In political discussion television progammes over the
weekend immediately following the Grenfell tower fire disaster, former
Conservative housing minister Bob Neill appeared on the London section of the
BBC’s Sunday Politics distancing
himself from the horror of the towering inferno that engulfed Grenfell Tower on
west London’s Lancaster estate - because the fire safety regulations now under
question came after he left that job.
But six years ago that weekend he did a have some
pertinent words to say at a fire safety conference. I doubt he will be proud of
them today.
:
He opened with
a platitude asserting: “Ensuring an acceptable level of fire safety in all
residential premises is clearly a matter of great concern to us all. I am
therefore delighted to see that both the housing and fire sector have come
together to arrange this important seminar, and that we have good
representation from both sectors.
As you will be
aware from today’s discussions, there is a significant amount of positive work
going on in the housing and fire sector to help protect people from fire.”
Under a section titled “Better regulation” – more properly described
as “bigger cuts” - he argued “We believe the current legislative framework strikes the
right balance in terms of affording an appropriate level of protection to
residents in the wide range of buildings in which they live. Landlords,
building owners and others with responsibilities for ensuring the safety of
multi-occupied residential buildings have clear responsibilities for minimising
fire risks under both the Housing Health and Safety Rating System and the
Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, which applies to common parts.
We believe that
good regulation - that which is well designed, proportionate and ensures that
proper standards are in place to deliver public assurance over safety - is a
good thing. We will not unnecessarily seek to remove it, where it has a clear
justification.
Of course, good
regulation serves to protect us all: consumers, employees and the environment.
It helps build a fair society and can even save lives. But over the years,
regulations - and the inspections and bureaucracy that go with them - have
piled up and up. This has hurt business, imposing real burdens and doing real
damage to our economy.
Reducing the
number of rules and regulations is therefore absolutely central to the Government’s
vision for Britain, removing barriers to economic growth and increasing
individual freedoms. We have given a clear commitment that where regulation
cannot be justified, we will remove it. With more than 21,000 regulations
impacting on businesses and others in the UK today, this won’t be an easy task
- but we’re determined to cut unnecessary red tape.
The Regulatory
Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 is a good example of where we believe real
success has already been delivered. Before 2006, there were over 70 fire safety-related
Acts of Parliament and numerous statutory instruments in place, many of which
overlapped. This set those with fire safety responsibilities on a confusing and
burdensome path to identify and deliver their statutory responsibilities for
protecting the public.
Following the
Order’s introduction, all those with responsibilities for the safety of their
premises now have a clear legislative framework, based on the well-established
principles of risk assessment and proportionality, in which to operate.”
Really?
He ended
saying: “We are now embarking on work with the fire sector to develop a new
National Framework, which will re-set the relationship between fire and rescue
authorities and central government. We will help ‘barrier bust’ where fire and
rescue authorities find unnecessary restrictions are stopping them from getting
on with things that clearly make great sense.
In 2007, the
Local Authority Coordinators of Regulatory Services (LACoRS as was), the Chief
Fire Officers Association and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health
Officers came together to develop guidance for landlords and fire safety
enforcement officers, in both local housing authorities and fire and rescue
services, on how to ensure fire safety in certain types of residential
accommodation. Its aim was to provide landlords and enforcing authorities with
assistance in complying with the legislative requirements in a consistent and
reasonable manner.
Whilst
well-received and used by housing providers and enforcement authorities, the
sectors agreed that this guidance document was not well positioned to meet the
needs of those with fire safety obligations for purpose built blocks of flats,
including high rise. The sector agreed that additional fire safety guidance
would be helpful to focus on the particular circumstances and challenges
presented by blocks of flats, irrespective of height.
We listened
carefully to the concerns of the sector on this. In recognition of their
significance, we have provided grant to Local Government Improvement and
Development - part of the Local Government Group - to develop and own, on
behalf of the sector, practical and proportionate fire safety guidance
primarily for the landlords, risk assessors and enforcing authorities of
purpose built blocks of flats across all housing sectors.
