Category Archives: Fire Risk

Government backing away from three monthly fire door checks

Posted on by

The government has ‘backed away’ from following the Grenfell inquiry’s recommendation that it be a ‘legal requirement’ to undertaken three monthly checks of all flat block fire doors.

Earlier this year, it was revealed that the fire safety bill would include a requirement for fire doors in all flat blocks to be checked every three months. Last December, the government’s Queen’s Speech saw building safety and fire safety bills introduced, the latter setting out to ‘learn the lessons’ and ensure ‘an appalling tragedy like Grenfell can never happen again’. It is set to include providing residents with ‘reassurance’ as well as making it clear that building owners and managers know they are ‘responsible for assessing the risks of external walls and fire doors’.

Its main elements include a clarification that the scope of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 ‘includes the external walls of the building, including cladding’ and ‘fire doors for domestic premises of multiple occupancy’. The ‘relevant enforcement powers’ to hold both building owners and managers ‘to account’ would be strengthened, while a ‘transitional period’ for these two roles – or the responsible person – and the fire and rescue services would assist in placing infrastructure.

In March, it was reported that the bill would include a requirement for fire doors in all flat blocks ‘to be checked every three months’, with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) understood to be asking building owners if quarterly inspections are ‘feasible’. This came after Grenfell inquiry chair Sir Martin Moore-Bick recommended this timescale of inspections in the first phase report.

He had also recommended this to ‘ensure that all fire doors are fitted with effective self-closing devices in working order’, with initial concerns over the government’s response stating that doors and closers should be ‘routinely checked or inspected’. This had led to speculation ministers were ‘moving away’ from the compulsory three monthly checks, but a government source said the bill would implement ‘all’ inquiry recommendations, including the fire door check schedule.

Currently there is no ‘specific legal requirement’ to check fire doors at certain intervals, though legislation requires their maintenance, with British Woodworking Federation technical director Kevin Underwood stating that ‘quarterly checks might be suitable for domestic fire doors, but not adequate for high-risk, high-usage doors. For instance, doors in corridors in busy areas may be more or less constantly in use, meaning that the risk of damage is high.

‘There are also fire doors where their contribution to a building’s fire safety is very important, which means they should be inspected even more frequently. Fire door inspection has to be a risk-based approach’.

An MHCLG spokesperson added: ‘Residents’ safety is our utmost priority and building owners should ensure that products being used in their buildings meet the appropriate standards. We have been clear that building owners must take responsibility, review their building fire risk assessments and ensure fire doors are routinely checked or inspected by a qualified professional.’

However, Inside Housing has now reported that ministers have ‘backed away’ from the move, with a Home Office consultation published this week removing this and including proposals to ‘water down’ Sir Martin’s call for ‘mandatory personal evacuation plans [PEEPs] for all high-rise residents who would struggle to leave their building in a fire’. The document laid out government plans to implement the inquiry recommendations and ‘strengthen other aspects’ of fire safety regulations.

The government is now proposing three monthly checks being ‘compulsory only for fire doors in communal areas of high rises’, with six monthly checks required for flat entrance doors in high rises. The timeframes ‘double’ for buildings between 11m and 18m in height, and the government is ‘also seeking views’ on whether prescribing a frequency of such checks for shorter buildings is ‘reasonable and practicable’.

The news outlet noted that Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick had previously promised to impement the inquiry’s recommendations ‘in full’, and added that there is ‘currently no specific legal requirement to check fire doors at certain intervals’, with an impact assessment published alongside this consultation estimating that three monthly checks for all fire doors would cost the private sector £1.3bn over 10 years, while it would cost the public sector £138.3m over the same period.

In comparison, the government’s new proposals would cost the private sector £173m over that 10 year timeframe and the public sector £24.4m. On the PEEPs change, the government said that the ‘lack of personnel available to assist during an evacuation’, as well as the ‘complexity of any particular building and the roles of those responsible’ alongside a ‘high turnover’ of residents and ‘data protection concerns’ all presented ‘practical challenges to implementing this measure’.

It proposed instead that PEEPs only be required in buildings with a waking watch in place, which are ‘mainly those with unsafe cladding’, while for other high rises responsible persons ‘would be required to pass details of people who self-identify as needing evacuation assistance’ to fire and rescue services, and keep these details in a premises information box.

In response to these changes, the Grenfell United campaign group representing the bereaved and survivors accused the government of ‘trying to shirk away’ from the inquiry’s recommendations, with a spokesperson commenting: ‘The government is trying to shirk away from carrying out the recommendations of the inquiry.

‘If the inquiry findings and recommendations are not taken seriously, then what’s the point? It is disappointing that safety of homes is not being taken as seriously as we would have hoped. The evidence showed that the doors at Grenfell were non-compliant without adequate checks. How many more homes will be put at risk?’

