Flammable ceilings found in Southwark tower
Ceilings in fire escape corridors in a Southwark tower block appeared to be made with flammable materials, according to details of an enforcement notice which have just been released.
Southwark Council received fire enforcement notices from the London Fire Brigade on three blocks, Perronet House, Marie Curie House and Castlemead House, on 11 August.
But full details of the enforcement notices have not been publicly available until now with the publication of the notice issued for Perronet House.
The enforcement notices were issued a month after a fire in another Southwark block, Lakanal House, in Camberwell, killed six people on 3 July.
The enforcement notice for Perronet states that the council had not carried out a fire risk assessment on the block.
‘Evidence of fire risk assessment was not demonstrated during audit of the premises,’ the notice states.
It goes on to list a raft of other problems, including with some of the ceilings.
It states: ‘From inspection it appears that the characteristics of the suspended ceiling in the common access/escape corridors are not suitable for a protected corridor. The suspended ceiling appears to be constructed of flammable materials and this would allow a fire to spread quickly and could prevent the means of escape from being used.’
The notice also found inadequate protection to emergency routes and examples of fire doors that did not function effectively.
It adds that many doors to the flats were either not fire resisting or self closing which would ‘allow fire to spread into the escape route and/or allow the route to fill with smoke and heat before people can use it to escape’.
Perronet resident Janet Yatak said she was horrified after reading the full enforcement notice and that she thought it was so serious that ‘someone should be held to account’ for the problems.
The council has now carried out a risk assessment of all of its blocks, including Perronet. In a statement it said the Perronet risk assessment ‘has also recommended additional safety work, which goes further than the enforcement notice, and which the council has also begun’.
Kim Humphreys, deputy leader of Southwark Council, said: ‘We have tried to get on with the work at Perronet House and other blocks as quickly as we can, to coordinate what we are doing to minimise disruption to tenants and leaseholders.
‘Whilst we continue to cooperate with the complex police investigation into why the fire spread at Lakanal, we are already learning lessons from that tragedy on what we need to do to improve fire safety.’
Inside Housing is running a campaign calling for action to stop preventable deaths from gas and fire. For more on this see our Safe as Houses campaign page.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (10)
Janet Yatak | 20/10/2009 11:35 am
The flammable ceiling at Perronet was made of wood, and it is illegal to have a flammable false cieling in a means of escape, corridor. This was put in 20 years ago when they put in the district heating to the properties, and it is worrying as to how this was passed by building regulations. It does also mean that other blocks that had the district heating put in 20 years ago may also have this flammable false ceilings and I wonder if Southwark have checked all of them,The FRAs that have been done are inaequate and would not have picked up this kind of feature as it was only picked up by the LFB on their inspections, What makes me mad is that the council inspected the block after the fire did not find any thing wrong, and it was only as a result of the LFB inspections that they found these breaches, They wrote to us and said that there was no cause for concern which was a load of codswallop, as our ceilings were flammable. THe council keep saying they have learnt lessons but how have they if they are still putting lives at risk, by not doing adequate FRAs.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sancho | 20/10/2009 12:06 pm
All this talk of FRAs has made me have a brief look through the Fire Safety Order to understand how Southwark got themselves in this position.
What an appalling piece of legislation that is. Something that isn't mentioned in any of these reports is that the risk assessments don't actually have to be written down so anyone can claim they did it but just never wrote it down. Secondly, the person who did the assessment can be just about anyone and, in fact, the guidance suggests that doing the assessment is mostly common sense and won't be hard.
As such, Lakanal and many others could happen again. You just need a building that has been built to old (still legal) standards and a 'competent person' who isn't quite up to the job (can that many people tell the difference between a flammable and non-flammable ceiling just by having a look) and, hey presto, you've got a signed off risk assessment and a fatal fire.
If you fancy being a slum landlord, just say you did it but didn't right it down.
It's a useless cop-out money saving bit of self-regulation. The 'does someone have to die before you do anything' brigade need to know that compliance with the law in itself seems to offer very little protection for residents.
Ideally, when Decent Homes completes, we might have another programme called 'safe homes' that requires all existing premises to be brought up to modern standards. I for one won't be holding by breath on that one though.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan Savage | 20/10/2009 2:26 pm
Yeh, well they would be made of flammable material is someone put it there. The stable door is shut and the horse is long gone now.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jim Paton | 20/10/2009 8:36 pm
I was unaware there could be FRAs which are not in writing. Having them in writing serves a useful function, however. It provides a piece of paper which the council / ALMO / RSL can wave in a sort of Neville Chamberlain tribute act; "fire safety in our time" etc.