This is superb
example of the sector coming together to address the challenges that they face
in practical terms, and the Department has been pleased, in this instance, to
support the project. We also value the contribution being made by the
Electrical Safety Council, who are also funding this work.”
No need for extra burdensome sprinklers
and some alarms, minister claims
He then ended
inexplicably arguing: “I am aware that some of you here today have supported
calls for more regulation for fire safety in the home and in non-domestic
buildings, particularly in relation to smoke alarms and sprinklers. As I have
explained, we have absolutely no plans to
add to the burden of regulation for businesses and others, especially where
non-regulatory routes can offer the same - or better - outcomes.(my emphasis)
(“Housing
sector national forum: meeting the requirements of fire safety legislation,” 16 June 2011; https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/housing-sector-national-forum-meeting-the-requirements-of-fire-safety-legislation
A year earlier,
current Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, then an experienced London backbench MP, spoke in a Parliamentary
debate on social housing in inner London
He stressed
that “Resources have to be put in consistently, over the long term. I shall
concentrate on issues of social housing need—the need for a better supply of
housing. I recall a time when ..the Member for Edmonton (Andrew Love) and I
were active in politics in Haringey. We were both councillors at various times
and in the late 1970s we could say proudly that we would never again put
children in high-rise properties, that all the new properties we built would be
houses with gardens, and that we would attempt to create decent community
neighbourhoods. There are some wonderful examples of municipal development by
Haringey, Camden, Hackney and Islington in that period, which was a high point
for housing, with a Labour Government providing sufficient resources and local
authorities with the imagination to develop new estates.”
I
congratulate the Government on the money that they have put in to estate
improvements, including new roofs, new windows and new landscaping. However,
the market created the housing crisis that the poorest people of London and the
south-east face at present. The market will not solve that crisis. It will be
solved only by sufficient public investment in new housing for build. The
Government should not tell those living in overcrowded, badly run, dilapidated
estates that the only way to improve their housing stock is to transfer to a
registered social landlord who will be allowed to build dozens, if not
hundreds, of properties to sell on the remaining bits of open land on those
estates. Working-class communities which suffered 18 years of cuts and abuse
under the Tories deserve better than that from a Labour Government, so I hope
that the Minister will understand the strong feelings that arise when there are
votes on housing transfer or, as occurred in Camden recently, on transfer to an
arm's-length management organisation.
It was a
presciently sad warning.
(Hansard, 12
January 2004 vol 416 cc531-641; http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/2004/jan/12/housing-bill#S6CV0416P1_20040112_HOC_322)
If we fast
forward to 11 May last year, we can see from the minutes of the Royal Borough
of Kensington and Chelsea’s Housing and Property Scrutiny Committee consideration
of a report on the Grenfell tower by the borough’s director of Housing
It stated” The purpose of this report is to provide
the Housing Property and Scrutiny Committee with information and
recommendations from the Board Member review of the Grenfell Tower regeneration
project…” and one conclusion stated”
“3.1 The Group recognised that there
were significant challenges with the project and acknowledged that residents
would have experienced inconvenience due to the nature of this type of
construction work.”
Colouring public
views of tower blocks
Three
years earlier, on 16 July 2013, the same housing scri utiny committee
considered a report on:
|
‘AN UPDATE ON GRENFELL TOWER IMPROVEMENT WORKS AND THE
RECENT POWER SURGES’
|
Under
a section headed ‘Planning Issues’
the report recorded:
4.1 In August 2012, a
planning application was submitted for the refurbishment proposals to Grenfell
Tower. Planners considered this application in November 2012 and have asked for
a resubmission including the following amendments:
Removal of the canopy at 1st floor level
Give further definition to the roof detailing
Consider alternative colour schemes.
4.2 The Grenfell Design
Team has been developing a revised and updated design ahead of a revised
planning submission.
And
under ‘Procurement’ they recorded:
“Since January, the design
team has been working with Leadbitter (the proposed contractor) to bring the
scheme within budget and to ensure that the project will deliver value for
money. Progress has been slow and Leadbitter currently estimate the cost of
works to be £11.278m (inclusive of fees), which is £1.6m above the current,
proposed budget.
