When the news of a fire in a London tower block broke recently, most people’s minds would have gone to Grenfell Tower, and the worst case scenario that might unfold. Thankfully, the fire was extinguished successfully, with everyone successfully evacuated from the building. Nevertheless, the fact that such a fire could take place so long after Grenfell has caused no shortage of anger.
The Grenfell enquiry has finally been released, and everyone from central government to the companies involved has been implicated in the disaster. Yet while the major lessons from the fire should have been learned years ago, many buildings are still threatened by fire. So where are we following the enquiry, what exactly happened during this fire—and how is it that buildings still have flammable cladding seven years later?
A familiar fire
Firefighters were called to the eight-storey building in Dagenham at 2:44am following reports of a fire, which now appears to have started in a ground floor commercial unit. Reports suggest that this quickly spread up the building, leading the building’s residents to evacuate. Some were apparently treated for minor burns on-site, while two others were taken to hospital.
Non-compliant cladding of the kind used on Grenfell Tower was present on the building, and in the process of being removed, with scaffolding up around the building. Some sources have suggested that the fire may have propagated up the building via the scaffolding rather than any part of the structure itself, although this is yet to be officially determined.
The fire took 40 fire engines and 225 Firefighters almost 10 hours to bring under control, with displaced residents provided shelter, support and further medical care at a nearby leisure centre. Large parts of the building were heavily damaged by the fire, with many residents having lost their possessions to fire or smoke damage. It isn’t yet known whether the Non-compliant cladding on the building was still in place or contributed to the accident.
Coincidentally, another fire in a high-rise occurred just hours later. A flat fire in a tower block in Blackwall required 10 engines and 70 Firefighters to extinguish. Since then, there has also been another high rise fire in Glasgow, where six engines were sent to another flat fire; and another 10-engine fire in Lewisham on the day of the Grenfell enquiry’s conclusion. There’s no indication so far that any of these buildings featured the dangerous cladding used on Grenfell Tower.
Exposing the risks of high-rises
The fire threats to a high rise are obvious. Much of the public outcry around the Grenfell Tower fire was initially about the ‘shelter in place’ policy used by residents, and initially reiterated by emergency services. The idea was that individual flats should be fireproofed to the extent that any fire is contained to that flat until it can be extinguished. By evacuating whenever a fire occurs, more people may be injured than if they had simply stayed inside.
This principle would likely have worked in the last two fires mentioned above, where the fire was contained to one flat. What was different about Grenfell was that the flammable cladding on the building rendered this policy useless. The fire jumped from the flat where it originated to the cladding, which then allowed it to travel across the face of the building. This meant that people sheltering in place were not safe from the fire, both because it could reach them and because it quickly became uncontrollable.
The risks with Grenfell were exaggerated by the presence of a single central staircase with no fire escapes, no sprinkler system, and poorly-maintained fire doors, something highlighted by the enquiry and residents of the tower. This meant that evacuating was difficult even if people managed to do it in time, with the single staircase filled with toxic smoke, lowering visibility and posing a severe danger to residents. Yet these are also features of many other tower blocks around the country—as is the presence of non-compliant cladding.
Legal repercussions
The Grenfell Tower fire highlighted severe flaws in English fire safety laws and the construction industry, where already illegal cladding was found to be in widespread use by unscrupulous or unaware companies. The process of contracting out different parts of a building to the lowest bidder meant that dangerous cladding could be passed off as safe, and this decision could be one or two steps removed from the company actually constructing or paying for the building.
As a result, laws came into place based on the preliminary findings after the fire, well before the enquiry would be completed. A requirement for sprinklers in new residential buildings which was already in place in Wales was quickly extended to high-rises in England. Multiple kinds of combustible cladding were also formally banned from use on most residential buildings, which was later extended to include commercial buildings like hotels and hostels.
The final and most consequential change was the introduction of the Building Safety Act 2022. This included several provisions to address the costs involved in removing flammable cladding, such as capping service charges for long-term leaseholders, and making it easier for leaseholders to move out. The Act also established the Building Safety Regulator (BSR), a branch of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) focussed on building control in high-risk residential structures—closely monitoring the safety of residential high-rises.
–
As with many things, the issue with flammable cladding today comes down to one thing: money. Many of the companies which constructed buildings using flammable cladding have been unwilling to be held fully responsible, given the way in which this work may have been contracted out to multiple third parties. Replacing the dangerous cladding is expensive, and the process of determining which parties are liable for how much money can be an extremely lengthy and complex one.
As a result, some of these costs—and much of the human cost—has fallen on the occupants. Many have been asked to contribute thousands of pounds towards the removal of cladding which they had no knowledge of, which was illegal when it was fitted, and which they cannot necessarily afford. Until the cladding is gone, they often cannot sell their flats or apartments, as nobody wants to take on that liability. They may also not be able to get insurance, or this may be prohibitively expensive due to the high level of risk.
The fact that flammable cladding remains on buildings across the UK is not surprising in this context. It is however an indictment of the previous government, and a challenge to the new one. The recent spate of tower block fires may be a reminder of the continued presence of flammable cladding, but they are also a dire warning about the potential consequences. If another fire such as the one in Grenfell Tower occurs, it will be through a lack of action and accountability from politicians and businesses alike.
SAMS offers fire door compliance inspections and approved fire risk assessments to ensure buildings are in line with fire safety legislation. To learn more, visit the pages above, or contact us today.