Agenda item

The Chair introduced Sir Ken Knight, who is leading the independent expert advisory panel advising the Government on fire safety measures in the wake of Grenfell. Sir Ken outlined the remit of the panel and explained that the panel’s work means it sits to some extent alongside the inquest and the police investigations, but is separate from the public inquiries. Sir Ken updated the members on work being done to test cladding samples and to communicate with local authorities so they could assess residents’ immediate safety. As well as liaising with social housing landlords, the panel was also hoping to obtain more information about the cladding on private sector buildings. Sir Ken was keen to emphasise that the panel’s key priority was to assess risk to occupants in buildings and that this was the main focus over compliance with building regulations more specifically.

Sir Ken told members that the panel was working closely with Home Office officials, giving advice to the Minister, but also with the London Fire Brigade (LFB), specifically Nick Coombe, who provides fire safety management support at the LFB. Nick spoke briefly to members about fire safety guidance and the need to update guidance for buildings which have unsafe cladding. The LFB maintains support for the ‘stay put’ guidance and suggests that this guidance would be retained once unsafe cladding had been removed from the affected buildings. Dany Cotton, Commissioner of the LFB, also gave members an update on the ongoing work around fire safety as well as ensuring the ongoing safety and welfare of fire officers. Dany was clear that there was a good reason for the ‘stay-put’ guidance and that it continued to be the correct guidance for residents in high rise buildings. The message was that the guidance was not just about building regulations and compliance but the vulnerable people living in these buildings.

Following these updates, members made the following comments:

·         Members all praised the work of the LFB and echoed concerns about any attempts to water down the stay-put policy. The LGA should stand by its guidance while also recognising that some buildings will require a different approach while unsafe cladding is removed. Members felt it was important that the sector had one, united voice to ensure that messages on public safety were clear.

·         A concern was raised about how fire safety measures, once established, would be monitored and enforced. Nick Coombe explained that the legislation is very clear in saying that the responsibility for fire safety rests with the landlord, or the managing agents in leaseholder blocks, while it is the Fire and Rescue Service’s role to enforce and monitor compliance with legislation through its inspection programme. It was explained that in London, a risk based approach is taken as there is nowhere near enough capacity to inspect every single building.

·         On fire suppression measures, members felt that stronger support needed to be given to the installation of sprinklers in new buildings but also retrofitting them wherever possible. Some members felt that retrofitting could be done cost-effectively without negatively impacting residents too much, but that some landlords and leaseholders make this difficult. It was noted that the report referenced local decision making ability but the reality was that very few authorities would be able to retrofit sprinklers because they could not afford it. Members felt that the LGA needed to be stronger in saying that sprinklers are essential and in lobbying the Government to ensure that they properly funded the necessary work. Sir Ken agreed that fire suppression systems are vital but also noted that there had been a lot of innovation in the field and that while sprinklers form a valuable part of a holistic package of fire safety measures, they were not a panacea.

·         A discussion was had about funding and what level of support would be available from the Government. LGA Principal Policy Adviser, Mark Norris, noted that work was ongoing to survey local authorities, asking what the cost of recladding their affected buildings would be. He said that they had received some estimates but would have a better idea of what level of support would be needed in time. It was noted that London Councils was carrying out similar work and that an initial idea of the quantities involved would be available soon.

·         Members were keen that when lobbying the Government, the LGA should emphasise the point that the conversation is not just about planning or cladding, but about people being and feeling safe in their homes.

Decision:

Members noted the update.

Action:

Officers to continue liaising with local authorities about the cost of recladding and making buildings safe.