The expertise (or lack of it) of those conducting FRAs is highly relevant, of course, but even where it is unimpeachable there is still an elephant in the room. The FRA may specify works to be done to obviate fire risks. Have they been completed? Not, it is now emerging, in Hackney. Whole lists of recommended works, with priorities ranging from 2 weeks to six months, have been ignored since the assessments were completed, many in 2007.
Initially, councillors were told that all blocks in the borough over 6 storeys, except an uninhabited one, had valid FRAs. Oops! In a Freedom of Information Act response to the BBC Hackney Homes admits 20 blocks don't. Chewed carpet in the Town Hall, embarrassed letter of apology from the Mayor to councillors, whilst the boss of Hackney Homes despatches the inquisition to identify heads to be harvested. Hurried FRAs on the 20 blocks are carried out. Who by? Are properly qualified people available at such short notice in the current situation?
Finally, misinformed councillors are supposed to be mollified by a multi-page excel document which shows the dates of FRA completion. Many are in 2007, with a flurry in August and September 2009 following Decent Homes works. Scroll further right looking for the columns showing whether works were recommended, their urgency, and progress to completion and you'll find...err...there are no such columns!
We are protected, it seems, by "valid FRAs". The box is ticked, there is a document on file. Anyone enquiring about what the document actually says and whether its recommendations have been implemented is just another of those disruptive trouble-makers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Barry | 21/10/2009 10:55 am
The Reform order uses guideline documents which may or may not be heeded. The inspection of compartmentation, as recommended, cannot seriously be carried out by any individual other than a passive fire protection specialist who records not only breaches where fire and smoke can penetrate but also constructs an action plan with remedial proposals suitable for each circumstance. Until the Order is amended to make as built drawings a legal requirement there will never be an adequate solution to the deadly and often undetected spread of fire and smoke.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter | 21/10/2009 11:26 am
I think we are still working on the principle that you only fix something when it is broken though prevention is always better than cure!!
Things like these will continue to happen until Corporate Manslaughter charges are vigorously pursued.
Janet you are doing a good job - don't let Southwark BC fob you off, keep on their case! good luck.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Janet Yatak | 22/10/2009 7:14 pm
I was told yesterday at a site meeting that the HOs that do the FRAs for Southwark are not qualified to determine whether a front door is fire rated and fits the fire regulations In fact I was told that there is no one in Southwark that can do it, and then I was told that there is not even a space for it on the FRA itself, so I am sure if they can not determine whether the front door is fire rated, they probably then can not determine whether a celing is flammable or not, the FRAs therefore that they have done are useless, and there are many residents who are sitting with front doors that may not meet fire regulations. So again how can Southwark say they are now taking this seriously, when they do not even have anyone who can check the front door and therefore have not checked any of the front doors in Southwark, and flammable ceilings, and other breaches.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Janet Yatak | 26/10/2009 3:08 pm
Dear All
I as you may know live In Perronet House I am a hard working activist who has been campaiging ardently about this issue and the council are now trying to gag me, they are saying that I am not to write to them and ask elected members why no one has been held to account for this negligence, apparently I am not allowed to use the word negligence as it implies they are guilty of somehting that they have not been charged for, but surely not doing risk assessments for years is negligence, they are also warning me to stop harrassing elected members by writing to them about this issue.
So please can you help me and put all the comments you like on this page about the councillors at Southwark and tell them what you all think
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Janet Yatak | 26/10/2009 3:55 pm
Regarding the flammable ceilings, the enforcement order is quite clear about this and states that they are flammable , but the council are still covering up about this, they say that they are replacing them as a precautionary, measure, when htey are part of the order, and they have to do it, They will not admit they are flammable material, despite the fact that we all saw them and they were wooden frames, and a newsletter we got, from the contractors stated that they were removing TIMBER celings, they have not learnt any lessons and are not being open and transparent they think we are all idiots
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Janet Yatak | 28/10/2009 3:23 pm
I have just read an article in the Private, Eye which states that the wooden false celings that were put in the 1980s to cover up the pipes for the district central heating are in breach of the London Buidling Act, and yet another law is broken. This wooden false ceiling which is in breach of the law, has been up in many blocks for over 20 years and no one has noticed, These false ceilings have been putting lives at risk for years and could have contributed to the spread of the fire in Lakanal. it is an absolute disgrace that Southwark Council have done this, They should be going around immediately checking all the blocks that had central heating 20 years ago, and ripping all the wooden ceilngs they should be also checking to see if any of the officers involved in that process 20 years ago are still working for the council and sack them.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment