ao link

My Account

You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles

Tom Jarman

Tom Jarman is director of Low Carbon Journey.

Mr Jarman has worked in social housing since 2005, working in refurbishment ...more

The sector needs to realise it created the client culture that led to Grenfell

Comment09.07.18by Tom Jarman

Social landlords have shown a lack of self-awareness of their role in creating the conditions that led to the Grenfell tragedy, and it is time to rethink, writes Tom Jarman

Sharelines

“We let the grant structure determine the quality of work.” Tom Jarman argues that social landlords need to reflect on their role in creating the conditions that led to Grenfell #ukhousing

“If we don’t come out of Grenfell with a different client culture, we haven’t rethought anything,” writes Tom Jarman #ukhousing

“Grenfell is where our clienting culture has taken us,” writes Tom Jarman #ukhousing

Since June last year, I have followed the debate in the pages and editorials of Inside Housing on the causes and consequences of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, and have been watching the debate develop with an increasing sense of dismay.

This culminated in the coverage of the government’s decision to fund the removal of cladding on social housing blocks.

I want to comment on this and place the decision in the context of the Chartered Institute of Housing’s (CIH) Rethinking Social Housing project, because to me it says so much about our sector.

Surely I can’t be the only one that sees this decision as a huge indictment? I have watched the unfolding of the campaign to get the government to fund this work, and didn’t seriously think they would pony up.

But they have. And I don’t think they should.

I have read the comment pieces and editorials that have demanded the money, and been alarmed by the lack of serious self-examination.

We, as clients, created this situation.

“We broke it. The shame is that we asked for someone else to fix it.”

We decided that building regulation formed our risk control and specification; we decided to ‘transfer risk’ under our contract structure; we decided that lowest initial capital cost was an appropriate procurement mechanism; and we decided that, by and large, we didn’t need specialist retrofit training, a competent design review process and enhanced supervision on site.

We let the grant structure determine the quality of work; if the Energy Company Obligation didn’t fund an effective and appropriate design stage, we didn’t do it. If post-occupancy monitoring and evaluation wasn’t part of the grant package, we didn’t do it.

Put simply, we broke it. The shame is that we asked for someone else to fix it.

I use the word shame deliberately, because Grenfell is where our clienting culture has taken us.

Focus on quality in procurement rises after Grenfell

Grenfell Inquiry day 17: firefighters describe problems with lifts and access to building

How Grenfell is changing procurement

I have been a long-time member of the CIH and consequently reader of Inside Housing, and recall articles about the Orchard Village development – “Mr Nickless has experienced a litany of problems with his home. Among the most serious are leaky pipes and poor ventilation, which have caused damp so severe that his daughter has been hospitalised twice, and may have permanent health issues as a result” [my italics] – and the demolition of new build flats in Peckham because the quality was so poor.

Read it again: “hospitalised” and “may have permanent health issues”. This is the logical consequence of how we see our role as clients.

How many in our sector have read Modernise or Die, the Farmer Review of the UK Construction Labour Model? It’s associated with offsite construction but it’s not about this; it captures how the construction sector operates, what its culture is.

It captures the behaviours we pull through every time we commission as passive, unskilled clients. And with few exceptions, that’s how we commission.

I don’t recall a single article that has showed any real insight into our role in the Grenfell tragedy.

For a sector that trades on its values, this is an astounding lack of self-awareness.

So my challenge to the sector is this: every time we commission work in the built environment, we need to deliver on our values.

“Every time we commission work in the built environment, we need to deliver on our values.”

We need to be active, professional, competent clients. And every time we commission at lowest capital cost to minimum regulatory standards we fail this test.

I can see why the government has funded the work; £400m gets work moving, and from a practical point of view is the cost of some 3,000 houses.

They need houses, and I suspect they don’t want this money diverted from development. However, we really need to take a good, hard look at where this leaves us.

For me, Inside Housing’s Never Again campaign isn’t provisional on the government giving us grant; it’s a look in the mirror and a call to change.

If we don’t come out of Grenfell with a different client culture, we haven’t rethought anything.

Tom Jarman, director, Low Carbon Journey

Never Again campaign

In the days following the Grenfell Tower fire on 14 June 2017, Inside Housing launched the Never Again campaign to call for immediate action to implement the learning from the Lakanal House fire, and a commitment to act – without delay – on learning from the Grenfell Tower tragedy as it becomes available.

One year on, we have extended the campaign asks in the light of information that has emerged since.

Here are our updated asks:

GOVERNMENT

Act on the recommendations from Dame Judith Hackitt’s review of building regulations to tower blocks of 18m and higher. Commit to producing a timetable for implementation by autumn 2018, setting out how recommendations that don’t require legislative change can be taken forward without delay
Follow through on commitments to fully ban combustible materials on high-rise buildings
Unequivocally ban desktop studies
Review recommendations and advice given to ministers after the Lakanal House fire and implement necessary changes
Publish details of all tower blocks with dangerous cladding, insulation and/or external panels and commit to a timeline for remedial works. Provide necessary guidance to landlords to ensure that removal work can begin on all affected private and social residential blocks by the end of 2018. Complete quarterly follow-up checks to ensure that remedial work is completed to the required standard. Checks should not cease until all work is completed.
Stand by the prime minister’s commitment to fully fund the removal of dangerous cladding
Fund the retrofitting of sprinkler systems in all tower blocks across the UK (except where there are specific structural reasons not to do so)
Explore options for requiring remedial works on affected private sector residential tower blocks

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Take immediate action to identify privately owned residential tower blocks so that cladding and external panels can be checked

LANDLORDS

Publish details of the combinations of insulations and cladding materials for all high rise blocks
Commit to ensuring that removal work begins on all blocks with dangerous materials by the end of 2018 upon receipt of guidance from government
Publish current fire risk assessments for all high rise blocks (the Information Commissioner has required councils to publish and recommended that housing associations should do the same). Work with peers to share learning from assessments and improve and clarify the risk assessment model.
Commit to renewing assessments annually and after major repair or cladding work is carried out. Ensure assessments consider the external features of blocks. Always use an appropriate, qualified expert to conduct assessments.
Review and update evacuation policies and ‘stay put’ advice in the light of risk assessments, and communicate clearly to residents
Adopt Dame Judith Hackitt’s recommended approach for listening to and addressing tenants’ concerns, with immediate effect

CURRENT SIGNATORIES:

Chartered Institute of Housing
G15
National Federation of ALMOs
National Housing Federation
Placeshapers

The Paper Trail: The Failure of Building Regulations

Read our in-depth investigation into how building regulations have changed over time and how this may have contributed to the Grenfell Tower fire:

More on the Hackitt Review

The Hackitt Review: key recommendations at-a-glance Inside Housing breaks down the key areas of the final report from Dame Judith Hackitt’s review of building regulations

Brokenshire: government will consult on banning combustible cladding The housing secretary announces a consultation despite the Hackitt Report findings

Dame Judith Hackitt: the interview Dame Judith Hackitt spoke to Inside Housing shortly after releasing her much-anticipated review of building regulations

Final Hackitt report calls for new regulatory body but does not ban combustibles Dame Judith Hackitt has called for a regulatory body to be set up to oversee the safety of buildings, but has stopped short of a prescriptive approach or the banning of dangerous cladding.

Grenfell survivors ‘saddened and disappointed’ by Hackitt report Reaction to Hackitt’s findings decision to ignore calls for a ban on combustible cladding