This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
Grenfell review condemns 'race to the bottom' in building safety practices
Grenfell review condemns 'race to the bottom' in building safety practices
(about 2 hours later)
A government review into the Grenfell Tower fire has concluded that indifference and ignorance led to a “race to the bottom” in building safety practices with cost prioritised over safety.
A government review into building regulations in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire has concluded that indifference and ignorance led to a “race to the bottom” in building safety practices, with cost prioritised over safety.
The government’s reviewer of building regulations has proposed a new standards regulator in the wake of the fire but does not want ministers to ban combustible materials such as those which spread the fire last June which claimed 72 lives.
But the answer to the key question of whether the government should ban combustible materials, such as those which spread the flames on Grenfell where 72 people died, was left unclear.
Dame Judith Hackitt published her long-awaited report into building safety failures on Thursday, outlining a strategy which will anger survivors, architects and MPs, who had all called for an outright ban of flammable insulation and cladding products, which are currently being stripped from hundreds of high rise homes in England and Wales.
In a report published on Thursday, Dame Judith Hackitt, the government’s reviewer, said a new standards regulator should be the centrepiece of a reformed system but suggested she did not believe combustible materials should be banned.
There has been widespread outrage at the conduct of parts of the construction industry and the bodies charged with regulating it, but Hackitt said a new building regulations system – focused at first on buildings of 10 storeys or more – should place faith in that industry.
“Restricting or prohibiting certain practices, will not address the root causes,” she said.
She said the new system should put the onus on the “construction industry to take responsibility for the delivery of safe buildings rather than looking to others to tell them what is or is not acceptable” and said “it will be important now for industry to show leadership in driving this forward”.
Grenfell survivors said they were “disappointed and saddened” that the report rejected their calls for a ban on combustible materials. David Lammy, the MP for Tottenham, described the report as a “betrayal and a whitewash”. Architects, councils and fire experts also condemned the approach.
Hackitt said people did not bother to read regulations and when they did, they did not understand it. She said concerns were ignored during the building process because “the primary motivation is to do things as quickly and cheaply as possible rather than to deliver quality homes” and that some builders use the ambiguity of the regulations to “game the system”.
But then Hackitt appeared to contradict her own report and admitted she would in fact support a ban on combustible materials as long as it was alongside the wider reforms she proposed.
She also said people in the industry did not know who was in charge and that enforcement was patchy and penalties were so small as to be ineffective.
The housing secretary, James Brokenshire, is due to make a statement on the future of building regulations at around 12.30pm.
Labour, the Royal Institute of British Architects and Grenfell survivors have all called for combustible and limited combustibility materials to be banned altogether.
Flammable insulation and cladding products are currently being stripped from hundreds of high-rise homes in England and Wales. The prime minister said on Wednesday the government would spend £400m to help councils and registered social landlords strip it off, suggesting ministers consider it unacceptable.
Later, Hackitt, responding to media questions, said she would support the government banning combustible material as long as it was alongside wider reforms. Asked if she would agree with James Brokenshire, the housing secretary, if he announced a ban she said: “If he were to say that I would be supportive.”
Lammy said it was “unthinkable” so many people could die in Grenfell Tower and one year on flammable cladding had not been banned.
Sandra Ruiz, whose niece died at Grenfell, said this week she feared that not explicitly banning combustible cladding was a way to minimise disruption to the building industry and ran the risk of further failures.
“I will continue to stand with the Grenfell families and will continue to call for an outright ban on any combustible materials,” he said.
“If her thought process is to make these materials difficult to be used then why not just ban them?” she said. “Seventy-two people died. Take them away completely and don’t run the risk again.”
Shahin Sadafi, chair of Grenfell United, whose family lived at Grenfell, said: “Worrying that a fire like Grenfell could happen again is something that keeps many of us awake at night. When we met Dame Judith Hackitt we asked her for an outright ban on combustible cladding. We are disappointed and saddened that she didn’t listen to us and she didn’t listen to other experts.”
Shahin Sadafi, chair of Grenfell United, said: “Worrying that a fire like Grenfell could happen again is something that keeps many of us awake at night. When we met Dame Judith Hackitt we asked her for an outright ban on combustable cladding. We are disappointed and saddened that she didn’t listen to us and she didn’t listen to other experts.
Lord Porter, chairman of the Local Government Association, said that despite Hackitt’s report the government should nevertheless act without delay to introduce a temporary ban on the use of combustible materials on complex and high-rise buildings ”until we have a regulatory and testing system which is fit for the 21st century”.
