Agenda item

(Director of Communities) to consider the attached report.

The Assistant Director (Housing Property & Development) Mr Pledger, introduced the report on the Council’s Fire Safety procedures in council owned accommodation. This was asked for subsequent to the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower in London. Initially after the fire an item was placed in the Members Bulletin explaining the Council’s approach to fire safety and associated issues. Officers were still awaiting the outcome of the inquiry and the changes in law or regulations or advice that may affect our procedures.

 

It was noted that:

·         High rise was defined by the Government as being 18m or taller;

·         The highest blocks of flats the Council has were five-storey high; however none of these are enclosed blocks. All residents front doors were accessed from open-deck access walkways;

·         The Council also has a number of blocks of flats that were four-stories high. They are of sufficient height that they can be accessed by the Fire Service to rescue people if required;

·         The Council Fire Risks Assessments were categorised as High, Medium or Low risks buildings. The high risks being the sheltered housing schemes, Norway House Homeless Persons Hostel, North Weald and Hemnall House, Epping;

·         Fire Risk Assessments had to be carried out by law and the Council had to contract a specialist fire safety company to carry these out on its behalf;

·         They had only recently completed the Fire Safety Risk Assessments for all of the Council’s high and medium risk buildings, and their subsequent reports therefore give a very up to date assessment;

·         They had also been asked to undertake a random sample of the low risk Fire Risk Assessments completed by Officers to provide reassurance about their quality and accuracy. It was reassuring to note that these have found to be fit for purpose, with no concerns raised;

·         Recently the Government had asked for a fire risk assessment for the Council’s blocks of flats, which it did and the relevant fire officer was satisfied, giving the Council a written assessment that our buildings were considered safe;

·         Co-incidentally, a planned Internal Audit Study of Fire Safety Risk Assessments was included as part of the Council’s Audit Plan for 2017/18.  The outcome of that audit resulted in a “Moderate” Assurance opinion, with a small number of recommendations added to the Internal Audit’s “Audit Recommendation Tracker”;

·         The Council has just completed a programme of installing hard-wired linked smoke and heat detectors in all of its Council properties;

·         The Council has also recently completed a programme of installing 30-minute fire resistant front doors to Council flats in blocks;

·         The Council can only install these front doors to the Council’s own properties; it was the responsibility of leaseholders to install doors to their own properties.  However, in order to encourage and assist leaseholders to install such doors – and to improve the overall fire safety in blocks of flats - members agreed an initiative a number of years ago to offer leaseholders a discount of 75% from the cost of installing these doors;

·         Many leaseholders had taken up this offer, unfortunately, despite the generous discount offer, a number have chosen not to;

·         Members were asked their views on whether or not the Council should enforce through the Courts the need for leaseholders to change their front doors so they provided a compliant level of fire safety to other residents in the blocks;

·         The Council was not required to provide, and has not ever provided, sprinkler systems in any of its properties;

·         Fire alarms are installed in all of the Council’s sheltered housing schemes, Norway House Homeless Persons Hostel, North Weald and Hemnall House, Epping – which are regularly tested and serviced;

·         Members were asked if they wanted officers to explore if they should put in sprinkler systems. At a recent conference the Director of Housing for Birmingham CC had said that their budget estimate for the installation of sprinklers in their high rise blocks was £3,500 per flat;

·         The Council did not have a Fire Drills and Evacuation Policy as yet although the Fire Authority recommends a ‘Stay Put’ one;

·         The approach the Council had always taken to its sheltered housing schemes and Norway House and Hemnall House, based on the previous advice of the Essex Fire and Rescue Service, has been to adopt an “Evacuate Policy” and not a “Stay Put Policy”;

·         However, neither an Evacuation Policy nor a Stay Put Policy had been adopted to date in the Council’s general needs (i.e. non specialist) blocks of flats;

·         The Welsh Government was advocating a ‘Stay Safe’ policy for social landlords in Wales where a resident would decide for themselves either to stay put or to evacuate depending on the circumstances;

·         It is proposed that everything the Council decides to do on fire safety in its own residential accommodation will be captured in a Fire Safety Policy.

 

The Committee discussed the possibility of installing sprinkler systems into each of the Council’s Sheltered Housing sites and at Norway House, North Weald and Hemnall House (Recommendation 2).

