3 changes to fire safety regulations that could prevent another Grenfell

More than two years on from the Grenfell Tower tragedy there’s much still to do to prevent a repeat of the worst residential fire in modern UK history.

Here are my recommendations for three changes to fire safety regulations the government should introduce, among many others helpfully suggested by other industry experts.

1. Installing sprinkler systems as priority in at-risk buildings

The installation of automatic sprinkler systems should be a priority in at-risk buildings.

This does not just refer to high-rise buildings, but also schools, hospitals, care-homes, university accommodation etc. Any location where people are likely to be unfamiliar with the layout of the building, asleep, or be less mobile, delaying evacuation, should be seen as at-risk.

The evidence for the effectiveness of sprinkler systems is clear – according to a 2017 study by the National Fire Chiefs Council, sprinkler systems controlled or contained the fire 99% of the time (out of 945 cases). For residential buildings, the average damage suffered by a fire with a sprinkler systems was 4 sq. m compared to 18 sq. m without – the average damage sustained for sprinklered residential buildings is less than a quarter of those buildings without sprinklers.

Given the potential for lives and buildings to be protected by sprinklers, the argument for installing them in at-risk buildings is overwhelming.

2. Improving the testing regime of cladding and other hazardous materials

Whilst the Government has rightly banned combustible cladding on certain types of buildings, including high rises, owners and managers should not be complacent. The UK’s currently flawed system of building regulation system has allowed hundreds of buildings to be coated with various types of unsafe cladding (such as aluminium composite material and high pressure laminate).

Materials that are to be used throughout the built environment should be tested in large-scale systems, mimicking their likely use on buildings. A move in this direction for all buildings would minimise the possibility of unsafe materials, similar to those used on the Grenfell Tower, from being permitted, reducing the likelihood of a similar fire occurring in the future.

3. Adding property protection to building regulations

Current buildings regulations focus quite rightly on life safety with regards to fire risk. However, this sole focus leads to situations where a fire is deemed successful if no one is hurt, even if the building burns down completely.

That complete loss of a building is not what is expected by many in the face of fire as they seek to quickly reuse a building after a fire. Proportionately incorporating property protection in building regulations would simultaneously make buildings safer and easier to evacuate from, as well as reducing the burden on UK plc by enabling buildings to become re-usable more quickly.

Building owners and managers should be aware the complying with current guidance is the absolute bare minimum requirement, and does not guarantee the survival of the building itself. Solving the issue this misconception presents by incorporating property protection in guidance would be a major step towards preventing another Grenfell-type fire occurring again.