It is now almost two years since the tragic Grenfell tower fire and so an appropriate moment to reflect on the progress —or lack—on implementing subsequent measures to ensure that occupants of high-rise buildings not only feel safe but actually are safe within their homes.
Opinion
Post Grenfell where are the changes?
By
on 17 July 2019
The government commissioned independent review of building regulations and fire safety management, led by Dame Judith Hackitt, provided in May 2018, wide ranging recommendations, and an ultimately damning conclusion: that the current system for ensuring fire safety within high-rise buildings was not fit for purpose. The report further added that the public, and in particular residents of such premises, had lost all confidence in the regime.
Although the response from government and related regulatory bodies was positive in accepting the report findings, and an implementation plan published in December 2018 indicated a fundamental reform of the building safety regulatory reform system, it is somewhat disconcerting that the enduring legacy of the fire that destroyed so many lives continues to be a state of insecurity for those directly and indirectly affected.
It was perhaps indicative of a wider social inequality that the tragic events at Grenfell occurred in one of the country’s richest borough’s
It was perhaps indicative of a wider social inequality that the tragic events at Grenfell occurred in one of the country’s richest borough’s, where private investment in new luxury housing stood out in marked contrast to funding cuts from building refurbishment budgets.
Following Grenfell, over 400 high-rise buildings were identified as having unsafe aluminium composite material (ACM) external cladding similar to that which failed with catastrophic effect at Grenfell Tower. The government made available some £200m for the replacement of this unsafe ACM cladding on high-rise residential homes in the social and private sectors and interim measures for ensuring safety were implemented by local authorities and the fire and rescue authorities.
More recently, this month in fact, the secretary of state for housing, communities and local government announced a further consultation entitled Building a safer future: proposals for reform of the building safety regulatory system. While these plans include laudable generic proposals to introduce a comprehensive dutyholder regime, including clear accountabilities for ownership of risk, improved communication and consultation with residents and a new building regulator, it is to be hoped that the necessary funding together with realistic and expedient timescales for implementation do not become barriers to progress.
It is essential to take a holistic approach to ensuring a catastrophic event such as Grenfell never happens again. There must be cross-learning and knowledge sharing to ensure all dutyholders are fully aware and proactive in their responsibilities, while working with residents and building occupiers.
Everyone has a fundamental right to be safe and feel safe within their home and it is absolutely correct that residents should be at the very heart of the process that provides this assurance. The issue of resident safety requires a culture change in order to ensure stakeholders have an effective and participative role in building safety management.
The Grenfell tragedy was a man-made event attributable to a series of decisions that were made involving a wide body of individuals embedded within the administrative architecture that frame our lives and, which seem to imply some groups as being more worthy to be listened to than others.
Surely, as a fundamental principle of sound risk management, the people who are at the sharp end of a risk must have an input into determining how significant a risk actually is and how much effort should go into its prevention and control?
Even allowing for the tardiness of statute and government process, two years on from the catastrophic events of Grenfell, the lack of tangible change to the underlying root causes and systemic failures is quite frankly lamentable.
David Parr is director of policy and technical services at British Safety Council
OPINION
In these times, how can we be safe, well and happy?
By Mike Robinson FCA on 01 July 2024
Last month, I mentioned two big moments – the General Election and the 50th anniversary of the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974) on 31 July. The lack of attention given to health, safety, or even wellbeing by most political parties in their election manifestos, while not entirely unexpected, was disappointing. And it doesn’t reflect the real concerns of workers and leaders here and around the world.
It’s time to protect all leaseholders from ruinous building safety remediation costs
By The Earl of Lytton on 28 June 2024
In my previous piece for Safety Management last summer (‘A new Building Safety Remediation Scheme would hold developers and builders to account for all fire and building safety defects in homes’) I set the scene on the unfolding world of building safety remediation and described how I was attempting to change things in the interests of consumer safety. Now with a general election called, there is an opportunity to influence the policies of a new, incoming administration.
Menopause at work: government failing to grasp benefits of providing more support to women workers
By Caroline Nokes on 01 May 2023
Many employers are waking up to the realities of menopause, and the benefits of providing a supportive environment for women at work. CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development) research shows that 30 per cent of UK employers now have menopause policies, up from 10 per cent in 2019. But I am increasingly worried that the government has not appreciated the need to seize momentum.