Barking fire Major incident declared as fire breaks out in block of flats in East London.

[HelenaDove]

www.standard.co.uk/news/london/barking-fire-huge-blaze-breaks-out-at-block-of-flats-in-east-london-a4163006.html

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/17/delays-to-safety-reforms-risk-a-repeat-of-grenfell-disaster?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Delays to safety reforms ‘risk a repeat of Grenfell disaster’

MPs say ministers must work faster as hundreds of towers still have dangerous cladding

Ministers are risking people’s lives because safety reforms after the Grenfell Tower disaster have been too slow and “simply not good enough”, a cross-party group of MPs has warned.

More than two years since the fire claimed the lives of 72 people, the government is taking too long to remove potentially dangerous cladding from hundreds of other housing blocks and, despite promising in July 2017 to “urgently assess” building regulations, it has taken 23 months to merely publish proposals for consultation, a damning parliamentary inquiry concludes.

“The government must pick up the pace of reform, before it is too late and we have another tragedy on the scale of Grenfell Tower,” the Commons housing, communities and local government committee said on Wednesday.

The government’s own figures revealed that in May there were still 328 high-rise residential and publicly owned buildings in England fitted with cladding similar to that which burned with such ferocity at Grenfell. But the pace of repairs has been so slow that only one was fixed last month, leaving tens of thousands of people living in blocks wrapped in materials that the government says breach building safety rules.

Ministers have made £600m available for the removal of the specific type of aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding used on Grenfell but not other panels used on hundreds of other buildings that are believed to be equally combustible.

New building regulations remain several months away at least, and the conclusions of the first phase of the delayed public inquiry into how the fire spread are not expected before October.

“The government cannot morally justify funding the replacement of one form of dangerous cladding but not others,” said Clive Betts, the committee chairman. “Much more progress should also have been made on developing a comprehensive building and fire safety framework.”

*Fears of another disaster grew last month when the wooden cladding and balconies on an apartment block in Barking went up in flames. No one was hurt but building safety experts said that people would have died if the fire had happened at night, as at Grenfell. The material was allowed under current building regulations. Residents of the affected building, Samuel Garside House, were relocated to hotels but have been told they should move back in on Monday.

They will protest against the decision outside Barking town hall on Thursday, saying they fear the buildings are not safe*

The committee cited evidence from the Royal Institute of British Architects that apart from a ban on combustible cladding on high-rise buildings, building regulations remained largely unchanged and “we are potentially still constructing unsafe buildings”.

Grenfell survivors who were moved into a newly built block in Earl’s Court have suffered problems. In one case, the mother of a young child who escaped the burning tower had to endure the heavy ceiling of her new balcony collapsing in a way that could have caused serious injury.

The MPs also took evidence from Dame Judith Hackitt, the government’s reviewer of building regulations, who said ministers have lost momentum for reforms. Roy Wilsher, the chairman of the National Fire Chiefs Council, said the decision to ban only certain types of combustible cladding was “inadequate”. Ed Daffarn, a Grenfell survivor, warned: “Grenfell 2 is in the post unless you act, and quickly”. He said the bereaved and survivors were “sick and tired of being told by ministers: ‘Government is difficult, government takes time.’

The committee’s conclusions were backed by firefighters, who said: “There has been virtually nothing done to prevent another fire like Grenfell from happening.”

Matt Wrack, the leader of the Fire Brigades Union, said: “Time and time again we have raised the issues in this report, but the silence from government is deafening. This is a national emergency which is being met by the government with utter complacency.”

The committee also warned that ministers have unacceptably delayed plans to compel landlords to listen to tenants’ complaints, despite evidence that Grenfell residents’ safety fears were ignored by the council.

Daffarn told the committee: “If you live in social housing and you have a complaint about where you live, whether it is mould, or health and safety, the primary way you get this complaint addressed is by [uploading a photo] to Twitter and hoping you can embarrass your housing provider enough that it does something about it. That is not good enough post-Grenfell.”

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “Public safety is paramount and within days of the Grenfell Tower fire a comprehensive building safety programme was put in place to ensure residents of high-rise properties are always kept safe.

We have committed up to £600m to fund the removal and replacement of unsafe ACM cladding on high-rise social and private residential buildings. Ultimately building owners are responsible for the safety of their building and we expect them to carry out work quickly – anything less is unacceptable.

