulations to come into force before taking any action, but it is not enough to wait for government
The Fire Brigades Union has written to the government to demand it rethinks its decision to reject a key Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommendation, on the evacuation of disabled residents of high-rise buildings. The inquiry recommended that “that the owner and manager of every high-rise residential building be required by law to prepare personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs)” for all disabled residents. But last month the government rejected the recommendation and revealed downgraded plans, which have been roundly criticised including by Grenfell campaigners and disability rights campaigners. The government had promised to implement the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase one recommendations “in full”, of which this is one. In a letter to Lord Greenhalgh dated 6 June 2022, Minister of State for Building Safety, Fire and Communities, Matt Wrack, Fire Brigades Union general secretary wrote [abridged]: “The FBU was disappointed with the Westminster government’s decision to downgrade work towards ensuring residents with disabilities are provided with Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) “The [government] statement claims that implementation would involve significant issues with practicality, proportionality and safety. The FBU argues that resident safety is paramount, so there is a greater safety issue in declining to implement PEEPs. As for proportionality, the Inquiry has found the introduction of PEEPs to be a proportionate strategy, and the FBU agrees. “Some reasons given for the refusal seem poorly evidenced, for example stating that if a PEEP advised the purchase of an evacuation chair, there would be an “impact on the good relations between disabled residents and non-disabled residents if disproportionate costs were passed on to the latter. Building owners should carry the costs.” “The government’s decision is a negative, backward step, and the FBU stands with disability campaigners, the Grenfell campaign groups and the LGA in asking you to reconsider.” 15 out of 37 disabled Grenfell Tower residents lost their lives in the fire. The union represents the vast majority of the hundreds of firefighters and fire control staff who were involved in the Grenfell response.For more information, interviews or further comment please contact Ben Duncan-Duggal on ben.duncan-duggal@fbu.org.uk or 07825635224 Building Design and Construction Magazine | The Home of Construction & Property News
Advanced wall systems company, Specwall, further enhanced their vision to transform the UK construction industry by achieving A1 fire rated panel status, classified by UKAS registered the Thomas Bell-Wright International Consultants. Specwall is an advanced wall system with inherent insulation, excellent acoustic and fire ratings, in the form of lightweight solid A1- and A2-rated panels. Its solid construction allows for direct fixings without the need for additional Patressing, and direct applied finishes including tiles and paint. The Panel is simple to install, requires minimal labour with a low skill set, has minimal waste and even has the ability to be adjusted or relocated if required in the future. It is not affected or damaged by water or mould and can be installed before the building is watertight making it suitable for pre-build, Cat A and Cat B installs. Following recent high profile fires to residential properties , Specwall has developed the A1 panel in reaction to the increasing demands of the UK construction market that exceeds the current minimum requirements of UK Building Control. In order to provide safe places for people to live and work, future-proof properties for funders and investors and mitigate the risk of expensive remedial works, Specwall proactively looked to provide an A1 fire rated walling system for the construction industry. Specwall adds speed, efficiency and quality to all sectors of the construction industry, including industrial buildings, commercial buildings, hospitals, schools, prisons and residential developments. Matt Jay, Managing Partner commented: “Our A1 fire rated panel is a game changer for the construction industry, a result of extensive research and development which was undertaken in response to this anticipated market need. The A1-panel has exceeded vigorous testing with confirmations that there is no flammable material in the panel, it cannot contribute to a fire at any stage and is the same weight and strength as standard A2-rated panel.” The A1 rating will further enhance the company’s ability to attract new contracts for the construction material, and its commitment to safety and future proofing will be viewed positively by funders, investors and insurers. For more information, visit Specwalls website https://www.specwall.com/ get in contact or download their CPD – https://www.specwall.com/cpd Building Design and Construction Magazine | The Home of Construction & Property News
