A leaked report into the causes of the Grenfell Tower fire has revealed the shocking findings that all 72 deaths could have been prevented, as a catalogue of errors were made in the block’s refurbishment project.
The report will inevitably increase the pressure on the Police and Crown Prosecution Service to pursue manslaughter charges against various individuals and firms or bodies associated with work on the high-rise block. But it also raises serious questions about the actions of Kensington & Chelsea Council, their Tenant Management Organisation and the Government, who failed to implement changes to building regulations and fire safety standards after six people died in a fire at Lakanal House in 2009, just a few miles across the capital in Southwark. The public inquiry into the Grenfell fire resumes this month with, it seems, precious little progress having been made in the past 11 months. There are tenants of the tower block still waiting to be permanently rehoused, while residents of similar high-rise blocks wait for their homes to be made safe. Doubts have been raised about the reliability of the Government enforced testing regime, and so far Ministers have failed to find funding for safety works or to agree any kind of common standards with landlords of other tower blocks in the public, social and private sectors. The leaked report was written by experts at the Building Research Establishment and commissioned by the Metropolitan Police. A copy was sent to the Evening Standard and its publication shocked Grenfell residents, council staff and housing professionals over the scale of the problems that were uncovered. A spokesperson for the survivors’ group, Grenfell United, said its findings were shocking and showed “an industry that is broken”. There was a litany of deficiencies in the £10m refurbishment project of the 24-storey block including a widespread failure to meet building regulations. The report shows in detail how the original concrete building was turned from a safe structure into a tinderbox by the refurbishment between 2014 and 2016.
Damning findings
It says the fire on 14 June would not have spread beyond its source in Flat 16 and would not have claimed a single life, if the original facade of the building had not been re-clad. (71 residents died on the night and in the immediate aftermath, with a further resident falling victim some months later.) The 2014-16 refurbishment failed in several fundamental areas to meet fire safety standards set out in building regulations — known as Approved Document B. Taken together, these areas proved critical for the rapid spread of flames across the length and breadth of the building. The report is damning in its findings and will inevitably lead to calls for fundamental actions to safeguard tens of thousands of residents of other tower blocks and ensure further potential disasters are prevented from happening. At present, many tower blocks across the country are being watched around the clock by fire wardens, but this is costly and cannot go on indefinitely. The report also puts significant pressure on the Government to ensure no stone is unturned in efforts to change industry practices and to end a cost saving culture that saw corners cut and people’s lives put at risk. The report identifies five significant breaches of building regulations that appear directly implicated in the loss of life:
- Large gaps between the building and cladding that fanned the fire;
- Gaps in window frame surrounds that helped flames spread;
- The insulation used was combustible and spread the fire;
- Panels had a flammable core that also spread the fire; and
- Many of the front doors to flats lacked door closers, or had faulty closers.
The BRE report notes that individual breaches relating to the cladding system assume far greater importance when “considered in combination as opposed to when they occur in isolation”. In addition the report says there was only room for just “a single fire engine” on the hard standing at the base of the east side of the tower, while firefighting facilities were “deficient”, due to poor access and the lack of a wet rising main. Landscaping around the base of the tower prevented other fire engines getting close enough to it. BRE cites two other breaches of building regulations — the absence of a sprinkler system and the single stairwell being 8cm too narrow. However, it does not necessarily regard these weaknesses as directly responsible for loss of life. It adds that the stairwell would have been “difficult and expensive to change as part of any refurbishment”. Meanwhile a separate Police test conducted on one of the fire doors recovered from Grenfell Tower found that it could only withstand a fire for 15 minutes – just half the 30 minutes it was meant to last for. After the BRE report was leaked, a spokeperson for Grenfell United said the findings were not surprising. “It was clear to us the refurbishment was shoddy and second rate. We raised concerns time and time again. We were not just ignored but bullied to keep quiet. That a refurbishment could make our homes dangerous and unsafe shows the contractors put profit before lives.” It is hard to argue or disagree with those words in the light of what we now know.