Under
the headine ‘Resident Engagement’ the minutes recorded”
6.1 Resident
engagement in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower has been reviewed and actions agreed to ensure that all residents
have clear information about the current status of the scheme and are clear
about how they can influence the proposals”.
And
concluded:
“The refurbishment of Grenfell Tower is a large and complex
project and time and careful planning has been required to ensure that the
proposals and design of the scheme meet the requirements of residents, RBKC and
Planners. Particular focus has been
required to ensure that the project representing value for money.”
That is, external appearance and cost
cutting were prioritized.
A few months later, on 24
November 2016, a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Kensington and
Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation TMO
(KCTMO) that owns and manages the Grenfell Tower, reported a Health and Safety (Update 13)
on its residential tower blocks
“Grenfell Tower
refurbishment – close liaison with LFB [London Fire Brigade] and Fire Risk
Assessor throughout the duration of the project. At the conclusion of the work
some of the operational firefighters from the local Fire Station attended an
onsite
briefing where the
contractor demonstrated the fire safety features of the
building.
There is ongoing
work with LFB to ensure remaining high rise blocks are
prioritised for
familiarisation visits and where possible Home Fire Safety Visits
are offered.
We have provided a
range of ongoing publicity to residents, particularly in
relation to:
the “stay put”
fire strategy and procedures residents should follow in
event of a fire in
their flat or elsewhere in their block, and;
informing
leaseholders about the fire safety standards required of their
flat entrance
doors (existing and any planned replacement)
Further progress
has been made with the installation programme of hard-wired
automatic smoke
alarms in tenanted dwellings.
Currently
preparing bids for submission to the LFB for funding from their
Community Safety
Initiative. The aim of this fund is to target those most
vulnerable to fire
and identify effective strategies for reducing this risk. “
These words must be re-read with numbness now by the borough’s
housing officials
|
London
Assembly report warned of disaster to come
In December 2010, the capital city-wide London Assembly ‘s Planning and Housing Committee
released shamingly prescient report on Fire
risks in London's tall and timber framed buildings’ (https://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s2394/).
It
covered:
|
·
Building design and materials - the
building regulations;
·
Fire risks during construction
·
Fire risks in occupied buildings
·
Raising awareness - fire safety
information for tenants
In
the report’s forward, the committee chair, Labour’s Nicky Gavron and her deputy, the Green Party’s Jenny Jones
wrote: “ Since 1666 it has been recognised that London presents some very
specific challenges for building and fire regulation - and this remains true
today. Two pressing challenges are the increasing concentration of high rise
residential buildings in the capital, and the growing trend for timber frame
construction.
As
London's population continues to grow and we look to preserve London's green
spaces we are going to see a lot more people living at heights - already more
than half a million Londoners live in tall buildings. The drive to use more low
carbon construction materials will also shape London's housing mix as it
results almost inevitably in more timber framed buildings. As we build at
higher densities and with more environmentally friendly materials it is vital
to current and future residents that we get fire safety absolutely right.”
Perhaps the
most worrying finding of the committee was the following: ”Legislation now requires the owners of
buildings or ‚the Responsible Person‛ to undertake regularly reviewed risk
assessments of their buildings or to employ a competent person to do so.
The Committee has seen worrying
evidence that many of these risk assessments fall below the standards required; that
many staff are insufficiently trained to carry out risk assessments; and that
the advice and guidance given to staff is too complex. It is unacceptable that
one in five risk assessments in London are inadequate. There must be mandatory
minimum standards of competence for training and accrediting fire risk
assessors and this should be a legal requirement to comply with the relevant
fire safety regulations”.(my emphasis)
The report’s Executive summary stressed:
This inquiry was commissioned specifically to
look into issues around fire safety in London’s residential buildings, with a
particular focus on timber frame structures and tall buildings, and to make
recommendations to the Mayor of London and to Her Majesty's Government with
regard to building regulations.
London’s tall and timber framed residential
buildings present very different issues in terms of fire safety and the
potential impacts on lives and property but they are considered together in
this report because these two types of buildings are set to increase in the
capital.
