What were the key recommendations from the Phase 2 Grenfell Report?

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report was published on 4 September 2024 and addresses the series of failures that impacted the lives of so many in the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017. The report highlights the range of institutions that were at fault, as well as the role the Government played in contributing to the tragedy. The inquiry panel consists of Thouria Istephan, Ali Akbor and is headed by Chairman, Sir Martin Moore-Bick (“the Inquiry”). In the words of Sir Martin Moore-Bick “the simple truth is that the deaths that occurred were all avoidable”.

Those in the construction and property industries will understand the impact that the Grenfell Tower fire has already had, such as the creation of the Building Safety Act 2022. The Phase 2 Report highlights a series of 58 recommendations, to avoid a repetition of this catastrophic incident. Prime Minister Keir Starmer intends to respond in full to each of the recommendations in the Inquiry within six months, which suggests significant changes to legislation and guidance are likely to follow and therefore yet more impacts are likely to be felt.

We would recommend that those within the construction and property industries read the report and are cognisant of  the recommendations – we have picked out several key recommendations in particular to note.

The regulatory arrangements

The report criticised the regulation of the construction industry as being complex and fragmented. The Inquiry argued that the degree of fragmentation is inefficient and an obstacle to effective regulation.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the functions of separate existing institutions are unified in a single regulatory body. The report explains that the establishment of a single “construction regulator” would enable information to be shared effectively. This construction regulator would have numerous responsibilities including but not limited to the following:

• The regulation of construction products
• The development of suitable methods for testing the reaction of materials and products intended for use in construction to fire
• The issue of certificates of compliance of construction products with the requirements of legislation, statutory guidance and industry standards
• The regulation and oversight of building control including monitoring the operation of the Building Regulations and the statutory guidance and advising the Secretary of State on the need for change
• The licensing of contractors to work on higher-risk buildings
• Carrying out research and collecting and exchanging information on matters affecting fire safety
• Accrediting fire risk assessors.

The Inquiry also found that the fragmentation of regulation is mirrored in the range of government departments currently responsible for fire safety. It recommends that the Government combines the separate functions into one department, under a single Secretary of State. It is advised that the Secretary of State appoints a chief construction adviser to assist on all matters affecting the construction industry.

Definition of “higher-risk building”

The Building Safety Act 2022 currently defines a “higher-risk building” as being a building which is at least 18 metres in height (or has at least seven storeys) and contains at least two residential units. The Inquiry finds this definition to be unsatisfactory as it is “arbitrary” in nature and it does not account for the likely presence of vulnerable individuals.

Our previous article, which summarises the key changes introduced by the BSA which are applicable to “higher risk buildings” can be found here.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the definition of a “higher-risk building” is reviewed to cater for the nature of use of a building and the likely presence of vulnerable people for whom evacuation in the event of a fire would be difficult. How this will be determined is currently unclear. Any change to the current definition of a “higher-risk building” would have significant implications if more buildings are drawn within the regulatory requirements of the Building Safety Act 2022. Any change will impact building owners, developers and those involved in the design and construction of higher-risk buildings to name a few.  It is therefore pivotal that those in the industry keep abreast of any proposed change to this definition.

Legislation and guidance

Approved Document B, which contains the statutory guidance on building regulations covering fire safety matters within and around buildings, is heavily criticised as being “unsatisfactory” as it fails to provide the information needed to design buildings that are safe in a fire. Chapter 6 of the Inquiry report emphasises the inadequacy of Class 0, which provides that external walls should be constructed of materials of “limited combustibility” if the building is greater than 15m.

Furthermore, reference is made in the Inquiry to the fact that Approved Document B is drafted on the basis that a “stay-put” evacuation strategy is appropriate where there is “effective compartmentation” in a high-rise building i.e. where the building has been divided into smaller sections/units as a method of controlling a fire and preventing it from spreading. The Inquiry suggests that new materials, methods of construction and the practice of over-cladding rebut the current assumption that a “stay-put” evacuation strategy is always appropriate.

Recommendation:

The Inquiry was not motivated to recommend specific changes to Approved Document B other than in relation to this point regarding the stay-put strategy which the Inquiry suggested would only be acceptable if there is a negligible risk of fire escaping and spreading.

In addition, the Inquiry recommended a fresh approach to reviewing and revising other statutory guidance and the Building Regulations that is driven primarily by considerations of safety, and that this is carried out by fresh minds, including representatives of the academic community as well as those with practical experience.

Professionals within the construction industry

The Inquiry makes several recommendations for professionals within the construction industry.

