Risky business

In 2009 a fire at Southwark Council’s Lakanal House, a 14-storey tower block, claimed the lives of six people. Two years later many questions remain unanswered but the tragedy has certainly made the social housing sector sit up and take notice. Michelle McKenna reports

Social landlords have a duty to take general fire precautions in all of their properties and most will have hard wired smoke alarms fitted but fire safety becomes a little more complex where tower blocks are concerned. Tower blocks have in-built fire safety measures and flats are designed as separate compartments to contain a fire for a set amount of time and prevent it from spreading.

While standards are constantly changing the measures stipulated by the building standards of the 1960s – when many social housing tower blocks were built – still stand good today.

The investigation into the tragic deaths at Lakanal House has been a long and drawn out affair, with many questions yet to be answered. But what is apparent is that the blaze spread quickly.

Since that fateful day a number of recommendations have been made and fire safety in tower blocks and fire risk assessments have come under close scrutiny.

Landlords’ responsibilities are outlined in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, which stipulates that properties must undergo a fire risk assessment carried out by a competent person.

But while there are highly skilled assessors the task is often carried out by people who are not suitably qualified and there seems to be a degree of confusion as to what exactly makes somebody “competent”. “Competency is a blend of training, knowledge and experience so it is not just a qualification,” says Ben Bradford managing director of BB 7 Fire Risk & Resilience.

He says that in many cases the word “risk” gets lost from the term “fire risk assessment” and it is actually an audit that takes place often advising the implementation of features which are not really needed.

“You just need to grasp whether the risk is significant or it isn’t,” says Bradford. “Fire risk is a two-part concept comprising of likelihood and consequences so something can be really likely to occur but not that consequential or not likely to occur but have significant consequences if it does. Fire risk might result due to poor design and often arises as a result of poor management.”

The Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA) has run a series of seminars for housing professionals in conjunction with the CIH and its research has shown that the majority of landlords are not certain what an effective sufficient risk assessment is and not confident in the people that they have doing them.

Inadequate measures are often installed and unnecessary works carried out as a result of poorly conducted risk assessments says B radford, citing a case of heat detectors being placed on open balconies.

“RSL s have suffered the cost of incompetency when fire risk assessors who haven’t got an adequate understanding of the term fire risk have encouraged their clients to do fire door replacement programmes and put fire detection and fire extinguishers in common parts when this is unnecessary,” he says. “If an organisation has a budget to spend on fire safety it is better to channel their finite resources to where they make the most significant contribution.

Many fatalities occur in the room of fire origin and so fire detection inside the dwelling would probably be the most cost effective and significant improvement to the standard of life safety, that one could make.”

Tony Prosser the CFOA’s lead on social housing agrees that there is a problem with the quality of some fire risk assessments and says that in many cases tragedy has been averted by the success of the fundamental fire safety principles of building design. “By and large the physical precautions built into the buildings at the time of origin still do their job,” he says. “We did some research into high rise fires in the West Midlands and of about 400 fires in reference only one extended beyond the flat of origin, so everything worked and the fire was confined to the room of origin.”

Southampton Council’s Shirley Towers was the scene of a 2010 fire which claimed the lives of two firefighters.

The investigation into the deaths of Alan Bannon and James Shears is still ongoing but what is clear is that despite the tragic outcome of the blaze the in-built fire safety standards stood firm and the fire didn’t spread beyond the flat of origin on the ninth floor.

The vast majority of residents remained in their homes throughout as per the council’s stay put policy and only 40 of the 150 flats were evacuated.

“The fire went on for two and three quarters to three hours and was contained within the individual flat,” explains Nick Cross, head of council housing. “You may have seen some of the pictures of the flames and smoke billowing out of the building and that is the effect of the window in the flat itself blowing out but the flames didn’t penetrate any of the other flats either below or above or to the side.

“The buildings are constructed as a compartment so each of the individual units are constructed to contain the fire for up to two hours and in fact the flat performed over and above its specification and the fire door on the front of the flat completely withheld the fire inside.”

The majority of damage was caused by smoke permeating into the corridors and from water used by the fire brigade to tackle the blaze. The block was fitted with all of the standard fire safety measures including fire resistant doors in communal areas and on individual flats, fire alarm systems and smoke detectors and there were two residential tower block wardens living in the building tasked with carrying out daily checks on fire doors, windows and fittings. Also just a month prior to the blaze Shirley Towers had passed a fire risk assessment carried out with Hampshire Fire and Rescue.

