The Phase 2 (and final) report of the Grenfell Inquiry was published today, Wednesday.
You will doubtless have seen the headlines. The Inquiry does not hold back in finding responsibility for what happened on the part of all concerned (save the residents and on the ground fire officers of course), from the TMO landlord, through to the ‘dishonest’ cladding and insulation manufacturers. Government and departments are certainly not spared being found to be complacent, defensive and having failed on many occasions to address the regulatory issue despite it being clearly laid before them repeatedly from 1996 onwards. Instead
In the years that followed the Lakanal House fire the government’s deregulatory agenda, enthusiastically supported by some junior ministers and the Secretary of State, dominated the department’s thinking to such an extent that even matters affecting the safety of life were ignored, delayed or disregarded.
It is reiterated that every single death was avoidable.
We will have to see whether there will be criminal charges.
It is the report’s recommendations that will particularly concern us here. I’m going to take some time to think about them before commenting, though it is notable that the Building Safety Act is not considered to be sufficient. (In the light of that, it is perhaps surprising that the Regulation of Social Housing Act is apparently considered sufficient in terms of addressing relations between social landlords and tenants on building safety. I think that is questionable.)
Considering the recommendations (and any other desirable steps) will also be an issue for the Government, of course. While the Prime Minister unsurprisingly said the Government will take some time to consider the recommendations and update the Commons, it is worth noting a passage in Sir Keir Starmer’s speech today in the Commons where he said that, following a visit to Grenfell Tower:
It left me a with a profound and very personal determination to make the legacy of Grenfell Tower one of the defining changes to our country that I want to make as Prime Minister.
To the families, the survivors and the immediate community, we will support you now and always—especially those who were children. In the memory of your loved ones, we will deliver a generational shift in the safety and quality of housing for everyone in this country. In the memory of Grenfell, we will change our country; not just a change in policy and regulation, although that must of course take place, but a profound shift in culture and behaviour, a rebalancing of power that gives voice and respect to every citizen, whoever they are and wherever they live.
That is a worthy goal, but to be blunt, one hell of a challenge.
The Genesis moment in this whole affair that carried the project forward and allowed the events of the June 14, 2017 to unfold causing the loss of 72 people’s lives is set out in Phase 2 full report – volume 4 at Paragraph 52.14. It states:
“The appointment of Studio E as architect for the project involved no element of competitive procurement whatsoever. 324 No member of the firm was interviewed as part of a competitive procurement and there was no design competition. 325 Mr Anderson said he had thought that, because the OJEU notice published for the KALC project had included the term “housing regeneration”, the TMO could rely on the outcome of that exercise to appoint Studio E for the Grenfell Tower project, even though that project had not been mentioned in the notice. 326 He also told us that he had asked the council’s legal department and those responsible for procurement whether he could rely on the procurement process for the KALC project to appoint the same professional team for the Grenfell Tower project and was told that he could.327 However, he did not receive confirmation of that advice in writing and in due course it changed.328 It is hard to see how Mr Anderson could possibly have thought that it was permissible for the TMO to rely on the procurement process undertaken by RBKC for the KALC project to justify its appointment of Studio E on the
Grenfell Tower refurbishment, but if he did, he was obviously mistaken.”
One notes that the places Mr Anderson moved onto after leaving the TMO – Circle Housing and East Kent Housing both had exactly the same issues with regards to Fire Safety and other serious issues.
I hope those who passed and those who survived, receive the justice they deserve. All too often individuals in Council’s and Council owned spin offs get away with behaviour which in the real world would be deemed as potentially criminal.
A low-hanging fruit to vastly improve safety in high-rise block would be the simple removal of the exemption afforded under the Prescribed Descriptions Act (2018) for HMOs in such blocks.
Currently you can fill up a flat in a high-rise with any number of occupants and it does not need to be licensed under the mandatory/statutory scheme. There is no check on whether a Gas Safety Test has been made, whether an Electrical Installation Condition Report has been made nor whether appliances, such as fridges, have been checked for safety.
We wrote about this back in 2019 here: https://getrentback.org/blog/2019/07/31/grenfell-flats-not-hmos/
Buried away in the past was the simple advice that the installation of a simple external sprinkler system on various floors would hugely manage the risk of fire spread as, especially over time, external cladding integrity will deteriorate and be far from obvious e.g. details around windows and doors. :(