“At the same time, we are supporting the bereaved, survivors and their families of the Grenfell Tower tragedy and have already committed over £100m"

Fears of another disaster grew last month when the wooden cladding and balconies on an apartment block in Barking went up in flames. No one was hurt but building safety experts said that people would have died if the fire had happened at night, as at Grenfell. The material was allowed under current building regulations. Residents of the affected building, Samuel Garside House, were relocated to hotels but have been told they should move back in on Monday

They will protest against the decision outside Barking town hall on Thursday, saying they fear the buildings are not safe

The Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) has urged social housing providers to consider how accountable they are to tenants, as it published its Consumer Regulation Review today.
Linked In
Twitter
Facebook
eCard
Fiona MacGregor, speaking at the Housing 2019 conference in June (picture: Guzelian)
Fiona MacGregor, speaking at the Housing 2019 conference in June (picture: Guzelian)
Sharelines
Twitter IH
Regulator of Social Housing urges providers to address accountability to tenants, as it publishes Consumer Regulation Review #ukhousing #socialhousingfinance

Commenting on the report, which reveals key issues identified by the RSH within its consumer regulation role during 2018/19, chief executive Fiona MacGregor said: “I continue to urge all social housing providers to look at how accountable they are and how they can be more transparent with their tenants.”

The review stated that in some of the cases it investigates, while there has not been a breach of the consumer standards with potential or actual serious detriment, “the way in which registered providers listen to and engage with their tenants can fall short of what could be expected”.

The regulator noted that a “significant part” of its consumer regulator work stems from referrals regarding concerns about the arrangements providers have in place to keep tenants safe in their homes. This, it said, is “ultimately the responsibility of the governing bodies of registered providers – boards and local authority councillors”.

Figures published in the report have shown that the regulator received 502 consumer standard referrals in 2018/19, a slight decline on the 543 received in 2017/18.

Of the 502, 226 (45 per cent) were referred to the Consumer Regulation Panel – a slight increase on the 38 per cent referred to the panel in the previous year – and 124 (25 per cent) were then investigated further. The regulator found a breach and serious detriment in six cases one per cent).

Of the initial referrals received, 47 per cent were from individuals, while 31 per cent were self-referrals from registered providers. Eleven per cent were identified through the regulator’s own engagement with providers. The review also noted a new cohort of referrals for the year, with five per cent of referrals coming from statutory bodies, including local authorities, NHS services and the Housing Ombudsman.

Of all the cases the regulator went on to investigate further, 33 per cent were self-referrals from registered providers, 21 per cent were from tenants or their representatives, and 15 per cent were issues identified through its regulatory engagement.
Read More
Regulator: we have the ‘fundamental objectives needed’ to take on consumer regulator role
Regulator: we have the ‘fundamental objectives needed’ to take on consumer regulator role
Regulator: HAs must do their part to nurture co-regulatory settlement
Regulator: HAs must do their part to nurture co-regulatory settlement

Serious detriment test

Since April 2012, because of changes resulting from the Localism Act 2011, the regulator does not have a mandate to proactively monitor providers’ routine compliance with the consumer standards, and can only use its powers in relation to a provider when it has grounds to suspect there is actual or potential serious detriment to tenants.

The review noted: “Our reactive approach does not lessen the obligation on registered providers to comply and communicate with us in a timely manner in relation to a potential breach.”

This, it says, is a fundamental part of the co-regulatory settlement. “Where we find a breach of a consumer standard and serious detriment, and the registered provider has failed to be transparent with the regulator, we will take that into account as we consider what regulatory action is needed.”

The regulator also reported a correlation in some cases between the timing in which it notifies a provider of its intention to carry out an in-depth assessment (IDA), and the provider’s self-referral of issues to the regulator. This correlation is seen in one in seven of all self-referrals, it says.

Registered providers self-referring are also more likely to do so with regard to a matter relating to the Home Standard (88 per cent), rather than the Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard (nine per cent). Meanwhile, referrals from individuals such as tenants are spread more evenly across the standards, the review stated.

Home Standard

The regulator noted that the Home Standard – which covers issues relating to repairs and maintenance, decency of homes, and compliance with statutory health and safety requirements – features in around half of all referrals considered at the second stage of its referral process, the Consumer Regulation Panel.

This year, all the cases where the regulator went on to find a breach and serious detriment were related to the Home Standard. These, it said, were particularly in relation to the repairs and maintenance service provided by registered providers, and their compliance with statutory health and safety requirements across a range of areas, including fire safety, gas safety, electrical safety, lifts and legionella.

Most common were issues relating to fire safety, which featured in five of the six cases where the RSH found a breach and serious detriment. However it added: “[It] was striking that in a number of those cases, where we considered concerns relating to fire safety, weaknesses across other areas of health and safety were also identified.”

Robust reporting

The regulator emphasised the need for robust reporting and assurance arrangement, and stated that the importance of good quality data “cannot be overstated”.

