Agenda item

To consider the activities undertaken and ongoing regarding fire safety in West Berkshire, following the Grenfell Tower fire on 14 June 2017.

(Councillor Emma Webster declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 9 by virtue of the fact that she was one of West Berkshire Council’s appointed representative on the Royal Berkshire Fire Authority. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest she determined to remain to take part in the debate.)

The Chairman invited Steve Barford and Luke Bingham from Sovereign and Trig Thomas from Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service (RBFRS) to the meeting.

Richard Turner introduced his report (Agenda Item 9), which provided an update on the activities and the status regarding fire safety in West Berkshire buildings following the Grenfell Tower fire on 14^th June 2017. Richard Turner reported that he was a manager within the Property Services Team and was responsible for leading on the area of fire safety.

Following on from the incident and the communication from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) that followed, West Berkshire Council instigated a series of actions and activities to ensure the fire safety of its buildings was both compliant and well managed.

Communications from Government were still being received regularly and often included actions. A group of Officers and Members had been formed to deal with all matters.

Richard Turner confirmed that West Berkshire Council (WBC) did not own any high rise residential blocks and neither did Sovereign. Steve Barford reported that officially a building had to be 18 storeys high to be considered as ‘high rise’, however, RBFRS suggested that any building six storeys or over should be checked. The highest residential building that Sovereign owned was six storeys high although there were other six storey buildings at the Racecourse development and Parkway. There were also eight private high rise blocks located at Park Way and the Racecourse and fire safety advice for these buildings had been provided by RBFRS. WBC uploaded the details of all buildings onto a database including details of privately owned residential blocks.

Richard Turner reported that a questionnaire had been submitted by the Council’s Education Service answering questions posed by the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) and no follow on actions had been required.

Richard Turner reported that the Care Quality Commission confirmed to WBC that they had communicated directly with service providers.

A fire safety questionnaire had also been issued to all ‘Responsible Persons’ for individual sites, both WBC schools and non-school sites, to establish the sufficiency of current Fire Risk Assessments (FRAs) and the existence of any Aluminium Composite Material cladding. Richard Turner confirmed that there was a rolling programme to ensure FRAs were kept up to date going forward. If there was ever uncertainty about cladding, Richard Turner reported that an Officer would visit the site. He was satisfied that all risk assessments were up to date and that there were no issues in relation to cladding.

Richard Turner reported that WBC Property Services had submitted on the government portal ‘Delta’, information on private residential properties, specifically related to high rise properties and cladding presence.

Richard Turner reported that in December 2017, WBC had received a copy of the interim report of the independent review of building regulations and fire safety (by Dame Judith Hackitt DBE FREna), which had found that the current regulatory system for ensuring fire safety in high rise and complex buildings was not fit for purpose and listed what the failings were. The report had set the direction for change under six broad areas. Richard Turner stated that it was expected that the final report would be available in spring 2018 and WBC would review any recommendations and assess the potential impact for West Berkshire.

The Chairman invited Trig Thomas from RBFRS to give an overview of the response by the Fire Service.

Trig Thomas reported that Fire Officers had been sent out immediately to visit every high rise building (158 in total across the county), to ensure that there was no fire risk and to gather evidence on cladding. This activity had been completed within a month of the Grenfell Tower incident. A Memorandum of Understanding had been drawn up, which was bound by two laws: the Housing Act and the Fire Safety Order. WBC had been particularly prompt in signing up to the Memorandum of Understanding. All but three buildings had been audited in the area and this was because they were not yet occupied.

The final report from the DCLG was expected in the near future and RBFRS had proactively fed evidence in to the process. The RBFRS were beginning to return to “normal” and they were working with local authorities to help keep residents safe.

Trig Thomas concluded that although cladding was the focus of the investigation, Investigators were also responsible for checking all aspects of fire safety when visiting residential properties. All residential properties in West Berkshire had passed the investigations. There had been some requests of informal action however, no significant fire safety concerns had been raised.

The Chairman invited Steve Barford and Luke Bingham from Sovereign to give an overview of the organisation’s response.

Steve Barford reported that Sovereign’s experience had been much the same as WBC’s in that it had dealt with a large amount of communication from central Government.  Checks on properties and external cladding had been carried out immediately following the 14^th June 2017. Sovereign was fortunate in that it did not have any high rise properties in West Berkshire and the tallest residential properties in its ownership included four, five and six storey. Because of this Sovereign had focused its checks of properties over three storeys high.

Steve Barford reported that changes in building design had formed a significant part of the review. Advice given as part of the Hackitt Review had been fully taken into account by the organisation, which also had an excellent local relationship with RBFRS.

Steve Barford commented that in 2017 there had been six fires in Sovereign properties located within West Berkshire. Three were linked to tumble dryers; one had been a result of arson; one a result of hoarding and one had been classed as ‘unknown’.

Luke Bingham added that the inspection process had given residents reassurance and residents had been more cooperative in light of the Grenfell incident. In the past residents had accused the organisation of being overzealous particularly with regards to the removal of trampolines from premises, which had been identified by the organisation as a risk to fire safety. Sovereign also took an active approach to reduce hoarding.

For vulnerable residents, Sovereign had 24 hour care line facilities. If an alarm was triggered within a property of a vulnerable person, then RBFRS were automatically called.

