Learning from Lakanal: Improving Fire Safety in Multi-Storey Residential Blocks

Six years ago six people died and many more were injured in a fire at the Lakanal residential block in Camberwell, London.

IFSEC Global asked a number of fire-safety experts for their prescriptions on preventing another, similar tragedy.

---

Stronger regulation

Bob Docherty, MD, Flamerisk Safety Solutions and chairman, Institute of Fire Safety Managers: It’s OK to have all these inquiries, findings and calls to action – coroners writing letters, etc – but unless actions are converted into a legal framework – eg with building regulations altered accordingly – then nothing will happen.

It’s the threat of being outside the law that forces people to carry out their ‘duties’, but our experience since the late 1990s shows the government doesn’t want to regulate in any way.

The industry, in the form of organisations like the Fire Sector Federation (FSF), is expected to ‘heal itself’.  But the FSF has no clout at all; it advises and helps but it isn’t a statutory body.

Governments need to regulate where they feel a need and practical recommendations are put forward.

---

On-the-spot fines

Simon Ince, Head of Business Resilience, BB7 Fire:

If you’re a housing association and you’re not maintaining a fire alarm in a converted block of flats to give early warning to people to get out – why shouldn’t the fire service be able to impose an on-the-spot fine?

It’s going to hit them quite hard but it could prevent a tragedy; such as the Sophie Rosser case discussed in a Westminster Debate recently.

Fines could be used to improve enforcement and generate better targeting of offenders. By imposing an on the spot fine system there would be an effective deterrent which the fire service could use, the current system is too cumbersome, too slow and fire services don’t have the resources to go through the prosecution process unless they are certain of gaining a conviction.

I think sometimes you’ve got to start giving out a quick message: “You’ve got a duty of care to get something right – and you’re not doing it, here is a fine!”

If I drove down the street in a car with bald tyres, no brake lights, I would get an on the spot fine if stopped by the police. Something like that for building owners who put people at risk in their premises would send out a really sharp message.

If the FRS didn’t need such a high burden of proof to put a case together to go to court it could save thousands and generate thousands for the FRS to invest in enforcement. I know people will think it is a licence to print money but without too many difficulties safeguards could be imposed.

If a system of on the spot fines got used a few times, people would get wind of it, and if you’re a property owner you’d think: “Well I’ve got 20 properties and I’ve not had the alarms tested for two years that could add up to thousands in fines, best get them tested”

---

Fire-risk assessments within flats

Claire Rizos, director, Clarity Safety Solutions, and qualified fire-risk assessor: As a fire-safety specialist and a landlord I think the major obstacle to fire safety in residential housing stock is the ability of individual householders to unwittingly destroy built-in passive fire protection and the fact that there is really no penalty for doing so. This is especially problematic in blocks of flats.

The fire-risk assessment obligation applies to common parts of blocks of flats in England and Wales, which means that breaches in fire protection within the flats can cause significant risk to other occupants, but there is no opportunity to identify and rectify the problems.

In Scotland there is no similar requirement for risk assessment of common parts so there is even less incentive to control the risk.

Because the problem lies primarily with private owners, there is a danger that any solutions are highly draconian – eg, the government could impose a requirement for fire-risk assessment and essential improvements for a flat if it is to be marketed for sale.

---

Knowledge shortfall

Bob Docherty: My biggest complaint is not just about fire standards in blocks of flats but how the FRS enforces.  I think there is a deteriorating fund of fire safety experience and knowledge in fire and rescue services.

I find a number of FRS fire safety personnel have scant knowledge of the behaviour of fire and even less knowledge of fire safety requirements and, most importantly, what evacuation strategies are and how they should be used.

On top of this – and this is my biggest ‘beef’ – there is no formal mechanism sitting between a Responsible Person and the F&RS when there is a ‘disagreement’ between going to a determination (and the FRS have control over that) and appealing to a Magistrates Court.

There needs to be some way in which RPs can have some kind of mediation that is not framed in legal formalities, andd at a more local level.

---

New builds and building control – the problem

Simon Ince: The standard of fire stopping in new builds can be quite poor and generally across the board there are issues. I think there’s several reasons.

People think that building control will make sure it’s delivered properly, and they don’t, they’re not paid to do that.  They’re paid to do certain inspections at certain times.  If they spot an issue they would flag it up but they’re just not paid to go on site and inspect fire stopping anymore.

We’ve got Approved Inspectors and Local Authority Building Control.  They’re competing against each other, so they’re offering a competitive service which can lead to minimal provision. Customers aren’t paying them to deliver full site inspections, to look at every stage of inspection, to sign off a building properly.

They’re paying them to sign off plans, and so building control can only really  offer limited assurance i.e. If it’s built like it says on the plans it should be OK.

The trouble is if no one is checking the building is being constructed as per the plans, resulting in errors built in to the property.

A very similar situation occurred in Ireland. Building control in Ireland effectively said “Show us what you are proposing to do?”

The developer gave them a set of plans and building control said “if you build it like that you’ll be fine”.  And that was it!

Interestingly enough after the Priory Hall case building control went through a major overhaul in Ireland and a more dynamic and accountable regime has been developed – polar opposite to the way English building control is going.

Bob Docherty: When major refurbishments happen both the F&RS and Building Control have a major role to play in the process, especially with the F&RS in the consultation stage.  Does this actually happen? And if so, is it effective?

I think anecdotal experience suggests that this doesn’t happen as regularly as it should!

---

New builds and building control – the solution

Simon Ince: If you’ve got a purpose-built block of flats or a care home or a hospital – high risk buildings – there should be mandatory building control intervention: regular visits, checking the fire protection as it goes in.

There’s is a culture of sub-contracting building works  – sometimes three or four times.  So the main contractor will take their cut, the next contractor will take their cut, the next contractor will take their cut… etc So there’s no margin left on site for the people putting the fire protection in  How does the last one in the chain make a profit?

They use inferior materials, they don’t bother with the materials at all and leave holes unstopped, or they rush the work and don’t do it properly because ‘time is money’

If the work should take 10 days on site, but they get it done in seven by rushing the work or by using more unskilled labour then there is a margin for them in the job and if it is done wrong there is very little chance of being challenged on the work they do; it perpetuates poor standards of fire stopping.

---

Sprinklers: the “benefits are well established” – But are they Really Practical?

Claire Rizos: The increased use of sprinklers in apartment buildings would certainly reduce the risk. There are those who are very strongly against sprinklers on grounds of cost, but I believe there is justification for them in higher risk developments as the life protection benefits are well established.

Bob Docherty: Both Coroners on the Lakanal and also on the Southampton fire took advice/evidence from the fire and rescue service – and their biggest suggestion was for sprinklers.

Sprinklers seem to be the mantra of fire and rescue services these days.  They seem to mention these at all opportunities without any thought to problems of retro-fitting, lack of funds and follow-on maintenance issues.

---

So robust fire safety costs money – but fires cost lives and fire damage and lawyers are even more expensive…

Simon Ince: I know it all comes down to the fact that people aren’t being killed in fires in huge numbers here in the UK  – so what is the problem? It’s as simple as that!

However the potential for multi-fatality fires is definitely real. Once a major fire occurs and there are multi-fatalities there is normally an expensive inquiry costing hundreds of thousands and when failings are found; and they will be, there is normally new guidance released, case studies and seminars put together possibly even amendments to legislation.

But surely more can be done to make these cases even rarer than they are at the moment for a fraction of the cost of an inquiry.

I think the fire sector given a small amount of financial backing could develop new guidance, undertake research projects and implement new initiatives that could significantly reduce the potential for multi-fatality fires here in the UK.