“The expectation is that all registered providers will have assurance on the quality and integrity of their data. This is the foundation on which all other assurance of compliance is based.”

Commenting on the report, Ms MacGregor said: “The annual Consumer Regulation Review sets out the key issues we identified during 2018/19 in delivering our consumer regulation role and serves as a reminder to registered providers’ board members of our expectations.

“It also reinforces that well-run and well-governed organisations need to have systems in place to listen to and engage with tenants, and to take prompt and effective action when tenants may be at risk.

www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/barking-fire-displaced-residents-left-stressed-after-litany-of-rehousing-issues-62651

Barking fire: displaced residents left ‘stressed’ after litany of rehousing issues
News
09/08/196:00 AM
by Jack Simpson

Residents displaced following a fire that ravaged a Barking development in June have said that they are “stressed” and have had to “put their lives on hold” due to a number of issues around their rehousing.

Inside Housing has spoken to residents who lived in the Samuel Garside House development on the Barking Riverside site in east London, who have been heavily critical of the rehousing process being run by the block’s manager.

Dozens of individuals and families are living in hotels and other temporary accommodation across east London and have yet to return to their homes since the fire damaged 47 flats two months ago.

The residents have become frustrated at repeated calls from HomeGround and RMG, the blocks managers, that the properties are fine to move back into despite the occupants’ safety fears. RMG is a subsidiary of housing association Places for People.

Residents have been unwilling to return to their properties due to concerns over the standard of the works carried out since the fire, and the resulting safety of the buildings.

Since the end of July, they have been given several revised dates for when funding for temporary accommodation would end, and when they would have to move back to the Samuel Garside House development

It has also emerged that HomeGround and RMG have told residents to return to the two Samuel Garside House blocks – blocks C and D – worst affected by the fire, despite a Type 4 fire risk assessment having not yet been completed on these blocks.

A Type 4 fire risk assessment is the most detailed fire risk assessment and includes intrusive checks of the building’s interior. So far, only a Type 1 fire risk assessment has been carried out on blocks C and D, with the Type 4 assessment being carried out this week.

RMG and HomeGround said the safety and integrity of the buildings had been confirmed through independent peer-reviewed assessments. It added that while Type 4 risk assessments were being carried out, they were not needed for a building to be classified as safe.

Residents were initially told they would have to move back to their properties on 22 July.

Since then, the date has changed on a week-by-week basis. One resident currently living in a hotel told Inside Housing that they had been given three different dates in the space of three days for when funding would stop, something they said had caused “a huge amount of stress”

Last week, the property manager confirmed its insurance company had now agreed to cover the costs of the temporary accommodation until 2 September, so RMG and HomeGround could consult with residents who still had concerns. However, in the letter to residents it said that the extension was not acceptance or acknowledgement by the insurance company that the individual properties were uninhabitable.

Some families have also been offered temporary accommodation at Lawley Mansions, a nearby property owned by housing association L&Q.

However, despite receiving keys for the properties nearly three weeks ago, many have yet to be handed furniture packs from RMG and HomeGround, meaning they are unable to move into the properties.

One resident Inside Housing spoke to was unable to move their family, including children, into the the property due to this and has had to find alternative accommodation.

RMG admitted that there had been “some logistical problems with furniture packs” due to timescales, but said these were being addressed.

Darren Rodwell, leader of Barking and Dagenham Council, and Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, have written a letter to Robert Jenrick, the new housing secretary, calling on him to fund the costs of temporary accommodation until residents feel ready to return.

The letter said: “We are sure you will agree with us that, as has been the case with similar crises elsewhere in England, the government should step in to underwrite the costs of temporary accommodation.”

A spokesperson for RMG and HomeGround said: “The safety and integrity of the buildings has been confirmed through independent, peer-reviewed, fire risk assessments as well as a separate structural engineer’s assessment.

“All residents with concerns have been offered individual walkarounds and inspections of the site with the relevant experts, to discuss any specific issues they have.
"The assessment process includes direct liaison with each resident but is subject to regular change as the surveyors’ recommendations regarding habitable status are updated daily. Timescales have had to remain flexible to enable those residents that wish to return home, to do so.

Inside Housing has identified the key organisations involved in developing and managing Samuel Garside House:

Developer: Bellway

Architect: Sheppard Robson

Building owner (headlease): Adriatic Land

Freeholder of land: Greater London Authority/L&Q

Management: HomeGround, which appointed RMG (part of Places for People)

Building control: NHBC

Owner of affordable homes (32 of 80): Southern Housing Group

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/13/samuel-garside-residents-move-back-despite-fire-safety-fears?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Barking fire: social tenants told to return despite safety fears

Residents of east London flats say they are being forced back before safety assessments

Social housing residents of a block of flats in east London that was recently engulfed in flames say they are being forced to move back despite safety fears.