Policy priorities demanding more new homes at
higher densities and the use of sustainable materials are driving an increase
in the number of tall and timber framed residential buildings in London, making
improving fire safety in these types of buildings critical.
Tall residential buildings are the home for more
than 527,000 Londoners. Fires at the highest levels are relatively rare but
when fires occur in them they are very dangerous. The biggest risk in the event
of fire is the inability for occupants to escape and evacuate the building.
These risks increase significantly as buildings get higher.”
The section
sub-headed ‘Identifying fire
risks in tall and timber framed buildings’
reported:
“All buildings have inherent strengths and
weaknesses and, whatever their construction method, are at risk from fire. This
report focuses on those two types of construction that seem to present the
greatest threat to Londoners in terms of scale and impact of any fire ” tall
residential buildings and those based on structural timber frames.
However, when fires occur in occupied tall
buildings they are potentially very dangerous and the biggest risk in the event
of fire is the inability for occupants to escape and evacuate the building.
Tower blocks have largely been built with the concept of ‚stay in place‛
protection. It is usual that only the occupants directly involved in the flat
where the fire occurs will need to escape. The remainder of the occupants
should be safe to stay in their premises unless evacuated by the fire service
if the fire spreads.”
Legislation and application to the
building process
1.24
There is a significant body of relevant legislation that applies to residential
buildings ” including building design and materials, construction methods, and
post occupation risk assessment.
It
worryingly points out “Over time there has been a moving away from prescriptive
regulation to functional requirements with non-mandatory guidance issued by
DCLG and its predecessors.”
Under the heading ‘Building design and materials - the building’ it stated:
“Over
the last 40 years previous building standards and regulations reviewed, updated
and incorporated into the Approved Documents to the Building Regulations. These
Approved Documents offer practical guidance on ways to comply with the
functional requirements in the Building Regulations. In terms of fire safety,
the Regulations and guidance documents set out the minimum period of fire
resistance for different parts of a building.
It stresses: “There is a view among some in the
construction industry and the fire services that the Approved Documents are not keeping pace with innovation in the
construction industry and, when they are amended, the changes tend to be
reactive and not wide ranging enough” (emphasis added)
Under the sub-headline ‘Fire risks in occupied buildings’ it stresses:
The
management of fire risk in occupied residential buildings is governed by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005
(Fire Safety Order) and the Housing Acts 1985 and 2004.
4.2
When the Fire Safety Order came into effect in 2006 it applied to over 600,000
premises in London. It rationalised over 90 pieces of fire safety legislation
and gave responsibilities for fire prevention and protection measures to the
‚Responsible Person‛ who normally is the employer or owner in control of a
building. The Responsible Person is required to undertake regularly reviewed
risk assessments of their buildings or to employ a competent person to do so.
Fire Authorities retain the legal ability and duty to audit buildings to check
compliance with the regulations and are responsible for the enforcement of
these preventative and protective measures.
4.3
The Housing Acts 1985 and 2004 apply regulation and control to residential
property, including high rise blocks. These Acts make housing authorities
specifically responsible for keeping the condition of all housing in their
area, including their own housing stock, under review and for checking all
aspects of health and safety, including fire safety.
Fire risk assessments
4.5 Risk assessments are now the cornerstone of
managing fire safety. A fire risk assessment is an organised and methodical
look at a building, the activities carried out there and the likelihood that a
fire could start and cause harm to those in and around the building. It places
direct significance on the introduction of preventative measures and protective
measures to deal with remaining risk to protect people from death or injury in
the event of fire38.
4.6 The Committee has heard evidence that many of
these risk assessments are inadequate. The Committee supports the view of the
Chief Fire Officers Association that there are an excessive number of poor
quality risk assessments being done by Responsible Persons or consultants that
they engage, which fall significantly short of confirming whether buildings and
their subsequent refurbishment works are protected from fire39.
4.7
In 2006 (the first year of operation of the Fire Safety Order) the London Fire
Brigade completed around 10,000 inspections. About 40 per cent to 50 per cent of fire risk assessments were
deficient in some aspect. (emphasis added) According to the London Fire
Brigade the situation is improving but in 2009 of the 15,000 inspections
undertaken across a range of categories of building approximately 18 per cent
to 20 per cent of risk assessments were still found to be in need of some
remedial action40.