But despite the clean bill of health given before the blaze, in hindsight Hampshire Fire and Rescue felt that there were some issues which could have been handled more robustly and has made further recommendations. Although there is no implication that the original fire safety measures failed or that the council had not taken sufficient precautions.

“We have worked with them over the last 12 months to rectify any little bits that they wanted to do and subsequent to that the fire risk assessments that we now do with Hampshire Fire and Rescue are far more rigorous,” says Cross. “We have also commissioned an independent firm of consultants to give us their fire risk assessment to make sure that we leave no stone unturned.” Since the fire, a lockable box – accessible via a standard master key – has been installed containing building layouts, copies of asbestos checks, copies of fire risk assessments, and details of vulnerable residents who would need support and assistance in the event of an evacuation.

“We had all of that in place before but it was not in an easy accessible location for somebody to come and get if they just had to come into the block in an emergency,” says Cross.

Also a window in one of the corridors, which had been screwed shut is now secured by padlocks which can be opened using a master key. “We previously had people throwing objects out of those windows so we had screwed them shut but although it is not a fire escape window, when the corridor was full
of smoke the fire brigade wanted to open a window to clear the smoke and weren’t able to,” explains Cross.

Other changes have included increased emergency lighting, which is now tested monthly rather than quarterly, additional signage and additional smoke detectors. A planned Decent Homes refurbishment programme, which had to be postponed because of the fire, has been upgraded to include the painting of communal areas with fire resistant paint, the installation of LED lighting, which is less prone to vandalism, and new updated fire resistant front doors.

It has also worked with Hampshire Fire and Rescue to ensure easier access for tower cranes, and has worked closely with fire brigades from nearby rural regions, who may be called out to a big blaze but have no experience of fighting fires in tower blocks.

While tower blocks were built with fire safety in mind measures designed to stop a blaze from spreading are sometimes overlooked when refurbishment and repair works take place and are often rendered obsolete or even removed.

As Prosser explains: “The fundamental principles still stand good but what you have had over the years is a number of alterations and people putting in satellite T V and air conditioning systems which have breached the fire resistance in these buildings so you end up compromising the fire safety”. He cites a case where a fire crew went to a tower block on an operational visit to asses access routes, fire doors etc and found 86 problems including fire resistant glazing having been replaced by P erspex, which melts in a fire, and doors being taken out and not replaced.

In a letter to registered social landlords shortly after the Lakanal House blaze Terrie Alafat CLG director housing delivery and homelessness said: “One of the areas likely to be subject to investigation is the integrity of the passive fire protection measures following major refurbishment or alterations. With this in mind, you should clearly specify passive fire protection measures when undertaking major refurbishment or alteration works. It is important to ensure these are understood by both the main contractor of the work as well as those contracted to install or alter the protection.”

Sometimes fire safety measures are compromised by the action of tenants and Right to Buy has played a part with people who have bought their flats replacing fire resistant front doors with UP VC doors which have no fire resistance, for example.

This is an issue that faced Southampton Council following the blaze. “When we went into some of the properties that had smoke damage we uncovered some situations that highlighted potential risk,” says Cross. “Each property has its own fire escape door onto another floor and some of the residents had padlocked that door which meant than in the case of a fire they wouldn’t be able to get out. People had also carried out some unauthorised electrical works, maybe knocked a wall through or taken off a fire door so things like that which were potentially putting themselves at risk were identified.”

The council has now introduced annual tenancy checks. “Our particular emphasis is around ensuring that we know who lives in the property, that the property is safe if there are any fire issues, that we provide support and guidance to residents and remind them about certain things if we need to,” says Cross. “We have also looked at all of the front doors in our tower blocks and identified where someone might have changed the front door and double checked that it is still a fire door. S ome of our leaseholders have done that so we are now working with them to make sure that they understand their overall obligations to the block as well and to replace as necessary.”

Southampton Council is not alone and many registered social landlords have been reviewing and upgrading fire safety measures. South Essex Homes, for example, is undertaking a £3 million fire safety improvement programme to its 13 tower blocks.

The sector has clearly responded to the wakeup call but there is still work to be done – fire safety after all is truly a matter of life and death.