The phase II report of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry has recommended key definitions laid out in the Building Safety Act are reviewed a a matter of urgency because of their current ‘arbitrary’ interpretations.
The report, which was published on 4th September 2024, lays bare the failings of government and industry in protecting the residents of Grenfell Tower, and thousands more, in the tragedy which killed 72 people in 2017.
Regulators, the construction industry, local authorities, building control, and government all come under fire in the report which criticises the ‘dispersed’ nature of regulation for overseeing standard of competence and recommends ‘the government draw together under a single regulator all the functions relating to the construction industry to which we have referred.’
There is much criticism from around the property profession of the lack of clarification in the Building Safety Act 2022, and subsequent Law Society guidance. Writing in Today’s Conveyancer, training professional and CEO of IQ Legal Training Ian Quayle said the definition of buildings in scope was challenging:
“Unfortunately the Guidance does not provide a road map or a checklist to enable practitioners to navigate sales or purchases of BSA related leasehold properties in safety.”
It’s a point made in the executive summary of the report and a recommendation:
“we have used the expression “higher-risk building” in the sense in which it is used in the Building Safety Act, that is, a building that is at least 18 metres in height (or has at least seven storeys) and contains at least two residential units. However, we do not think that to define a building as “higher risk” by reference only to its height is satisfactory, being essentially arbitrary in nature.”
“More relevant is the nature of its use and, in particular, the likely presence of vulnerable people, for whom evacuation in the event of a fire or other emergency would be likely to present difficulty. We therefore recommend that the definition of a higher-risk building for the purposes of the Building Safety Act be reviewed urgently.”
In its opening summary the report suggests government was ‘well aware’ of the risks posed by flammable cladding like that installed on Grenfell Tower. The Building Research Establishment is accused of ‘unprofessional conduct, inadequate practices, a lack of effective oversight, poor reporting and a lack of scientific rigour.’ The report adds ‘BRE’s systems were not robust enough to ensure complete independence and the necessary degree of technical rigour at all times. As a result, it sacrificed rigorous application of principle to its commercial interests.’
It goes on to says manufacturers Arconic Architectural Products, Celotex, Siderise and Kingspan were all aware of the faults in their products, and in some cases deliberately concealed faults or provided sub-par products ‘cynically exploit(ing) the industry’s lack of detailed knowledge about BS 8414 and BR 135 and relied on the fact that an unsuspecting market was very likely to rely on its own claims about the product, not least because the BBA certificate directed the buyer to consult Kingspan in relation to its use on buildings over 18 metres in height’
The final report can be found on the Grenfell Tower Enquiry website.