4.8
After the Lakanal House fire it was
reported that one leading residential management services company undertook an
inspection of 500 tall buildings across London and the south east and found 12
per cent of apartment blocks contained serious fire hazards (emphasis
added)
In
the past year the Fire Brigade and Tenant Services Authority have found it
necessary to remind landlords of their responsibilities over this matter and
the BBC reported that its investigation uncovered at least 300 high-rises in
London that had no valid risk assessment from the landlord.
4.9 It is of concern to Committee Members that there
is evidence of the absence of appropriate fire safety measures, and this cannot
be right.
Risk assessors deficient
4.10 The Committee has heard that
many staff are insufficiently trained to carry out risk assessments; that the
advice and guidance given to staff is too complex; there is confusion over what
constitutes a sufficient risk assessment; and there is ambiguity around the
definitions of competent and qualified persons who are expected to carry out
risk assessments. Unsurprisingly there are calls to have a defined standard of
competency for people undertaking risk assessments and a register that assures
quality.
It concluded,
emphasising :
1.22 Fire risks increase significantly as buildings get
higher. This is reflected in the design requirements related to fire-fighting
that must be observed for tall buildings such as protected staircases, fire
fighting shafts and fire suppression systems (e.g. sprinklers) to allow fire
fighters to quickly access the fire source.
1.23 A further risk highlighted to the Committee
concerns the risk from inappropriate modifications that may compromise certain
fire safety features that are designed to reduce the spread of fire. “
Local Government Association issued
stark warning
Sixteen months after the London Assembly report,
the national Local Government Association,
publishe d its own report – but actually
commissioned by Government- on ‘Fire safety in purpose-built blocks of flats.’ In a media release dated 1st May 2012, the
report noted “Following the Lakanal House fire inquest, the Coroner produced a
number of recommendations which are being addressed by the Fire Sector, Local
authorities and Government. We have consulted Government and other partners on
the implications of the recommendations for this guidance and they are
satisfied that the guidance remains appropriate
A
section headed ‘External fire-spread’ stated boldly:
“72.1 The external façades of blocks of flats should
not provide potential for extensive firespread. When assessing existing blocks
of flats, particular attention should be given to any rainscreen or other
external cladding system that has been applied and to façades that have been
replaced.
72.2 The use of combustible cladding materials and
extensive cavities can present a risk, particularly in high-rise blocks.
Restrictions are normally applied to the nature of such materials and in
particular their surface spread of flame characteristics. Cavity barriers are
also required in some circumstances. Assistance from specialists may be
required to determine if the external surfaces of walls are satisfactory and
whether there is adequate provision of cavity barriers.
MPs
warning decade earlier
Yet almost 13 years earlier, the House of
Commons Select Committee on Environment,
Transport and Regional Affairs issued a very strong report highlighting their concerns over the fire risk from external
cladding on high rise apartment blocks.
The report explained
|
- whether a risk is
posed by such cladding;
- the extent of the use of external cladding systems; - the adequacy of the regulations pertaining to their use; - what action may be necessary to counter any risks posed in existing buildings and to avoid any risks in new buildings or alterations to existing buildings; - other matters which may arise in the course of questioning.”
The
report noted the Committee had “ received 18 written memoranda, and received
28 replies to a letter which we sent to the housing departments of all
metropolitan borough councils to try to assess the extent of any risk which
might be posed by the use of such systems.. and also took
oral evidence from seven sets of witnesses.”
Under the sub-heading “ Regulations pertaining to the fire safety of external cladding
systems” the committee explained “. In England and Waleswhere new
buildings are erected, or existing buildings are materially altered, or (in
certain cases) where there is a material change of use, the work is required
to comply with the Building Regulations 1991. Schedule 1 of the Regulations
contains the functional requirements: the section relevant to cladding
systems is Requirement B(4), which states:
'The external walls of the
building shall resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building
to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building.'