Warringtonfire completes innovative smoke control study for Flemish Government (VIPA department), helping to better protect those in residential care Warringtonfire, a world leader in fire testing, inspection and certification services, has completed the second in a series of three studies at the request of the Flemish Government, that focus on the fire safety in residential care buildings. When asked about the goals of the second study, also called the VIPA2 study, Pieter Poppe – project manager, stated, “We wanted to identify the effectiveness of smoke control measures by means of five large-scale fire tests and additional CFD-simulations (CFD: Computational Fluid Dynamics) as part of the evacuation strategy for non-self-reliant occupants of a residential care building.” The VIPA2 study led to new ways of considering fire safety for more vulnerable members of society, such as citizens who reside within care buildings. Since common areas within these buildings can currently include combustible materials (e.g. kitchens, sofas, etc.), a possible fire hazard is inherent in these evacuation routes. This risk is currently not considered within the concept of the current (Belgian) fire safety regulations. “The VIPA2 study has scientifically demonstrated the effectiveness of different kinds of applications of a smoke control system in a residential care building. This kind of smoke control system is not only limited to residential care buildings, but can also be applied to all types of structures with similar geometry. Such application is not mentioned in any normative document related to Smoke and Heat Exhaust Ventilation systems (SHEV-system) and is therefore very innovative.” This research, completed by Warringtonfire has informed a further third study, the VIPA3 study. Pieter Poppe, Head of the Consultancy Department of the Institute for Fire Safety (ISIB), said: “In the VIPA3 study, an assessment framework has been developed where minimum fire safety measures are determined as part of the evacuation strategy (i.e. immediate evacuation or Defend in Place) in case of non-self-reliant occupants of a residential care building. These fire safety measures can be active (e.g. residential smoke control system, fire screen, automatic extinguishing) or passive safety measures (e.g. fire resistant door, smoke control door, fire resistant damper). The effectiveness of the applied fire safety measures has been demonstrated through large-scale fire tests and additional CFD simulations (CFD: Computational Fluid Dynamics) as described in the VIPA1 and VIPA2 studies.” The three studies will act as crucial stepping stones in creating a safer and more secure future for non-self-reliant individuals, by potentially guiding future regulations. For more about Warringtonfire, please visit: www.warringtonfire.com.
Under guidance from the Architects Registration Board, architectural students are set for a change in curriculum. Karen Trigg of Allegion UK explores this decision and why industry collaboration is central to improving fire safety education and paving the way to a safer future. In an evolving construction industry, the approach to building design is ever shifting. Yet, as the complexity of projects intensifies, safety and sustainability remain fundamental areas of focus, and according to architects, have been the most common of issues presented to them over this past five-year period. In response, the Architects Registration Board (ARB) – as the professional regulator responsible for setting the standards for architect registration – in late 2021, posed significant changes to architectural training and educational guidelines. The new guidance, published by the ARB and sanctioned by the reformed Building Safety Bill, is considered a way of modernizing the teachings of architectural schools and will address the key challenges and opportunities facing the sector by introducing revised module guidelines on ‘Fire and Life Safety’ and ‘Sustainability’. Under the new ‘Fire and Life Safety’ guidelines, the expanding architecture curriculum will examine: The science of fire, smoke generation and spread Design principles to minimise the risk of smoke and fire Means of escape in case of fire and the appropriate access to buildings and facilities for emergency services The significance of product specification to fire safety and performance as part of a construction system Protecting building users from hazards during use and maintenance Fire safety is paramount to a building’s success but is a complex subject with a variety of layers, as is defined by these modules. However, following the call for the revised curriculum, both future and present professionals must collectively recognize its importance, and through better education and collaboration, aim to deliver a fire safe infrastructure, with higher levels of quality and building performance. Better by design Between the reformed Building Safety Bill and the Fire Safety Act 2021, fire safety has been a subject of increased scrutiny over the past few years. Evidently, occupant safety must always remain the top priority throughout any construction project, regardless of its size or scope. Fire and life safety design plays an integral role in this, not only as a compliance obligation but as a practice that can improve project output. As a result, and as outlined by the ARB, every architect must be educated on the basics of fire safety and its role in building design, keeping in mind the latest codes, regulations and hardware required for a project. One area to consider under the revised curriculum’s ‘means of escape’ is the required number of fire door exits per room and per floor. Fire doors are often the first line of defense against fire and thus are meticulously tested to British Standards BS 476: Part 22 or BS EN 1634-1 to certify their resistance to fire for a minimum of 30 minutes (FD30) or 60 minutes (FD60). As a project moves through to specification, decision makers must also identify the required door hardware – which are designed to facilitate the compartmentation of smoke and fire and so must comply with UK Construction Products Regulations. Specification is critical when a project’s materials are being considered and can be the difference in a building failing to meet its functional and necessary safety standards. Inadequately specified door furniture can result in blueprints and specifications changing at a later stage of the project to comply with the correct standards, adding preventable time and costs to