Proportionality in building safety

As changes to fire safety guidance and the regulatory regime begin to take effect, it's important that we maintain perspective on proportionality in building safety.

The Fire Problem

Uncontrolled, exothermic chemical reactions, especially between organic materials and air can, and do, present a hazard. To be specific a fire hazard. Combustible materials and energy sources used in everyday life can create fire hazards. We live in buildings which are really just a form of enclosure that shelters us from the elements. Fires within enclosures designed for occupation present a hazard because the products of combustion do not rise (relatively, harmlessly) upwards into open atmosphere, and this presents a hazard to occupants. Enclosures are crucial to living standards and have been since the stone age, but time brings change, including societal change's too.

In the previous century, careless disposal of cigarettes' was once a more significant cause of accidental fires. The highest recorded level of smoking among men in Great Britain was 82% in 1948 and the most recent surveys in 2019 have it down at 13.9% and falling. The decrease in recreational consumption of cigarettes' led to a reduction in the number of accidental fires caused by careless disposal but the impact of smoking on the population still claims far more lives. It's reducing but a whopping, 74,600 deaths in England alone in 2019. In this century, the move towards electric vehicles and/or increasing global temperature and changes in climate may bring other fire hazards to the fore.

There is a tendency among safety professionals to look at the fire problem in isolation.

Fire must take its place alongside many other hazards in living. The global pandemic is evidence of this (140,000 fatalities in 18 months and counting just in the UK), but climate change will claim many more lives and is only just starting to get the attention it deserves. We all wish to die of old age, but the reality is that many of us will die as a result of ill health, caused by choices we make throughout life acknowledging the risks which are well researched and well publicised, but do not always trigger sensational headlines. We are willing to embrace some hazards in full knowledge of the risks, but we are not always rational, and if the public took a hardline stance on other risks to which they are exposed, there would be lots of people not leaving the house or crossing the road. Fire hazards are emotive, they create sensational media headlines, and they can strike fear. Whilst we cannot, in general eliminate fire hazard, we can reduce it to an acceptably low level by design. We must however be proportionate in terms of cost of safety and the level of safety achieved.

Proportionality in Fire Safety Design

I remember giving presentations at the beginning of my career on how significant tragedies can trigger ministerial discomfort, knee jerk reactions and tombstone legislation. The pendulum will swing between control and over control and there is a tendency especially among safety professionals to look at the fire problem in isolation. This cycle is being repeated and that's where perspective is lost. Grenfell has caused a national trauma, the impact of which will be felt for years. It should not have happened and must not happen again.

It's only right that we must acknowledge the industry wide failings that existed in property and construction, from external walls to internal compartmentation. There was clearly not enough rigour in the approvals process or control on-site. There were serious issues in the regulatory system and construction of some high-rise buildings: developers cladding buildings in combustible materials that should never have been used above 18m; construction product manufacturers ignoring safety rules, gaming the system and rigging the results of safety tests; building owners failing to take responsibility for ensuring the safety of their residents; and the government’s regulatory system lacking the strength and oversight to identify these failings and enforce standards.

We must acknowledge the industry wide failings that existed in property and construction.

The industry is still failing, and we do need legislative change. There has been a commendable increase in the desire for fire safety assurance services at RIBA stages 4/5, and there is a shortage of competent persons to deliver this service. Some contractors are merely seeking someone else's professional indemnity limit, and some design teams are dumbing down scope's or seeking out reductions at RIBA 1 - 4 to accommodate this, or shopping around between consultants to deliver it. Cost is still a significant consideration, compromising safety, so we do need legislative change. The golden thread and cultural change Dame Judith Hackitt spoke of, will not be achieved with warm words and good intentions alone.

Cost is still a significant consideration, compromising safety, so we do need legislative change.

The UK has a reputation for "gold-plating" legislation, and there are many changes to fire safety guidance and the regulatory regime that attempt to prevent reoccurrence. High hazard industries and Process Safety has been held up as shining examples, but these industries were making the money to pay for it. Is building the same?

Let's not lose perspective.

At a time when the fire safety narrative is dominated by media sensationalism, when the fire problem is used to provoke public interest and when all manner of related professions have fashioned themselves as 'fire experts'. I am pleased to see someone asking some intelligent questions. The Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government asked a small group of experts on fire safety to advise on steps that should be taken to ensure that a more risk-proportionate approach is taken to fire safety in blocks of flats.

