Summary_readers response Draft #3

In the article ‘Eight failures that left people of Grenfell Tower at mercy of the inferno’, Knapton and Dixon (2017) claimed that Grenfell Tower had numerous lapses in both ‘building regulation and safety rules’ which contributed to the incident. Buildings in London followed the Building Acts until 1986 whereby the external walls supposed to have at least one hour of fire resistance. ‘Class O’ regulation was introduced which removed the initial requirements regardless of being combustibility. Knapton and Dixon (2017) reported a specialist in fire protection remarked the gap between the claddings exacerbated the fire to upper levels. The materials used for the cladding met the UK standards but they contributed to the fire spreading and made fire-fighting impractical. In UK, only one staircase and sprinklers installed up to a maximum of 30 meters high are required. Knapton and Dixon (2017) reported a specialist in fire safety claimed the required fire-rated doors in Grenfell Tower was missing. The firebreaks, which were a requirement under Building Regulations 1991, did not serve its purpose during the fire.

According to the article, there were warnings made from the fire safety experts on the outdated building regulations. However, the numerous lapses found during the investigations demonstrated the incompliances in building regulations. The building regulators should have improved their building regulations. 

First of all, the building regulator duty is to identify and review older tower buildings like Grenfell Tower if it is practical to implement the new regulations and if it is safe for future refurbishments. According to Knapton and Dixon (2017), Grenfell Tower was built in accordance with the past. One staircase and sprinklers installed up to a maximum of 30 meters high are required. In addition, Kentish (2017) claimed residents of Grenfell Tower inquired for sprinklers and more fire escapes but it was costly for the management of Grenfell Tower. The building regulators have to consider suitable building regulations for the older buildings and if Grenfell Tower is suitable to carry out additional refurbishment works. 

Secondly, as an authority, the building regulator should approve of the materials supplied for buildings. Knapton and Dixon (2017) mentioned the cheaper and incombustible claddings for refurbishment work were fixed on Grenfell Tower in 2016. However, the claddings on Grenfell Tower was tested on a small-scale lab and did not showed its compatibility for tower buildings. According to Kirkpatrik, Hakim and Glanz (2017),  the claddings on the surface of Grenfell Tower would appear appealing to the surroundings. Therefore, the management of Grenfell Tower prioritise on beautifying its building instead of the safety features required. The building regulator should ensure the claddings for buildings has been through sufficient lab tests.

Lastly, the building regulator should consider the safety of the buildings before limiting the amount for any refurbishment works. According to Kentish (2017), the management of Grenfell Tower had to cut costs in materials because of the amount for refurbishment works provided for housing loans were capped at an amount of 11.4 million pounds. Initially, the planning stage of refurbishment works includes fire protection features. From this report, the root cause of the blaze starts from the lack of funding and support to the management of Grenfell Tower. The management of Grenfell Tower carry out the incompliances such as leaving out fire protection features in their refurbishment works. 

Ultimately, Grenfell Tower blaze could spare more lives if building regulations were reviewed periodically and on a case to case basis. The building regulators should have improved their existing building regulations and take actions in banning the combustible claddings.

References: 

Danny D. Kirkpatrick, Danny Hakim, James Glanz. (2017, June 24). Why Grenfell Tower Burned: Regulators Put Cost Before Safety. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/world/europe/grenfell-tower-london-fire.html

Benjamin Kentish @BenKentish, B. (2017, August 11). The government restricted the refurbishment budget Grenfell council could have used for less flammable cladding. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-refurbishment-budget-cuts-government-limits-fire-kensington-chelsea-council-local-a7888391.html