development. By understanding the role of fire safety from the earliest stage, and in this case, the functional aspects of fire doors and their hardware, professionals can deliver better projects with enhanced safety and performance. Project collaboration The onus to deliver fire safe buildings doesn’t lie solely with architects, however. Although architects are the only professional body that has a statutory obligation to partake in Continuing Professional Development (CPD), industry wide education is crucial if we are to maintain the necessary standards associated with fire safety. Fire safety is an expansive subject that touches many areas of a building’s lifecycle, from the design stage right through to maintenance, and the ARB’s newly formed curriculum serves as a reminder to all professionals on what they must remain educated on. To assist industry education and collaboration, today’s associations, professional bodies and manufacturers are supporting all professionals to ensure there’s a greater understanding towards these key themes. Hardware manufacturers for example, as part of the Building Safety Bill’s Golden Thread of Information regulatory framework, are providing more detailed product information in the form of comprehensive product datasheets, installation guides and training portals. In doing so, manufacturers are offering greater transparency on product performance and testing, improving product discoverability and traceability. Accordingly, it’s imperative for industry professionals to remain informed on hardware options and the role they play in fire safety, as this collaborative approach can lead to better and more consistent design choices that continue to deliver on fire safety post-project delivery. Wellbeing, accessibility and performance will always remain unremitting themes in our built environment. At a time where information is at our fingertips, professionals across the supply chain possess a real opportunity to develop a sustained education on these key themes, and through improved collaboration, can reform the project delivery process in a bid to deliver true fire safety. How Allegion UK can Help Allegion UK has a wealth of resources to help professionals undertake product selection, installation and maintenance checks on fire doors and hardware. For information on product selection and installation, please speak to our experts or head to our download centre for technical fitting instructions. For post-installation support, Allegion’s simple toolkit provides information and tips on detecting potential faulty doors and poor installation, a guide to the EN classification system and a safety checklist. There’s also an option to order a free door gap tester or download Allegion’s general guide to service and maintenance for free. Allegion also offers RIBA approved CPD presentations,
Ekho, the newest hybrid wireless fire detection solution from Hochiki, leading global life safety manufacturer, has been installed in six blocks of apartment buildings for North London borough to help improve fire detection. EN54-25 approved and RED compliant, Ekho uses the latest in radio networking technology and provides a robust ‘always on’ network of devices which automatically adapt to changing environmental conditions. It was this innovative design element that led Fire Alarms Fabrication Services (FAFS) to choose Hochiki to consult on their latest project in a North London borough. Ekho takes hybrid wireless fire detection to new levels of reliability, flexibility and performance and has been crucial in helping residents feel safer as well as drive cost savings for building owners. Waking Watch schemes have been used for the last few years to provide 24/7 monitoring of buildings identified as fire risks due to dangerous cladding. With the inherent high operational costs, and the risk of human error, building owners and local authorities are looking to life safety manufacturers and installers to help with more reliable and cost-effective alternatives. Commenting on the project Fire Alarms Fabrication Services, Kevin Dodge, sales Account Manager at FAFS told us “The technology used in the Ekho devices helps residents feel safer compared to relying on a team of people prone to human error. The building owners are reassured due to the self-configuring mesh network which keeps the devices connected and communicating with the fire panel 24/7” The project covered a huge site with six buildings with 16 floors each. A Waking Watch team of six patrolled the stairs, corridors, and communal areas at a cost of £10,000 per week. However, because the teams could not be in all places, at all times, they might not be able to detect a fire escalating up the outside on the cladding. To add to this Waking Watch teams are not permitted to enter private apartments meaning early detection could be missed here too. “This was an incredibly complex and highly involved project, we worked closely with the team at Hochiki who consulted on best devices for this project. The Ekho range offered a wireless solution which allowed us to work around issues such as cabling inside private spaces. Ekho allowed for early detection and most importantly detection outside of the building on cladding by installing heat sensor devices adjacent to every single window, including the windows for individual dwellings. The Ekho range is ultra-dependable, and much more cost effective than the Waking Watch scheme that was in place in these buildings.” Following the successful completion of the project Regional Sales Manager, Tony Obadipe said: “We are pleased that our Ekho product range is making such an enormous difference in keeping people safe. The fact that our technology is also helping to drive huge cost efficiencies for our partners and their end users is a bonus. In the current economic climate this cost saving is essential, especially for local authorities. We are incredibly proud of our teams that have been involved in this project, it really is protecting people’s lives”. To read the full story and learn more about the Ekho range visit hochikieurope.com Building Design and Construction Magazine | The Home of Construction & Property News