Guidance on how to comply with the
Regulations is given in Approved Document B (fire safety). This document
provides guidance only: contractors are not required to follow its
requirements provided that they can prove to the satisfaction of the local
authority building standards officer that they have met the requirement of
the Building Regulations in some other way. The guidance relevant to cladding
systems includes the following:
(a) Any insulation material used in cladding on
buildings over 20 metres tall should be of 'limited combustibility';
(b) External
surfaces (and hence cladding) closer than 1 metre to another building should
be of a material classified as 'Class O' for spread of fire,
to reduce the risk of fire spread to neighbouring buildings;
(c) External
surfaces (and hence cladding) more than 20 metres from ground level should be
'Class O', to reduce the risk of fire at heights which are difficult to reach
from firefighting operations on the ground;
(d) Where
there is a gap between the cladding and the wall of the building, the
provisions of (b) and (c) above also apply to the inside face of the
cladding;
(e) Where
the building has a floor at more than 20 metres height, and there is a gap
between the cladding and the wall of the building, this gap should be fire
stopped, to prevent the fire spreading up the inside of the cladding.
Witnesses
to the inquiry (including the Fire Brigades Union, the Loss Prevention Council (technical advisers to the
insurance industry), manufacturers of external cladding systems, and
independent fire safety consultants damningly suggested that the guidance given in
Approved Document B
“may not be adequate for the
purposes of ensuring the safety of external cladding systems in a fire. We
were also told in oral evidence by Peter Field of the Buildings Research
Establishment, which has done a great deal of work on these issues, that the
existing guidance "is far from being totally adequate".
The MPs
stressed their “ witnesses' chief concerns lay with the risk of unexpectedly
rapid fire spread involving these systems, which, it was suggested, may have
a number of adverse consequences of which the existing guidance does not
necessarily take full account. These are:
Witnesses also raised a number of
other potential problems, the MPs pointed out, of which existing tests may not take proper account: (my emphasis)
12. Witnesses' complaints about
the adequacy of the guidance focus on the methods of testing a material for
resistance to fire spread. The classifications 'limited combustibility' and
'Class O' referred to in Approved Document B rely on small-scale tests
conducted in laboratory conditions.
Even more damningly, It was
suggested that these tests “do not
properly evaluate the performance of large, complete, cladding systems in a
'live' fire situation.” (my emphasis)
In a chillingly prescient passage,
they note “Concerns about the fire safety of external cladding systems are
not new. A fire which occurred in a tower block in Knowsley in 1991 was
started at ground floor level and spread up 11 floors behind 'rainscreen'
cladding. The inquiry which followed this fire resulted in a change to
Approved Document B which provided for the requirements for 'Class O'
material to be used on both the inside and outside of external cladding, and
to include 'fire stopping' in the gap between the cladding and the wall of
the building (see (d) and (e) in paragraph 7 above).
And added “The evidence we have received
strongly suggests that the small-scale tests which are currently used to
determine the fire safety of external cladding systems are not fully
effective in evaluating their performance in a 'live' fire situation. As a
more appropriate test for external cladding systems now exists, we see no
reason why it should not be used.
They finally recommended that
“the
responsible government department ( then DETR) and the Housing Corporation
instruct local authorities and Registered Social Landlords] to undertake a
review of their existing building stock with a view to ascertaining how many
multi-storey buildings are currently using external cladding systems; and how
many cladding systems are in use which, whilst complying with the regulations
in force at the time when they were installed, do not comply with current
Regulations.
“Competent fire safety assessors should then be called in to evaluate
what work may be necessary to ensure that no undue risk is posed by any of
these systems, with particular reference to the lessons learnt from the fires
at Knowsley Heights and Garnock Court. Local authorities and Registered
Social Landlords should also be instructed to monitor existing cladding
systems carefully to ensure that the materials from which they are
constructed do not degrade over time and become less resistant to flame
spread than they were at the time of construction.”
If only these recommendations had been heeded, the
residents of Grenfell Tower may now
still be safe at home and alive.
May’s fire risk warnings
The Home Office, under Theresa May’s
leadership, issued a suite of documents in late December 2012 on fire safety.
