ao link
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In

You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles

Just eight Southwark blocks ‘intensively’ risk assessed despite claim 174 had been completed

Southwark Council has carried out intrusive risk assessments on just eight of the tower blocks it owns, despite claiming last week it had done so for all 174.

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Picture: Getty
Picture: Getty
Sharelines

Southwark Council blames “drafting error” after claiming it had intensively risk assessed all 174 tower blocks in its stock. It has actually only completed eight of the reviews #ukhousing

The south London borough – which is one of the largest council landlords in the country – committed to carry out the intensive ‘Type 4’ risk assessments on its tower blocks in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire last June.

In papers reviewed by its cabinet last week, it said the council “has undertaken intrusive Type 4 fire risk assessments of all 174 high rise blocks”.

However, a response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request released to campaigners the next day showed Type 4 assessments had in fact only been carried out on eight towers.

The council blamed a “drafting error” for the mistake.


READ MORE

Fire doors: a systemic problem?Fire doors: a systemic problem?
No fire risk assessments since Grenfell on Wandsworth tower blocksNo fire risk assessments since Grenfell on Wandsworth tower blocks

In a separate note to residents published in July, Harriet Harman, a local MP, wrote: “I continue to liaise closely with council leader Peter John, Cllr Stephanie Cryan, cabinet member for housing, and Gerri Scott, director of housing, to ensure tenants’ concerns are addressed urgently.

“The council is carrying out Type 4 fire safety checks (the highest level of check possible) on all 174 Southwark tower blocks by the end of August.”

Type 4 risk assessments involve a “destructive” assessment of a sample of flats and common areas of a building, and is designed to detect hidden safety issues.

It is far more intense than ‘Type 1’ assessments, which is the minimum required by law, and involve simple checks of common areas only. The vast majority of assessments carried out by councils are Type 1.

Southwark Council’s Stephanie Cryan said: “As stated in our FOIA response, our fire risk assessment programme goes above and beyond requirements. The wording used in the capital monitoring report included a drafting error and should have read ‘is undertaking’ rather than ‘has undertaken’. I apologise if this was confusing. All the council’s housing has live, up-to-date fire risk assessments in place, and a rolling programme of updating them continues.

“Furthermore, we have committed to carry out Type 4 FRAs [fire risk assessments] – the highest level of intrusive fire risk assessment on all 174 tower blocks, and over time on all our blocks. However, this work does and will take time. We include fire risk work as part of a major works programme in order to cause the least disruption and expense as possible to tenants and leaseholders. The extra Type 4 FRA work, which is not a statutory requirement and which needs to be ongoing as a live project, has already begun.”

In the capital monitoring papers, published last Tuesday, Victoria Mills, cabinet member for finance, performance and Brexit at Southwark Council, said: “The council has redoubled its efforts in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower tragedy and has undertaken intrusive Type 4 fire risk assessments of all 174 high-rise blocks and investigated cladding panels on all blocks that were potentially at risk.”

Southwark Council has not confirmed a timescale for carrying out Type 4 risk assessments on all its blocks.

A number of other London boroughs have also committed to more intensive assessments since Grenfell – including Hammersmith & Fulham, Westminster and Lambeth.

The FOIA was released to Ledbury Action Group campaigners. Towers on the Ledbury estate in Southwark had to have their gas supply turned off last year after a report suggested it would not withstand explosion.

Never Again campaign

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

 

More on the Hackitt Review

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

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Closing statements

 

Day 85: victims' lawyers attack the fire brigade

 

Further expert evidence

Including some additional evidence from emergency call handlers, bereaved and relatives

 

Day 84: further evidence from survivors and relatives

Day 83: swift evacuation of tower possible if residents alerted

Day 82: initial fire was extinguished but then returned to the flat

Day 81: overheating fridge-freezer most likely cause of fire

Day 80: fire doors installed did not match product tested

Day 79: resident advised to stay put despite fire in flat

Day 78: insulation and cladding material below required standard

Day 77: molten plastic spread blaze down tower

Day 76: 'stay put' should be dropped when fire spreads across floors

 

Other witness evidence

Police, ambulance, gas suppliers, council, TMO and call room operators give evidence

 

Day 75: call room operators give evidence

Day 74: further evidence from TMO officers

Day 73: TMO boss failed to pass information to firefighters

Day 72: fire finally extinguished when gas switched off

Day 71: further questions over stay put advice

Day 70: the police evidence

 

