Barbara Lane (Arup): Post-Grenfell Recommendations And Change

The Grenfell Tower fire was a prolonged catastrophe that killed over 70 people, some early on the night of 14th June 2017, others much later having waited hours for help. The loss of life and fire scenes during the night and the days after, had a profound effect on how the public perceive the construction industry.

This negative perception has been further compounded by the scale of defective buildings revealed since 2017. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is reporting January 2025 on remediation works to 5,025 residential buildings in England alone, with the National Audit Office confirming in November 2024 that a staggering 9,000-12,000 buildings of 11m or higher require remedial works.

Whilst Government interventions continue to expand, it is down to all professionals and trades responsible for creating and maintaining a safe built environment to transform. This means all professionals and trades taking ownership of their impact on the final condition of fire safety measures. It means all professionals and trades taking care to understand the interconnected factors which influence fire risk. It means all of us placing our duty to protect the public proudly at the heart of everything we say and do in the pursuit of our day-to-day work.

Key Lessons Learned Post-Grenfell

One of the consequences of the Grenfell Tower fire was the lifting of the lid on prevailing practices throughout a construction industry which had clearly lost its way. Stark failures emerged in prevailing practice within planning, procurement, design, building control, construction product fire performance, construction methodologies, handover of active and passive fire protection systems, through to building operations, maintenance, and risk assessment.

Along with the chronic lack of interest from so many over so many years regarding fire safety information and the “seriously defective” regulation of the construction industry, there was little left to feel proud about. How all this together could in the end only cause significant harm to the residents/end users of buildings, was clearly no longer on many agendas. This situation is unfathomable for the tens of thousands of people caught up now in dealing with remediation bills, trying to access mortgage finance or affordable insurance, unable to sell/move, and it is unforgivable to the bereaved, survivors and residents of Grenfell Tower.

This loud noise of incompetence and lack of care, the absence of accountability, has drowned out those professional bodies and associations who have continuously strived for improvement and/or raised repeated concerns that were ignored. This leaves the ASFP well placed to continue to be a role model in its mission to promote best practice in passive fire protection.

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 recommendations (implications and implementation)

The refurbishment of Grenfell Tower itself was found with multiple design and installation non-compliances, major failures in the building control process, the installation of multiple dangerous non-compliant building materials, no evidence the active fire safety system had been maintained, and no evidence existed of correct operational performance before the fire – smoke control, lifts, etc. Crucial passive fire protection systems such as fire doors were not fire rated, not maintained, and door closers removed by the responsible person; the statutory required risk assessments were done with little care thus missing crucial failings. There was no record of persons requiring assistance for the fire brigade to use on the night. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry published its second report (Phase 2) on 4 September 2024. It set out extensive evidence to explain its serious criticism of not just the refurbishment companies and the consequences of that project, but also crucial stakeholders that continue to operate in the built environment, such as those responsible for fire testing, certification, auditing, manufacture and sale of a range of construction products.

Ultimately, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry concluded its report with 58 final recommendations set out over five core topics, one of those topics being “The construction industry and the regulatory arrangements for it”. This attracted the most extensive number of the recommendations at a total of 28.

Those 28 recommendations in themselves cover deep complexity, with the ultimate outcome potentially being at a scale substantially beyond the changes already legislated for since 2017. From changes in governance within Government, further change to what they legislate regarding fire safety requirements and fire testing, right through to major changes to the professions of fire engineers, fire risk assessors, architects, contractors, clients and building control, there is now significant consultation and planning work underway, as described in the MHCLG response papers published on 26 February 2025.

All of this can represent a once in a generation opportunity to create a more effective and equitable fire safety system underpinning the built environment.

The Role of Passive Fire Protection

The role of containment in the event of a fire and the protection of structural elements in the event of a fire continue to be the fundamental components of any fire safety strategy in any Purpose Group.

Assuring designers, contractors and the public, that the materials, products, and systems available in the market can meet an accurate performance classification preferably through testing is as it always was - crucial. There remains a need for transparent and freely available information in support of any construction product with the express intent being to demonstrate compliance with all relevant requirements.

This means publicly available evidence of the fire performance of materials, products, assemblies and systems, third party certified, with bench-scale and full-scale test data and relevant certification information accessible and clearly communicated.

There is a need for rigorous improvement in the installation of classic and innovative passive fire protection systems, with significant value placed on site-based scrutiny and attention to detail.

Whilst many other fundamental changes are prepared for implementation, such as the regulation of fire safety engineers, it is clear these major professional changes will remain pointless unless the prevailing practice in the passive fire protection market is one of excellence and demanding all stakeholders to take ownership of doing the right thing.

Culture change, leadership and collaboration

We need to regain public trust in the built environment and prove industry’s commitment to producing fire safe buildings. The attitudes, values and behaviours around fire safety in the built environment have a significant influence on how all participants in “the system” behave. In systems with a strong safety culture, all participants are motivated to achieve the highest levels of safety.

The passive fire protection industry is well placed to demonstrate an intolerance of bad practice and an intolerance of a lack of compliance with all relevant requirements. It has a potentially highly influential role in dealing with the chronic failings throughout industry regarding the production of fire safety documentation, and the crucial need to significantly improve scrutiny of the handover process and the quality of the final as-built condition. Changing the culture in our industry is neither trivial nor easy. We need significant leadership and collaboration across the broad spectrum of trades and professions to create, adopt and implement an industry-wide evidence-based evolutionary approach (with guidance and tools) to building a strong safety culture. It is our collective duty and well within our collective capability to create a safe and equitable built environment.

This article is featured in our latest Journal & Member Directory - available from 8th May 2025.