One of the UK’s leading fire door inspection organisations has warned of a “tragedy waiting to happen” after it revealed three-quarters of the fire doors inspected in the UK by its approved inspectors did not meet the required standard. The Fire Door Inspection Scheme (FDIS)’s data, based on more than 100,000 fire door inspections carried out by its approved inspectors in 2021, found that 75% of fire doors failed to meet the required standards, putting lives at risk in the event of a fire. Alarmingly, buildings that had the highest number of fire door inspection failures included healthcare buildings, local authorities and housing associations, and private housing. Given that these buildings’ fire doors are subject to higher use and traffic than other building types, regular inspection and maintenance is key to ensuring they remain fit for purpose throughout their lifespan. Where faults are identified, urgent fire door remedial works must be carried out to bring them up to the required safety standard and ensure compliance with fire safety regulations. Louise Halton, FDIS Scheme Manager, said “With the vast majority of fire doors in the UK failing inspections, it’s sad to say that a tragedy is simply waiting to happen, especially so in buildings that are home to vulnerable residents. But this situation is entirely preventable and, at this stage, still reversible. A fit for purpose fire door can save lives, so now is the time for all of those responsible for fire safety to urgently inspect fire doors in their buildings and act immediately if faults are identified. “It’s crucial that reputable and trained fire door inspectors, such as those approved by the FDIS, carry out fire door inspections. However, the ongoing reporting of maintenance issues with fire doors is a role for us all – every building user should play a proactive role in reporting any faults to ensure they are quickly addressed so that the building’s safety is maintained.” The most common reasons for inspection failure – which can be a result of one or multiple issues – were excessive gaps between the door and the frame (77%), care and maintenance issues (54%), and issues over smoke sealing (37%). In almost a third (31%) of cases, inspections failed due to improper installation – meaning those doors were never fit to perform the task of holding back fire and smoke. The inspection data also revealed inspectors’ top three fire safety concerns as a lack of fire door maintenance, and poor knowledge of fire safety responsibilities and a limited understanding of the role fire doors play in keeping people safe by those responsible for building fire safety. “The issues surrounding the understanding and knowledge of those responsible for fire safety was also highlighted in the FDIS’ inspection data released in 2020 as a key concern,” added Ms Halton. “This clearly demonstrates the need for individuals throughout the building safety sector to have access to quality training, assessment and examination to ensure their knowledge is up to date, and that they understand the fundamental role of a fire door – which is only fit for purpose if it is maintained correctly and inspected regularly.” The positive news is that there is a will to improve. Since the introduction of the Building Safety Bill (now the Building Safety Act 2022), 77% of FDIS inspectors have seen an increase in demand for fire door inspections. This indicates the importance and effect of the legislation in encouraging building owners and fire safety professionals to take a more proactive approach to fire door safety and maintenance. The FDIS certified inspectors are uniquely trained to undertake fire door inspections and improve building fire safety. All approved inspectors have completed the FDIS certificated inspector training and onsite assessment, which provides an understanding of fire doors and their components, including testing and certification, regulations and standards, inspection, and maintenance. For more information about the FDIS and to find an approved FDIS Inspector, visit: https://fdis.co.uk/ Building Design and Construction Magazine | The Home of Construction & Property News
The government has announced it will not be implementing the recommendation for Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, instead opting to remain with the controversial ‘stay put’ policy. The government is facing criticism from across the fire safety sector, as well as from campaign groups and bereaved relatives of the Grenfell Tower residents, having previously promised to implement the inquiry’s recommendations in full. The Home Office published a consultation document which outlined their reasoning, stating that they believe it is not ‘proportionate’ to follow the recommendations and will continue to place its faith in ‘stay put’ advice in most buildings. The response also stated that there were “significant issues” with the “practicality, proportionality and safety” of PEEPS, and that “we are currently unable to mandate PEEPs in high-rise residential buildings.” The Home Office also said it intends to replace the proposal to require evacuation plans and PEEPs with “an alternative package of initiatives.” This goes against a recommendation from Phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry – published in October 2019 – which advises the government to place a legal obligation on building