The key finding of this advice was – there is no evidence of systemic risk of fire in blocks of flats:

• Dwelling fires are at an all-time low since comparable statistics started to be collected in 1981/82. This is despite the fact that, in 2020, people spent a significantly greater amount of time in their homes as a result of Covid restrictions.
• The vast majority of fires (91%) were in houses, bungalows, converted or low rise (three storeys or lower) flats or other properties, while only 9% were in blocks of flats of four storeys or more.
• Very few fires spread from the room where they start. In 2019/20, 7% of fires spread beyond the room of origin in blocks of flats over four storeys, compared with 9% in blocks below four storeys and 14% in houses, bungalows, converted flats and other dwellings.
• Any death in a fire is tragic, thankfully only a small proportion of fires resulted in a fire-related fatality in 2020: 176 people in total lost their lives in dwelling fires (down from 257 just a decade earlier), of which only 10 fatalities were in blocks of flats of four or more storeys. This is the lowest number of fatalities from fire since comparable statistics began to be collected forty years ago.

A population of 66.7m and just 10 fatalities in blocks of flats with four or more storey's This is a headline we may not see in the media. It's not the subject of many LinkedIn posts from those with a vested interest in fire, it's not mentioned must by those currently active on the industry conference circuit. We must continue to ask challenging questions of ourselves and others. We must continue to seek a better answer. fire safety must not become a box ticking compliance exercise. Building is complex, will become more complex, and there is value in intelligent design. The failings in statutory control, construction, the use of materials and quality on site have not halted the ongoing trend towards a reduction in fire deaths. However, we must accept that following the Grenfell tragedy many people that live in high rise, do not feel safe and or have lost faith in the system. Public trust in professions is important and we must all work to regain that trust. I firmly believe as professionals our interest first and foremost must be for the public good. Proportionality is in the public interest and so is an intelligent consideration of cost benefit analysis. Government, public sector, standards makers and approving authorities must remember there is no money that is easier spent than money that is not our own. There's a lot of public money being spent in the name of fire safety and we have a duty to the public to spend it wisely and proportionately to the level of risk presented. We must be prepared to accept some risk, manage some risk, and communicate risk.

Proportionality is in the public interest and so is intelligent consideration of cost benefit analysis.

An engineering mindset is important when it comes to building design. The engineering mind-set sees structure where there is none, and is adept at producing utility under constraints, and making considered trade-offs in the scheme of what's available, what's possible, what's deliverable and what the limits are.

Unfortunately, there are occasions when we see poor engineering judgement, but my overwhelming view is that, UK Fire Engineering is still world class. There are experts that challenge the accepted wisdom, push boundaries without compromising safety and yet still have the strength to utter a "no" with conviction rather than a "yes" merely to please. There are plenty of Fire Engineers that are willing to tell their clients the truth and put their project interests first, without compromising future generations, or the environment for the sake of cost.

It's important we maintain perspective and proportionality in Building Safety. If we are to imagine a better answer, to the fire safety problem, it is competent Engineers that will allow us to arrive there. We will not do that working in silo's or on our own, but we are a profession that understands the nature of fire and the p recautions involved and so we are able to make rational judgments on the subject and maintain a balanced view.

It's important we maintain perspective and proportionality in Building Safety.

One last statistic. There are 7,800,000,000 people on the planet and only 283 Chartered Engineers registered with the Engineering Council via the Institution of Fire Engineers. ?We must continue to strive towards the highest professional and ethical standards as a profession. They are not the only source of reliable fire safety expertise, but nevertheless their informed, intelligent, risk proportionate advice should be highly regarded.

Ben Bradford

Chief Executive for and on behalf of BB7 Group Limited.

We are a pureplay fire consulting firm. We are independent, we do not sell or install any products. We maintain ￡10 million indemnity limit, and fully appreciate the criminal, contractual and tort liabilities to which we are exposed. As professionals, we are bound by codes of conduct, surviving and thriving on our reputation. Our first and foremost duty is to the public good.

For more insight into our core idea of 'Being Wise' click here.