A government spokesperson responded: ‘We are determined to learn the lessons from Grenfell Tower and ensure a tragedy like this cannot happen again. We continue to consider all the Inquiry’s recommendations carefully and implement them in the most practical and effective manner, in a number of areas we have gone beyond the recommendations.

‘The measures we are proposing are targeted and proportionate to risk, an approach that is supported by the Independent Expert Advisory Panel and the National Fire Chiefs Council.’

Manchester Cladding fund exclusion

Posted on by

Manchester cladding fund exclusion

 LEASEHOLDERS AT the Skyline Central 1 block in Manchester said they were ‘heartbroken’ to be excluded from the £1bn building safety fund after work had already begun to replace cladding.

Last week, the government revealed that the £1bn fund would open on 1 June, with leaseholders in social housing blocks revealed to be ‘eligible for support’. In March’s budget, Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced the new funding ‘to help strip combustible cladding from homes’ in both social and privately owned blocks above the original £600m funding for both, to help with removing cladding from blocks over 18m tall.

The previous funding was for buildings with aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding, but Mr Sunak said that this would ‘go beyond dealing with ACM to make sure that all unsafe combustible cladding will be removed’. The funding would ensure such cladding would be removed ‘from every private and social residential building above 18m high’, and the government would continue to try and building owners and developers pay ‘their fair share’.

This fund ‘will meet the cost for unsafe non-ACM cladding on residential buildings’, 18m and over that ‘do not comply with building regulations’, and the government urged building owners to ‘act and put the safety of residents first’, with total funding for cladding remediation now £1.6bn. The fund’s application process is designed to enable projects ‘to proceed at pace’, with building owners, freeholders and others responsible for buildings to register from Monday.

While ‘predominantly targeted’ at supporting private sector leaseholders ‘facing significant bills’ it was ‘clear that for leaseholders living in buildings owned by providers in the social sector, it will provide funding to meet the provider’s costs which would otherwise have been borne by leaseholders’. Landlords are expected to cover such costs ‘without increasing rent for their tenants’.

Applications ‘can be progressed alongside the development of the remediation project’, and focusing on non ACM remediation for the private sector, the fund would ‘meet the capital costs of removing and replacing’ cladding, and be provided for ‘mixed use residential and commercial developments in both sectors’. Buildings under 18m will not be included, nor will hotels, hospitals and building with no residential leaseholders.

Where work had begun on buildings with non ACM systems, or ‘where work had been previously committed to’ prior to the budget announcement, ‘these works will not [be] eligible’. Inside Housing reported however on the disappointment of the Skyline Central 1 leaseholders, whose building was clad in combustible high pressure laminate cladding and who accepted loans of up to £25,000 each earlier this year to pay for cladding remediation.

This was after they had been ‘set an ultimatum which could have seen them lose their homes’, and while the work is ‘nearing completion’, the cost of the loans ‘pushed some residents to the verge of bankruptcy’, and they had hoped to ‘recoup their costs’ through the fund before discovering ‘buildings will be excluded from applying if work has already started’.

In response a government spokesperson said that the fund was aimed ‘at removing the financial barriers that are preventing building owners from remediating unsafe buildings quickly’, and that ‘there may be recourse through building owners through warranty or insurance claims’ for those who have already paid for works. Despite this, a leaseholder in the Manchester block said this route ‘had already been explored’, and was unavailable as ‘the building was out of warranty’.

The leaseholder said it was ‘truly baffling’ that the government thought this possible, adding: ‘We’re extremely concerned to notice that the fund only seems applicable to remedial work that hasn’t started yet. While the work on replacing our HPL cladding and other fire safety defects is nearing completion, the financial burden that this brings will last a lifetime, with many of us now facing the very real possibility of bankruptcy.

‘It seems completely abhorrent that the government has chosen to ignore leaseholders like ourselves and make us ineligible to apply to fund. They have always said that work must be carried out as soon as possible and that leaseholders should not be responsible for the cost of remedial works, and yet it looks like we still are. All these terms and conditions do is penalise those living in buildings where the freeholder has already acted.

‘It is truly heart breaking and we’d like urgent clarification on why government have chosen to leave us out of what, now more than ever, seems to be a cladding lottery.’

A spokesperson for HomeGround, acting for the building’s owner Adriatic Land, said it ‘fully support[s] the leaseholders in this matter’, as ‘the government has already acknowledged the regulatory failure that has caused this cladding crisis so it is not right that the Skyline leaseholders are being denied support from the government’s remediation fund.

‘It is especially unfair in the case of Skyline that leaseholders are being penalised as a result of the proactive work that has taken place to remediate the building as quickly as possible. Had funding from government been made available earlier, this would not have happened’.