“The cladding on the Grenfell Tower was deemed to be limited combustibility, but it cost 72 lives. It must be banned. We need to hear from government a clear promise that these dangerous materials will never be used on homes again.
Hackitt said a new building regulations system should at first focus on buildings of 10 storeys or more. A new regulator called the Joint Competent Authority should be made up of local authority building standards, fire and rescue authorities and Health and Safety Executive officials. It will be independent of the building owner and it will approve designs before construction begins.
“This isn’t just about cladding – the whole system of building regulation is broken. The industry has too much influence over regulation and testing, desktop studies are totally flawed, profit is valued more than people’s safety, and residents are left powerless. All of this must change.”
“What I want to see happen here is we do not want to have to wait for a tragedy like Grenfell before we apply the full criminal sanctions of the law,” she said.
The Labour MP for Tottenham, David Lammy, described the review as a “betrayal and a whitewash”. He added: “It is unthinkable and unacceptable that so many people can die in a disaster like Grenfell and one year on flammable cladding has not been banned. I will continue to stand with the Grenfell families and will continue to call for an outright ban on any combustible materials.
“We have to get to a position where people putting lives at risk by what they’re doing gets picked up at the time and there’s sanctions applied there and then, not in the aftermath of a terrible tragedy like Grenfell.”
Hackitt’s 156-page report said the problems that had emerged after Grenfell were “most definitely not just a question of the specification of cladding systems, but of an industry that has not reflected and learned for itself, nor looked to other sectors”.
She continued: “If this had been in place prior to Grenfell, I do not believe the cladding that was put on Grenfell would have got through the system in the first place.”
She cited four recent cases that she said showed “deep flaws in the current system”.
At Grenfell Tower, which was owned by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the building regulations were checked by RBKC’s own building officers while works were already under way. The same thing happened on dozens of other buildings clad in combustible material nationwide.
These were the lack of records about whether essential safety work had been carried out at the Ledbury estate, the failure of a 30-minute fire door, a fire spreading between wooden balconies on another block and a major car park fire in Liverpool that almost encroached on a block nearby.
There should also be tougher penalties for failures; Hackitt found rates of enforcement action against breaches of building regulations had fallen 75% in the last decade.
There has been widespread concern that the building regulations are so complex and confusing that they can be “gamed” by builders, designers and building owners, which has led to combustible cladding being used.
But she argued there shouldn’t be prescription about what materials could and could not be used; instead the onus should be on the “construction industry to take responsibility for the delivery of safe buildings rather than looking to others to tell them what is or is not acceptable”. She said “it will be important now for industry to show leadership in driving this forward”.
Hackitt said her goal was to strengthen regulatory oversight during the design and construction process and said that there should be a more effective testing regime for products and systems.
Hackitt said people did not bother to read regulations and when they did, they did not understand them. She said concerns were ignored during the building process because “the primary motivation is to do things as quickly and cheaply as possible rather than to deliver quality homes” and that some builders use the ambiguity of the regulations to “game the system”.
However, she stopped short of banning controversial desktop studies, which can be used to justify using certain materials without a fire test. She said she wanted desktop studies rather than fire tests to only be carried out by qualified people, which she said would effectively stop unregulated fire engineers paid by builders or building owners from declaring systems safe.
She also said people in the industry did not know who was in charge, that enforcement was patchy and penalties were so small as to be ineffective.
The new regulatory framework must address the fact that “residents often go unheard, even when safety issues are identified”.
However, she stopped short of banning controversial desktop studies, which can be used to justify using certain materials without a fire test. She said she wanted desktop studies to be carried out only by qualified people, which she said would effectively stop unregulated fire engineers paid by builders of building owners from declaring systems safe.
The new regulator will be called the Joint Competent Authority and will be made up of local authority building standards, fire and rescue authorities and the Health and Safety Executive. It will be independent of the building owner.
However, the detailed results of those tests should remain commercially confidential, she said.
At Grenfell Tower, which was owned by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the building regulations were checked by RBKC’s building officers and the same thing happened on dozens of other buildings clad in combustible material nationwide.
She said the new regulatory framework must also address the fact that “residents often go unheard, even when safety issues are identified”.
There will also be tougher penalties. She found that enforcement action against breaches of building regulations had fallen 75% in the last decade and that no prosecutions can be brought after two years. She wants this to be extended to six years.
Lord Porter, chairman of the Local Government Association, said: “It is disappointing that Dame Judith has stopped short of recommending a ban on combustible materials and the use of desktop studies, both essential measures to improve safety.
The government should nevertheless act without delay to introduce a temporary ban on the use of combustible materials on complex and high-rise buildings and until we have a regulatory and testing system which is fit for the 21st century.”
