Can we assume that newly built homes passed by inspectors have been constructed to fire safety standards set out in building regulations? If a recent case is anything to go by we can't, says David Sugden.

Picture this. The call goes out to attend a fire in a small, up-market block of luxury apartments in, say, London's docklands. The occupants are probably still in the building but they have plenty of warning – the fire is in a kitchen at the back of the building, so they should be able to get out safely. The building is new, so you assume it's been built to comply with all the current codes, and it has been passed by an authorised inspector, so you are confident the fire will be contained to its point of origin because all new buildings are compartmentalised – that's the law.

But in fact this building has no compartmentation. Individual flats are not separated by correctly constructed party walls, but by simple plasterboard because the flats were fitted out as ‘pods', with no provision for fire safety. The steel columns forming the main supports of the building are not coated with fire-protective materials – in the event of a fire they could collapse, bringing down the whole building. Shafts run from one apartment to another. In a fire, these would act as chimneys, passing the smoke throughout the building, accelerating the spread of fire and killing people who are nowhere near the source. None of the required built-in fire protection measures is present in this apartment block.

So the small fire you think is no big deal could very well spring out at you from any direction. No amount of sprinklers would have saved the occupants, firefighters or the building in the event of a serious fire. They would quickly be overwhelmed.

Do they mean us?

It couldn't happen here, could it? Wrong! In a recent, shocking, article in the London Evening Standard, Andrew Gilligan wrote about the Pacific Wharf luxury apartment building in Rotherhithe. The building had problems with the roof – it was leaking and although it had supposedly been put right, the problem did not go away.

When the matter was investigated properly it was discovered that not only was the roof badly constructed but the whole building was a potential death-trap. All the problems listed above were present in one building, inspected and passed by the National House Building Council (NHBC). The NHBC is currently putting things right – in effect, re-building it, in what is reported to be the largest single remediation project they have ever carried out.

Firefighters' organisations often focus on active measures such as sprinklers and smoke alarms. The Communities and Local Government department's current campaign rightly brings home the importance of early warning of fire in the home. But if sprinklers and smoke alarms are present in a building like Pacific Wharf, they lead the occupants to think everything to do with fire protection is in order. In fact, for sprinklers to work, the building must be constructed to withstand fire. The single most important element of fire protection is rarely mentioned. It's easy to see, and understand what sprinklers and smoke alarms do. But it's compartmentation which saves lives and buildings.

Obviously, it's vital to preserve life, but it is also important to minimise the damage to property. Compartmentation allows occupants to leave a burning building, and allows firefighters to get in, tackle the fire, and leave safely. It confines fire to its point of origin, so damage from flames, smoke and water is also minimised. Once compartmentation is built in it needs little maintenance - no batteries to be checked, no water supply to maintain, no foam to replace, no chemicals to top up. All that's necessary is to make sure the gaps are plugged if any of the elements of the compartment have been pierced by, for example, new plumbing or electric cabling.

It is easy to think that because there is legislation, everyone complies with it, but it is obvious from the Pacific Wharf case this cannot be taken for granted. Since the law changed in 2006, the fire service doesn't inspect every public and multiple occupancy building and issue a fire certificate. The onus is now on the owner or operator of these buildings to perform risk assessments and produce a fire safety plan. This could mean that risk assessments are being produced by people who have no idea about passive fire protection, or of what to look for in terms of built-in fire safety.

The average person in a newly built home will probably have no idea about compartmentation, or any other passive fire protection, but will probably assume current building regulations must be protection enough. Technically, that should be the case – current regulations are stringent and if followed will meet a high safety standard. But consider this. A 2007 survey carried out by the Home Builders Federation, which represents the builders of more than 80% of new homes, reported that a staggering 39% of occupiers found there were more snags than they had expected. One in five was dissatisfied with the condition of the home when they moved in and 18% regarded the finish as poor. And that is just what can be seen. It is naïve to think that a builder who skimps on the finish has nevertheless complied with all the relevant building regulations on what can't be seen. In the Pacific Wharf building a leaking roof, balconies without adequate support and problems with windows and doors led to the shocking discoveries regarding the lack of fire protection. If the quality of the finish hadn't been as bad as they were, a major fire disaster could have been the first indication of unseen problems.

Cost considerations

In theory, any defects in construction are picked up by the relevant authorised inspector/NHBC or local authority Building Control. But Pacific Wharf was inspected by the NHBC, and passed. That fire protection was so blatantly omitted in an upmarket block of apartments raises questions about this specific case, and others. We rely on builders to obey the regulations and authorities to make sure they do. So how could Pacific Wharf happen? Have other buildings escaped detection too? Contractors get work on lowest price tenders and if they can cut corners then sadly, many will. The government's aim to cut fire casualties will have most success if domestic fire losses are cut, because that is where most deaths and serious injuries occur. But this case shows we have some serious work to do.

The Passive Fire Protection Federation advocates the use of third party certification to ensure that at least in public buildings and apartment blocks (which account for around 50% of new homes), the installation of passive fire protection measures will be done properly. The PFPF website  has a diagram available to download, on what to look for in built-in fire protection. There is also a free guide on third party certification.

Education is the key. Fire service professionals need to be aware of the importance to their work and safety, of built-in fire protection. Well designed compartmentation – which is inspected and maintained – saves lives and saves buildings.