Inquiry resumes
Further tests on the fire resistance of doors and lifts, and the safety of the gas installation were being carried out after the leaked report was written. The public inquiry resumes on 21st May, with expert witnesses due to start giving evidence in June. The first six months of the inquiry will focus solely on what happened on the night of the fire. Months of further evidence examining why it happened will follow. A timetable for that larger part of the inquiry has yet to be set, but it could run into 2020 according to lawyers involved with it. A mound of confusion has been fanned by reports on the fire retardant qualities of the cladding panels used, with conflicting statements and reports uncovered from the manufacturer and the different testing systems and regimes in use. It remains unclear if building companies here were aware of the results of the tests which gave the panels very low fire resistant ratings. Across the country various social landlords are proceeding with works to remove faulty cladding and to install water sprinkler systems in high-rise blocks. But the work is bespoke and carried out to different specifications as the Government has failed to take ownership of the problem and formulate a standard solution. It appears to be waiting on the Hackitt Review to complete before it commits itself. It also does not appear willing to provide funds for the fire safety works being undertaken and instead Ministers are repeating a mantra that all landlords are responsible for the safety of their buildings. This is not a reassuring approach for the tens of thousands of residents living in tower blocks with similar cladding to that used on Grenfell Tower. An inconsistent response is also emerging in the private sector where at least one builder, Barratts, has decided to pay for re-cladding work at a high-rise tower it built, but no longer has a direct interest in as it is neither the freeholder, nor providing management services. Other owners and management service companies appear unwilling to take on the cost of safety works and are hoping that insurers, builders, individual leaseholders or the Government will stump up the hundreds of millions required. During a hearing of the Treasury select committee, Rushanara Ali, MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, in east London, said only seven out of 160 social housing blocks with flammable cladding similar to that used at Grenfell had so far had it replaced. She added that Ministers were not aware of how many private blocks were similarly affected and their residents should not have to “wait years” before the work is done. Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond replied that social landlords had a duty to ensure their properties were safe and a lack of finance should not prevent urgent safety work from taking place. He said the Housing Ministry might relax council borrowing rules or spending caps to fund repair work. He acknowledged the situation in relation to private blocks was “more complicated”. “I accept it is a challenge. But there is only a certain amount of finance available and diverting public housing funding to leaseholders in private blocks would be a very significant decision.”
Credibility doubts
Credibility issues have been raised by the Association of British Insurers (ABI) who along with the Fire Protection Association question whether the fire testing systems used to measure the flammability of various materials are realistic or valid. They have come out and said the tests done in the aftermath of the fire, do not replicate the conditions in the ‘real world’. They say this makes them inadequate and underestimates the ferocity of real fires. There are also claims that the manufacturers of panels have been gaming the system, or cheating the tests. This is similar to practices used by car manufacturers in the engine emission testing scandal. This has already led to calls for only non-combustible materials to be used in tower block construction, refurbishment and cladding works. And for the Government to stop using the tests to confirm the fire performance of systems already installed on buildings. Huw Evans, the director general of the ABI, said the building control system was now “broken”. He added: “This latest research is yet more evidence that fundamental reform is needed to keep our homes and commercial premises safe from fire. It is a matter of urgency that we create the right testing regime that properly replicates real world conditions and keeps pace with building innovation and modern design.” His message was echoed by Lord Gary Porter, chair of the Local Government Association representing all local authorities across England. Following release of the ABI findings, he said: “Using non-combustible material only would provide clarity to all types of landlords who remain unsure about what they should use to re-clad and insulate their buildings. The tragedy at Grenfell Tower must never be allowed to happen again.” None of this will reassure tower block residents (tenants and leaseholders), who surely ought to be a priority after suffering almost a year of anguish since the terrible events of last June. It is time for the Government and the new Housing Secretary to step up and play a more prominent leadership role in resolving all of the issues raised by the Grenfell fire.
By Patrick Mooney, editor