Legal Column: Grenfell and the burning urgency for better regulations

Grenfell Tower
twitter.com/LondonFire

  • The UK approach to fire safety has been largely reactive
  • Recommendations formulated after the Lakanal fire weren’t followed through
  • After Grenfell, duty holders are seeking more compliance advice than ever before

Fire regulations are coming under scrutiny after the Grenfell disaster, says Vikki Watt, health & safety and regulatory partner at BTO.

The Grenfell Tower fire that killed at least 80 people on 14 June touched the consciousness of our society. The public inquiry, which officially started on 15 August, should subject to scrutiny the regulatory framework designed to ensure individual and collective fire safety in England and Wales.

The inquiry terms of reference extend beyond issues of causation and compliance to the scope and adequacy of fire safety regulation applicable to high-rise buildings. Undoubtedly one of the most complex and politically charged investigations in recent decades, lessons demand to be learned.

The Scottish perspective

From the Great Fire of London, to more recent catastrophic events, the UK approach to fire safety has been largely reactive.

In Scotland, since 1999, the devolved Scottish Parliament has exercised full autonomy over fire safety regulation. Unlike other aspects of health and safety law, it has introduced a markedly different compliance regime north of the border.

As far back as 1999, following a fatal tower block fire in Irvine, Scotland, the combustibility of external cladding has featured high on the agenda. The fire reached the 12th floor of a block of flats within a matter of minutes because a vertical ribbon of cladding became ablaze in one corner. While the House of Commons parliamentary Select Committee set up to investigate the Irvine fire concluded that most external cladding used in the UK did not pose a serious threat to life in the event of fire, it nevertheless concluded that cladding used in tower blocks should be non-combustible or, at least, not pose an unacceptable risk to tenants.

The Scottish Parliament went further, however, and passed an Act of Parliament which allowed new legislation in the form of The Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (in force from 1 May 2005) requiring the design and construction of high-rise buildings to specifically “inhibit” the spread of fire, both internally and externally. Accordingly, since 2005, no high-rise buildings in Scotland should have cladding contravening that standard. In the wake of Grenfell, the Scottish government confirmed that no high-rises in Scotland contained the cladding that appears to have been used on Grenfell Tower.

The other fire

In London, in 2009, six people died in the Lakanal House fire. Southwark Council was fined £270,000, with costs of £300,000 awarded. The fire, which had originated in a television in a flat on the ninth floor, spread rapidly through the building. The Coroner’s Inquest in March 2013 recommended that building regulations be re-drafted to improve the complex regime and remove opaque terms such as “limited combustibility”. That change did not come.

Undoubtedly, there is a raft of common issues presenting difficulties north and south of the border, ranging from retrofit works to the requirement for automatic fire suppression systems. Those issues will now be brought into sharp focus.

Better, not more, regulation

The Scottish government has broadened the remit of an existing committee examining fire regulations prior to Grenfell to include wider safety aspects of high-rise blocks.

The Scottish Housing Regulator has also written to all social landlords in Scotland to issue fire safety advice. CEO Michael Cameron has confirmed that the Regulator will consider what further steps it needs to take once outcomes are known from the ministerial working group’s review.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is updating existing advice and is working with duty holders to ensure full compliance.

Duty holders, in turn, are seeking more compliance advice than ever before. Many are anticipating change and implementing policies and procedures that are more onerous than current legislation demands.

Of broader concern, Grenfell has raised legitimate questions about how we regulate fire safety across the UK. The answer may not be a harmonising of building regulations north and south of the border, but it should lead to reform in both jurisdictions. Better, not more, regulation is required.

Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.

To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@postonline.co.uk or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.postonline.co.uk/subscribe

You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@postonline.co.uk to find out more.

Could premium finance face Gap-like FCA action?

After the Financial Conduct Authority’s Matt Brewis labelled premium finance a “poor product”, Scott McGee examines if the industry has done enough to defend this method of paying for insurance or whether the regulator will soon feel forced to clamp down on the pricing practice.

How women are smashing insurance’s glass ceilings

Ahead of International Women’s Day (8 March), Insurance Post Editor Emma Ann Hughes examines how glass ceilings in insurance are being smashed and whether presenteeism rearing its ugly head could stunt further female progress in the industry.

FCA pauses all Gap insurance sales

The Financial Conduct Authority has ordered all providers of guaranteed asset protection insurance to pause selling the product by the end of this month.

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have an Insurance Post account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account here