All residents at Samuel Garside House in Barking were evacuated after a fire on 9 June. About 100 firefighters and 15 fire engines were dispatched to deal with the blaze. The majority of residents were put in hotel accommodation, while others were rehomed in temporary accommodation.

The landlord for social tenants, Southern Housing Group, has now informed residents that they will no longer receive financial support to stay in alternative accommodation and must return to their flats.

Leaseholders will continue to receive financial support for alternative accommodation until September.

Social housing residents said they were being forced to move back in before safety assessments were carried out by the building control department of the borough of Barking and Dagenham. These assessments are due to start on 21 August and be completed on 29 August.

The cause of the fire has not yet been determined but experts had previously warned that the building’s wooden balconies could “accelerate fire spread”.

While some of the cladding has been removed, residents have been told it will take several months for it all to be removed. Though a report in June recommended that the existing wooden cladding on the building be sprayed with fire retardant in the interim, this has yet to happen.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more

Twenty flats were destroyed by the flames and a further 10 were damaged by heat and smoke. The worst-affected flats were in blocks C and D, which are largely owned by leaseholders or privately rented. Social housing tenants largely reside in blocks A and B, which were not badly affected.

Peter Mason, the chair of the Barking Reach residents’ association, described the decision to force social housing residents to move back as “disgraceful”. He said: “We will be contacting Southern Housing urgently to protest.

“Although they’ve partially removed some decorative portion of the cladding, the vast majority of it remains. If a balcony caught fire, it would spread rapidly from flat to flat. I don’t think they have removed the danger.

Shaun Murphy, a senior solicitor at Edwards Duthie Shamash, is representing several residents at Samuel Garside House. He said: “We are very concerned about the decision of Southern Housing Group to withdraw financial support for the residents. All this has happened prior to the completion of safety reports due at the end of the month, to be undertaken by the London borough of Barking and Dagenham.”

He added: “There is also the outstanding issue of the recommendation of existing cladding still not having been sprayed with adequate fire retardant. All of this has been ignored by Southern Housing Group in forcing residents to go back into Samuel Garside House now.”

The local MP, Margaret Hodge, said: “It is not right that social housing tenants of Samuel Garside House are forced to return to the block whilst private tenants and leaseholders have until September. These families and individuals deserve equal treatment

“I urge Southern Housing to reconsider. Their tenants must be allowed to stay in their temporary accommodation until further repair works and the next fire safety assessments are completed.

A spokesperson for Barking and Dagenham council said: “Residents are understandably concerned about returning home and, despite our limited powers to intervene as this is not a council block, they have asked if we can assess the block’s safety. We have appointed an independent HHSRS [housing health and safety rating system] assessor to determine whether there are any category 1 or 2 hazards and this assessment is due to start on 21 August.”

Chris Harris, the customer services director of Southern Housing Group, said: “Our priority is always the safety and wellbeing of our residents. From the moment the fire was reported, Southern Housing Group has worked with London borough of Barking and Dagenham(LBBD), the London fire service and other stakeholders to ensure that the people affected could return to their homes and normality as soon as possible. None of the properties occupied by Southern Housing Group’s residents were directly damaged by the fire and so they are not being inspected by LBBD. Indeed, the properties were deemed safe for the return of residents by LFS’s fire safety engineer shortly after the fire was extinguished and residents started to return from the afternoon of Tuesday 11 June.”

Harris added: “At no time has there been any suggestion from the London fire service, the council or independent fire safety inspectors that it is unsafe to for Southern Housing Residents to return home.

Case study

Jacqueline, 52, a social housing tenant at Samuel Garside House, said she has not been able to sleep in her room since moving back into her flat. She sleeps in the living room with the lights on instead. She fears the block is not safe to live in, but said her social housing provider has left her with no other option.

“If anything happens, I need to know I can get out quickly because I don’t trust their system to wake me up on time,” she explained. “I live on my own, which makes it even worse.”

Southern Housing, the social housing provider, told Jacqueline that as of Monday 12 August, she would no longer be receiving financial support to stay in alternative accommodation and she could return to her flat.

“My first thought was: is the property safe? What are we moving back into? I don’t feel safe or comfortable at all but I don’t have any choices,” she said.

Jacqueline had lived in her flat for five years and said she became emotional when she thought about the fire tearing through the building while she was sitting in her flat. While there was no physical damage to her flat, she worried that the wooden cladding, which experts have previously warned could accelerate a fire, had not been sprayed with fire retardant and could take months to remove.