 

The Committee observed and commented that:

·         The fire brigade had a Stay Put Policy because, for fires in high rise blocks, they went through a block floor by floor evacuating each floor as they went;

·         They questioned where sprinklers would be installed, e.g. in communal areas, in hallways or in the flats themselves. This would have to be decided in conjunction with the fire service. It may also be that the fire service could provide some funding for the installation of the sprinklers;

·         It was important that we had sprinklers in place, bearing in mind what had happened;

·         One of the problems with sprinklers was water damage and the contention of who would pay for the repairs;

·         Concern was raised about having sprinkler systems in Kitchens where they were easily set off;

·         Asked how many Local Authorities had sprinkler systems or were about to have them installed Mr Pledger said that would only be for new builds, not many have been retro fitted;

·         Better to have a feasibility study in place now and save time later on;

·         It was agreed that officers should look at the feasibility of having potential sprinkler systems in all the Council’s housing schemes and properties.

 

AGREED: Recommendation 2 was agreed for all Council Housing Schemes and properties.

 

The Committee then discussed the possibility of adopting of a ‘Stay Put’ or a ‘Stay Safe’ policy (Recommendation 3).

 

The Committee noted that:

·         Appropriate advice and guidance would be produced for all types of properties;

·         Evacuation guidance would also be put up inside each front door as they have in hotels;

·         A councillor noted that the proposed ‘Stay Safe’ policy might not be easy to understand especially for older people. Housing officers should go through the risks with them and perhaps get them to sign something to say that they understood it;

·         Tenants should be asked to use their initiative to decide what to do in case of a fire, perhaps alert other tenants and the fire brigade.

 

AGREED: Recommendation 3 was agreed.

 

The Committee then discussed whether or not to take legal action against leaseholders who did not install fire doors to their property (Recommendation 4).

 

The Committee made the following points:

·         Asked what was the cost of the 25% portion of the cost of a fire door, Mr Pledger said that would be approximately  £300;

·         He did not know how many doors were needed to be installed and said that he could let members know separately;

·         A 75% discount was a very good deal;

·         Asked who was written to when making this offer, Mr Pledger said that it was to the legal leaseholder of the property. This was often a problem for all issues to do with improvements;

·         Another thing to note was that the door frames were the responsibility of the Council but the doors were not;

·         Asked if every door would look the same, Mr Pledger said that everyone had a choice of style and colour;

·         Concern was raised about the £300 charge. Some residents, like people with young families may not be able to afford this. Could the repayments be spread over a long time period;

·         It was noted that charges would be made through the issue of a sundry debt invoice, for which debtors were always given some time to pay;

·         Preference would be for supplying financial assistance rather than legal action, as it was cheaper than taking it to court;

·         This was about everyone’s safety and was a sensible thing to do;

·         Covering the whole cost for a leaseholder would pose problems of fairness for other leaseholders who had already paid. Would the Council be obliged then to give their money back;

·         It would be foolish to go to litigation for this but it was good to have as a fall back position;

·         Because of the recent Grenfell Tower fire, the Council should make this offer again to the leaseholders who had refused to do it the first time around.

 

AGREED: Recommendation 4 was agreed.

 

The Committee then discussed the provision of a Fire Safety Policy (Recommendation 5).

 

The Committee made the following points:

·         The policy would only be for council owned properties, although the Council did licence the Park Homes.

 

AGREED: Recommendation 5 was agreed.

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)  That the current position was noted in relation to fire safety in:

 

(a) Council-owned flat blocks;

(b)  Park home sites licensed by the Council; and

(c)  Commercial properties for which the Council owns the freehold;

 

(2)  That feasibility studies should be commissioned by the Council into the possible installation of sprinklers in each of the Council Sheltered Housing sites and at Norway House, North Weald and Hemnall House, Epping;

 

(3)  That the Council should adopt a “Stay Safe” Policy to replace its existing “Stay Put” Policy in general needs flat blocks and continues to operate an “Evacuation” Policy at its sheltered housing sites and Norway House and Hemnall House, subject to any further review required as a result of the Government-commissioned public enquiries into the Grenfell Tower tragedy;

 

(4)  That the Select Committee agreed that if necessary and legally possible, legal action should be taken against leaseholders to force them into replacing their front entrance door to preserve the safety of the block should they refuse to take up the Council’s long-standing offer of meeting 75% of the cost of the works. The Committee would also like to see this offer made again to affected leaseholders after the recent Grenfell Fire; and

 

(5)  That a detailed Fire Safety Policy for Council-owned residential accommodation be drafted and brought back to the Communities Select Committee for further consideration, prior to submission to the Housing Portfolio Holder for adoption.