owners to outline Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) for residents in the event of a fire. Grenfell United, a campaign group for people affected by the fire, said: “We are enraged at the government, whose sole focus continues to be profit and not public safety. We’ve fought for years to create a legacy for our 72 loved ones, and to prevent another Grenfell. But five years on, the government has reverted back to the same policy in place before Grenfell. “This policy resulted in 41% of those living with disabilities dying at Grenfell. It left them with no personal evacuation plan and no means of escape. They didn’t stand a chance. This report is a disgrace. “Disabled people have the right to leave their homes safely. The government must implement the recommendation from the Phase 1 report of the Grenfell Inquiry and ensure personal evacuation plans for disabled residents.” In responding to the government’s PEEPs consultation, the Commissioner of London Fire Brigade, Andy Roe said: “It’s vitally important that people feel safe in their own homes and have certainty about how to leave their building in the event of a fire or other emergency. “PEEPs were a key recommendation from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry and we want to work with government, communities, and other partners to make progress on evacuation plans. We will be responding to this consultation.” The Home Office has launched another consultation on Emergency Evacuation Information Sharing (EEIS), which would require designated “Responsible Persons of the highest risk buildings to assess the needs of their most vulnerable residents and consider what might ‘reasonably be done to mitigate any risks to fire safety.” A Home Office spokesperson said: “The Emergency Evacuation Information Sharing package we are consulting on would require those responsible for fire safety in higher risk buildings to properly assess the needs of the most vulnerable and take steps to mitigate any risks. “While the vast majority of buildings are completely safe, we are determined to do more to improve fire safety, which is why these landmark reforms will ensure mid and high-rise blocks are properly assessed for fire risks.” The inquiry published 46 recommendations in 2019, of which 21 have now been incorporated into law, according to the Home Office.
Charles Arrand considers the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, with a focus on both the potential business and human costs of failing to discharge obligations under the Order. Fire safety is regulated by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (the Order), which applies to almost all buildings, places and structures other than individual private homes. Fire safety cases carry a significantly elevated level of risk due to the number of people potentially affected by an adverse event, particularly in establishments containing vulnerable people. General obligationsFire safety is regulated by the Order, which requires any person who has some level of control in a premises to take reasonable steps to reduce the risk from fire and make sure people can safely escape if there is a fire. Under the Order, anyone who has control of a premises or anyone who has a degree of control over certain areas or systems may be a ‘responsible person’ and must complete the following: carry out a fire-risk assessment identifying any possible dangers and risks; consider who may be especially at risk; eliminate or reduce the risk from fire as far as is reasonably possible and provide general fire precautions to deal with any possible residual risk; take other measures to make sure there is protection if flammable or explosive materials are used or stored; create a plan to deal with any emergency and, in most cases, keep a record of findings; and review findings when necessary. Local Fire Services enforce the Order, carrying out inspections after a fire or as part of routine checks. Liability The consequences of getting fire safety wrong are potentially catastrophic; both in terms of the human cost to individuals, and impact on businesses. The financial costs associated with a breach of regulations can also have a major impact on an organisation. Though fire safety cases were specifically excluded from the Health and Safety Offences, Corporate Manslaughter and Food Safety and Hygiene Regulations Definitive Guideline (“the Guideline”) when it was introduced in 2016, the Court of Appeal has determined that the Guideline provides a useful analogy, and reference is often made to it in fire safety cases.[1] Of particular note is the requirement within the Guideline for the court to consider “whether the offence exposed a number…members of the public to the risk of harm. The greater the number of people, the greater the risk of harm,” and to consider adjusting the fine significantly upwards if so. A relevant consideration is that the potential impact of risk on vulnerable groupings is viewed as a serious aggravating feature of any offending. Fires in settings where accommodation is provided for significant numbers of people always create the risk of multiple injuries and fatalities. In certain such settings, such as care homes, the population at large may fall into the vulnerable classification. In March 2021, following the Fire Safety Consultation, the government announced proposed amendments to the Order that would see the introduction of unlimited fines for breaches of it. The impact of this in the context of fire safety enforcement could be as significant as the introduction of the Guideline, which has seen an unequivocal increase in fines for Health and Safety cases. Bupa case Private healthcare provider Bupa has recently been ordered to pay a purported record £1.04m penalty (fine and costs