Fire Risk Report on London’s Tall and Timber Framed Buildings has Positive Implications

It may have escaped many people's notice but shortly before Christmas, a lengthy report on fire safety in London's tall and timber framed buildings was released by the Planning and Housing Committee of the London Assembly.

Described by the authors as "a wake up call to Government, the fire service, the construction industry and all public landlords in London" it is likely to have far reaching effects beyond London's sprawling metropolis, and has implications for all those involved in any work undertaken in buildings of this type across the UK, whether in new build or in refurbishment work.

In January 2010, the London Assembly called for an inquiry into the fire safety of London's tall and timber framed buildings prompted by a series of fires including Lakanal House where six people lost their lives, and fires involving timber framed construction sites at Colindale, Camberwell and Peckham.
Although timber frame construction is singled out as a focus for the report, it stresses that they pose no greater risk of fire than conventionally constructed buildings. (In fact the fire at Lakanal House was of concrete frame construction.)

Timber framed construction, however, is at greater risk during construction when many fire resistant elements are incomplete. It is at this stage where the report recommends that key and safety critical stages in construction are identified, that strict inspections are made at these stages and that partial occupation of such developments are not permitted until the whole development is 'signed off'.

But what of existing buildings? Legislation under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 now requires the owners of buildings or 'the responsible person' to undertake regular risk assessments of their buildings or to employ a competent person to do so.

Worryingly the report states that it has seen evidence that many risk assessments fall below the standards required, staff carrying out assessments are insufficiently trained, advice and guidance is too complex and that "one in five risk assessments are inadequate and is completely unacceptable". Concerns were particularly expressed where modification and alterations to buildings have taken place and where poor workmanship or improper or inadequate materials or products are used.

Examples of compromising safety include:

1. Residents not seeking permission to make alterations
2. Non-use of appropriately qualified or certified trade professionals
3. Front doors to flats changed to non-fire resisting ones (often PVC doors)
4. Removal of fire resisting doors 5. Upgrading buildings by incorrect replacement of windows (such as failing to cover voids when replacing with PVC windows).

Damningly, the report states "The risk of fire spread in the event of a fire occurring can increase dramatically should there be any aspects of poor workmanship and so the reliability of contractors is critical". However, even the Construction Industry Council (the body that represents more than 25,000 construction firms) acknowledges that "there are contractors around who do not have the requisite integrity".

BWF welcomes many of the recommendations made by this enquiry particularly those referring to the use of 3rd-party accredited products, installed by qualified or certified trade professionals. The BWF-CERTIFIRE Fire Door Scheme, in particular, has been monitoring many of the issues surrounding the incorrect specification and installation of non-certified fire doors as well as the significant effects of the Fire Safety Order (RRO especially in high rise dwellings and other buildings. As members of the fire door scheme are aware, we will be announcing significant developments of our scheme which seeks to address many of the issues raised in the report and fall in line with many of its recommendations.

If you wish to know more about membership of the BWF-CERTIFIRE Fire Door Scheme, why not contact us at firedoors@bwf.org.uk The full London Assembly report is available here.