“I know people suffered more than me, but no one gets where we are coming from because they just want people in the flats,” Jacqueline said. “I know it’s not on the scale of Grenfell, but it’s only for the grace of God that no one died that day.”

now in Private Eye.

twitter.com/Real_Voices_/status/1167382630414913536?s=20

Another fire involving timbers...............Worcester Park

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-49630496

www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/barking-fire-the-inside-story-63110

www.insidehousing.co.uk/home/home/more-than-100000-medium-rise-buildings-outside-scope-of-fire-safety-measures-minutes-reveal-64231?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

More than 100,000 medium-rise buildings outside scope of fire safety measures, minutes reveal

NEWS
22/11/19
BY PETER APPS

There are more than 100,000 medium-rise homes that fall outside new regulations aimed at making buildings safe in the aftermath of Grenfell, including the ban on combustible cladding, Inside Housing can reveal.

More than 100,000 medium-rise buildings outside scope of fire safety measures, minutes reveal

NEWS
22/11/19
BY PETER APPS

There are more than 100,000 medium-rise homes that fall outside new regulations aimed at making buildings safe in the aftermath of Grenfell, including the ban on combustible cladding, Inside Housing can reveal.

Linked In
Twitter
Facebook
eCard
Picture: Getty
Picture: Getty
Sharelines
Twitter IHThere are more than 100,000 medium-rise homes which fall outside new regulations aimed making buildings safe in the aftermath of Grenfell, including the ban on combustible cladding #ukhousing
Twitter IHLeaked minutes from a meeting between councils and the government show that lowering the high-rise threshold to 11m would increase scope to 100,000 buildings #ukhousing
Leaked minutes from a meeting between local authority figures and government officials have shown that lowering the official threshold for a ‘high-rise building’ to 11m would raise the current number of buildings in scope from 12,000 to more than 100,000.

These buildings, which can be up to seven storeys tall, sit outside requirements to remove dangerous cladding, as well as newer recommendations to provide fire alarms and write evacuation strategies.

The ban on the use of combustible materials also only applies from 18m – meaning new buildings can currently be built with combustible cladding in compliance with government guidance.

The Cube in Bolton, which was ravaged by fire ripping through combustible high-pressure laminate panels last weekend, measured 17.86m, meaning it slipped narrowly below this threshold.

A huge fire that tore through combustible timber cladding in Barking, east London, in June also occurred in a building below 18m.

Industry sources said that builders have deliberately designed projects to narrowly below 18m to circumvent the regulatory requirements that kick in above that threshold.

Scotland recently changed regulations to reduce the threshold to 11m. Sir Martin Moore-Bick, chair of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, said last month that he would consider recommending such a change in phase two of the inquiry.

It comes as Inside Housing updates its End Our Cladding Scandal campaign ahead of the general election. The campaign calls for a national taskforce to prioritise the building safety work required after Grenfell and a building safety fund that could be used for any tower with serious safety issues, regardless of height.

Funding is currently restricted to buildings with aluminium composite material cladding above 18m only.

The minutes obtained by Inside Housing record a meeting between representatives of London boroughs and government officials held in September.

“There are 12,000 existing buildings over 18m… should we lower the building height to 11m, the number will go up to over 100,000,” they read
Paul Bussey, CDM and fire lead at AHMM Architects and a member of the expert panel on fire safety at the Royal Institute of British Architects, said: “There are people who are gaming the system by limiting buildings to six storeys.

“We are pretty convinced [at RIBA] that the combustibles ban should come down to 11m, if not all buildings. Why put combustible cladding on any building?”

Jonathan O’Neill, managing director at the Fire Protection Association, said he had also heard about the practice of designing below 18m to avoid the ban.

He added that the system should be reformed to prioritise safety based on risk – such as the number of occupants and their vulnerability – rather than simply height.

If you take the Crewe care home fire [Beechmere Care Home], there were 120 elderly residents present. There is no way any height parameter would have applied to that building,” he said.

One other industry source said that if the threshold was not reduced, the effect of the post-Grenfell regulations would simply be “a new generation of buildings narrowly below 18m in height”.

Inside Housing’s End Our Cladding Scandal campaign, run in partnership with leaseholders of affected buildings, calls on the next government to take control of the cladding crisis at a national level.

It is supported by Grenfell United, the Fire Brigades Union, the National Housing Federation, the Chartered Institute of Housing and many others.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government was unable to comment because of the election.

The Conservative Party did not respond to requests for comment

I dont watch Ant and Dec so have only just found out that Bellway Homes have given away a free house on this weekends Saturday Night Takeaway.

Why bump this thread to say that?