Brian Robinson argues that if fire protection measures in practice lived up to current guidance and standards, we would have safer buildings.
For the past year I have been questioning whether the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, CDM Regulations 2007 and Regulation 16B of the Building Regulations were working together to raise installation of appropriate fire protection measures in the UK. Have matters improved? Sadly, I think not.
This is a shame because the new system is a good one and the Audit Commission, in its determination of this new approach, was very clear about the safeguards needed to ensure public safety.
At present, during the transition, however, I cannot see much in the way of national audit to ensure the safety of people in this country. Nor can I see much assurance regarding stability in the safety process and a continued process of fire protection – consistent with the record of its predecessor arrangements.
Perhaps the biggest challenges that the fire protection industry faces today are apathy, ignorance and denial.
We have been told many times recently that unlike the environment, fire has no priority on the political agenda. This is not just by the current government, but by all the political parties. You will, of course, hear all of the politicians’ required sound bites calling for action, or calls for an enquiry following the tragedy of a major fire. But when the dust settles, is there really any action that manifests itself into tangible reality?
We all recall the scene of the tragic fire at Lakanal House that unfolded on our television screens recently, in which six people sadly lost their lives. At the time the media were asking the obvious question – ‘How could this happen?’
One off?
More appropriately perhaps and in risk terms, we should be enquiring about the combination of events that led to such an outcome. Was Lakanal House a one-off, or is it symptomatic of a much more deeply rooted problem? And are there other elements which contribute to a picture of worsening public fire protection in the UK?
Well, a couple of sobering thoughts have emerged recently. Firstly, according to a BBC investigation in September, at least 300 social housing high-rise blocks in London had no valid fire check from their local authority, which in the words of the BBC, ‘was a criminal offence’.
Lakanal House gained national media attention. Why? Because people died. Only then were questions asked of other local authorities, to ascertain their legal requirement to undertake fire risk assessment. A lot of people will view the BBC’s exposé as merely the tip of the iceberg.
Secondly, what has happened to the fire loss figures? The Association of British Insurers (ABI) has released its latest figures on fire losses in the UK and they are up by some 16% to £1.3 billion – a record high! With regard to life loss figures, all the signs are that we will see a significant rise over the next year.
Such a combination of factors should at least raise the question – why?
Many protection arrangements are based upon ‘compartmentation’ and the fact that if fire breaks out, the fabric and structure of any given building is designed to behave in a certain way. This expectation is not just to keep people safe whilst they are in the building when a fire is in progress, but also to enable them to leave and, not least, for the firefighters who have to enter in such circumstances.
Much has been made in recent times of the fact that disasters could have been avoided by much tighter Building Regulations, and I share this view. However, it is arguably just as true to state that if appropriate fire protection measures were installed correctly, in accordance with the guidance of the current Building Regulations, then both the human and financial cost would be considerably reduced.
Which moves me from the issue of apathy, to the issue of ignorance.
No excuse
Ignorance can manifest itself in one of two ways; either as a lack of knowledge, or worse, as a wilful neglect or refusal to acquire knowledge to which one should be duty bound. The journey from the architect’s initial design to the occupancy by the building owner or tenant is one loaded with opportunity for error compounded on error, so let’s take a little risk based journey for the benefit of the uninitiated:
Risk Point 1
The architect specifies the requirement for and type of passive fire protection needed to satisfy the regulatory needs for his building design.
Architects know that Regulation 16B is important, but these days they do not go, or are not allowed by the contract to go, onto the building site to check work.
If the building is to be designed utilising a fire engineering approach then the required passive fire protection may already be calculated to a minimum.
Risk Point 2
Under a duty of care in accordance with current CDM regulations the main contractor must appoint a ‘competent’ installer to carry out the fire protection works. Given that there is no legal requirement for him to appoint a third party certificated installer, he may feel free to interpret competency as he sees fit, based on the boundaries of his knowledge of fire protection, or as is often more likely to be the case, through reliance of the information given to him by the contractor he wishes to appoint.
In a market where price is everything, selective hearing on what is an appropriate solution may well prove to be the order of the day.
Risk Point 3
Often, defects are caused by mixed trade contracts where accountability is lacking, or when follow-on trades cause damage to the excellent work they inherit. Most frequently, the subsequent addition of new services – IT cables included – directly damage the fire stopping provisions originally provided.
Unless such damage is picked up and made good in a competent way then the fire performance of the building will not be fit for purpose.
Risk Point 4
If the final building inspection process does not identify any failing in the passive fire protection measures (and remember that at this stage many such areas will be concealed from inspection), then in accordance with Regulation 16b of the Building Regulations, the passive fire protection provision details will be passed onto the owner of the building as fit for purpose.
Risk Point 5
Under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 the employer, owner or person in control of the building, as the ‘Responsible Person’, now takes on the legal responsibility for the fire safety of all those in a building. If he does not feel competent to carry out a risk assessment himself or for it to be handled in house, he may seek external guidance. But without appropriate knowledge will he be in a position to judge the competency of those he decides to employ?
As matters stand, there are no qualifications required to become a fire risk assessor. Therefore without the appropriate knowledge and observational skills it is highly likely that deficient, inappropriate or missing passive fire protection measures will go undetected.
In denial?
This brings me nicely on to my final suggested challenge, that of denial! When you take delivery of a new car, do you give much thought to the process of manufacture or how it was inspected before delivery? Would you ask yourself the question, ‘I assume they put some brakes in it’ or ‘is this steering wheel connected correctly’ or perhaps more importantly ‘will my family be safe in this vehicle?’
If you think that way about a car, why should the same rules not apply to fire protection measures? The risks are the same – get it wrong and you run the risk of killing or seriously injuring occupants, or at best ruining the lives of those that depend on it.
And finally, with an eye on the future, climate change is one issue that is right at the top of everyone’s agenda. In fact, if you take the view that man is not responsible for global warming you are likely to be accused of ‘being in denial’!
Be that as it may, it is equally true that to progress a path toward sustainable, zero carbon living is just as foolhardy if the types of construction created develop a significantly greater risk of fire. For example, we recently witnessed a major fire in Peckham where a partially constructed timber framed building was not only completely destroyed itself, but caused the fire to spread to other occupied buildings.
Many in our industry will have seen the way in which the fire stopping process can be abused in such construction types and this – coupled with the potential use of more combustible (but energy efficient) – materials could result in another environmental time bomb legacy for future generations.
Brian Robinson, CBE, QFSM, FIFireE is president of the Association for Specialist Fire Protection (ASFP).