The bereaved, survivors and relatives’ evidence

 

Day 69: video shows smoke billowing through fire door

Day 68: KCTMO removed self closing mechanism and never replaced it

Day 67: gaps in cladding fixed with duct tape

Day 66: 'don't fix broken system with a sticking plaster'

Day 65: survivor dragged disabled man down nine floors to safety

Day 64: KCTMO 'did not replace broken fire door'

Day 63: foam insulation inside cladding 'exposed' says survivor

Day 62: father gives harrowing account of son's death

Day 61: council’s management organisation slammed for faulty electrics

Day 60: stay put advice ‘led to deaths’, residents say

Day 59: residents describe problems with new windows

Day 58: survivor describes how daughter saved his life

Day 57: firefighter evidence ‘a slap in the face’, says survivor

Day 56: relations with contractor were ‘toxic’

Day 55: resident 'never happy' with stay-put advice

Day 54: tenant gives evidence about housing association

Day 53: stay put advice 'felt like trap'

Day 52: resident saved by son's phone call

 

The firefighters’ evidence

 

Day 51: firefighter feared encouraging residents to jump

Day 50: the LFB commissioner

Day 49: fire chief reveals frustration over lack of building plans

Day 48: internal fire spread 'bigger story' than cladding

Day 47: fire officer considered evacuating crews over building collapse fears

Day 46: 'we were improvising' senior firefighter admits

Day 45: firefighter urged for abandonment of 'stay put' policy

Day 44: firefighter recalls radio signal difficulties

Day 43: call hander 'uncomfortable' with insisting residents stay put

Day 42: residents only told to leave if they called fire brigade back

Day 41: breathing equipment delay 'hampered rescues on upper floors'

Day 40: chiefs told firefighters to abandon policy

Day 39: firefighters reveal dramatic rescue of children

Day 38: firefighters issue aplogies to families

Day 37: council 'unable to provide tower plans'

Day 36: QC defends inquiry process

Day 35: Javid would welcome interim recommendations

Day 34: water from hose 'too weak' to reach the flames

Day 33: 'oh my god, we've been telling people to stay put'

Day 32: further fire fighter describes lack of equipment and low water pressure

Day 31: 'incredibly difficult' task of recording information outlined

Day 30: struggle to maintain control over rescue operation described

Day 29: fire service 'overwhelmed' by survival guidance calls

Day 28: 'the building beat us'

Day 27: firefighters 'forced to abandon plans to reach roof'

Day 26: poor signage hindered rescue efforts

Day 25: water pressure left firefighting equipment 'like garden hose'

Day 24: decision to abandon 'stay put' explored

Day 23: TV images 'could have assissted' rescue effort

Day 22: description of hectic scenes in the control centre

Day 21: account from the fire service 'nerve centre'

Day 20: firefighter describes 'huge volume' of calls from trapped residents

Day 19: firefighter 'given no training on cladding fires'

Day 18: evacuation would have been 'huge catastrophe'

Day 17: firefighters describe access and lift issues

Day 16: scenes of carnage likened to 9/11

Day 15: firefighters recount trauma of survival guidance calls

Day 14: firefighters describe spread of blaze

Day 13: firefighters recall radio difficulties

Day 12: "it was like a war zone"

Day 11: questions raised over fire fighters' radios

Day 10: watch manager emotional under questioning

Day nine: lead firefighter 'not trained in stay put policy'

 

The expert reports: authors give evidence to inquiry

 

Day eight: where the fire started

Day seven: what was in the cladding?

Day six: the cause and spread of the fire

Day five: expert highlights key issues

Day four: firefighters defend response to fire

Day three: council and contractors appear for the first time

Day two: lawyers for the survivors make their case

Day one: expert evidence released on cladding and stay put

 

The commemoration hearings

 

30 May: Grenfell Council 'recognised it should not house disabled victim above four storeys'

29 May: Anger on day six of the Grenfell Inquiry

25 May: Grenfell families 'forced to live in chimney with stay put policy'

24 May: Grenfell family complained about father being housed on 17th floor

23 May: Tributes to children on third day of Grenfell hearings

22 May: Emotions run high as Grenfell bereaved shown footage of the tower burning

21 May: Grenfell victims share tributes as inquiry opens

 

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Add New Comment
You must be logged in to comment.
By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to the use of cookies. Browsing is anonymised until you sign up. Click for more info.
Cookie Settings