combined) after admitting fire safety failings. London Fire Brigade, prosecuting, said it was the “highest ever fine for fire safety breaches in the UK, highlighting the seriousness of Bupa’s failure to protect a vulnerable resident in its care”. In March 2016, 69-year-old wheelchair-bound Cedric Skyers sadly died when his cigarette set his clothes on fire in a garden shelter at Bupa Manley Court, Brockley. Mr Skyers was unsupervised when a care assistant saw the fire from a first-floor window and called 999. Staff attempted to put the fire out, but sadly Mr Skyers died from his injuries. It was subsequently discovered that Mr Skyers’ clothes had become flammable as a result of the emollient creams used to treat him. In this case, investigators found that, while a smoking risk assessment had been carried out for Mr Skyers, Bupa had not assessed his use of emollient creams in that context. Apparent burn marks indicative of previous incidents were found on Mr Skyers’ clothing after his death. Care home staff stated they had been unaware of this and, had they been so aware, would have completed more regular checks. Bupa pleaded guilty and is reported to have accepted that it had failed to: ensure staff understood the risks from the use of emollient creams; warn residents using paraffin-based products not to smoke, or, require precautions to be taken; instruct staff not to leave a resident using paraffin-based products smoking unsupervised; and carry out a suitable and sufficient individual smoking risk assessment. Care providers should ensure that they assess the ability of residents to smoke safely, checking clothes for burn marks if necessary. Consideration should also be given to fire retardant clothing, smoking aprons and personal alarms. Bupa said it had introduced Comprehensive Risk Assessments for residents that smoke, as well as staff training on paraffin based emollient creams and smoking aprons and supervision as a result. At first glance, and without background understanding, this tragic accident may look like an unlikely ‘freak’ incident; but that is far from the case. While residents wishing to smoke present a number of challenges for care providers generally, Fire Services, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and others have issued guidance addressing the use of paraffin-based emollients for smoking residents. Under the microscopeThe tragic fire at Grenfell Tower in 2017, and the Public Inquiry into it, has put fire safety at the forefront of discussion, including for those responsible for implementing and enforcing legislation. The size of the fine in the Bupa case sets no legal precedent, but is an important reminder of the consequences of failing to discharge duties, as the prosecuting fire service was keen to emphasise; ‘If there can be
The Association for Specialist Fire Protection (ASFP) has expanded its range of guidance with the release of three new and three updated documents. The new Advisory Notes 27, 28 and 29 offer advice on particular issues of concern to the industry. Advisory Note 27 provides advice on the structural fire protection of steel beams with corrugated webs. These fabricated sections, which were recently introduced to the market, offer a thinner steel plate than can be used in traditional webs. While this saves weight and cost, the fire-resisting performance of these sections is not fully understood. The advisory note warns against the use of plain section data in support of a corrugated web section without extra testing. Advisory Note 28 covers the firestopping of metal pipes where flanges are located close to service penetration seals. It encourages earlier involvement of passive fire specialists to prevent the construction of untested service penetration arrangements, particularly in the presence of flanges within the secondary insulation zone (typically within 500mm of the wall). Arrangements of flanges can be covered within the scope of BS EN 1366-3: Fire resistance tests for service installations. Penetration seals, although this is not commonplace. For the avoidance of issues with certification and installation, it is simplest to keep the flanges more than 500mm away from the wall. However, this detail is not always considered during the spatial coordination of services. The final new publication, Advisory Note 29 covers planned maintenance. This draws upon advice from within the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order; BS 9999: Code of practice for fire safety in the design, management and use of buildings; and BS 8524: Active fire curtain barrier assemblies to ensure that a competent person conducts that maintenance.Meanwhile, Advisory Note 21 has been updated. This covers coatback to secondary structural steel. It highlights that this can prevent conduction of heat into a primary structural member and its consequent early failure. As new evidence becomes available, it is likely that this document will be updated again. Technical Guidance Documents (TGDs) 15 and 20 have also been revised. TGD 15 provides advice on the installation and inspection of spray-applied passive fire protection. The document has been updated to align the film thickness measurement criteria for these materials to ASTM E805. The document has also been updated to take the implications of Brexit into account and the consequent changes to UK Construction Product regulations.The changes to UK Construction Product regulations and the introduction of the UKCA mark also prompted the revision of TGD 20, which covers the CE marking of fire-resisting and smoke control duct sections. All the documents are available for download from the Publications area of the ASFP website, www.asfp.org.uk Building Design and Construction Magazine | The Home of Construction & Property News