The report of the Strategic Director, Place (Document “W”) will provide an update for members on the Council’s involvement with high rise residential buildings following the Grenfell Tower disaster.

Recommended –

That the Committee note the report and request a further update on the work relating to high rise residential buildings in 12 months.

(Justin Booth – 01274 434716)

The report of the Strategic Director, Place (Document “W”) provided an update for members on the Council’s involvement with high rise residential buildings following the Grenfell Tower disaster.

On 14 June 2017 a fire caused multiple fatalities and injuries at the Grenfell Tower in North Kensington.  Grenfell tower was a 24 storey residential block.  The cause and impacts of this tragedy had been well documented but in summary it had been reported that the fire started in a malfunctioning refrigerator; fire in flat was extinguished but had spread to the cladding; fire in the cladding spread up the external faces of the building; and, the building had been fitted with external foamed polyisocyanate insulation boards and over that, aluminium composite material (ACM) rain screen for appearance and weathering.

In response to the tragedy, the Government had set up a public inquiry and progressed with a formal review of legislation relating to safety in buildings.

The Building Safety Programme’s work had involved working with local authorities to identify any other high rise residential buildings that could have been clad in ACM cladding. The definition of a high rise building being that it is over 18 metres in height.

The Council had completed returns to government relating to the buildings within           the district that are residential, over 18 metres high and faced with cladding.

Following introduction of the report, a question and answer session had ensued:

·         What was the way forward to get owners to give samples of material on their buildings?

o   This was the subject area of Facilities Management however if  owners refrained from complying then this would be through a legal process;

·         Why had it taken a significant time in establishing high rise residential buildings that could have been clad in ACM cladding?

o   It had taken the Council a significant time in recognising buildings with such substances;

·         Has the Council had any indication from government when local authorities should commence with investigations?

o   Not at present due to the fact that the whole regulatory legislative system was not fit for purpose. The whole legal system was being reviewed at this present time and fire regulations were too being rewritten;

·         What was the timescale for cladding to be removed?

o   Advice was being sought from the Fire Service but the Council had been advised that no information would be released until a further 12 months;

·         Had any measures been put in place on an interim basis for any high fire risk buildings?

o   An interim measure would not be a cheap alternative and therefore buildings were being monitored on a 24 hours a day basis;

·         Had the Council thought on the fact that schools may also be at fire risk?

o   Yes and hospitals were in the Council’s radar during the review;

·         Why was the formation of new legislation taking a considerable amount of time?

o   The formation of new legislation was a complicated process due to the complexity of law surrounding the whole building and not only the material. This area has never been in the Council’s jurisdiction previously and even the government was not entirely clear in regards to new powers of persuasion;

·         Is the Council giving feedback to government in relation to the problems encountered?

o   All Councils were sending comments to government on their own individual issues; and,

·         If schools were found to have below standard fire hazardous materials, could the Council not take any form of enforcement action  due to the safety of children?

o   Housing enforcement powers could not be utilised on schools and it was the Council’s focus to work with residents’ as a first basis priority.

During the discussion, the following points were made:

Committee and officers stated that it was clear that the framework on recall was not a strong or fit for purpose legislation;

Once a building had been built, a building contractor easily walked away and there was no legal position on anyone to ensure who was responsible for which aspect of a high rise building;

It was clear that there was lack of retrospective powers; and,

The Council was working with the government there was the anticipated formation of a new legislation, but due to the complexity of the review, this would take some time.

Resolved –

(1)       That the on going work between the Council and the West          Yorkshire Fire Service to address issues with high rise residential        blocks across the District be noted.

(2)       That the Committee requests an update report in six months time         to include details of the impact of the revised Government             legislation and any additional demand on resources.

ACTION: Strategic Director, Place