The information note stressed that these guides:
On 5 January
2016 responsibility for fire and rescue policy transferred from the Department
for Communities and Local Government to the Home Office.
Despite all these warnings, the RBKC web site
currently posts this complacent advice on its web site:
Fire safety advice
The Royal Borough has some of the
largest Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in the country, with properties
often comprising five or more storeys, and containing up to thirty dwellings.
Tackling fire safety protects residents from unsafe conditions.
Compulsory licensing of HMOs was
introduced by the Housing Act 2004. It applies to all privately rented HMOs
that are three or more storeys high, occupied by five or more people who form
more than one household, and where there is some sharing of amenities.
A programme of inspections takes
place to tackle high-risk HMOs to ensure that means of escape and adequate
fire safety measures are in place and to identify unlicensed HMOs.
There is an overlapping fire safety
responsibility between the Council and the London Fire Brigade (LFB). Owners
are required to carry out a fire risk assessment and make an emergency plan.
The fire risk assessment is a systematic examination of the premises to
identify the hazards from fire which must be recorded.
The Council enforces the Housing
Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) in the private sector under the
Housing Act 2004. The HHSRS is a ‘risk based’ assessment of the risks to
safety from fire and other hazards. The Council has a range of enforcement
powers to ensure that premises are made safe. Management Regulations in HMOs
also impose requirements that fire safety measures are maintained.
|
|
Painful lessons
In a report published on 13 July last year
by the by the RBKC’s Kensington and Chelsea Tenant
Management Organisation’s (KCTMO) Performance Review 2015/16 conclusion 3.1 reads “KCTMO has demonstrated its on-going
commitment to providing quality housing management services and to being the
key strategic and residents across a range of operational areas. As well as
delivery against the agreed performance indicators the pro-active asset
management ensures that the Borough’s stock, both residential and commercial,
is being maximized in terms of use and rental income; compliance with audit and health and
safety legislation protects both residents and the Council’s standing (emphasis
added); and adapting and working with the Borough to implement new
legislation and working practices ensures that the Borough continues to provide
quality housing services within the resources available.” (https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/committees/Document.ashx?czJKcaeAi5tUFL1DTL2UE4zNRBcoShgo=n8m4zMmDY1c3CT1Axtvam89l1zhUTWepu0FGSX2ApeWEckfX31RY%2bg%3d%3d&rUzwRPf%2bZ3zd4E7Ikn8Lyw%3d%3d=pwRE6AGJFLDNlh225F5QMaQWCtPHwdhUfCZ%2fLUQzgA2uL5jNRG4jdQ%3d%3d&mCTIbCubSFfXsDGW9IXnlg%3d%3d=hFflUdN3100%3d&kCx1AnS9%2fpWZQ40DXFvdEw%3d%3d=hFflUdN3100%3d&uJovDxwdjMPoYv%2bAJvYtyA%3d%3d=ctNJFf55vVA%3d&FgPlIEJYlotS%2bYGoBi5olA%3d%3d=NHdURQburHA%3d&d9Qjj0ag1Pd993jsyOJqFvmyB7X0CSQK=ctNJFf55vVA%3d&WGewmoAfeNR9xqBux0r1Q8Za60lavYmz=ctNJFf55vVA%3d&WGewmoAfeNQ16B2MHuCpMRKZMwaG1PaO=ctNJFf55vVA%3d)A
An annex on enagaging residents records without any apparent irony:
The Communities outreach project has
been extremely successful and has engaged with 400 residents and their families
that KCTMO has not worked with before. The
project was nominated for an award by the Nation Federation of ALMOs)
(arms-length management organisations
for local government)
I doubt anyone would nominate either the RBKC
or the K&C TMO for any community
award after the past week’s traumatic events in North Kensington, which
could have been avoided had those in responsible positions been more
responsible in their decisions and actions. After all, they were warned, many
times!
A shorter version was published in the Morning Star on 3 July at:
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-430c-We-have-no-plans-to-add-to-the-burden-of-regulation#.WVoZ_OSWyM8
No comments:
Post a Comment