Change of Fire Response Policy in Blocks of flats with suspect cladding etc

[Suttonfire]

Views please - Would you consider that purpose-built blocks of flats which are fitted with substantial timber/combustible cladding should adopt a full evacuation strategy rather than stay put.

I'm aware of the gov guidance which recommends the removal of the materials where it is considered to be high risk. However, if this is likely to be problematic in the short term, should full evacuation (and appropriate building wide/communal area fire alarm system) be implemented in the interim?

[AnthonyB]

That's certainly the approach I'm seeing from some FRS although some will accept different measures where the cladding is only in certain areas rather than the whole exterior, such as local detection to rooms opening onto clad areas and retaining stay put unless in alarm or an occupier chooses to evacuate.

Some mortgage companies are now withholding granting the money to buyers unless they have a post inspection statement from a competent person in facades and their structure as to the safety of the exterior. Some that accepted test results in isolation back in the immediate post Grenfell days now won't and want more detail.

There is some justification as with a number of the buildings in this situation I've encountered the facade surveyor & fire engineering team brought in to facilitate the inspections have latent defects in the standard of installation & cavity barriers,etc in addition to issues with the actual material. Some areas met 2013 ADB, but not the current one, others didn't even meet the original 2013 ADB at the time of build!

What I've read in the fire (& general consumer rights) news and seen on actual sites only reinforces my view that I wouldn't live or invest in anything built in the last 20+ years!

[Seetek]

I would consider involving the FRS to agree an action plan. You are aware of a risk and need to reduce it to a tolerable level. I know of a housing provider who installed an alarm which was a simple system of sounders operated by call points along with a 24/7 patrol. Whether this would justify people remaining in the building is open to debate.

If you involve the FRS you will have your interim measures and approval. There is precedent out there.

[Jim Scott]

Reading the NFCC guidance might be a good start?

[Fishy]

Given the political / public sensitivity, and potential consequences of decisions such as this, I think it would be a brave person indeed who offered an opinion on this via an internet forum, sight unseen!

The English government guidance on the subject is here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/building-safety-programme - I'd always recommend following the published governmental guidance, unless you had a really convincing case that you could make as to why it was inapplicable.

[William 29]

First post in a long, long time, been busy. 

I am afraid they are putting the responsibility on fire risk assessors to advise and ultimately responsible persons to make the decision as to if any cladding is deemed as safe?

[AnthonyB]

The cladding facade engineers and their fire engineering partners are making a fortune out of this, our insurers won't cover our FRA doing the assessments alone (only by reference to further expert evidence) nor will some mortgage companies, so specialist reports and more intrusive inspections are the order of the day - and unfortunately it's necessary as almost inevitably they are finding not only non compliance with current standards but those at the time of build too.

After a meeting with GMFRS it appears that there is now an appetite and pressure to prosecute. Also anything other than a robust alarm and evacuate policy whilst awaiting remediation is likely to end up in enforcement, although there can be middle ground where most of a site can remain stay put - but it's on a case by case basis and is impossible to determine remotely on somewhere like this and really needs a multi agency approach on a site by site basis.