Agenda item

Mark Norris, Principal Policy Adviser, updated members on the LGA’s work in the wake of Grenfell and the efforts to identify the financial impact on both councils and fire and rescue authorities. Mark noted that the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) had asked local authorities to provide details of the number of private high-rise buildings in their area, the deadline for which had passed the previous week and he gave an update on the number of privately owned or managed buildings identified as having ACM cladding on their exteriors. One issue that had come up in conversations with directors of housing across London was that insurers in the private sector were asking how long interim fire safety measures needed to be in place and concerns were noted about capacity issues within the supplier system.

Mark advised members that the interim report from the Dame Judith Hackitt review would be published in early December and that her initial view was that the regulatory system currently in place was not fit for purpose. It was suggested that specific paragraphs which needed to be changed would not be identified and the report would not provide advice to building owners about what materials were needed. The report was likely to look at competency and skills, as well as expertise and training at construction stage. It was thought that the report would look to ensure there were duty-holders with a role in making sure a building had been constructed properly in place in the future, and that there would need to be periodic inspections of buildings. Consideration was also likely to be given to whether fire safety related regulations should apply retrospectively to a building, and that there should be greater clarity between the Fire Safety Order and the Housing Act 2004 with a clearer division in responsibilities between the fire service and local authorities.

Mark said that a further update would be given to members at the next meeting, after the interim report had been published.

In the discussion which follow, a number of points were raised:

·         Members felt that the Government had pushed responsibility for the funding of works required in the wake of Grenfell back to housing providers and councils, despite the Secretary of State previously stating that public safety was paramount and that money should not be an impediment to ensuring residents’ safety. Members felt that the Government should be held to account over the funding issue and that the LGA should be stronger in challenging the decision not to provide any additional resources.

·         A conversation was had about sprinklers and how little action had been taken on this despite the Lakanal House inquest recommending more widespread installation of sprinkler systems. Members acknowledged the cost associated with installing sprinklers in new buildings or retrofitting them but it was also noted that some buildings could not be altered significantly enough to install them at all so demolition of those buildings could be considered where it would be financially viable to do so. It was also suggested that one London council had charged leaseholders for sprinklers so concerns were discussed about there being a postcode lottery in terms of funding this work. Members also discussed the proposed working group on sprinklers and agreed that membership should not extend past the Fire Commission.

Decision

Members noted the report.

Action

Officers to take steps to establish a working group on sprinklers.