Thread by @PeteApps

I see the government was back in the House of Lords today claiming to be implementing the Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommendations in full. Something which remains... not true

1. Manual fire alarms

The inquiry said all high rise buildings should be "equipped with facilities for use by the fire and rescue services enabling them to send an evacuation signal to the whole or a selected part of the building by means of sounders or similar devices"

That is quite conclusively not something the government is signed up to. Leaked minutes I've seen show an industry response group warning the government this recommendation is a case of “cost against benefit (it’s not cheap)”.

The only commitment in its consultation is that this should be "informed by the outcome of the programme of research and testing". Which is not the same as doing it. High rises are not currently being fitted with alarms unless we KNOW they have defects:

2. Fire door checks

The inquiry said the owners of all buildings with seperate dwellings should be legally required to check fire door self-closers every three months. Broken self closers were a critical internal fault at Grenfell

The govt proposed three monthly checks on communal doors (to stairwells, lobbies etc) every three months and entrance doors every six months in high rises ONLY. For smaller buildings it would be every year. Nothing in its consultation response today suggests this will change

NB - it might be that checking all doors in all buildings every three months IS too frequent to be possible, but it is what the inquiry suggested and if ministers want to shoot lower for practical reasons it should at least say so not pull the wool over our eyes.

3. Personal emergency evacuation plans

The inquiry said: owners and managers should be required by law to prepare personal emergency evacuation plans for residents who may struggle to do so independently, with information about them stored in the premises’ information box

The government tried to dodge this one after being told by its industry response group that it was “completely impracticable and not doable” and people with disabilities should continue to rely on "stay put". It only wanted to implement for buildings with known dangerous cladding

Following the successful threat of judicial review by bereaved family members, it has been forced to reopen this consultation, and the British Standards Institution has had to retract guidance which went firmly against it. We don't know how this consultation will play out.

In all honesty - I could live with the government saying "there are areas where the recommendations need to be reworked to make them practical, we'll work openly with survivors, bereaved and residents to get it right".

What I can't take is telling the public and Parlaiment they are "steadfast in their commitment" to implement in full and then holding behind-closed-doors meetings with industry lobbyists who tell them it's too difficult and too expensive. It's bad faith. (ends)

Some bits I've written about this stuff if anyone's interested:

insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insigh…

insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/brit…

insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/gove…