Health and Safety in the news this
week
The fire safety regime covering high-risk buildings is
“not fit for purpose” according to the interim report by the independent review
of building regulations and fire safety chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt.
High-risk and complex buildings -
defined as those “where multiple people live or stay and for which exceptional
events could lead to the risk of large-scale fatalities” – are subject to
regulations which are too complex and poorly implemented, says the report.
The report calls for “simplified and
unambiguous” regulations and guidance on fire safety. It says as an interim
measure the government should consider “presentational changes” to improve the
clarity of Approved Document B, which accompanies the Building Regulations.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme
before the report’s launch Dame Hackitt said of the Building Regulations: “The
regulations themselves are pretty simple but what sits below them is a whole
series of guidance documents which stacked on top of one another would be two
feet high.
There is clearly an opportunity to
make that much simpler and to guide people to the right answer rather than
presenting them with all that information.”
The independent review was commissioned
by the government after the Grenfell Tower fire in June. Its call for evidence
drew responses from 250 parties, including IOSH.
Its interim report also calls for a
change in fire safety culture.
“At the heart of this required
change is a shift of ownership,” says Dame Hackitt. “Despite being advised at
the outset that the regulatory system for building was outcomes and
performance-based, I have encountered masses of prescription which is complex
and in some cases inconsistent. The prescription is largely owned by
government, with industry – those who should be the experts in best practice –
waiting to be told what to do and some looking for ways to work around it.”
Dame Hackitt says that as chair of
the Health and Safety Executive between 2007 and 2016 she saw a shift in
construction industry safety led by the regulator and the major employers. “A
cultural and behavioural change of similar magnitude” is now required among all
those responsible for fire safety, she says, including developers, architects
and building owners.The report calls for the “regular” fire risk assessments required for buildings covered by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 to be carried out at least annually or whenever a building is altered. The risk assessments should be shared with residents and the fire service, it recommends.
The mandatory consultation with fire
and rescue services on plans for buildings that are covered by the Fire Safety
Order “does not work as intended” says the report. Fire service advice is not
always followed.
“Consultation by building control
bodies and by those commissioning or designing buildings should take place
early in the process and fire and rescue service advice should be fully taken
into account,” it recommends.
“Responsible persons under the Fire
Safety Order are frequently not identified when the building is due to be
handed over following construction and therefore people are not aware of their
responsibilities,” it notes.
Professional bodies representing
fire engineers and risk assessors, building control officers and fire system
installers must come up with a system to guarantee the competence of people
working on complex buildings, the report recommends.Responding to the report, IOSH strategic development director Shelley Frost said: “In the consultation, we called for the consideration of mandatory accreditation of fire risk assessors for all high-rises, to ensure standards are as high as they can be.
“Part of this is having the right people making the right decisions – well-trained, competent personnel. With fire safety being a complex issue, systems should be clear, simple to understand and proportionate.
“Without adequate training, will
someone know the importance of checking areas out of plain sight, such as above
ceilings or in ducts? Will someone know to check if fire doors have been
removed? Will someone know to check if renovation work has unintentionally
compromised compartmentalisation?
To end the poor documentation of
buildings whose design changes during planning or construction there must be “a
golden thread for all complex and high-risk building projects so that the
original design intent is preserved and recorded, and any changes go through a
formal review process involving people who are competent and who understand the
key features of the design”.
Building control bodies must ensure
fire safety information for a building is provided by builders or developers to
the responsible person for the building in occupation.
The report highlights the fact that
there is no requirement in the Building Regulations for buildings to be brought
up to the latest fire safety standards, as long as during any refurbishment
does not weaken the existing provisions.
Responding to criticisms that some
forms of building cladding had not previously been subject to fire testing in
situ, the report says the government should “significantly restrict” the use of
desktop studies to approve changes to cladding and other systems “to ensure
that they are only used where appropriate and with sufficient, relevant test
evidence”.
Phase two of the review will focus
on specifying a simpler risk-based regulatory system. The report says this
revision must not stifle innovation in building design, add disproportionately
to costs and build times or burden low-risk, small-scale projects.
Dame Hackitt says she will convene a
summit of “key stakeholders” to discuss the new regime early in 2018. Her final
report is due in the spring.
Source: IOSH Magazine