Recommendation:

• It is recommended that the profession of a fire engineer is recognised and protected by law and an independent body should regulate the profession
• The Inquiry recognises that the Architects Registration Board and the Royal Institute of British Architects has taken steps to improve the training of architects. However, the Inquiry recommends that these changes are reviewed in light of the Phase 2 Inquiry report
• It is recommended that a licensing scheme, operated by the construction regulator, should be introduced for principal contractors wanting to undertake work on higher-risk buildings. It also recommends that it should be a legal requirement that any application for building control approval for a higher-risk building (now known as Gateway 2) is supported by a personal undertaking from a director/ senior manager of the principal contractor to take all reasonable steps to ensure that on completion the building is safe as is required under the Building Regulations. A personal undertaking from principal contractors is onerous – it will mean that principal contractors may be personally liable if something that has not been done to ensure that a completed building complied with Building Regulations.  We’d query whether contractors would be willing to agree to assume such personal liability

Fire safety strategy

The report highlights the fact that those involved in the design and execution of the Grenfell Tower refurbishment failed to properly understand the need for a fire safety strategy. The final version of the “Outline Fire Safety” prepared for the building was incomplete (typically, a fire strategy will be produced at the design stage of a building in conjunction with architectural plans and is required as part of a building control submission). This resulted in the building being in a dangerous condition on completion.

Recommendation:

The Inquiry recommends that it should be a statutory requirement that a fire safety strategy is produced by a registered fire engineer is submitted with building control applications (Gateway 2) for the construction of higher-risk buildings, and it should be reviewed and re-submitted at the stage of completion (Gateway 3) – please see our article here as a reminder of these significant  gateway applications which now apply to works carried out to construct and modify higher-risk buildings. Any fire safety strategy must take into account the needs of vulnerable people and as a result will no doubt increase the information required, and work and time involved in, the gateway applications.

Fire performance tests

The report outlines issues with fire performance tests, in that they provide a limited amount of useful information. Evidently, “the factors that affect the way in which fire spreads over ventilated external wall systems are complex and understanding them is an evolving science” and necessary information is not always available to assess a suitable evacuation strategy.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that new tests are developed to provide the information that is required to carry out assessments reliably and cautions that British Standards Institute’s test methods should be approached with caution and should not be used as a substitute for an assessment by a suitably qualified fire engineer.

Certification of products and publication of test data

The report highlights the manipulative marketing devices employed by manufacturers of the rain-screen cladding panels and insulation used in the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower. Manufacturers used misleading marketing material because it failed to ensure the statements in the certificates issued were accurate and reflected test evidence and the United Kingdom Assessment Service (UKAS) failed to apply proper standards of supervision.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that issuing certificates and assessing whether construction products conform with the requirements of legislation, statutory guidance and industry standards will be one of the responsibilities of the new construction regulator referred to above. The Inquiry also recommends that copies of all test results should be included in the certificates alongside a full testing history, and manufacturers ought to be required by law to produce all test results that support claims about fire performance in their products.  Those involved with the manufacture of any products used in the construction of buildings must be aware of the greater levels of scrutiny that their products are likely to face.

Building control

The Inquiry found that in the period leading up to the Grenfell Tower fire, building control were co-operating with applicants rather than enforcing the Building Regulations rigorously. This was because approved inspectors had a commercial interest in acquiring and retaining customers that conflicted with their role as guardians of the public interest.

Recommendation:

It is therefore recommended that the Government appoints an independent panel to consider whether it is in the public interest for building control functions to be performed by those who have a commercial interest. It is recommended that the same panel considers whether all building control functions should be performed by a national authority.  As many will be aware, building control functions can currently be carried out by local authority building control or private building control and the decision as to who to choose may depend on factors such as price, a preference to choose those who are proximate in geographical area and have local knowledge, availability and time pressures.  If the system is changed to introduce a national building control, this choice may be removed and it will be interesting to see if how the new national system will manage the functions and responsibilities that it will be required to perform.

Conclusion

Despite the efforts of the construction and property industries to get to grips with changes first introduced as part of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, it is clear that more work is to be done and we may well see further changes that will have an impact across the board.  It remains to be seen what toll the tightening up of certain threshold requirements, such as the new definition of higher-risk buildings, will have, but since forewarned is forearmed, we recommend that building owners, those involved with the design and construction of buildings and any products and services used in the design and construction of buildings, remain up to speed with legislative and guidance changes, to ensure continuity of compliance. If you have any questions about the topics raised in this article, please get in touch info@ts-p.co.uk.