You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
‘Substantial risk’ to life found in eight tower blocks
Fire safety failings in eight tower blocks around England were so severe they posed a “substantial risk” to the lives of tenants, according to their fire risk assessments.
Inside Housing reviewed 436 risk assessments in a major investigation into fire safety into high-rise blocks in England in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower disaster.
In eight (see table below), fire risk assessors deemed risks – such as non-resistant fire doors, unprotected ducts running vertically through the building, and the build-up of waste in communal areas – so serious that the buildings posed a “substantial” risk to life.
READ MORE
Two of these towers – Babington Court and Chancellors Court in Camden, London – were assessed as posing the substantial risk in 2012.
The assessor, Hoare Lea, found evidence of tenants smoking in communal areas and stubbing out cigarettes on flammable uPVC windows. Fire doors were found not to be fire resistant, storage space was provided in drying rooms, and smoke alarms and vents were vandalised.
The 14-storey buildings, which contain a combined 112 flats, sit in Bloomsbury in the heart of central London and neighbour Great Ormond Street children’s hospital.
A council spokesperson said: “Following the 2012 assessments, the council carried out works to address highlighted issues, including to tenants’ front entrance doors, emergency lighting and communal doors.”
It said the buildings had been given a normal rating in updated assessments in June – five years after the substantial risk to life grading was put in place.
The other six towers deemed to pose a substantial risk to life were Mount Court and Bishops Court in Guildford, Boyswell House in Wigan, Sturminster House in Southampton, Ratcliffe Towers in Stockport, and Queensway House in Welwyn Hatfield.
The buildings were found to have a multitude of fire safety issues, including doors, escape routes and unprotected vertical ducts which could allow flames to spread.
In Sturminster House in Southampton, which was assessed in January, the risk assessor found rubbish around the building which was deemed to pose an arson risk, poor escape lighting and trip hazards on the escape route, a lack of smoke seals on fire doors, and plastic cables in common areas.
A spokesperson said the risk assessment was “a snapshot of the risks that were present at the time” and “the most pressing issues were addressed immediately”, with other measures forming part of a wider programme of works.
There is no requirement for fire risk assessments (FRAs) to provide a formal risk grading and no requirement for the assessor to be qualified, with many amounting to little more than a tick box exercise following an examination of the building’s communal areas.
Risk assessments of 77 other towers seen by Inside Housing contained no risk grading at all, while many were graded as posing a “tolerable” risk despite a wide array of problems.
The information commissioner this week said councils and housing associations should “proactively” publish risk assessments as a matter of course.
Cases in which assessors deemed there to be a substantial risk to life
| Tower block | Council | Risk assessor | Date of assessment | Main issues (not exhaustive) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Babington Court | Camden | Hoare Lea | May-12 | Smoking in common areas, drying rooms used as storage by residents, some flat doors not fire resistant, ventilation didn’t meet building regulations in only means of escape |
| Chancellors Court | Camden | Hoare Lea | May-12 | Items stored in corridors, fire exit at base of stairs didn’t close properly, flat doors not up to standard, ventilation didn’t meet building regulations |
| Bishops Court | Guildford | Fire Safety First | Jun-17 | Unprotected ducts travel vertically through flats, some flats without smoke detectors, excessive gaps in stairwell doors |
| Mount Court | Guildford | Fire Safety First | Jun-17 | Lift shafts unprotected from lower ground floor, lobby and stairwell doors either damaged or have excessive gaps |
| Ratcliffe Towers | Stockport Homes (ALMO) | Fire Risk Assessment Solutions - Terry Eagan | Mar-13 | Gaps around fire-resistant partition in stairs, final exit from both staircases blocked by scaffolding |
| Sturminster House | Southampton Council | 3S Fire | Jan-17 | Contractors’ storage under building an arson risk, poor escape lighting, trip hazard on escape route, windows for venting of smoke are secured shut, some fire doors don’t have smoke strips and seals |
| Boyswell House | Wigan and Leigh Homes | Pennington Choices - Daniel Greenwood | Mar-16 | Fire doors lack maintenance, one door takes more than two minutes to close, doors missing seals and self closing devices, rubbish chute doors on some levels don’t have smoke seals |
| Queensway House | Welwyn Hatfield Community Housing (ALMO) | BB7 | Dec-15 | Refuse disposal room vulnerable to fire, concerns over escape route, expanding foam used to plug gaps, all flat entry doors need strips and seals and self-closing devices, compartmentation not considered to be adequate |
Council responses
- Camden Council: “The towers received FRAs in June (2017), and received a rating of “normal” fire safety risk under the rating system currently being used. Following the 2012 assessments, the council carried out works to address highlighted issues, including to tenants’ front entrance doors, emergency lighting and communal doors. The council is carrying out works to address other issues as highlighted by the recent FRA reports.”
- Guildford Council: “A programme of remedial works to address any fire safety issues is already in place. These works, which include additional fire protection to internal ducts, are due for completion in early August. Neither of our high-rise blocks has external cladding and both are well looked after by residents and the council. Following the indication of a substantial fire safety risk at both Bishops and Mount Court by Fire Safety First in June, a further inspection was carried out by Surrey Fire and Rescue Service two weeks later. Their fire officer stated that, in his opinion, both blocks had adequate fire safety measures in place.”
- Southampton Council: “The FRA for Sturminster House is a snapshot of the risks that were present at the time assessment took place. The most pressing issues were addressed immediately through either effecting repairs or changing working practices. Some measures form part of a wider programme of works (such as bringing some fire doors up to current standards) which is delivering a more co-ordinated approach to addressing these issues holistically instead of being addressed in a piecemeal manner. In order to improve fire safety measures further sprinkler systems are currently being retrofitted to this block to provide protection above and beyond that highlighted in the risk assessments.”
- Stockport Homes: “The assessor identified ‘a substantial risk to lives of tenants’, due to the presence of temporary scaffolding. Works were immediately carried out to reduce the risk. A further Type 1 FRA was completed in 2017 and the ‘substantial risk’ was classed as ‘tolerable’, meaning no major additional controls are required as per British Standard 8800.
- Welwyn Hatfield: “The project to upgrade front doors at all flats is well under way and work is due to be completed next month. An additional programme to in-fill bathroom windows, which follows the results of an earlier computer modelling exercise, is also scheduled for completion alongside this. Taken together, the works will fully address the compartmentation, smoke seal and fire door recommendations in the report.”
- Wigan Council: “The works identified at Boyswell House in 2016 by the independent consultants Pennington Choices were completed in 2016. The risk level was reduced following the completion of the works.”
