In this article, Ian King, COO, Zeroignition explores how the industry can improve practices and prioritise building safety post-Grenfell Tower disaster
This month marks six years since the tragic Grenfell Tower disaster. Yet despite the introduction of the Building Safety Act last April (2022), which delivered significant reforms in construction processes and maintenance of residential buildings, progress has been slow.
Since the fire, the construction industry has rightly been scrutinised for its flawed systems and processes. Recommendations on how the industry can move forward are now becoming a reality.
I hope the introduction of new regulations, such as the Building Safety Act and Fire Safety Act, will serve as a catalyst for positive change and provide an avenue for innovation.
In particular, I hope it influences companies that have overlooked safety in pursuit of maximising financial reward to think again.
Such a perilous approach can present a risk to life, whilst undermining the industry as a whole.
The construction industry is in need of building safety education
Updated fire safety legislation is in the pipeline, and until we see detailed insights into specific changes, one thing remains crystal clear: the industry is desperately in need of education.
Not just in terms of safety protocols but product awareness and the ‘ins and outs’ of updated building regs.
Research conducted by NBS supports this notion – it found that nearly half (43%) of construction professionals are unsure of processes relating to the new Building Safety legislation.
The industry has long grappled with a lack of concern around product safety standards. In my eyes – a baseline knowledge of fire safety should be a standard requirement.
Following the Grenfell tragedy, we conducted our own investigation into industry knowledge – and found wide gaps were all-too-common. The survey, conducted across the UK, Germany and France found it was abundantly clear that knowledge surrounding fire and fire protection amongst some of the most highly trained professionals in architecture, were worryingly low.
Of those questioned, just 3% of architects were able to correctly define the four basic fire protection terms: active fire protection, passive fire protection, fire resistance and reaction to fire.
A mere 2% of architects interviewed said they’d received comprehensive fire protection training. Whilst most agreed they had had some sort of training, less than one in ten (8%) said they’ve never had fire protection training.
Undoubtedly, these findings emphasise a need for substantial sector-wide upskilling. We need to, as an industry, be sure that buildings are fit for purpose. Ensuring that professionals in their field can understand and demonstrate expertise needs to be an upmost priority.
Covid-19 prompted a surge in upskilling related to the Building Safety Act
It’s worth noting that since our initial research, there’s been an increased recognition among industry professionals of the importance of upskilling and developing knowledge.
2020’s outbreak of Covid-19 prompted a surge in webinar attendances, particularly relating to the Building Safety Act and accompanying Fire Safety Act.
Perhaps those working from home found additional time for training without the need for daily commutes – either way it’s a step in the right direction.
Again, NBS, known for its informative webinars witnessed this trend. Fire safety drew large groups of attendees, including the likes of product manufacturers, architects, and specifiers.
What was obvious is the appetite for learning – it was clear that fire safety was and potentially is, still a knowledge ‘blackhole’ for many in the industry.
Construction projects are incredibly intricate and complex
Every decision can have a knock-on effect on the overall safety of the structure.
Unforeseen issues can easily occur – particularly when a systematic approach to fire protection isn’t prioritised or used at all.
While architects recognise the benefits of a methodical approach, a certain degree of scepticism regarding its importance prevails, even today.
Further efforts are needed from manufacturers and architectural bodies to establish and promote best practices on a more consistent level.
Beyond this, the construction industry needs to learn from other industries, such as automotive and aviation, which focus on a checklist approach in an effort to reduce risk to users.
In today’s culture, relying on memory is no longer acceptable – and the simple action of checking off points can stop fire planning elements from being missed or overlooked.
An investment in the future
We’ve seen first-hand that manufacturers are realising the essential need to invest heavily in R&D projects. New and innovative materials coming to market will only help further boost fire safety awareness in construction and provide added protection for new building projects.
At Zeroignition, we have always maintained that cladding wasn’t the sole reason for the spread of fire in the Grenfell Tower disaster. However, as the inquiry has progressed, cladding became the focus, side lining some of the other issues at play. It’s a similar story across the board.
The ‘golden thread’ of information in Building Safety
Dig a little deeper into the specifics and we can see it’s the industry’s longstanding approach to building that’s the fundamental problem.
To ensure effective fire safety in a building, the sector needs to step away from its linear mentality, instead seeing structures and products as one complete system, working in unison. This is where the much-discussed golden thread comes into its own.
The construction industry needs only to look at other industries to learn valuable lessons. Automotive and aviation, for example, have adopted a digital, traceable checklist approach to fire safety. By doing so, they ensure that every area, including the combined systems, have been covered to safeguard passenger safety.
In construction, a similar approach is needed. By further embracing the current ‘digital ‘revolution’, the sector can create ‘digital footprints’ that prove the right building criteria and safety systems have been adhered to. This will become essential in the handover process so occupants can feel assured rigid safety checks have been carried out. Moreover, responsibility would have to be held as a non-negotiable because there is a detailed digital record.
A system-led approach
A system-led, fire protection design method is something I have always been a huge advocate for. Put simply, this approach should always be front and centre. This involves ensuring the specified components work both individually and holistically. Without this joined up approach, we can’t be sure individual elements will perform as they should, in the event of an emergency.
This sentiment was echoed by prominent fire service leaders in April this year. They emphasised the importance of comprehensive system testing over solely examining individual components.
This came following a review on construction product testing by former government advisor Paul Morrell, and barrister, Anneliese Day. Their review, quite rightly, highlighted the need for evaluating and testing complete systems in order to raise fire safety standards.
The dangers of poor product substitution and a fragmented approach to construction unfortunately demonstrate how devasting incidents like the Grenfell Tower fire can be.
The event sent shockwaves through the industry – showing the urgent need for improved product knowledge, fire-safe system design, and holistic approach to fire protection.
System components will generally include:
- Active fire protection – measures triggering a response, such as sprinkler systems and smoke alarms
- Passive fire protection – measures to slow down or contain fire, such as fire doors and fire-retardant materials
A systems-led approach can combine compartmentation, including fire doors, sprinkler systems and Fire protected materials.
Here, an assessment can be carried out where each component is assessed on its individual merit, as well as how it works in combination with other components and systems as a whole.
It’s clear, however, for a systems-led approach to fire protection to be effective, a shift in mindset, knowledge and awareness is needed across all areas of the industry. Adopting this approach may take some time but it’s essential that it does.
Rebuilding trust post-Grenfell
The momentum towards positive change must be sustained. The Covid-19 pandemic has uncovered a genuine eagerness to learn and improve.
If this commitment continues, I am confident that the sector will adapt and innovate at an unprecedented pace. It’s this ethos that needs to remain at the core of building design – consideration to safety should always be front and foremost and a culture looking to improve needs to prevail. Only then will the industry instil end-user confidence on the scale it needs.
It’s only by treating fire protection with the utmost respect, that we can explore new approaches to construction that reinforce its primary purpose: to ensure the safety and security of its occupants.
Investing in adequate testing facilities for fire protected products and systems, implementing digitally-managed labelling, ensuring transparency in the supply chain, and making decisions based on comprehensive training and a deep understanding of compliance are all essential.
Having trust in the products we specify, purchase, and install starts with an industry doing all it can to ensure the safety of occupants.
As built environment professionals, we have a duty to our clients as well as future generations to ensure the buildings they reside in are safe and liveable.
Ultimately it will require a cultural change from the ground up – I just hope the industry can continue to raise its game.
Ian King
COO
Zeroignition