Councillor Ian Morrin noted that although cladding had been the focus of the report, others issues could be picked up as part of the process and he asked if there was any knowledge of what other issues there could be.  

Trig Thomas stated that he had no information in relation to Grenfell Tower. However, an issue that had been identified as part of the review was compartmentation that had been compromised. Trig Thomas explained that compartmentation was the way a fire could spread around a building. It was thought that de-compartmentation reviews would be a likely outcome of the Hackitt Review.

Councillor Morrin asked if there had been any concerns raised specifically about properties in West Berkshire. Trig Thomas reported that one building had shown evidence of slight de-compartmentation. Other areas in the country had faced much larger problems in terms of de-compartmentation. He reiterated that the issue was about keeping a fire contained e.g. within one flat.

The Chairman referred to the ‘Stay Put’ Policy and commented that if people were trying to get out of a building when the Fire Service were trying to enter, then this could compromise the actions of the Fire Service. 

Councillor Laszlo Zverko referred to a recent news article that had detailed fire risks as the result of faulty appliances. Councillor Zverko also noted that three of the fires within Sovereign properties had been caused by appliances and therefore asked what else could be done to prevent these fires. Trig Thomas commented that it was important that people registered their appliances in case there was a safety risk discovered, which meant an appliance needed to be recalled. Every fire was investigated and it could be identified if an appliance had been the cause. The RBFRS also carried out ‘health and wellbeing visits’ to vulnerable residents where they were advised on matters such as not overloading plug sockets. Most importantly Trig Thomas stressed that smoke detectors should be installed within all properties and preferably a sprinkler system too. Trig Thomas stressed that installing sprinkler systems would save lives.

Steve Barford reported that Sovereign had a regime regarding electrical testing within its properties including a very efficient trip switch. Sovereign’s Maintenance Service Team was also trained to look for possible risks e.g. overloaded sockets, and were constantly offering advice. Steve Barford stated that although there was no plan to install sprinkler systems retrospectively, Sovereign was looking to install sprinkler systems within the next three to four years. Steve Barford confirmed that all properties owned by Sovereign had been fitted with smoke detectors and these were tested on an annual basis.

Luke Bingham commented that domestic appliances were a challenge. Mobility scooters were an area of concern as they were often unregulated and residents often charged the battery for a scooter within their home. Mobility scooters were often also purchased second hand, which also posed a fire risk. As a result Sovereign were building scooter stores within residential areas. Steve Barford reported that Sovereign had created a video in partnership with RBFRS, which illustrated the fire risks associated with mobility scooters. The Chairman requested that this video be shared with Members of the Commission.

The Chairman understood that when an incident like Grenfell Tower happened, fear amongst residents increased and she asked what was being done to reassure residents. Steve Barford reported that Sovereign had a Property Compliance Team which went out and visited properties. Luke Bingham commented that residents were happier to comply with advice around fire safety, whereas previously they had questioned the movement of equipment. Officers also played an important role in reaffirming to residents the dangers around certain health equipment and ensuring residents flagged the use of new equipment that could pose a fire risk e.g. oxygen tanks. 

The Chairman asked if the Fire Service were involved in the pre-planning stage of residential development. As far as she was aware the Fire Service was not a consultee in the pre-planning stage. If this was the case the Chairman felt that the Commission could have a role to play in enforcing RBFRS became a consultee in the pre-planning stage of residential properties. Councillor Tim Metcalfe speculated whether this was something that fell under building control.

Trig Thomas confirmed that the Fire Service was consulted on planning applications however, not within the pre-planning stage. The Fire Service could offer advice however, this did not have to be acted upon. It was thought that this might form part of the recommendations as a result of the Hackitt Review. The Chairman voiced her concern that if advice by the Fire Service was not adopted then this could pose significant risks.

Trigg Thomas stated that he would continue to push for sprinklers to be installed within properties in order to improve safety. If the Fire Service was involved in the pre-planning stage then advice could be acted upon. Recommendations made at a later stage often meant developers incurred higher costs.

Councillor Richard Somner stated that caution was required with regards to making changes prior to the final Hackitt Report being published. It was important that a review was undertaken at the appropriate time once the final report had been published, to avoid a repeat of the process. The Chairman agreed that this would be helpful.

The Chairman asked the Sovereign representatives if the organisation provided white good, or if residents provided these themselves.  Luke Bingham confirmed that Sovereign did not currently provide white goods apart from on new developments where white goods were integrated. Sovereign properties were inspected on a regular basis and any integrated white goods were PAT tested.

There were a number of triggers that made a person more vulnerable to fire and Luke Bingham commented that a number of these triggers were relevant to some of Sovereign’s residents.  Sovereign could help residents to locate white goods through second hand sales. There was good work going on across the organisation to help support those who were more vulnerable.

The Chairman stressed to all those in attendance that smoke detectors should be tested on a weekly basis.

The Chairman thanked all Officers for attending the meeting and commented that it was likely that the topic would be re-visited once the final Hackitt Report was published.

RESOLVED that:

·         The video created in partnership between RBFRS and Sovereign on the fire risks associated with mobility scooters be circulated to Members of the commission.

·         The topic of Fire Safety be revisited at a future OSMC meeting once the full Hackitt report had been published.